• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $550. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Christmas Parade Driver was Out on Bail: Bail Reform Discussion

"Meet the 'progressive' prosecutor who gave Waukesha parade suspect Darrell Brooks 'inappropriately low' bail"

"Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into treatment program, who's going to go out and kill somebody?" he reportedly told the Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal in 2007. "You bet. Guaranteed. It's guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach."

Chilling quote....What do think about this? His original bail was $10,000 but it was lowered to$1,000. If he was detained on $10,000 bail, he would've never been out to do what he did. The prosecutor even admits his bail reform predicted something like this would happen.

Proponents of bail reform say, "If someone commits a crime and they can't afford bail, you are criminalizing poverty!" But, this also means you will let criminals back on the street to commit more crimes. It's rationalized that if a rich person commits a crime, they can afford bail and get out. But, rich people don't commit these types of crimes we see poor people committing. A poor person is more likely to steal from a store than a rich person.

It seems like it makes sense, but it breaks down once you realize that it just gives poor people an excuse to commit more crimes. If a poor person can't afford bail, then they shouldn't have committed the crime. It's sort of like the "starving person in the street argument." They are choosing to not get a job.If someone refuses to get a job to help themselves (not counting mental illness), they are choosing starvation for themselves. This is freedom. I was eating in a Burger King once and a homeless man was in there talking to a customer. The customer told him, "Go talk to the manager about a job." He said "no" and kept asking the customer for a dollar. I can sympathize with people, but there comes a point where starvation is freedom.
 

Toni

Contributor
You’re really confused. Getting out on an affordable bail is not ‘giving criminals an excuse to commit more crimes.’ Those released on bail remain accused of crimes—not convicted for one thing. For another low income individuals, particularly persons of color, are disproportionally charged with higher levels of crimes compared with whites accused of committing the same offenses and are more likely to be held without bail or effectively without bail by having an unaffordable bail set for them. While awaiting trial, they risk losing jobs, places to live, custody of their children and other significantly negative effects—because they couldn’t come up with a couple of thousand dollars. BTW, innocent people are arrested, convicted abs serve sentences for crimes they did not commit every single day.

In this case—someone who had already skipped bail—yes, that is someone who should not have had easy access to bail.
 
You’re really confused. Getting out on an affordable bail is not ‘giving criminals an excuse to commit more crimes.’ Those released on bail remain accused of crimes—not convicted for one thing. For another low income individuals, particularly persons of color, are disproportionally charged with higher levels of crimes compared with whites accused of committing the same offenses and are more likely to be held without bail or effectively without bail by having an unaffordable bail set for them. While awaiting trial, they risk losing jobs, places to live, custody of their children and other significantly negative effects—because they couldn’t come up with a couple of thousand dollars. BTW, innocent people are arrested, convicted abs serve sentences for crimes they did not commit every single day.

In this case—someone who had already skipped bail—yes, that is someone who should not have had easy access to bail.

but they don't give consideration to the level of crime committed. What would've made more sense is to say, "This guy is a repeat multiple offender. Make his bail higher." I can understand maybe the first time, then raise it the 2nd time, but the 3rd time, cmon! Do something more!!!!
 

Toni

Contributor
You’re really confused. Getting out on an affordable bail is not ‘giving criminals an excuse to commit more crimes.’ Those released on bail remain accused of crimes—not convicted for one thing. For another low income individuals, particularly persons of color, are disproportionally charged with higher levels of crimes compared with whites accused of committing the same offenses and are more likely to be held without bail or effectively without bail by having an unaffordable bail set for them. While awaiting trial, they risk losing jobs, places to live, custody of their children and other significantly negative effects—because they couldn’t come up with a couple of thousand dollars. BTW, innocent people are arrested, convicted abs serve sentences for crimes they did not commit every single day.

In this case—someone who had already skipped bail—yes, that is someone who should not have had easy access to bail.

but they don't give consideration to the level of crime committed. What would've made more sense is to say, "This guy is a repeat multiple offender. Make his bail higher." I can understand maybe the first time, then raise it the 2nd time, but the 3rd time, cmon! Do something more!!!!
You’re really confused. Getting out on an affordable bail is not ‘giving criminals an excuse to commit more crimes.’ Those released on bail remain accused of crimes—not convicted for one thing. For another low income individuals, particularly persons of color, are disproportionally charged with higher levels of crimes compared with whites accused of committing the same offenses and are more likely to be held without bail or effectively without bail by having an unaffordable bail set for them. While awaiting trial, they risk losing jobs, places to live, custody of their children and other significantly negative effects—because they couldn’t come up with a couple of thousand dollars. BTW, innocent people are arrested, convicted abs serve sentences for crimes they did not commit every single day.

