3 ms·

>By all means, dunk on the people making insurance payments to cover his bail! They made no payments of any kind: >>Kramer signed a $500,000 unsecured bond, w

by SilasX 4y ago

>By all means, dunk on the people making insurance payments to cover his bail! They made no payments of any kind: >>Kramer signed a $500,000 unsecured bond, while Paepcke signed the same type of bond for $250,000. And his bail isn't being "covered", except by a lien on an asset worth 1-2% of the amount and promises to pay the rest (that no one thinks the primary guarantors can actually honor).

tptacek 4y ago
See downthread. The two non-parental guarantors haven't paid anything, but his parents will be zeroed out if he jumps bail. The point of the bail arrangement is to guarantee his appearance, not to extract money or repay his offenses, so this concern with how the government recovers this "asset" seems misplaced.
- SilasX 4y ago
  >See downthread. The two non-parental guarantors haven't paid anything, but his parents will be zeroed out if he jumps bail. You lost me -- how does that justify you falsely referring to (some of) the guarantors as "people making insurance payments to cover his bail"? If you really want to look downthread, you can see where I correctly described the current state of affairs that you're now informing me of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811063 There's no one "making insurance payments to cover his bail". If you wanted to make a witty remark that has a factual basis, you should have said, "By all means, dunk on the people exposing themselves to a loss if the defendant flees." >The point of the bail arrangement is to guarantee his appearance, not to extract money or repay his offenses, so this concern with how the government recovers this "asset" seems misplaced. I don't have a concern with the government recovering this asset. I have a concern with people spreading misinformation and then changing the topic when corrected -- like you did when falsely saying that Kramer and Paepcke were making (something correctly describable as) insurance payments, or referring to the $250 million as "covered". I also have a concern with bail figures being treated as meaningless (the first link).

by SilasX 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

See downthread. The two non-parental guarantors haven't paid anything, but his parents will be zeroed out if he jumps bail. The point of the bail arrangement is to guarantee his appearance, not to extract money or repay his offenses, so this concern with how the government recovers this "asset" seems misplaced.

SilasX 4y ago
>See downthread. The two non-parental guarantors haven't paid anything, but his parents will be zeroed out if he jumps bail. You lost me -- how does that justify you falsely referring to (some of) the guarantors as "people making insurance payments to cover his bail"? If you really want to look downthread, you can see where I correctly described the current state of affairs that you're now informing me of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811063 There's no one "making insurance payments to cover his bail". If you wanted to make a witty remark that has a factual basis, you should have said, "By all means, dunk on the people exposing themselves to a loss if the defendant flees." >The point of the bail arrangement is to guarantee his appearance, not to extract money or repay his offenses, so this concern with how the government recovers this "asset" seems misplaced. I don't have a concern with the government recovering this asset. I have a concern with people spreading misinformation and then changing the topic when corrected -- like you did when falsely saying that Kramer and Paepcke were making (something correctly describable as) insurance payments, or referring to the $250 million as "covered". I also have a concern with bail figures being treated as meaningless (the first link).