From the article:
Michele LaVigne, a former director of the Public Defender Project at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told The Post that setting Brooks’s cash bail at $1,000 is not necessarily unusual and that bail amounts can vary between jurisdictions and courtrooms.
When Brooks was arrested earlier this month, she said, officials weighing what bail to request probably considered the seriousness of the charges and the fact that he was already out on bail in the earlier case and had continued showing up for court appearances.
ADDED: I'm just noticing that bail is a subject Kamala Harris went out of her way to bring up during the Vice Presidential debate last fall: "We need reform of our policing in America and our criminal justice system... We will require a national registry for police officers who break the law, we will – on the issue of criminal justice reform – get rid of private prisons and cash bail and we will decriminalize marijuana...."Deterring further crime is “not the purpose of cash bail,” LaVigne said. “Cash bail is really, ‘Are you going to show up [to court], or are you not?’ ”
Posts
79 comments:
The Worst Part was when the DA gave him a coupon for a free tank of gas and said: Get SOME!
Well, it isn't like he was trying to kill the woman. It was just mostly peaceful battery with a piece of equipment.
Wait until they see Rittenhouse’s bail amount. You might just think bail reform is systematically racially unjust.
I have really mixed feelings here. On the one hand, I think it's terrible that we can imprison people not yet found guilty of a crime, and hold them there for long periods of time. On the other hand, repeat offenders or people who we know did something terrible aren't safe to have out on the streets.
I'm not sure of the answer. It probably has to do with using good judgement, or having someone who has a position where they are supposed to use judgement involved.
The people found not guilty who have spent months or years in prison are unalterably changed. But then, a guy who runs over the mother of his child isn't ever going to be a good guy. Look at this guy and look at Jacob Blake. We are having trouble prioritizing these days. But I don't know that justice reform is actually politically tenable.
Abuse, assault, battery, skipping on a $1000 bail, and NOW five counts of planned paraderhood, with the viability of other victims uncertain.
A better policy would be no bail for those arrested while already out on bail. A better policy for those convicted of violent crimes with prior convictions is to have the convicted serve out all of their sentences consecutively.
If trial wasn't months to years after arrest, bail would be less an issue.
We need reform of bail reform. Too much judgment left to prosecutors and judges who show little regard for public safety. I'm OK with the current system for lesser crimes, but this case points out a glaring need for rebalancing the interests of the public with those of the individual.
"Deterring further crime is “not the purpose of cash bail,” LaVigne said. “Cash bail is really, ‘Are you going to show up [to court], or are you not?’ ”"
He ran over his child's mother? Where does protecting the public come into bail determination? Apparently, nowhere.
Is it supposed to be reassuring that guys like Brooks are routinely let out on $1000 bail?
This is a big topic. Since 1984, bail not just to guard against flight, but jurisdictions vary.
WaPo and Michelle LaVigne are attempting to gaslight what bail and the Soros funded DAs "bail reform" political operation is for. Judges set high bail not just on reliability to appear, but also on the nature of the crime. It is normal to set bail higher for violent crime and violent criminals for a variety of reasons, some of which have to do with protecting victims from further criminality.
The Soros funded "bail reform" campaign is being enacted by the radical DAs that he has successfully elected into those offices. It is yet another political operation designed to sow chaos in big cities by releasing career criminals back into their communities and then blame the police for the breakdown in law and order, which is then used to justify more and more "progressive" anti-order and anti- police laws and policies to be enacted.
The attempt to eliminate the right of self defense (Kyle Rittenhouse trial) is part and parcel of it all. With no or severely reduced local police and citizens unable to defend themselves, the Democrat Party sponsored street armies of ANTIFA or BLM will remain unchecked and this self created "emergency" can be used to enact tyranny piecemeal.
"“Cash bail is really, ‘Are you going to show up [to court], or are you not?’”"
Bail itself, is only offered if you are not an immediate danger to society and are unlikely to flee the jurisdiction. The cash part, is so you have an incentive to show up for court appearances.
The Democrat county attorney candidates in Omaha and Lincoln are both advocates for "bail reform."
I, of course, am reminding their Twitter followers of the Wisconsin case. And I'm merciless about it.
These two guys have already lost their races.
"Law and Order" said Orange Man Bad...
Democrats know to do the opposite.
