Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
With bail set at $2,000, she was shown into a cold cell with a blanket on the floor. The New York Times critically reported in its coverage of her newsworthy arrest that she refused to swear on a bible and testified at a preliminary hearing that she did not believe in god, ghosts, heaven, hell, the bible or Christianity.
The pleasant, ordinary-looking woman was vilified as "homely" for sporting a short haircut. Unable to raise bail she spent six months in jail and was indicted on July 12, 1887. Freethinking attorney Edward W. Chamberlain represented her during her October trial, where a jury found her guilty. She was set free on a technicality by the judge on Nov. 4, 1887. Truth Seeker readers paid her legal expenses.
In Las Vegas, a Celebrity funded group posted bail for a man who was arrested for Burglary and Theft. In other words, he was arrested for stealing. Ok, no big deal so far. This group posted bail of $3,000 to get the accused released. Again, fairly common. The Baddie committed another crime a week later and is now facing charges of Attempted Murder. The person he shot is suing the group claiming they didn’t consider the Baddie’s serial criminal history when they posted the Bail. Further he is arguing that the people posting the bail are responsible for any future crimes.
Bail fund shuts down chapter after man released nearly killed waiter
The bail fund that paid to free a man who went on to shoot and nearly kill a waiter just six days after his release has shuddered its Las Vegas chapter.www.dailymail.co.uk
Ok, so help me out. It is now the person posting the bail that is responsible for considering such things? I was unaware that is how the system worked. Here is what I thought happened, and someone correct me if I am wrong.
The Defense Attorney makes a motion to have the Accused released from pre trial confinement. The Prosecutor argues that any such release should be accompanied by Bail. The Judge, in looking at the entirety of the case, sets the bail amount, if any, or denies the motion depending upon the severity of the crime or the probability of the individual to flee. All of this is argued by the Prosecutor and the Defense Attorney.
If Bail is granted, the Judge decides how much. The person posting bail says they understand they will lose the cash if the Accused does not appear in court. That is pretty much the end of the responsibility of the person posting bail. If the Accused does show up, and no matter if they are convicted or acquitted, the person posting bail can get their money back. It is sort of like a security deposit.
Now, I’ve never before heard that the person posting the bail is responsible for any future crimes. I’ve never heard that the person posting the bail is supposed to provide any sort of counseling, or treatment for psychiatric conditions. When did this become the responsibility of the person posting bail?
The threat assessment is the responsibility of the Prosecutor. The decision is the job of the Judge. If the person posting the bail has any responsibility in this matter, it is that they are responsible to share information, any they have, on the whereabouts, of the individual should they not appear at the next scheduled hearing. They have a legal duty to assist in the individuals capture and return to jail, and they have a financial incentive to get their money back.
Are we going to start suing Bail Bondsmen? Are we going to start suing family members who post bail?
Yes, this story is tragic, but it is a frivolous lawsuit that should be tossed without hesitation by the first Judge who looks it over. I say that with the obvious caveat that I don’t know Nevada law, and I don’t know what if any precedent exists in Nevada, but on the surface, it looks ridiculous.
For those who wish to read the “Conservative” viewpoint.
Same as those insurrectionist of the 2020 insurrectionAnd those who bailed out the January 6th Criminals? Or those like yourself who object to those who were denied bail?
/----/ When your idealistic bail reform meets reality:The argument would serve those arrested for their crimes on January 6th.
However. Let’s talk about the Eighth Amendment. If you have $50 to your name. Bail of $3,000 is excessive. You can’t possibly pay it.
That is the point of the bail reform movement. And such releases are not guaranteed. They are still discussed as part of the pre trial release. Under Bail Reform, if the Accused would be eligible for release on bail, he is eligible for release without bail.
www.breitbart.com
As tragic as this situation is, I agree with you that this case should be tossed out. That said, the place for the trial is the court of public opinion and perhaps bringing this law suite in civil court is a means to that end,Yes, this story is tragic, but it is a frivolous lawsuit that should be tossed without hesitation by the first Judge who looks it over. I say that with the obvious caveat that I don’t know Nevada law, and I don’t know what if any precedent exists in Nevada, but on the surface, it looks ridiculous.
