3 ms·

The linked article.

• JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Nothing in the law [1] requires he come up with that sum himself. (The qualifier implies e.g. a legal defence fund or even family member couldn't help.) [1] https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/114/Bill/SB0464.pdf https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/114/Bill/SB0464.pdf
  • tavavex 1y ago
    That seems kind of pedantic. From what the original commenter said, my immediate interpretation of it was that the obligation to procure the money and pay up is on his side, not that the $200k must be 'his' in some other way. It doesn't matter what source he gets it from, but the bill is on him to pay.
    • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > my immediate interpretation of it was that the obligation to procure the money and pay up is on his side, not that the $200k must be 'his' in some other way I suppose. I honestly read it as suggesting he, personally, had to come up with that money. The law is cruel. But as positioned, it seems like you'd just have an industry of secondary lenders.
    • 1659447091 1y ago
      For what its worth I thought the same thing -- that he had to get it himself -- as I already assumed to get a bail bond you still had to pay a percent first. I guess I have been desensitized enough towards absurd laws being from Texas that the idea of TN (or other southern/red states) passing something like that would not be shocking. I do appreciate the clarification/explanation.