If this is really true, then as between a college kid who gets in a bar fight and a local man who kills someone, the college kid gets a higher bail set every time, right? Because his main residence is out of state, and he has a passport and resources ... while angry old Randy lives just a few blocks from the courthouse, and we know he's not going anywhere. Baloney.
Brooks also has warrants for bail jumping, so yes, $1000 is too low.
So, why are the Jan 6th protesters rotting in jail without bail for months? Brooks was an obvious flight risk and repeat crime risk. But will there be any accountablity? will Evers do anything to fix the situation?
The answer is No.
....setting Brooks’s cash bail at $1,000 is not necessarily unusual...
The crux of the problem right there. This is not some first time offender lifting a loaf of bread from a bakery. This is a guy with extensive priors and a propensity for violence.
This is what people speak of when they discuss the breakdown of law and order.
You know, all of this going on in Wisconsin makes me wonder at the differences between what is going on there with Utah, where I live.
There has been essentially two BLM riots here in Utah. Both were "relatively peaceful" in that no one died, though both had far reaching consequences.
Our government is Republican, except for Salt Lake City (usual urban hellhole, greatly tempered by the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints puts billions into the town to keep it presentable, since it's the headquarters of the Church and it's also the state capitol).
So we had the big BLM riot, where SLC police was told to stand down, they burned a few cop cars and defaced property, and began marching on the Utah capitol building. At that point someone figured out that the Democrat mayor wasn't going to do anything. The National Guard was brought out in force, including fully armed helicopters that just loitered over the marchers, with a rather intimidating display of force. Armored vehicles, the works. The rioters were suddenly peaceful protestors, and eventually dispersed and went home. The state police spent the next few days arresting the rioters they could identify from video and pictures. No lives were lost. Lesson: using the National Guard stopped it cold.
The next riot was in Provo. Provo is, perhaps, the most conservative, white, Republican town/small city in America. Home of BYU. BLM protestors took over a street, and eventually started shooting at cars they were blocking, seriously injuring one man who drove himself to the hospital after being shot. Police didn't do anything--the Provo mayor did nothing. Not sure why.
So what happened after that? The good people in Provo and the surrounding county, vastly Republican, said "screw it. We cannot rely on police!" And an armed militia was formed from veterans, etc. Heavily armed. Openly carrying serious firepower. They then would show up at BLM "protests" and just stand there, about 100 yards away from the protest, and just stand there, in plain view. Didn't do anything, no confrontation, nothing. About 100 heavily armed guys, each time.
We had no more riots. Just peaceful protests. BLM was screaming about how they felt "threatened" and the cops had to make noises about how they hoped people didn't show up... but it was halfhearted at best. Everyone knew the militia was keeping the peace, and they did. The BLM rioters knew they wouldn't win if they started anything with essentially an armed platoon of veterans.
Lesson: The citizenry can put a stop to this if they want to. Kudos to the state Republican government who allowed the militia to just stand there.
It's too bad Wisconsin hasn't done something like that. Worked wonders in Utah.
'Deterring further crime is “not the purpose of cash bail,”' except when they are likely to cause further bodily harm. Tell me why the J6 protesters who were mostly peaceful have been detained pretrial, some with no charges yet?
Is the driver of the SUV a domestic terrorist? Or a Black supremacist? No, just a career criminal who needs to reform. This will be done while he is out on bail.
People in all these democratic run cities have got to wake up and throw the people in charge who are making these crazy decisions out of office. If the voters do not vote them out, then they will continue to be victims of these slime balls. It’s up to the straight thinking citizens to save their cities and save themselves. Too bad the D.A. wasn’t marching in the path of the SUV while the career criminal was out on bail…..that would have been justice.
Okay, how do you explain not impounding the SUV he used to attack his victim as a condition of his bail? And imposing that condition -- that he surrender a deadly weapon used in the attack -- wouldn't even infringe on the First Amendment, unlike J6 political prisoners.
Judicial priorities in stark contrast.
The scene came to mind after Doug Jensen, one of the Jan. 6 rioters, was rearrested for listening to an online speech by Trump supporter and pillow magnate Mike Lindell. Jensen agreed not to use the internet as a condition of bail … but to violate those terms for the MyPillow Guy?