In this case—someone who had already skipped bail—yes, that is someone who should not have had easy access to bail.

but they don't give consideration to the level of crime committed. What would've made more sense is to say, "This guy is a repeat multiple offender. Make his bail higher." I can understand maybe the first time, then raise it the 2nd time, but the 3rd time, cmon! Do something more!!!!
I'm not disagreeing but I don't think that you are seeing the point: The ability to stay out of jail pending trial is almost entirely a matter of money. And this should not be the case. Unfortunately it is.

Often, too, it is difficult to predict with a high degree of accuracy who will violate the terms of their bail and commit another crime.

Consider a 40 year old married man, with a good, professional job, a wife, 2.5 kids, a clean record, although as a kid, he did his share of petty vandalism and under age drinking, a little pot--like a lot of kids. But he came from a 'good home' and wasn't arrested until as an adult: Arrested for driving under the influence. Being jailed until trial could well mean that he loses his job, his family loses their home, and the marriage falls apart. EVEN IF he wasn't really under the influence (as determined at trial). We tend to have a lot of sympathy for this man who leads a life that on paper, looks exactly like what we think it should look like: married, children, good job, clean record. We'd think it was a travesty for him to lose his life because someone pulled him over and arrested him for one little offense.

Now, suppose he makes bail, continues with his job, wife, kids, etc. And drives drunk and smashes into a kid on a bicycle. Or an old man crossing the street. Or a woman and her children on the way home from school. We'd be outraged that he was allowed to drive again!

Now consider a different 40 year old who had a rougher start in life, dropped out of school, had some petty convictions for tagging and weed but it made it harder for him to achieve economic security. But he makes it! He finds a nice partner and they marry, have a couple of kids, just put a down payment on a house. He gets into an apprentice program, becomes a journeyman electrician and.....gets pulled over under suspicion for driving under the influence. Because he is a little slow to produce his license (he isn't under the influence, so he's confused as to why he was stopped), he gets slapped with resisting arrest. He can't make bail and has to sit in jail pending trial and he loses his job, his family, and that nice little house they were just getting ready to move into.

OR: Consider a young mother, driving her kid home from soccer practice. She is pulled over because she's driving erratically. Cop believes she's under the influence. What is really going on is that she has (as yet) undiagnosed diabetes and has very low blood sugar. She's jailed, and can't make bail because she's newly separated, has just started a new job and her soon to be ex uses this as an excuse to get full custody of their kid.

Which person deserves to have their life destroyed because they can/cannot come up with a few hundred or a few thousand dollars?

Here's a link (yes, it's the ACLU) that explains the issue much better than my poor examples: https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/bail-reform
 

Trausti

Contributor
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control. These lefty policies cost lives.
 

Toni

Contributor
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control. These lefty policies cost lives.
The right wing policies of incarcerating accused persons, primarily poor and persons of color for weeks to months and sometimes longer, pending trial--when in fact, they may be found innocent of charges and not uncommonly, have already spent more time in custody than their sentence would have encompassed--well those policies cost lives as well.
 
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control. These lefty policies cost lives.
The right wing policies of incarcerating accused persons, primarily poor and persons of color for weeks to months and sometimes longer, pending trial--when in fact, they may be found innocent of charges and not uncommonly, have already spent more time in custody than their sentence would have encompassed--well those policies cost lives as well.

But there has to be some common sense solution between "Criminals are newborn lambs deserving of leniency!" and "Lock 'em all up!!!!"

It is like those relaxed laws on shoplifting in San Francisco where theft under $950 is only a misdeamenor. So you could technically steal from 20 stores in a day and as long as each citation is under $950 you will go free. This is stupid. In Texas a first time shoplifter under a certain amount is a misdeamenor but if you are caught a 2nd time it is a felony. Now that makes more common sense sense.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control. These lefty policies cost lives.
The right wing policies of incarcerating accused persons, primarily poor and persons of color for weeks to months and sometimes longer, pending trial--when in fact, they may be found innocent of charges and not uncommonly, have already spent more time in custody than their sentence would have encompassed--well those policies cost lives as well.

