Crime Bail Fund Praised By Kamala Harris Has Twice Freed The Same Rioter. He Was Just Charged Again

[b34stmode]

So people are upset that charged individuals are granted bail or are they upset that someone paid the bail?

Do people have this much anger for bail bondsman or is this anti-bail thing new because there's a non-profit involved?

Because it would be idiotic to reduce someone's opinion on bail, non-profits and the intersection thereof to liking/disliking the VP of the USA.

Really? I think its super simple. Our VP backs a group that is bailing out repeat criminals, some of them sex offenders and murderers. Do you not think that is a problem? I don't think our VP or POTUS should be even remotely close to being tied with an organization bailing out criminals, especially when she used to be a prosecutor. Also he was bailed out by the group on a domestic violence charge, not rioting. You can't be serious in saying you don't see a problem with our VP being even remotely tied to this group right?

 

[ElKarlo]

That’s not what they’re upset about….their upset the the VP of USA is supporting the bail of an accused murder in relation to riots…..and another accused murder was critiqued and had the same support taken away.

This. And it’s funny that people are pretending it’s about something else
Well said

 

[Source]

That’s not what they’re upset about….their upset the the VP of USA is supporting the bail of an accused murder in relation to riots…..and another accused murder was critiqued and had the same support taken away.

You’re either being intentionally dishonest or have no of what you’re taking about.

 

[Loiosh]

So people are upset that charged individuals are granted bail or are they upset that someone paid the bail?

Do people have this much anger for bail bondsman or is this anti-bail thing new because there's a non-profit involved?

Because it would be idiotic to reduce someone's opinion on bail, non-profits and the intersection thereof to liking/disliking the VP of the USA.

This is a purely partisan political complaint, and I hope everyone at least knows it even though nobody will admit it.

Responsibility for offences committed while someone is out on bail lies with the judge who granted bail, the one who determined the individual didn't present a risk.

Bail set at a level outside an individual's ability to pay it is unconstitutional.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.​

 

[ShadowRun]

 

[Sara]

You’re either being intentionally dishonest or have no of what you’re taking about.

See the post directly above your response.

 

[RogerB08]

I'm a populist. Specifically a left-wing populist, because left-wing populists have actual solutions to these systemic problems that we face. Right-wing populists can only diagnose the problem, but either have no solutions or the wrong solutions.

If you watch Rising from The Hill, they have a left-wing populist, Krystal Ball, and a right-wing populist, Saagar Enjeti. Ball, like other left-wing populists, advocates for sensible solutions such as M4A, UBI, living wages and tuition-free public colleges. Saagar says we should ban porn and weed. Seriously, that's his solution.

Trump ran as a right-wing populist. 4 years of his presidency resulted in ZERO populist solutions and success and was so bad that he lost to a worse version of Hillary who appeared to be suffering from a cognitive decline at best through much of the primary and candidacy process.

You've got right-wing populists in government and in the mainstream media and it results in nothing. Your hero Eugene Debs was on the left back then for a reason, and if he were alive today he would still be on the left because we actually support populist and progressive policies. The right represents capitol by any means necessary.

Populism from the right is always fascism.

 

[The_Renaissance]

If I spoke truthfully about what I'd like to see happen to these fucking rioters/protesters, my account would be banned.

Absolute dregs of society, subhuman scum. Every single one of them.

 

[RogerB08]

If I spoke truthfully about what I'd like to see happen to these fucking rioters/protesters, my account would be banned.

Absolute dregs of society, subhuman scum. Every single one of them.

How do you feel about cops who murder unarmed people?

 

[Mr Holmes]

So people are upset that charged individuals are granted bail or are they upset that someone paid the bail?

Do people have this much anger for bail bondsman or is this anti-bail thing new because there's a non-profit involved?

Because it would be idiotic to reduce someone's opinion on bail, non-profits and the intersection thereof to liking/disliking the VP of the USA.

Yes, people are upset the VP is not on the side of law and order. Why do you need this explained to you?

 

[Fugazy]

This is a purely partisan political complaint, and I hope everyone at least knows it even though nobody will admit it.

Responsibility for offences committed while someone is out on bail lies with the judge who granted bail, the one who determined the individual didn't present a risk.

Bail set at a level outside an individual's ability to pay it is unconstitutional.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.​

I just think it’s a terrible look and extremely low level to use your office to push people to donate to the defense of people who were rioting and wreaking havoc over what amounts to bullshit fed to them by CNN just to score cool points and woke points.

