The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office has decided not to file criminal charges against a 33-year-old man who admits inflicting more than $20,000 in damage to six Teslas in Minneapolis over a few-day span last month.
Instead, the office will file for Dylan Bryan Adams, of Minneapolis, to be entered into an adult diversion program meant for first-time, low-level offenders.
“Our main priorities are to secure restitution for the victims and hold Mr. Adams accountable,” said Hennepin County Attorney’s Office spokesman Daniel Borgertpoepping . . . .
Adams works for the state Department of Human Services (DHS). A state database says he is a program consultant. . . .
Now ask yourself if this was a Trump supporter who committed this crime, what would happen to them compared to some turd associated with Tim Waltz? Think how J6ers were treated and compare that to this?
Meh. Most states have diversion programs intended for non violent, first time offenders. I don’t see any reason for vandals to be excluded, regardless of how pissed off MAGA’s get.
If you look at the law, each individual car damaged could result in a felony charge of “Criminal Damage to Property in the First Degree,” a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine. Thus this individual could be charged with 6 felony counts, for causing over $500 of damage to each vehicle. There is probably something in the state employee HR policy about employees convicted and sent to prison losing their jobs.
The value of the damages is usually what determines the severity of a vandalism, along with aggravating factors like the method used to vandalize the property. Spray paint a building, or break a single window with a rock, is on the lower end of things. Cause 10’s of thousands of dollars damage and you are going to be on the higher end of the charging window. Using theft as an example, steal $100, misdemeanor theft, steal $1,000, felony larceny, steal $10,000, felony grand larceny. Then add in the age and station of the individual committing the act. A 12 year old breaking windows with rocks isn’t going to be, and shouldn’t be, judged the same as an adult state employee, in their 30s doing the same thing. In this case we have an adult government employee, in their 30s, intentionally causing $20,000+ property damage. Sure looks like special treatment. Is a 16 year old minority kid, causing a similar level of property damage, going to get the same break?
It does look like special treatment you won’t get an argument from me and while your explanation is how it is supposed to work, it often times doesn’t especially when it comes to special treatment