But there has to be some common sense solution between "Criminals are newborn lambs deserving of leniency!" and "Lock 'em all up!!!!"

It is like those relaxed laws on shoplifting in San Francisco where theft under $950 is only a misdeamenor. So you could technically steal from 20 stores in a day and as long as each citation is under $950 you will go free. This is stupid. In Texas a first time shoplifter under a certain amount is a misdeamenor but if you are caught a 2nd time it is a felony. Now that makes more common sense sense.
Bail is about people of stature or modest income being able to get out of jail while they await trial. That is all it is about. Bail reform was put forth to let poorer people not be stuck in jail which had a tendency to mean they'd be more likely to be convicted.

If this person was a danger to society, he shouldn't be allowed to get out period.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control.
Agreed. The bail needs to fit the crime regardless of ability to pay. Whether we are a society engaging in discrimination based on race or social standing is a different matter entirely.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control. These lefty policies cost lives.
Man, if there is one group of people that are known for being liberal... it'd be prosecutors.
 

Toni

Contributor
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control. These lefty policies cost lives.
The right wing policies of incarcerating accused persons, primarily poor and persons of color for weeks to months and sometimes longer, pending trial--when in fact, they may be found innocent of charges and not uncommonly, have already spent more time in custody than their sentence would have encompassed--well those policies cost lives as well.

But there has to be some common sense solution between "Criminals are newborn lambs deserving of leniency!" and "Lock 'em all up!!!!"

It is like those relaxed laws on shoplifting in San Francisco where theft under $950 is only a misdeamenor. So you could technically steal from 20 stores in a day and as long as each citation is under $950 you will go free. This is stupid. In Texas a first time shoplifter under a certain amount is a misdeamenor but if you are caught a 2nd time it is a felony. Now that makes more common sense sense.
I think you are skipping over the part in my first thread where I stated that I think the fact that he had already skipped bail should have raised the bar to him receiving bail considerably higher--including being denied bail.

I am certain that there are a handful of enterprising individuals who will carefully shoplift under $950 for 20 days but I'm also certain that at that point, they could find other charges to hold such an individual on. And why should everyone else face unaffordable bails because the law isn't clever enough to account for the few who are able to exploit the law to the fullest? How is this really different than say, Bezos and Branson and Musk and the Waltons being able to exploit tax (and other) laws for their financial advantage and expecting less obscenely wealthy people to pick up the tab (which we do, btw)? There are always going to be people who are able to exploit laws and rules and regulations. Best thoughtfully write laws to make that less possible.

In what universe does a person who shoplifts some bread or formula or a candy bar TWICE deserve a felony charge? Oh, right: Texas. That alone should tell us how unreasonable and draconian this law is.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
I know nothing more about this than what I've read on this thread.
But it sure looks like a failed attempt at "suicide by cop".

How can you set bail for people like that? And without being a mindreader how can you tell? With the clarity of hindsight it's easy to pick up warnings, but that's almost always true.
Tom
 

Trausti

Contributor
I know nothing more about this than what I've read on this thread.
But it sure looks like a failed attempt at "suicide by cop".

How can you set bail for people like that? And without being a mindreader how can you tell? With the clarity of hindsight it's easy to pick up warnings, but that's almost always true.
Tom

He’s a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. How did you get “suicide by cop”?
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
I know nothing more about this than what I've read on this thread.
But it sure looks like a failed attempt at "suicide by cop".

How can you set bail for people like that? And without being a mindreader how can you tell? With the clarity of hindsight it's easy to pick up warnings, but that's almost always true.
Tom
That's the first I've heard of that theory. He was trying to escape the police and immediately after the carnage took refuge in some random stranger's house (by making up some weird story about not getting picked up by an Uber driver). If he wanted to die by cop suicide, he could have made it real easy by resisting arrest, taking a hostage, etc.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
I know nothing more about this than what I've read on this thread.
But it sure looks like a failed attempt at "suicide by cop".

How can you set bail for people like that? And without being a mindreader how can you tell? With the clarity of hindsight it's easy to pick up warnings, but that's almost always true.
Tom

He’s a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. How did you get “suicide by cop”?
Not sure if serious. Is that some recent development, or are you mocking the "everything is about race" crowd?
 

Trausti

Contributor
I know nothing more about this than what I've read on this thread.
But it sure looks like a failed attempt at "suicide by cop".

