3 ms·

I think if there's a major constitutional right to be invoked here, it's the Eighth Amendment "excessive bail shall not be required". Two million dollars?! For

by scythe 1y ago

I think if there's a major constitutional right to be invoked here, it's the Eighth Amendment "excessive bail shall not be required". Two million dollars?! For a 61-year-old posting on Facebook? What kind of risk does he pose exactly?

someemptyspace 1y ago
He can post again, so highly likely to "reoffend".
estearum 1y ago
Pointing attention at the basic hypocrisy and complete lack of principle of Dear Leader's party is an existential risk!
_heimdall 1y ago
Regardless of bail, IMO you are almost always better off staying in jail if at all possible and forcing the state to a speedy trial. I watched a close family member go through the process after getting out on bail. The charge was effectively a he-said she-said situation, at a time when that was going especially poorly for the he involved. He bailed out and took his lawyer's advice to wait the state out. That turned into a 4 year delay for what was technically a misdemeanor charge with a 1-year max charge. The trial was a joke and they offered effectively no evidence beyond one testimony contradicted by another witness directly in the room at the time. Who knows what would have happened in a speedy trial. If nothing else, a 1-year sentence would have been completed 3 years earlier than the trial he had even happened.
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >Regardless of bail, IMO you are almost always better off staying in jail if at all possible and forcing the state to a speedy trial. I'm guessing that you have the means to pay your bills for years before having to worry about losing your income and your home. Most folks don't. If you're in jail, you can't work. If you don't go to work, you'll lose your job. If you lose your job and you're like most people in the US, within a few months, you can't pay your mortgage or rent, so you'll lose your home as well as any belongings in that home. Which are the biggest reasons why high/no bail forces folks to accept plea deals. "Speedy Trial" laws generally don't even enter into it.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    > I'm guessing that you have the means to pay your bills for years before having to worry about losing your income and your home. Most folks don't. That's a pretty big assumption that also happens to be wrong. I specifically said "if at all possible" because I'm well aware that plenty of people can't put everything on hold for 30-60 days and have to potentially start over after that's done. If someone can in any way afford it, though, I would always recommend that approach. As soon as one is embroiled in the legal system its terrible no matter what the end result is. Either way the outcome is bad, if you can expedite the process you are better off.
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      I don't know anyone except the retired, who can afford to put everything on hold for 30-60 days (which in most cases will mean losing one's job). A small number of us have the savings to do that.
      - _heimdall 1y ago
        Do you mean that literally? You know noone less than 30-60 days of bankruptcy or ruin? The fact that many, if not most, people are that close is the problem. We shouldn't be days or weeks away from ruin, and should the time come that one has to stand for their rights into the court of law they should be able to afford that fight on the order of a month or two. How can we keep our government in check if we can't afford to fight it for more than a few weeks?
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >That's a pretty big assumption that also happens to be wrong. I specifically said "if at all possible" because I'm well aware that plenty of people can't put everything on hold for 30-60 days and have to potentially start over after that's done. Okay. I've been wrong before, am wrong with this and will certainly be wrong again. My apologies. As such, I hope you never end up in a position where you'll need to consider taking your own advice. But that doesn't change the overall point -- that sitting in jail for weeks or months, perhaps even years pre-trial will likely destroy most folks' life and livelihood.

by scythe 1y ago

someemptyspace 1y ago

He can post again, so highly likely to "reoffend".

estearum 1y ago

Pointing attention at the basic hypocrisy and complete lack of principle of Dear Leader's party is an existential risk!

_heimdall 1y ago

Regardless of bail, IMO you are almost always better off staying in jail if at all possible and forcing the state to a speedy trial. I watched a close family member go through the process after getting out on bail. The charge was effectively a he-said she-said situation, at a time when that was going especially poorly for the he involved. He bailed out and took his lawyer's advice to wait the state out. That turned into a 4 year delay for what was technically a misdemeanor charge with a 1-year max charge. The trial was a joke and they offered effectively no evidence beyond one testimony contradicted by another witness directly in the room at the time. Who knows what would have happened in a speedy trial. If nothing else, a 1-year sentence would have been completed 3 years earlier than the trial he had even happened.

nobody9999 1y ago
>Regardless of bail, IMO you are almost always better off staying in jail if at all possible and forcing the state to a speedy trial. I'm guessing that you have the means to pay your bills for years before having to worry about losing your income and your home. Most folks don't. If you're in jail, you can't work. If you don't go to work, you'll lose your job. If you lose your job and you're like most people in the US, within a few months, you can't pay your mortgage or rent, so you'll lose your home as well as any belongings in that home. Which are the biggest reasons why high/no bail forces folks to accept plea deals. "Speedy Trial" laws generally don't even enter into it.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  > I'm guessing that you have the means to pay your bills for years before having to worry about losing your income and your home. Most folks don't. That's a pretty big assumption that also happens to be wrong. I specifically said "if at all possible" because I'm well aware that plenty of people can't put everything on hold for 30-60 days and have to potentially start over after that's done. If someone can in any way afford it, though, I would always recommend that approach. As soon as one is embroiled in the legal system its terrible no matter what the end result is. Either way the outcome is bad, if you can expedite the process you are better off.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    I don't know anyone except the retired, who can afford to put everything on hold for 30-60 days (which in most cases will mean losing one's job). A small number of us have the savings to do that.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      Do you mean that literally? You know noone less than 30-60 days of bankruptcy or ruin? The fact that many, if not most, people are that close is the problem. We shouldn't be days or weeks away from ruin, and should the time come that one has to stand for their rights into the court of law they should be able to afford that fight on the order of a month or two. How can we keep our government in check if we can't afford to fight it for more than a few weeks?
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >That's a pretty big assumption that also happens to be wrong. I specifically said "if at all possible" because I'm well aware that plenty of people can't put everything on hold for 30-60 days and have to potentially start over after that's done. Okay. I've been wrong before, am wrong with this and will certainly be wrong again. My apologies. As such, I hope you never end up in a position where you'll need to consider taking your own advice. But that doesn't change the overall point -- that sitting in jail for weeks or months, perhaps even years pre-trial will likely destroy most folks' life and livelihood.