Popcorn Anyone??

[Duck]

Don’t turn this into to some **** fest witch hunt because I don’t see eye to eye with your view of the justic system.

You forgot you're talking to ironpony.

And if he won't argue with you for three pages over some minor difference in political views, I will.

 

[SueAnn]

I do have to agree for the most part with @Duck the legal system is sadly skewed. A friend of mine was shot at a bar in Tennessee and the guy walked the next morning. Still a trial to come but the bond was only like 50k and he shot someone!! Federal quantity possession of meth, a 30 day stint in rehab for someone else I know but don’t associate with.

I agree with you. Our system is a mess too. Something has to give sooner rather than later.

 

[ironpony]

I’m not saying that either, don’t twist my words. But when you commit pre meditated attempted murder. Your bond should be higher than 50k that only requires 5k to get out.

I also feel harsher punishments should be handed out for dope as well. I don’t think everyone needs to die. I didn’t say I completely agree. I said for the most part. I absolutely agree she probably walked after a few hours, and after court she will likely serve some minor probation for a couple months or be required to attend an anger management class.

Our legal system is skewed. Don’t turn this into to some **** fest witch hunt because I don’t see eye to eye with your view of the justic system.

Apparently, the judge doesn't agree with you, and since the accused has yet to be convicted of anything, it's a bit early to be condemning the judicial system.

 

[r3gulator3]

ok, Sir, you win, as you didn’t see the video of a friend being shot. But whatever. You are obviously the type of person who thinks everyone is reformable, to include types like Ted Bundy, and you obviously feel criminals should walk the streets and there should be no punishment for crimes.

 

[r3gulator3]

Oh wait; I just remembered the political party you stand for. I won’t argue any longer because well it don’t do no good as a fool will argue their point even when they know they are wrong.

 

[ironpony]

ok, Sir, you win, as you didn’t see the video of a friend being shot. But whatever. You are obviously the type of person who thinks everyone is reformable, to include types like Ted Bundy, and you obviously feel criminals should walk the streets and there should be no punishment for crimes.

No sir, I stand for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No matter what the evidence, all citizens of this country are entitled to bail and a fair trial by a jury of their peers when accused of a crime by the government. Perhaps you have forgotten that.

 

[Gdjjr]

I’m not saying that either, don’t twist my words. But when you commit pre meditated attempted murder. Your bond should be higher than 50k that only requires 5k to get out.

I also feel harsher punishments should be handed out for dope as well. I don’t think everyone needs to die. I didn’t say I completely agree. I said for the most part. I absolutely agree she probably walked after a few hours, and after court she will likely serve some minor probation for a couple months or be required to attend an anger management class.

Our legal system is skewed. Don’t turn this into to some **** fest witch hunt because I don’t see eye to eye with your view of the justic system.

Prohibition doesn't work- and no one has the moral authority to tell another what he can ingest- IF a crime is committed then punish for the crime, not the opinion on the criminal swayed by prohibition.

The legal system is skewed. On that we can agree- but that's what lawyers do- let me ask you this: Why do we have to have a lawyer involved to exercise our Natural rights?

Read this Alabama Cops Raided Their House, Seized Their Cash, and Ruined Their Lives Over $50 of Marijuana

 

[r3gulator3]

Prohibition doesn't work- and no one has the moral authority to tell another what he can ingest- IF a crime is committed then punish for the crime, not the opinion on the criminal swayed by prohibition.

The legal system is skewed. On that we can agree- but that's what lawyers do- let me ask you this: Why do we have to have a lawyer involved to exercise our Natural rights?

Read this Alabama Cops Raided Their House, Seized Their Cash, and Ruined Their Lives Over $50 of Marijuana

Marijuana is not dope.

 

[Duck]

No sir, I stand for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No matter what the evidence, all citizens of this country are entitled to bail and a fair trial by a jury of their peers when accused of a crime by the government. Perhaps you have forgotten that.