How can you set bail for people like that? And without being a mindreader how can you tell? With the clarity of hindsight it's easy to pick up warnings, but that's almost always true.
Tom

He’s a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. How did you get “suicide by cop”?
Not sure if serious. Is that some recent development, or are you mocking the "everything is about race" crowd?

EXCLUSIVE: 'The old white ppl…knock dem TF out!' Waukesha suspect shared social media posts promoting violence towards white people and claiming black people were the 'true Hebrews'

The charging documents also state that he intentionally hit his victims. But his victims are white and he's black, so the media is gonna bury this.

FE6uJX8XIAIdGtp
 

Trausti

Contributor
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control. These lefty policies cost lives.
The right wing policies of incarcerating accused persons, primarily poor and persons of color for weeks to months and sometimes longer, pending trial--when in fact, they may be found innocent of charges and not uncommonly, have already spent more time in custody than their sentence would have encompassed--well those policies cost lives as well.
FFS. He ran over a person. Got only $1K bond.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
He’s a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. How did you get “suicide by cop”?

That's the first I've heard of that theory. He was trying to escape the police and immediately after the carnage took refuge in some random stranger's house

I'm not pretending to understand what was going on in the mind of someone who could do anything as horrible as crash through a Christmas Parade. The line from an old Doors song "His brain is squirming like a toad..." is what I think of.

But yeah, it still looks like a suicide attempt. However subconscious it might have been. I'm just glad that I don't have to deal with him in a compassionate way going forward.
Tom
 

Trausti

Contributor
He’s a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. How did you get “suicide by cop”?

That's the first I've heard of that theory. He was trying to escape the police and immediately after the carnage took refuge in some random stranger's house

I'm not pretending to understand what was going on in the mind of someone who could do anything as horrible as crash through a Christmas Parade. The line from an old Doors song "His brain is squirming like a toad..." is what I think of.

But yeah, it still looks like a suicide attempt. However subconscious it might have been. I'm just glad that I don't have to deal with him in a compassionate way going forward.
Tom
"Suicide by cop" usually doesn't involve killing innocent people. Nor does fleeing the scene and trying to hide.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
A few years ago, there was a similar incident in a nearby town. They were having a street festival and a car sped through the crowd, killing three and injuring dozens more. The driver was the octogenarian mother of the Chief of Police. She died later that day from complications due to a stroke, which was the apparent cause of her loss of control. This type of thing is actually quite common. The Wisconsin incident is one of the worst, but not unique.

It's easy to leap to the conclusion that Darrel Wilson is a psychotic killer who should not have been on the street, but the profile of a crowd plower is somewhere between a middle aged man with a history of DUI arrests and a person with over 55 years of driving experience.

In this case, a young black man has killed and injured white people, which pushes all the right buttons for a certain group of people who are prone to assert facts not in evidence. I'm sure they have their reasons.

Bail and release before trial are not pre-punishments. The sole reason for bail requirements is to insure the defendant will appear in court on the appointed day. If the government believes the defendant poses a risk to the public if released, that's a separate argument. No amount of money put on deposit will reduce that kind of risk.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
He’s a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. How did you get “suicide by cop”?

That's the first I've heard of that theory. He was trying to escape the police and immediately after the carnage took refuge in some random stranger's house

I'm not pretending to understand what was going on in the mind of someone who could do anything as horrible as crash through a Christmas Parade. The line from an old Doors song "His brain is squirming like a toad..." is what I think of.

But yeah, it still looks like a suicide attempt. However subconscious it might have been. I'm just glad that I don't have to deal with him in a compassionate way going forward.
Tom
"Suicide by cop" usually doesn't involve killing innocent people. Nor does fleeing the scene and trying to hide.
Wow...lots of white hatred in that man. He must be an avid MSNBC watcher.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
He’s a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. How did you get “suicide by cop”?

That's the first I've heard of that theory. He was trying to escape the police and immediately after the carnage took refuge in some random stranger's house

I'm not pretending to understand what was going on in the mind of someone who could do anything as horrible as crash through a Christmas Parade. The line from an old Doors song "His brain is squirming like a toad..." is what I think of.

But yeah, it still looks like a suicide attempt. However subconscious it might have been. I'm just glad that I don't have to deal with him in a compassionate way going forward.
Tom
"Suicide by cop" usually doesn't involve killing innocent people. Nor does fleeing the scene and trying to hide.
Did you not read my first paragraph?

Or are you so certain that you understand mass murderers that you know what they're "usually" thinking?