You have no idea how those funds will be used or who they will go to. And it looks like 90% of those funds were used inappropriately and of the remaining amount that actually was used to bail out rioters/peaceful protestors a good amount went to folks who are literally the scum of the earth that these movements should want nothing to do with.

Yeah, I’d say those are my problems. It’s not about the letter next to the name.

 

[Fugazy]

This. And it’s funny that people are pretending it’s about something else
Well said

Where’d the yellows come from?

 

[ocfightfan]

Populism from the right is always fascism.

History will show that when fascism came to America it was called liberalism, progressivism, and leftism. Racial denigration, demonization, and scapegoating of a particular race, white people. Statism, support for excessive government control of peoples lives, see excessive lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates and the push for vaccine passports. And corporatism, support of using big business to push the lefts social and power agenda, see LGBT, CRT, censorship of Conservative speech, and locking people out of significant parts of the marketplace. Then there is the organized political violence, namely Antifa (yes they are organized), BLM, and groups paying criminals, malcontents, and homeless people to start violent confrontations at events like Trump rallies. These are modern day brown shirts who go to peoples homes to terrorize them, and then get them arrested for defending themselves.

 

[panamaican]

Really? I think its super simple. Our VP backs a group that is bailing out repeat criminals, some of them sex offenders and murderers. Do you not think that is a problem? I don't think our VP or POTUS should be even remotely close to being tied with an organization bailing out criminals, especially when she used to be a prosecutor. Also he was bailed out by the group on a domestic violence charge, not rioting. You can't be serious in saying you don't see a problem with our VP being even remotely tied to this group right?

No offense but that's a very unintelligent take. It's a bail fund -- that means providing bail for people who can't afford it themselves.

An intellectually honest take starts with whether or not those people deserve bail. If they do then it doesn't matter who pays the bail. If they don't deserve bail then it doesn't matter who pays the bail.

Another part of why this is an unintelligent take is that this is a bail fund. Bail is relevant to criminal trials. If you're going to bail out people, quite a few of them are going to be criminals - that's why they're in court in the first place. It's insanely poor reasoning to expect a bail fund to only bail out angels and saints.

As for a former prosecutor supporting a bail fund -- that makes perfect sense. Anyone who cares about the application of criminal law, fair trials and blind justice would support the idea that wealth shouldn't dictate if you meet bail or not. If the judge grants an accused bail then relative income shouldn't be the barrier to accessing that granted right. And it is a "right", the 8th Amendment disallows "excessive bail". It's not an unreasonable argument that bail that a normal person can't afford is probably excessive.

So, like I said - having an issue with a bail fund because it bails out criminals is a very unintelligent argument since the granting or denial of bail is up to the judge not the fund. Being upset that a former prosecutor supports a bail fund is equally unintelligent since most prosecutors support having lower and more reasonable bail amounts due to the unfairness of money bail system benefitting wealthy criminals over poor ones - which has absolutely nothing to do with "justice".

 

[RogerB08]

History will show that when fascism came to America it was called liberalism, progressivism, and leftism. Racial denigration, demonization, and scapegoating of a particular race, white people. Statism, support for excessive government control of peoples lives, see excessive lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates and the push for vaccine passports. And corporatism, support of using big business to push the lefts social and power agenda, see LGBT, CRT, censorship of Conservative speech, and locking people out of significant parts of the marketplace. Then there is the organized political violence, namely Antifa (yes they are organized), BLM, and groups paying criminals, malcontents, and homeless people to start violent confrontations at events like Trump rallies. These are modern day brown shirts who go to peoples homes to terrorize them, and then get them arrested for defending themselves.

That would be funny if it weren't so mind blowingly stupid.

 

[ElKarlo]

Where’d the yellows come from?

Losers mad that I insinuated that they could be a loser and ran to a mod crying.

 

[ElKarlo]

No offense but that's a very unintelligent take. It's a bail fund -- that means providing bail for people who can't afford it themselves.

An intellectually honest take starts with whether or not those people deserve bail. If they do then it doesn't matter who pays the bail. If they don't deserve bail then it doesn't matter who pays the bail.

Another part of why this is an unintelligent take is that this is a bail fund. Bail is relevant to criminal trials. If you're going to bail out people, quite a few of them are going to be criminals - that's why they're in court in the first place. It's insanely poor reasoning to expect a bail fund to only bail out angels and saints.