So, when they captured Jeffrey Dahmer, do you think they should have let him out on bail? How about the DC sniper or the kid who shot up the black church in Charlotte, or the kid who shot up Parkland?

You realize that sometimes judges deny bail and keep them locked up until trial? Are you saying those judges are wrong, even in extreme cases like those? That would be surprisingly libertarian of you if that's the case.

 

[r3gulator3]

No sir, I stand for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No matter what the evidence, all citizens of this country are entitled to bail and a fair trial by a jury of their peers when accused of a crime by the government. Perhaps you have forgotten that.

Having a fair and speedy trial has nothing to do with what the bond is set at.

 

[ironpony]

So, when they captured Jeffrey Dahmer, do you think they should have let him out on bail? How about the DC sniper or the kid who shot up the black church in Charlotte, or the kid who shot up Parkland?

You realize that sometimes judges deny bail and keep them locked up until trial? Are you saying those judges are wrong, even in extreme cases like those? That would be surprisingly libertarian of you if that's the case.

Bail is commonly denied for flight risk, and whether an individual is a danger to public safety. What do you think... maybe if they kept Dahmer well fed? Pass sane gun restrictions to prevent those nutcases from taking another crack at it?

Enough of the whataboutism... this isnt about any of that. Bail is granted so you can organise your defense, and a judge must have good reasons to deny it. It's a Right guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment.

Having a fair and speedy trial has nothing to do with what the bond is set at.

And just because you're pissed doesn't mean the perp gets her rights abridged.

 

[r3gulator3]

Bail is commonly denied for flight risk, and whether an individual is a danger to public safety. What do you think... maybe if they kept Dahmer well fed? Pass sane gun restrictions to prevent those nutcases from taking another crack at it?

Enough of the whataboutism... this isnt about any of that. Bail is granted so you can organise your defense, and a judge must have good reasons to deny it. It's a Right guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment.


And just because you're pissed doesn't mean the perp gets her rights abridged.

Bond is not a right. Welcome back to my ignore list.

 

[ironpony]

Bond is not a right. Welcome back to my ignore list.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

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

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Access to reasonable bail is a right down here, although the courts and prosecutors certainly have a say. The police cannot just lock you up and forget about you, nor can the courts place you in unreasonable pretrial detention, since all citizens allegedly enjoy a presumption of innocence.

 

[Gdjjr]

Marijuana is not dope.

Marijuana, dope, alcohol= we've spent billions on an immoral action- the war on drugs- yet we still have drugs- prohibition doesn't work- and no one has the moral authority to tell another what he can or can't ingest, regardless of what it's called. Crime is one harming another person or property intentionally- justice is to see that crime punished. Restricting the rights of non criminals with moral legislation is immoral at its core.
Morals cannot be successfully legislated but successful legislation can punish non criminals.

 

[r3gulator3]

Marijuana, dope, alcohol= we've spent billions on an immoral action- the war on drugs- yet we still have drugs- prohibition doesn't work- and no one has the moral authority to tell another what he can or can't ingest, regardless of what it's called. Crime is one harming another person or property intentionally- justice is to see that crime punished. Restricting the rights of non criminals with moral legislation is immoral at its core.
Morals cannot be successfully legislated but successful legislation can punish non criminals.

I understand what your saying. But the only good thing meth and heroin does is kills the junkie using it. And hopefully before they harm too many others. So we will continue to disagree where that shit is concerned.

Also the whole bond thing. When the average bond over the last decade for someone who is indicted by a grand jury for attempted first degree murder is 500k and the judge issued a 50k bond, because it’s backwoods county with the good old boy network. Then they should go and pay back anyone who had a 500k bond.

 

[ironpony]

Also the whole bond thing. When the average bond over the last decade for someone who is indicted by a grand jury for attempted first degree murder is 500k and the judge issued a 50k bond, because it’s backwoods county with the good old boy network. Then they should go and pay back anyone who had a 500k bond.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

Excessive bail shall not be required...

