The City on Fire

More than 2,000 protestors have been arrested in NYC over the past five days. Every one of them was released within hours because of Cuomo’s no bail law.

If any of them actually does show up for their hearing, the judges will toss their case. They have nothing to lose.

I see now why the Feds stepped in and took custody of those three arsonists the other day. They would all have been freed without bail under Cuomo’s law. Instead, the two lawyers each were given a $250K bond, and home confinement. The attempted murderer is being held without bail.

Quote: Tanko

More than 2,000 protestors have been arrested in NYC over the past five days. Every one of them was released within hours because of Cuomo’s no bail law.

If any of them actually does show up for their hearing, the judges will toss their case. They have nothing to lose.

I see now why the Feds stepped in and took custody of those three arsonists the other day. They would all have been freed without bail under Cuomo’s law. Instead, the two lawyers each were given a $250K bond, and home confinement. The attempted murderer is being held without bail.

I actually don't agree with bail. But, no bail systems need to gauge crimes by likelihood to show to your hearing.

If you have a bunch of out of state people with fake IDs, bussed in by wealthy organization, what is the chance that they will show up to court next month or whenever?

If people were arrested for just violating curfew I have no problem with them being released without bail. But, if they were pillaging, or burning, that is another story....

Quote: Gandler

I actually don't agree with bail. But, no bail systems need to gauge crimes by likelihood to show to your hearing.

If you have a bunch of out of state people with fake IDs, bussed in by wealthy organization, what is the chance that they will show up to court next month or whenever?

If people were arrested for just violating curfew I have no problem with them being released without bail. But, if they were pillaging, or burning, that is another story....

But the thing is bail is on the outs in liberal circles. Latest target of something "unfair." So they decided to just let people out OR.

It is what you get with one-party rule in Democrat states.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Rights necessarily come with responsibilities that may not be articulated but, as part of a societal contract. are necessary to maintain the rights.

There are two types of illegal activities--ones of protest, such as violating curfew or not moving from the road and other minor things. Those type of people often are arrested and it is often their intention to be taken into custody. I have no problem with their release with an appearance ticket, on their own recognizance. or a small bail after processing

What has largely overtaken the cause of this, and many other, protests, is the second type...violent activities.

You can protest, but you can't assault people. Throwing things at the police is an act of violence.

You can protest, but you can't destroy property, steal, attack people, deface property, etc.

People who do those things should be arrested, charged, and held for a period of time before a bond hearing. Significant bail, based on the degree of violence, is necessary.

People organizing riots--funding them, paying people to protest, etc.--should be caught and punished.

It is time for a lot of people to stand up, quell the riots, and allow as much peaceful protest as necessary.

After that, perhaps there should be a real dialogue about how to change things. The answer is out there, but it isn't some overwhelming reparation project. It is in the little things--fixing things that didn't work (some New deal stuff has had a negative impact on the family, which is an issue) and ones that have a bias but no one notices.

I saw an article recently about a problem with Marine Corps officer training. There were certain skills that some black officer candidates lacked to a greater degree than their white counterparts pointed out by the author (retired a Colonel, I believe). One of them was swimming skills, the other was outdoor skills if I recall correctly. These skills were not developed due to a lack of access or mentors in them...and where you live has a lot to do with it. His answer wasn't to just left everyone pass the course; it was to give people of all types that lacked those skills a chance at remediation.

These folks were just as smart as the next guy and had good educations. I trained Marine Officer Candidates; they were an impressive and diverse group. The thing I don't know is how they fared once they moved to more advanced training. That stuff was not part of Office Candidate School.

Protests are easy. Real action is hard and some ideas will fail. Many already have.

The ironic thing is I keep having to hear the absolute bullshit "It started out peaceful, but then turned violent." It really should say "They marched for a while until the mass of people were near the store they had targeted."

Many of the true protesters are upset that the 3 other cops did nothing to stop the murder of Gearge Floyd. And rightfully so. These are the same protesters who watched crime after crime, with many of them participating as well. Certainly it was the rare protester that did anything to stop the larceny and arson and violence. You know, because the only crime that counts is the murder of George Floyd.

Quote: Gandler

I actually don't agree with bail. But, no bail systems need to gauge crimes by likelihood to show to your hearing.

I can sympathize with a defendant who is only in jail because he or she is too poor to pay a reasonable bail.

New Jersey has a more sensible no bail law. A judge decides for or against incarceration, based upon risk assessment.

In NY, Judges do not have that discretion, no matter how many priors and no matter the risk.

A dirtbag burglarized seven homes in NY and NJ. He was arrested in NY. NJ wanted him held. NY could not comply. NJ police had to come to NY and arrested him before he could be released.

Another robbed two banks within a day after being arrested for bank robbery in NY, and released. He made no attempt to hide, since he knew he would be released if arrested. He was quickly re-arrested and about to be released, when the FBI took custody and charged him federally.

The worst governor in state history says he is proud of that law.

Condemn the President's visit to the church if you feel it was wrong. I have no problem with disagreeing with his actions; everyone has the right to their own opinion.

The problem I have with the mainstream media reaction is that they are trying to pin the rioting and general lawlessness we are experiencing to the President. That is ridiculous. The reason for the protest-black man killed for no apparent reason by white cop--has been a problem since way before this President took office. The idea of systematic racism, and doing little about it, has existed for years. The same politicians that who have done nothing about it in 30-40 or more years in government are out denouncing Trump for the whole incident.

It is just ignorant. There is a lot that could be made better but they haven't done it. Suddenly one guy gets elected who wasn't part of their ingrained political class and it is all his fault.

President Trump did not start a single riot. President Trump did not kill George Floyd. A bad cop, one with 18 complaints against him, was protected from firing and he finally managed to actually to kill someone out in the open, with cameras on him, and the firing he likely deserved long ago finally happened. Too bad a man is dead.

President Trump said that he would not allow criminals to overtake our cities if the leadership in those cities would not due their job. I bet had another President said it in a little more nuanced way it would have been just fine...

Quote: RonC

Condemn the President's visit to the church if you feel it was wrong. I have no problem with disagreeing with his actions; everyone has the right to their own opinion.
.

It wasn't where he went, it was the how and the significance of the why.

It didn't add up to a good reason. If he had to have protestors moved to get to a business owner injured in the hospital in the looting, that would be okay. It would send a good message.

Certainly a more unifying message.

Quote:

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Prosecutors: 3 held in Las Vegas on terror charges in right-wing conspiracy to spark violence during protests.

Color me shocked!!!

Quote: rxwine

It wasn't where he went, it was the how and the significance of the why.

It didn't add up to a good reason. If he had to have protestors moved to get to a business owner injured in the hospital in the looting, that would be okay. It would send a good message.

Certainly a more unifying message.

They were going to be, or already being moved, anyway. The church and another building were being brought into the perimeter.

The message was fine; people would gripe about anything he did that required "peaceful protesters" to be moved for protection of the President. He showed that he was not going to allow the not-so-peaceful idiots another opportunity to attack the church that Presidents visit.

I guess the "peaceful protesters" are allowed to toss stuff at folks. Not my definition of "peaceful"....