As for a former prosecutor supporting a bail fund -- that makes perfect sense. Anyone who cares about the application of criminal law, fair trials and blind justice would support the idea that wealth shouldn't dictate if you meet bail or not. If the judge grants an accused bail then relative income shouldn't be the barrier to accessing that granted right. And it is a "right", the 8th Amendment disallows "excessive bail". It's not an unreasonable argument that bail that a normal person can't afford is probably excessive.

So, like I said - having an issue with a bail fund because it bails out criminals is a very unintelligent argument since the granting or denial of bail is up to the judge not the fund. Being upset that a former prosecutor supports a bail fund is equally unintelligent since most prosecutors support having lower and more reasonable bail amounts due to the unfairness of money bail system benefitting wealthy criminals over poor ones - which has absolutely nothing to do with "justice".

Maybe having a blind nail find that doesn’t take any risks or any thing into consideration is an unintelligent thing to do. Especially when done from out of state and they don’t have to suffer any of their good intentioned consequences

 

[panamaican]

Yes, people are upset the VP is not on the side of law and order. Why do you need this explained to you?

The side of law and order? I'm not the one who needs things explained to him, lol.

You must not be aware that the granting of bail is pretty much a legal right. And that to the Constitution of the United States forbids excessive bail. The side of "law and order" supports granting accused individuals bail. And it supports making sure that people be granted affordable bail. Law and order wants bail funds. It wants lower bail amounts, non-monetary bail, etc.

I really wonder what part of "law and order" you're referring to?

 

[panamaican]

Maybe having a blind nail find that doesn’t take any risks or any thing into consideration is an unintelligent thing to do. Especially when done from out of state and they don’t have to suffer any of their good intentioned consequences

That makes zero sense. I said it previously -- the guy went to a bail bondsman, it would be the exact same outcome. In fact, bail bondsmen bail out this type of person all of the time. Were you against bail bondsmen - that they don't have to suffer any consequences?

If you support a fair judicial system then everyone who is granted bail by a judge, should get bail. If you want to bitch, bitch to the judge who granted bail. Focusing on the bail fund because of Kamala Harris is so intellectually empty that it blows my mind. Judge grants bail because the judge thinks it's appropriate. Criminal can't meet bail. Criminal goes to 3rd party to get bail funds. Randos on the internet bitch and moan because they dislike a politician and the politician supports more affordable bail, not just in this state but across the country.

It's just empty positions. The simpler truth is some people dislike Democrats. This means they dislike Kamala Harris. Because they dislike Kamala Harris, they look for something negative to attach to her name. They do not care about the actual underlying principles of any issue, they care that Kamala Harris is attached to it so every part of it is bad.

If this bail fund bailed out someone who was wrongfully accused, these people would ignore that. If the fund bailed out a career criminal who didn't do anything wrong while on bail, they would ignore that too. Because they don't care about the bail fund. They care about the politician.

 

[ElKarlo]

That makes zero sense. I said it previously -- the guy went to a bail bondsman, it would be the exact same outcome. In fact, bail bondsmen bail out this type of person all of the time. Were you against bail bondsmen - that they don't have to suffer any consequences?

If you support a fair judicial system then everyone who is granted bail by a judge, should get bail. If you want to bitch, bitch to the judge who granted bail. Focusing on the bail fund because of Kamala Harris is so intellectually empty that it blows my mind. Judge grants bail because the judge thinks it's appropriate. Criminal can't meet bail. Criminal goes to 3rd party to get bail funds. Randos on the internet bitch and moan because they dislike a politician and the politician supports more affordable bail, not just in this state but across the country.

It's just empty positions. The simpler truth is some people dislike Democrats. This means they dislike Kamala Harris. Because they dislike Kamala Harris, they look for something negative to attach to her name. They do not care about the actual underlying principles of any issue, they care that Kamala Harris is attached to it so every part of it is bad.

If this bail fund bailed out someone who was wrongfully accused, these people would ignore that. If the fund bailed out a career criminal who didn't do anything wrong while on bail, they would ignore that too. Because they don't care about the bail fund. They care about the politician.

No. This guy clearly couldn’t pay his bail and it ensured that he would be in jail until trial. He was threat and should have been considered one. The fact that he could t bail himself out, should show that he doesn’t have money and probably has no ties to any community. Which would mean he is a risk. They bailed him out no questions asked. Maybe be selective in the criminals you choose to bail out? Maybe Democrats could not try to constantly try and create chaos every chance they get.
And lol no one like Harris because she is an awful and unlikable human. Dem or not. She’s awful and your silly defense of pretending this is always partisan. People can see mistakes and call them out for being stupid.