I have long been a vocal critic of Lindell and all those who rioted in Congress. Yet the Jensen case raises a concern about the conditions placed on bail by courts and the message that "rehabilitation" or remorse can be convincingly shown only by denouncing past political viewpoints or association...
Like many of the arrested, Jensen had to fight for bail for six months before a judge agreed to release him pending trial. In securing bail on July 13, Jensen assured U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly that he no longer believed in QAnon and was deceived by those who questioned the election. Kelly agreed, but only if Jensen stayed away from internet or cellphone access. Two weeks later, a court officer reportedly found Kelly in his garage secretly listening to Lindell.
Kelly said it was "a close question" but decided to release Jensen because the accused man renounced his prior political views and said he was deceived by “a pack of lies.”
That scene is being repeated across these cases, as defendants are told to renounce their prior political association or, like Jensen, pledge to seek "therapy"...
The focus of the Jan. 6 cases is the riot itself. I would have the same objection to courts demanding that arrested Black Lives Matter (BLM) or antifa followers renounce their views as a condition of bail. Hundreds were arrested over the past year in violent rioting, including pre-planned attacks to take over or torch city halls, police stations and courthouses. It would be outrageous for courts to demand that BLM or antifa supporters not listen to these political movements or related political figures; they were arrested for arson and rioting, not holding "toxic ideologies." For that reason, while I have long denounced antifa, I opposed the use of sedition charges against them in defense of free-speech rights that they would deny to others.
BY JONATHAN TURLEY - 09/07/21
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/571038-mypillow-guy-becomes-a-nightmare-for-a-jan-6-rioter-and-for-justice
Progressive Soros affiliated ADA John Chisholm, whose office handled Brooks’ latest bout with the law, is also a big promoter of cash bail, sometimes called “bail reform,” which has routinely put violent criminals back on the streets to commit more crimes in major cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Every major crime you see today is BECAUSE of the lawlessness and terrible policies of the Progressive left. All the rioting, looting, hate and violence are theirs. ALL theirs.
LaVigne said. “Cash bail is really, ‘Are you going to show up [to court], or are you not?’ ”
*****
Maybe they should have asked, "Are you gonna show up in any parades?"
At some point, the judges and the lawyers who keep releasing criminals and mentally unstable people back into society after they've committed a crime need to be held responsible. There cannot be 'judges for life' or multiple termed DAs who callously get people released who have committed heinous crimes. Particularly repeat offenders. This cannot happen in a civil society.
And this may simply come down to us people managing our own cities and states- holding those in office accountable for 'sicking' criminals on our society and killing, or hurting, or driving fear into those we love. People need to pay attention to those judge elections, those running for DA. Pay attention and think about what sort of society you want to live in.
Don't take the opinions heard on MSNBC and make them your voting guide. This is what you get.
Back in the days of law and order I recall judges holding people accused of crime 'without bail' if they were deemed a danger to society.
Now society don't get a say...
I'm not a fan of the United States holding political prisoners without bail then violating them in internationally recognized inhumane conditions, either but we got that, too...
Amnesty International, where are you?
"Deterrence" and "crazy" don't go together well, OP.
Bail is to prevent pre-trial flight, not to "deter" things; the threat of conviction and punishment is the deterrent factor - which is why "crazy" is not a factor. Crazy people can't really be deterred, because deterrence is a rational analysis thing.
And equally the truly crazed can't be convicted and imprisoned - just committed.
(There's a reason excessive bail is specifically called out as prohibited by Amendment; it's a tool of oppression!
The problem here appears to be much more "the person should have already been in prison for repeated violent criminality", not "bail exists and isn't used as a club".)
I’ve said it before, Wisconsin… wake up and smell the cheese 🧀
John Chisholm is the POS DA who inflicted the politically motivated John Doe "investigation" of Scott Walker on Wisconsin.
Did Kamala bail him out? She did that for rioters and arsonists in MN.
Related to the law and order theme of this post, is the question why Kyle's persecution was always referred to as the Rittenhouse Trial, while the three guys who shot the jogger remain anonymous, with DNC-Media referring to it as the "Arbery Trial" or "The Jogger Murder" trial, and I just don't know how they come to treat such simple things as the actual participants into a guessing game sometimes: i.e "the Georgoe Floyd" case not the Chauvin Trial as it should have been.