You made the assertion that he's a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. Care to back that up?
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
I know nothing more about this than what I've read on this thread.
But it sure looks like a failed attempt at "suicide by cop".

How can you set bail for people like that? And without being a mindreader how can you tell? With the clarity of hindsight it's easy to pick up warnings, but that's almost always true.
Tom

He’s a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. How did you get “suicide by cop”?
Not sure if serious. Is that some recent development, or are you mocking the "everything is about race" crowd?

EXCLUSIVE: 'The old white ppl…knock dem TF out!' Waukesha suspect shared social media posts promoting violence towards white people and claiming black people were the 'true Hebrews'

The charging documents also state that he intentionally hit his victims. But his victims are white and he's black, so the media is gonna bury this.
White male dismayed black bigot isn't paraded in media as bigot.
 

Trausti

Contributor
You made the assertion that he's a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. Care to back that up?
Did you miss the earlier posts? His social media about "knocking out" white people? The charging affidavit that he intentionally swerved into the crowd? All his victims are white? What a coincidence.
 

Trausti

Contributor
I know nothing more about this than what I've read on this thread.
But it sure looks like a failed attempt at "suicide by cop".

How can you set bail for people like that? And without being a mindreader how can you tell? With the clarity of hindsight it's easy to pick up warnings, but that's almost always true.
Tom

He’s a black racist who intentionally targeted white people. How did you get “suicide by cop”?
Not sure if serious. Is that some recent development, or are you mocking the "everything is about race" crowd?

EXCLUSIVE: 'The old white ppl…knock dem TF out!' Waukesha suspect shared social media posts promoting violence towards white people and claiming black people were the 'true Hebrews'

The charging documents also state that he intentionally hit his victims. But his victims are white and he's black, so the media is gonna bury this.
White male dismayed black bigot isn't paraded in media as bigot.
Imagine if a white dude with racist social media posts drove into a parade of black people. Then Jimmy would care.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
White male dismayed black bigot isn't paraded in media as bigot.
Imagine if a white dude with racist social media posts drove into a parade of black people. Then Jimmy would care.
There is bigotry and then there is racism. Both matter. You confuse both for being the same thing.

Whether his beliefs and bigotry were the motives for his actions instead of desperation and/or rage, we might or might not find out. Regardless, this guy committed an awful crime and is never getting out of jail. And we don't see defense of his actions, unlike the Charlottesville driver.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
The problem here is the pendulum swinging too far.

I agree with the basic idea of bail reform--bail was punitive, being used to force people into plea deals because the pre-trial detention was often a higher punishment than the plea deal.

However, I would like to see a one-bite approach. On most things you are released on your agreement to show up. That does not apply if you are arrested again on unrelated matters and if you fail to show up, that's it, bail is required in the future if it is even an option.
 

Trausti

Contributor
The problem here is the pendulum swinging too far.

I agree with the basic idea of bail reform--bail was punitive, being used to force people into plea deals because the pre-trial detention was often a higher punishment than the plea deal.

However, I would like to see a one-bite approach. On most things you are released on your agreement to show up. That does not apply if you are arrested again on unrelated matters and if you fail to show up, that's it, bail is required in the future if it is even an option.
The type of crime ought to matter, too. Say, running someone over a person compared to shoplifting a Snickers.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
The guy in the OP has a long, long history of violence. He should have been locked up a long time ago. Frankly, to me he sounds like a socio/psychopath.

And then we have this:

The Editorial Board: Murphy insults the victims of a serial rapist by sentencing him to probation
Judge Matthew J. Murphy III says he agonized over the sentence he imposed on a rapist Tuesday. He wasn’t ashamed, he said, to admit that he “actually prayed” over what to do.
He shouldn’t be ashamed of that. What he should be ashamed of is the decision he reached: eight years of probation for Christopher J. Belter, who sexually assaulted four girls, aged 15 and 16, in his Lewiston house.
Murphy, acting more like an advocate than a judge, decided that prison would be somehow “inappropriate” for Belter who originally faced charges that included first-degree rape. The 20-year-old felon committed his crimes when he under 18 but was sentenced as an adult offender. What adult gets a few years of probation for serial sex assaults against teenage girls?
 

