>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 justi

>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).