In Las Vegas, a Celebrity funded group posted bail for a man who was arrested for Burglary and Theft. In other words, he was arrested for stealing. Ok, no big deal so far. This group posted bail of $3,000 to get the accused released. Again, fairly common. The Baddie committed another crime a week later and is now facing charges of Attempted Murder. The person he shot is suing the group claiming they didn’t consider the Baddie’s serial criminal history when they posted the Bail. Further he is arguing that the people posting the bail are responsible for any future crimes.
Bail fund shuts down chapter after man released nearly killed waiter
The bail fund that paid to free a man who went on to shoot and nearly kill a waiter just six days after his release has shuddered its Las Vegas chapter.
Ok, so help me out. It is now the person posting the bail that is responsible for considering such things? I was unaware that is how the system worked. Here is what I thought happened, and someone correct me if I am wrong.
The Defense Attorney makes a motion to have the Accused released from pre trial confinement. The Prosecutor argues that any such release should be accompanied by Bail. The Judge, in looking at the entirety of the case, sets the bail amount, if any, or denies the motion depending upon the severity of the crime or the probability of the individual to flee. All of this is argued by the Prosecutor and the Defense Attorney.
If Bail is granted, the Judge decides how much. The person posting bail says they understand they will lose the cash if the Accused does not appear in court. That is pretty much the end of the responsibility of the person posting bail. If the Accused does show up, and no matter if they are convicted or acquitted, the person posting bail can get their money back. It is sort of like a security deposit.
Now, I’ve never before heard that the person posting the bail is responsible for any future crimes. I’ve never heard that the person posting the bail is supposed to provide any sort of counseling, or treatment for psychiatric conditions. When did this become the responsibility of the person posting bail?
The threat assessment is the responsibility of the Prosecutor. The decision is the job of the Judge. If the person posting the bail has any responsibility in this matter, it is that they are responsible to share information, any they have, on the whereabouts, of the individual should they not appear at the next scheduled hearing. They have a legal duty to assist in the individuals capture and return to jail, and they have a financial incentive to get their money back.
Are we going to start suing Bail Bondsmen? Are we going to start suing family members who post bail?
Yes, this story is tragic, but it is a frivolous lawsuit that should be tossed without hesitation by the first Judge who looks it over. I say that with the obvious caveat that I don’t know Nevada law, and I don’t know what if any precedent exists in Nevada, but on the surface, it looks ridiculous.
For those who wish to read the “Conservative” viewpoint.
The people paying the bail are just the useful idiots. They're stupid and don't know any better. The real criminals are your fellow DemoKKKrats who's policies let these animals out of jail with a payoff, so they can go out and kill more people.
The people paying the bail are just the useful idiots. They're stupid and don't know any better. The real criminals are your fellow DemoKKKrats who's policies let these animals out of jail with a payoff, so they can go out and kill more people.
Nothing stopping someone for suing over anything or nothing. This suit is going nowhereHow can they sue the person putting up bail? Maybe they should try to sue the judge if they believe this man shouldn't have been free.
Joking?I've always been told that the people posting bail will get the same punishment as the criminal, if the criminal breaks his bonds/bail.
Odd, when people were claiming this in the past they were called SOB's and told to go pound sand.
A little clarification: New York state eliminated bail for most misdemeanors and some non-violent felonies. And to date, there is no conclusive evidence that bail reform has led to an increase in crime rate, no matter what prosecuters and law enforcement have been alleging since day one. The increase in crime rate in New York is not signicantly different than the crime rate increase elsewhere, attributed largely to financial instatibility tied to pandemic response./——-/ Is everyone aware yhat New York ended bail for almost every crime. The repeat offenders are overwhelming the police as they commit multiple crimes a week with no way to lock them up.
Nice work libtards.
www.nycja.org