Toni

Contributor
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control. These lefty policies cost lives.
The right wing policies of incarcerating accused persons, primarily poor and persons of color for weeks to months and sometimes longer, pending trial--when in fact, they may be found innocent of charges and not uncommonly, have already spent more time in custody than their sentence would have encompassed--well those policies cost lives as well.
FFS. He ran over a person. Got only $1K bond.
For at least the third time: Yes, I believe that there was a mistake in granting him such low bail given his history of jumping bail, which alone makes him a poor risk unless there were some mitigating circumstances I can't think of at this moment, and of course, a violent crime is different than a property crime. Although to be honest, I'd like to know more about the 'running over someone' charge. Is it an exaggerated charge? Or is it honest: he deliberately aimed his vehicle at someone and put his foot on the gas? Or did someone step out in front of him to try to stop him? Or did someone step too close while the vehicle was in motion and fall down? Any of those are possible and would be vastly different than he aimed his car at someone and stepped on the gas.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
The guy, a habitual offender, got out on $1K bond after running over his girlfriend. Da fuq. The prosecutor realizes his office made a massive mistake and is in damage control. These lefty policies cost lives.
The right wing policies of incarcerating accused persons, primarily poor and persons of color for weeks to months and sometimes longer, pending trial--when in fact, they may be found innocent of charges and not uncommonly, have already spent more time in custody than their sentence would have encompassed--well those policies cost lives as well.
FFS. He ran over a person. Got only $1K bond.
No, he is alleged to have run over a person. Apparently the alleged victim had tire treads on her pants leg and claim to be the mother of his child.

I do think that assault of any type should have more a substantial bond that $1,000. Mr. Brooks is also a registered sex offender. So, one would think his bond would have been higher.

But unless the bail bond was sufficiently high enough to prevent his release, this tragedy would still have happened.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
The problem here is the pendulum swinging too far.

I agree with the basic idea of bail reform--bail was punitive, being used to force people into plea deals because the pre-trial detention was often a higher punishment than the plea deal.

However, I would like to see a one-bite approach. On most things you are released on your agreement to show up. That does not apply if you are arrested again on unrelated matters and if you fail to show up, that's it, bail is required in the future if it is even an option.
How does this apply here? No one is complaining about the guy jumping bail, but being out on bail and running over grandmothers for whatever reason. Of course, most people out on bail aren't running people over with their cars, so this extreme situation crime is being used to demonize a reasonable modification to how bail is done in the US.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is the part of a trial in the court of public opinion when information on a Black suspect concentrates on past criminal history and on a White suspect concentrates on past mental health issues.

When Stephan Paddock killed 60 people who attended the Route 61 Harvest music festival, no one suggested he hated country music or country music fans. The immediate consensus was the guy was crazy.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
The problem here is the pendulum swinging too far.

I agree with the basic idea of bail reform--bail was punitive, being used to force people into plea deals because the pre-trial detention was often a higher punishment than the plea deal.

However, I would like to see a one-bite approach. On most things you are released on your agreement to show up. That does not apply if you are arrested again on unrelated matters and if you fail to show up, that's it, bail is required in the future if it is even an option.
How does this apply here? No one is complaining about the guy jumping bail, but being out on bail and running over grandmothers for whatever reason. Of course, most people out on bail aren't running people over with their cars, so this extreme situation crime is being used to demonize a reasonable modification to how bail is done in the US.
As a followup, I'm not accusing you of doing that, but the OP and one or two others. My post however, was a bit sloppy.
 
"Milwaukee BLM activist, 'militant' says Wisconsin Christmas parade attack may start 'revolution'"

"A well-known Milwaukee Black Lives Matter activist said on Facebook Live Monday that the attack on the Waukesha Christmas parade may be signalling that "the revolution has started in Wisconsin."

"Vaun Mayes, who describes himself as a "Battle rapper, Community activist, Songwriter, Tattoo artist, Militant," in his Twitter bio, said in the video, "I don't know. Now we'll have to wait and see because they do have somebody in custody. We may have to wait and see what they say about why this happened. But it sounds possible that the revolution has started in Wisconsin. It started with this Christmas parade.""

This is unbelievable stuff. I am sure you logical people on this forum can see just how much the media would've been hyping this up if this was a white man saying this about the revolution starting after a murder. I am dumbfounded that this violent language is being used. I used to think a civil war happening was a joke. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. This is some serious language here. Why is he not banned from twitter for saying this stuff? I never want to hear anyone say that big tech isn't biased ever again. :(
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
This is unbelievable stuff.
Yes it is. I'm guessing you expected nobody would read the article you posted because Justthenews is complete horseshit but here's the tweet we are all supposed to shit our pants over:


The "serious language" Generation55 is referring to is some guy saying "I don't know" at least 15 times in a one minute interval about something he heard from somebody maybe about an assumption.