I think I detect two main reasons why Kyle was different: there were no Black victims from which we could borrow the name for sympathy and the dead white guys are just not sympathetic at all, especially if you've watched more than 5 minutes of Kyle's trial. Based on this I predict when this murdering perp is tried for running down dancing grannies it will be the "Waukesha Parade" trial not the Brooks trial, so as to shield this Black perp from too much media exposure. Tomorrow's news today from MJB.
Like it or not, LaVigne is right. If the person shows up for their hearing, then the bail was not too low.
That's the standard. People are innocent until proven guilty. Bail violates that basic principle. We look the other way and let it happen anyway because it's the least onerous way to make sure people don't skip their trial. But it's not to prevent future crime.
Waukesha is apparently a suburb of Milwaukee. The Soros-Democrat crime wave appears to be spreading to suburbs. I expect that this will also affect the 2022 elections as suburban women seem to be a big part of the Prog-Democrat coalition. I wonder if the DNC is realistic enough to see where this is heading? From AOC's tweet about "bail reform" is seems not.
When Brooks was arrested earlier this month, she said, officials weighing what bail to request probably considered the seriousness of the charges and the fact that he was already out on bail in the earlier case and had continued showing up for court appearances.
Deterring further crime is “not the purpose of cash bail,” LaVigne said. “Cash bail is really, ‘Are you going to show up [to court], or are you not?’ ”
He's out on bail, and committing more crimes.
And their response is "Well, hey, in between committing more crimes he's showing up for his court dates! I don't see a problem here!"
Eventually, one of three things is going to happen:
1: The prosecutors and police are going to decide that their most important job is protecting teh public from criminals, not making criminals lives easier
2: People are just going to start making their lives easier, by shooting every criminal they encounter
3: People are just going to start making their lives easier, by shooting every prosecutor / police chief who isn't on board with #1
I'd really prefer #1. But it would not shock me if someone in Waukesha who just lost a family member to decide that while they can't vote the Milwaukee DA out of office, they can shoot him. And as their family is dead, they might as well return the favor.
If I'm ever on the jury in that kind of case, I will be an automatic vote to acquit.
>>LaVigne said. “Cash bail is really, ‘Are you going to show up [to court], or are you not?’ ”
Like it or not, LaVigne is correct as to how our system works. Bail is not intended to be punitive in any way. Many of those arrested who have deep ties to the community (and thus essentially zero flight risk) are released on no bail at all.
Should bail be much higher, or even denied to career criminals? There's a strong case to be made, but as our lefty friends point out, you are incarcerating someone who has not been found guilty of a crime.
We all want killers kept behind bars, but as we have seen lately, denying bail has now become a weapon used to punish dissent.
More interesting to me is the allegation that he had an active warrant. A warrant is an clear and direct order from a judge to take someone into custody. As police officers, we were told that for warrants, there is no discretion, as it was contempt of court to let someone with a warrant walk.
Of course, these days facts and law don't matter. Race and politics seem to have created separate and unequal justice systems.
As I recall, the French got rather upset about that same issue around 1790 or so...
“ Deterring further crime is “not the purpose of cash bail,” LaVigne said. “Cash bail is really, ‘Are you going to show up [to court], or are you not?’ ”
This guy is a moron. Book-smart but utterly tone-deaf. And excuse me for suggesting that if bail is just an inducement to show up in court, it’s another systemic privilege for rich ax-murderers. Just maybe the judiciary and the legislature should consider recidivism and Bad Attitude in determining whether bail of any amount is to be acceptable.
Even a judge or a DA could see that this guy was nothing but trouble. And if they were short of space? No worries: chain him up in a freight container with a cot and a bucket.
'You bet my bail reforms will kill people': Shocking 2007 admission of woke Waukesha DA John Chisolm who GUARANTEED innocent people would be murdered by the killers he sets free The Daily Mail
>Life is cheap in Wisconsin.<
You get what you vote for.
"Life is cheap in Wisconsin."
Life is cheap to progressives everywhere, if it stands in the way of the cause. Babies, any white victims, moms attacked by black criminals, kids killed in drive-by gang shootings--who cares? Now, of course, some lives are precious--those that serve the narrative, useful lives and deaths. White guy kills Asian masseuses? Cover it 24/7, let the lamentations begin.