It doesn't say anything about keeping up with grand jury averages. Considering the means of the accused, $50k may well be everything she has and more.

 

[Gdjjr]

I understand what your saying. But the only good thing meth and heroin does is kills the junkie using it. And hopefully before they harm too many others. So we will continue to disagree where that **** is concerned.

Also the whole bond thing. When the average bond over the last decade for someone who is indicted by a grand jury for attempted first degree murder is 500k and the judge issued a 50k bond, because it’s backwoods county with the good old boy network. Then they should go and pay back anyone who had a 500k bond.

SMH- you can disagree all you want. The fact, therefore the truth, is- forcing one's will on another is immoral.
Laws restricting the rights of non criminals is the same thing with 25cent words.

We do, at present, have a process in this country- if you want the process changed, there is a process for that as well- I'd suggest being careful what you wish for- it's been known to bite people when they demand something from a gov't- I do agree with your assessment, BTW, of repaying those who were charged more- but, since we don't have the particulars of having been witness to what the judge heard we have to assume there was a reason- now, your friend could hire a lawyer himself to make that determination. But that brings up another question- why would he have to? Answer: Lawyers. They write the laws, they prosecute the laws and they defend the law breakers- judges are former lawyers- the law has become an esoteric endeavor- why? Because the lawyers prosecute non criminals while making themselves appear omnipotent all for the sake of job justification-

Now, I know this doesn't assuage the hurt or the mad- but, knowledge isn't bias in it's origin and can manifest itself in ways unimaginable- one never knows what can be sparked in a conversation.

 

[r3gulator3]

SMH- you can disagree all you want. The fact, therefore the truth, is- forcing one's will on another is immoral.
Laws restricting the rights of non criminals is the same thing with 25cent words.

We do, at present, have a process in this country- if you want the process changed, there is a process for that as well- I'd suggest being careful what you wish for- it's been known to bite people when they demand something from a gov't- I do agree with your assessment, BTW, of repaying those who were charged more- but, since we don't have the particulars of having been witness to what the judge heard we have to assume there was a reason- now, your friend could hire a lawyer himself to make that determination. But that brings up another question- why would he have to? Answer: Lawyers. They write the laws, they prosecute the laws and they defend the law breakers- judges are former lawyers- the law has become an esoteric endeavor- why? Because the lawyers prosecute non criminals while making themselves appear omnipotent all for the sake of job justification-

Now, I know this doesn't assuage the hurt or the mad- but, knowledge isn't bias in it's origin and can manifest itself in ways unimaginable- one never knows what can be sparked in a conversation.

I respect what you’re saying but I’ll stick with my opinions regarding meth; heroine and any variation there of.

 

[Duck]

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

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

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Access to reasonable bail is a right down here, although the courts and prosecutors certainly have a say. The police cannot just lock you up and forget about you, nor can the courts place you in unreasonable pretrial detention, since all citizens allegedly enjoy a presumption of innocence.

You can wipe your ass with the 8th amendment.

I'm not saying I don't support it, I do, but the way it's actually worded makes it useless.

Who is to define what "excessive" is? The judge who issues it, or his golfing buddy on the appeals court?

 

[ironpony]

You can wipe your ass with the 8th amendment.

For all your bullshit, we see how you really feel about the United States.

I'm not saying I don't support it, I do, but the way it's actually worded makes it useless.

The Eighth Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights.[1] The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. [Eighth Amendment] You want something definite? In 1791, $100 would have been a vast sum to most common people. Maybe they should have been that exact... $100, no adjustment for inflation.This document was written for the ages, and was not meant to provide a means to exact your revenge on the rest of society for whatever it is that you have against everyone else who lives in this country.

Who is to define what "excessive" is? The judge who issues it, or his golfing buddy on the appeals court?

That's right. A judge. A person we appoint to be fair and impartial... certainly not someone like you who carries a perpetual chip on his shoulder.

Anger management... you need some.