Everyone lock the doors and stay the fuck inside. Shit is getting to real maybe. I don't know.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
He sound like one of those stupid niggas I'd never listen to or claim affiliation with in the hood. Sorry if my comment is too raw. I'm just being straight with yall.
 
This is unbelievable stuff.
Yes it is. I'm guessing you expected nobody would read the article you posted because Justthenews is complete horseshit but here's the tweet we are all supposed to shit our pants over:


The "serious language" Generation55 is referring to is some guy saying "I don't know" at least 15 times in a one minute interval about something he heard from somebody maybe about an assumption.

Everyone lock the doors and stay the fuck inside. Shit is getting to real maybe. I don't know.
I watched that video you posted. He says that this might be the start of the revolution. He said it with his own mouth. You are still downplaying it.

The website may be biased but they reported that he said it might be the revolution and that's exactly what he said in the link you yourself provided. I can't ignore my eyes and ears. How can you?
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
I watched that video you posted.
The video I posted? It was in the fucking article you provided. What the fuck is it with right wingers not reading the shit they post?
He says that this might be the start of the revolution. He said it with his own mouth. You are still downplaying it.
He added so many qualifiers it's as meaningful as the shit Trump says.
The website may be biased but they reported that he said it might be the revolution and that's exactly what he said in the link you yourself provided. I can't ignore my eyes and ears. How can you?
The website is biased. More importantly it's unreliable. And unlike you apparently, I read the fucking article. I don't know, maybe, like, it could be you are a really smart guy because of what that guy said apparently, maybe. I don't know it could be but I don't know. I t could be something I'm missing and I don't want to spread any rumours but I don't know. Maybe you're completely full of shit, I don't know.
 
I watched that video you posted.
The video I posted? It was in the fucking article you provided. What the fuck is it with right wingers not reading the shit they post?
He says that this might be the start of the revolution. He said it with his own mouth. You are still downplaying it.
He added so many qualifiers it's as meaningful as the shit Trump says.
The website may be biased but they reported that he said it might be the revolution and that's exactly what he said in the link you yourself provided. I can't ignore my eyes and ears. How can you?
The website is biased. More importantly it's unreliable. And unlike you apparently, I read the fucking article. I don't know, maybe, like, it could be you are a really smart guy because of what that guy said apparently, maybe. I don't know it could be but I don't know. I t could be something I'm missing and I don't want to spread any rumours but I don't know. Maybe you're completely full of shit, I don't know.

Why do you keep saying the website is biased when he said it out of his own mouth? If this was a white man saying this, this thread would have 20 pages already. Why do black racists get a pass? Why can't we condemn all racism? Otherwise, it makes it look like you are OK with black racists. I'm not OK with any type of racism.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Why do you keep saying the website is biased when he said it out of his own mouth? If this was a white man saying this, this thread would have 20 pages already. Why do black racists get a pass? Why can't we condemn all racism? Otherwise, it makes it look like you are OK with black racists. I'm not OK with any type of racism.
Okay, Michael Knowles. Good luck with your shadow debates.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Why do you keep saying the website is biased when he said it out of his own mouth? If this was a white man saying this, this thread would have 20 pages already. Why do black racists get a pass? Why can't we condemn all racism? Otherwise, it makes it look like you are OK with black racists. I'm not OK with any type of racism.
You know what, fuck it. You do realise that the arguments you are making are towards people who don't exist, right?

Apologies for the double post.
 
Why do you keep saying the website is biased when he said it out of his own mouth? If this was a white man saying this, this thread would have 20 pages already. Why do black racists get a pass? Why can't we condemn all racism? Otherwise, it makes it look like you are OK with black racists. I'm not OK with any type of racism.
You know what, fuck it. You do realise that the arguments you are making are towards people who don't exist, right?

Apologies for the double post.
But my arguments are directed at people who exist. I asked why you can't condemn black racism against white people like I can? You didn't condemn it. This makes it look like you are OK with black racism. So, my argument still stands until you or anyone else condemns it.

I basically posted a link which ad a video of a militant BLM member saying how this could be the start of the Revoluton. I said, "Hey this is pretty stupid and racist, anyone else agree?" No one agreed. I then get accused of being the guy in the wrong.
 
Top Bottom