But as Eric Hobsbawm said when asked if he would have changed his mind about communism had he known in advance the millions of lives lost: no. When the arc of history is bending your way, what's a few whiteys in WI, USA?
"Life is cheap in Wisconsin"
Maybe. But at Planned Parenthood it costs about $1,000.
As long as that Q Anon shaman is behind bars, I feel safe.
BLM spokesman says: MURDER!!! KILL!!!! MURDER!!!! KILL!!!!
Milwaukee BLM 'militant' says Christmas parade attack may be start of 'revolution'
What do our Pro BLM spokesmen HERE say about this?
Gadfly? Reading? Anyone? are SUV's now GOOD... If they're FOR THE REVOLUTION??
Note that LaVigne is indulging in essentialist and anachronistic nonsense. It is true that once upon a time, bail was solely to secure the attendance of the accused. It was also the case, in those times, that trials were held the same day the accused was arrested (re-read Oliver Twist for an example) and were very quick (an Old Bailey jury heard six cases a day). Over the course of the 20th century, until Democratic jurisdictions began abolishing it recently, bail morphed to also serve a preventive detention function. If you want to go back to a system where bail serves only to secure the attendance of the accused, then trials have to begin and end within a day or two after the arrest.
The January 6 WHITE “insurrectionists” have been held in jail without bail for months. Do I see a double standard here?
People think this is not normal.
This is normal. Most of the world and most of history of our race is dominated by this sort of violence and barbarity.
Americans are coddled and soft. There are still losers on this board who bash Trump because of mean tweets.
It will be interesting to see if people like Ann or most of the people on this board will be able to step up and actually fight for the freedom and prosperity you all took for granted.
I find it particularly interesting that Ann uses the word "normal" with no perspective applied to the use of the term.
"When Brooks was arrested earlier this month, she said, officials weighing what bail to request probably considered the seriousness of the charges and the fact that he was already out on bail in the earlier case and had continued showing up for court appearances. "
So, as long as he showed up, you can let him go to get more charges? Sounds like Visa. Don't care how much you spend, as long as you do the minimum payment ...
Why isn't new charges a bail violation? It'd be a possible parole violation, no?
So, why, in Wisconsin, did Kyle Rittenhouse have to post $2 million for bail and Darrell Brooks only $1,000?
Non-excessive bail is what you get in a liberal democracy that says the accused is innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt
Historically jails were for detaining the accused, whereas convicts faced harsher punishments than incarceration The pillory, floggings, and brandings were on the less severe end of judicial punishments, often for such crimes as prostitution, pandering, drunkenness, things like that. Punishments for theft and all other crimes more heinous than theft included mutilation and exile, but more often it was death.
Consider the bill of fare on a typical hanging day at Tyburn Gaol in the 1700s -- a few murderers, but mostly thieves, sometimes the thief of a gentleman's handkerchief. As the reformer, George Savile, 1st Marquess of Halifax, put it, "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen."
The revolutions that closed the 18th century set changes in motion that resulted in imprisonment as a punishment as well as a means of detaining the accused. As a consequence of that reform jails filled up far beyond what even the general public health could tolerate. The State was faced with the choice of building more prisons or reducing the imprisoned population by one means or another, bail being an attractive alternative to bricks and mortar. Gentlemen were considered trustworthy by nature, ergo his parole (literally word or vow in French) was sufficient to assure his appearance in court. Commoners were held as untrustworthy, therefore the posting of cash bail was required. In short, cash bail is intended to reduce the public cost of crime.
"Deterring further crime is “not the purpose of cash bail,” LaVigne said.
Prosecutors who are interested in keeping their jobs are going to change that assumption substantially.
Looks like none of boomer cons want to touch the fact that Brooks is a hate filled black man BLM activist and this was a deliberate hate-crime. Instead, lets shut our eyes and pretend he was just a standard crook gone bad. Notice also that the putrid comments of many liberals, Leftists, and Democrats about this massacre are going unnoticed and not talked about.
But then why should I be surprised? When 3,000 Americans were killed on 9-11, the primary concern of the liberal/Left and Dumb Cons was "I hope there's no backlash against Muslims".
If we "get rid of cash bail",
can we just have All the criminals, in the country stay at the US Naval Observatory?
