Man Who Let Darrell Brooks Out Said That Individuals Like Brooks Would Get Out And Kill People...Guaranteed

[mudwhistle]

Absolutely not and not what I was getting at.

What I was getting at is that a singular death or a murder is not the singular point that a public policy should be crafted around. There are a lot of other considerations not the least of which is the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty and therefore the government is infringing on your rights when locking you up before you have been determined guilty.

Of course, there is public safety that we are concerned about and that is why such is justified. The question you have to ask is at what point is that policy justified and how far should we take it. In this specific case, I think there is a very coherent argument that people suspected of attempted murder should, as long as a trial is forthcoming soon, be denied bail of any kind whatsoever. It is pretty clear the threat persists and the more evidence against the guilty party the more likely that they are going to ensure they finish the job before going to jail.

HOWEVER, that has noting to do with the statement itself. The DA's statement does not say anything about why this policy is incorrect - the fact that it does not seem to take any nuance or specific details into account does.

To put it quite simply, complaining about the statement misses the target entirely. It is the policy itself that seems to be a problem and not because a singular guilty party may inflict more harm but because their overall outcome of the policy will cause more harm than good.

If you want a truly safe state then an authoritarian police state is what you seek. I do not think either of us are on board with such a terrible society so there is clearly a line between such and this policy.


Absolutely.

Bail, should, IMHO simply cease to exist. The court should determine if you are likely to run and/or commit more crimes and, if you are, leave you in jail as long as a trial is forthcoming. If neither of those things are true than you should be released. If the police are worried that you might be a larger danger, they have MORE than enough capability of monitoring the situation.

Hindsight is 20/20 but I think that this would be a pretty clear case where a reoffence was highly likely and he should have been kept in jail.

Except in this case they made sure bail was so low that he got out and was back to committing worse crimes than before.
Before, he just ran over his Baby-momma.....almost killing her.
This time he ran over 48 people...killing 6.

 

[iceberg]

Or I kill everyone in the car with me. ANd it is not the only public policy. Sorry but you did not address the actual point. Dismissing it because you cannot address it is nonsensical and beneath you.

you are having a wreck, whatever happens happens at that point.

be safe or go through the windshield.

 

[FA_Q2]

you are having a wreck, whatever happens happens at that point.

be safe or go through the windshield.

Still does not address the underlying point.

Tell me, should public policy focus on the idea it needs to prevent ALL death or a policy cannot cause one single death? If the analogy is the hang-up, drop it. Analogies are never perfect anyway, address the underlying principal.

 

[FA_Q2]

Except in this case they made sure bail was so low that he got out and was back to committing worse crimes than before.
Before, he just ran over his Baby-momma.....almost killing her.
This time he ran over 48 people...killing 6.

I already addressed the case directly.

Do you have something more than basically restating a position I already agreed with?

 

[mudwhistle]

I already addressed the case directly.

Do you have something more than basically restating a position I already agreed with?

No.....I don't see why we're arguing, except for the sake of arguing.

 

[Montrovant]

If you know that someone is dangerous....and has in the past committed violence......releasing them is the primary cause of the resulting murders.
Without them being released.....the murders wouldn't have happened in the first place.
This the same situation as Sandyhook.
They put them out on the street and just let nature take it's course.

I'll take an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure any day.

View attachment 568269

Releasing the person is not the primary cause. That ignores or dismisses the responsibility of the individual who commits the crime.

That said, if there is good cause to believe a person is a danger to commit another crime before trial, they should not be released. Determining whether someone poses such a risk is the balancing act the justice system must undertake, and it is a complicated and difficult thing IMO. Balancing public safety with individual liberty always is.

 

[mudwhistle]

Releasing the person is not the primary cause. That ignores or dismisses the responsibility of the individual who commits the crime.

That said, if there is good cause to believe a person is a danger to commit another crime before trial, they should not be released. Determining whether someone poses such a risk is the balancing act the justice system must undertake, and it is a complicated and difficult thing IMO. Balancing public safety with individual liberty always is.

Silly argument.
If you release a repeat-offender because of lax laws or a snafu in the system, basically the offender usually will, and predictably will, repeat the same offense, if not a worse offense.

 

[FA_Q2]

No.....I don't see why we're arguing, except for the sake of arguing.

We are not.... yet.

I made a point that you never addressed, namely that your OP is incorrect in the assertion that the quote has any meaning or shows anything at all.

 

[Hellokitty]

Still does not address the underlying point.