Kammy won't mind; i'm Sure!
Whatever happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? Bail is a constitutional right (and not allowed to be excessive).
It is normal to set bail higher for violent crime and violent criminals for a variety of reasons, some of which have to do with protecting victims from further criminality.
Which in our system, should not be a consideration.
the Democrat Party sponsored street armies of ANTIFA or BLM will remain unchecked and this self created "emergency" can be used to enact tyranny piecemeal.
Do you have the least shred of evidence to support this bullshit assertion? And before you assert some bullshit argument that Democrats bailed out protesters, remember Republicans did exactly the same for Rittenhouse (and paid for his lawyers, instead of having him rely on a public defender or one he could actually afford)
Well, if bail is really as described, an inducement to show up for court appearances, then Brooks should be granted bail today, right? And if he isn't granted bail, what does that mean, exactly?
AOC pushed again for "bail reform" this week, before the bodies were buried.
In some jurisdictions monetary bail, is also a down payment or pre-payment of costs and or fines.
Whatever happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? Bail is a constitutional right (and not allowed to be excessive).
How about when you're already charged with jumping bail? Or with failing to notify the court of your address as required by court order?
And before you assert some bullshit argument that Democrats bailed out protesters, remember Republicans did exactly the same for Rittenhouse (and paid for his lawyers, instead of having him rely on a public defender or one he could actually afford)
The difference being, Rittenhouse was innocent.
Or alternatively, Democrats bailed out those who started fires and attacked people, while Republicans bailed out those putting out fires and defending themselves.
remember Republicans did exactly the same for Rittenhouse
Republican lawmakers bailed out Rittenhouse within hours of being arrested? Just like the Democratic lawmakers did for their rioting thugs?
Hmmm. News to me.
Got a link?
Kamala "take a knee" Harris normalizes change with the hope that women and children follow.
Brooks is a hate filled black man BLM activist and this was a deliberate hate-crime
Diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism) was a motive for his past and likely present choices. Also, targeting people... persons at a Christmas parade, suggests another, secular level of rabid diversity (i.e. class-based bigotry).
So, Freder, what bail would you set for Darrell Brooks?
Whatever happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? Bail is a constitutional right (and not allowed to be excessive).
So Freder agrees that the 1/6 protesters have been mistreated. Nice to hear.
How about Kyle Rittenhouse's bail?
Freder Frederson said...
Whatever happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
I don't know. Do you think you could explain that with respect to Kyle Rittenhouse, and all the social media companies suppressing the speech of anyone who tried to say he might not be guilty?
Bail is a constitutional right (and not allowed to be excessive).
IIRC, Kyle's nail was $2 million. Do you find that "excessive"? Did you complain about it at the time?
The 1/6 protesters are generally being denied bail. Have you spoken up, objecting to the denial of their constitutional rights?
Or is it the case that in your world view, only actual criminal scum have constitutional rights?
So Freder agrees that the 1/6 protesters have been mistreated. Nice to hear.
How about Kyle Rittenhouse's bail?
They should be entitled to bail. And yes, Rittenhouse's bail was excessive. Furthermore, unlike a bunch of you, I have no problem with third parties bailing out someone.
Howard said...
Non-excessive bail is what you get in a liberal democracy that says the accused is innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt
Really, Howard? Then I have the same questions for you that I have for Freder:
Was Kyle Rittenhouse's $2 million bail "excessive"? If not, why not. if so, did you complain about that excessive bail?
Most of the 1/6 protesters are being denied bail. Where have you complained about that, and attacked teh Biden Admin for that gross violation of the protesters' constitutional rights?
Or are you just completely full of sh!t?
Republican lawmakers bailed out Rittenhouse within hours of being arrested?
Republican lawmakers bailed out Rittenhouse within hours of being arrested?
Where did I say lawmakers bailed out Rittenhouse?
More Freder Frederson idiocy...
Whatever happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? Bail is a constitutional right (and not allowed to be excessive).
SGT Ted said...
the Democrat Party sponsored street armies of ANTIFA or BLM will remain unchecked and this self created "emergency" can be used to enact tyranny piecemeal.
Do you have the least shred of evidence to support this bullshit assertion? And before you assert some bullshit argument that Democrats bailed out protesters, remember Republicans did exactly the same for Rittenhouse (and paid for his lawyers, instead of having him rely on a public defender or one he could actually afford)
1: When Antifa / BLM attacked in any city with a Democrat Mayor, the police were ordered to stand down and allow the violence.
2: When Antifa / BLM attacked in any State with a Democrat Governor, the National Guard were not sent out to stop the violence and destruction
3: Essentially all the Antifa / BLM riots happened in Democrat run cities and States. Because Antifa / BLM are a tool of the Democrat Party
4: In Portland, for example, the thugs get arrested, and they are granted bail that night, often paid by anonymous Democrat benefactors, so that the thugs can be out teh next night to get arrested again for their new violence
5: The Antifa / BLM "protesters" are actually guilty of the crimes they're being arrested for
6: Anyone who looked at the video of Kyle shooting people was able to quickly figure out that the shootings were obvious self defense, and that Kyle was innocent of any crime. There were only three classes of people who claimed Kyle was in fact guilty of a crime:
A: The ignorant, who never watched the videos and / or don't know sh!t about self defense law
B: The morons, unable to follow the simple facts of the law and teh situation
C: Liars
There is a huge moral difference between funding a defense for someone who's clearly being persecuted by corrupt political prosecutors, and funding "get out of jail" payments for violent destructive thugs who are clearly guilty, and only not ending up in jail because corrupt Democrat politicians are violating their duties in order to keep the thugs out on the streets.
You're entirely on the wrong side of this one
Where did I say lawmakers bailed out Rittenhouse?
You deliberately left it out in order to draw some bullshit false equivalency. Didn't work.
And before you assert some bullshit argument that Democrats bailed out protesters, remember Republicans did exactly the same for Rittenhouse
Democratic lawmakers - including our current VP - bailed out your rioting, left-wing thugs. Republicans did no such thing with regards to Rittenhouse.
Instead, he sat there for 87 days before private citizens - notably Rick Schroeder and Mike Lindell - got him out.
Your elected officials support riotous, murderous thugs. Own it. Be proud of it.
There is a difference between excessive bail and laughable bail. It would be nice if that balance could be the point of discussion.
I'm not expecting nice things when there's political points to be made
"He ran over his child's mother?"
He was accused of doing so, but has the presumption of innocence.
I assume he is also accused of killing and injuring those people at the parade. But I presume he's innocent. Maybe they nabbed the wrong guy.
I wonder what his bail will be this time?
Rollo said... (@ 11:12 am)
'You bet my bail reforms will kill people': Shocking 2007 admission of woke Waukesha DA John Chisolm who GUARANTEED innocent people would be murdered by the killers he sets free The Daily Mail
========================================================================================
John Chisholm is the very liberal and woke District Attorney in neighboring Milwaukee County, NOT Waukesha County. The DA in Waukesha County is Susan L. Opper, a Republican. She purposely set Brooks bail so high there is no way he gets out, unless VP Kamala Harris bails him out like she did a bunch of law breakers last year. He won’t be able to get arrested for any more incidents, at least in the near term.
Freder Frederson said...
So Freder agrees that the 1/6 protesters have been mistreated. Nice to hear.
How about Kyle Rittenhouse's bail?
They should be entitled to bail. And yes, Rittenhouse's bail was excessive. Furthermore, unlike a bunch of you, I have no problem with third parties bailing out someone.
And where is it that you've written about that, before being called on it here?
tim maguire said...
Like it or not, LaVigne is right. If the person shows up for their hearing, then the bail was not too low.
That's the standard. People are innocent until proven guilty. Bail violates that basic principle. We look the other way and let it happen anyway because it's the least onerous way to make sure people don't skip their trial. But it's not to prevent future crime.
****************
The US Constitution's 8th amendment forbids "excessive" bail, which tells you right there that bail doesn't violate any "basic principle".
A person can also be held WITHOUT bail if a "dangerousness determination" concludes he presents a danger to the community. Fer instance, if the person is judged mentally ill, or has committed numerous violent offenses. I don't think Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacey got bail after they were arrested...
I note Freder hasn't told us if Brooks' 5 million dollar bail is excessive. What say you, Freder?
If you are ok with the Jan. 6 culprits rotting in pretrial detention, you are not allowed to rail against excessive bail.
Post a Comment