Tell me, should public policy focus on the idea it needs to prevent ALL death or a policy cannot cause one single death? If the analogy is the hang-up, drop it. Analogies are never perfect anyway, address the underlying principal.

Why are you comparing death that occurs as result of an accident to intentional murder?

 

[FA_Q2]

Why are you comparing death that occurs as result of an accident to intentional murder?

Read it again. If you cant handle the analogy then address the underlying point.

 

[Hellokitty]

Read it again. If you cant handle the analogy then address the underlying point.

Okay I can see your point regarding a 1st time offender, but this guy's record goes back to the 90s.

 

[WEATHER53]

And there is snarky snakey make pretend pretzel twisting about Wisconsin law not allowing the judge to judge the amount of bail and means to keep the criminal incarcerated
They are trying to put lipstick on the pig that their hands were tied.
Completely false

 

[iceberg]

Still does not address the underlying point.

Tell me, should public policy focus on the idea it needs to prevent ALL death or a policy cannot cause one single death? If the analogy is the hang-up, drop it. Analogies are never perfect anyway, address the underlying principal.

the underlying point is you have no point. in one you endanger yourself, not others.

 

[mudwhistle]

We are not.... yet.

I made a point that you never addressed, namely that your OP is incorrect in the assertion that the quote has any meaning or shows anything at all.

Well....that's your opinion.
But clearly he knows that shit will happen....and he guarantees it.

 

[Montrovant]

Silly argument.
If you release a repeat-offender because of lax laws or a snafu in the system, basically the offender usually will, and predictably will, repeat the same offense, if not a worse offense.

And yet primary responsibility for a crime remains with the person who commits that crime. That seems like a pretty straightforward concept to me. It doesn’t mean no one else bears any responsibility.

 

[FA_Q2]

Okay I can see your point regarding a 1st time offender, but this guy's record goes back to the 90s.

As I said earlier, I do not think he should have been released. His record is actual immaterial IN THIS CASE (it would matter in others) because the offense itself likely should not even have the possibility of bail.

IIRC, he was trying to kill someone. You would think that a failed attempt at murder - an act that carries a massive sentence and also is very likely to be caught - would clearly signal that releasing them early presents a clear danger to the public. Particularly if the evidence is strong.

However, the conversation I was putting out there is on the statement the DA made in relation to the policy. It may generate some emotional response but it is ultimately immaterial. Anyone that wants to successfully argue against or for something needs to ground their arguments on something solid.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well....that's your opinion.
But clearly he knows that shit will happen....and he guarantees it.

Again, this is true WITH ALL POLICY. Just a fact.

 

[westwall]

So he knows that these kinds of criminals will eventually end up killing someone......why in the heck does he stick with his stupid beliefs?

Well....it's a sickness......he's a progressive....it's how they think:

View attachment 568238

Releasing Dangerous People Into the Community​

One of the nation’s first proudly progressive reformers elected as a major city’s lead prosecutor, Chisholm almost immediately implemented an “evidence-based approach” that relied heavily on deferred prosecution and early intervention programs aimed at keeping criminals out of jail. No longer would the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office request high bails for criminal suspects or even prosecute their crimes. Instead, they would pursue alternatives that Chisholm fully admitted would result in dangerous felons being released into the community.


“Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, who is going to go out and kill somebody?” You bet,” Chisholm said in a 2007 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.”

Waukesha Killing Suspect The Latest Criminal Freed By Soft-On-Crime DA

Inappropriately and dangerously low bail has been a hallmark of the Milwaukee District Attorney’s Office since Democrat John Chisholm was elected.

thefederalist.com

This fucker needs to be indicted for criminally negligent homicide.

 

[FA_Q2]

the underlying point is you have no point. in one you endanger yourself, not others.

Never mind. I thought you were above it.

Apparently not.

 

[mudwhistle]

And yet primary responsibility for a crime remains with the person who commits that crime. That seems like a pretty straightforward concept to me. It doesn’t mean no one else bears any responsibility.

And yet you keep ignoring the issue.
It's funny how the left believes that the person who commits gun crimes is secondary to the fact that the crime was committed with a gun.
The only violence to them is gun violence.
Or pointing gunfingers at AOC......that's violence too.

The left has already moved on from this act of mass-murder.
As far as they're concerned....the guy doesn't exist.
If it had been a white guy....he would have been labeled a White Supremacist.....we'd be hearing their squawking about it for years.