|
Aesop Poprock posted:I can't think of a person more likely to flee while on bail than a sovcit crazy person who knows the government's going to try to put her away for a decade+ and who has huge support from that movement, who have shown they're totally cool with aiding and abetting people they view as their own when the government's after them The people who were actually down with aiding and abetting them rather than limiting their support to sympathetic forum posts are currently in jail awaiting trial, her husband included.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
Voyager I posted:The people who were actually down with aiding and abetting them rather than limiting their support to sympathetic forum posts are currently in jail awaiting trial, her husband included. Yes, I'm sure those are the only people in the sovcit movement who are capable of such things. Unlike the hundreds of people at the Bundy ranch who were doing just that and have yet to be arrested
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I can't think of a person more likely to flee while on bail than a sovcit crazy person who knows the government's going to try to put her away for a decade+ and who has huge support from that movement, who have shown they're totally cool with aiding and abetting people they view as their own when the government's after them
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Why do you hate the concept of bail???? It's seriously one of the stupidest and most purposefully dense counter arguments I've seen in D&D for forever and I can't believe there are more than one person advocating it
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
The justice system, and judges, understand what you do not: A person's attitude and compliance can and normally will radically change after arrest and being hauled into court. Talking to a lawyer about how many years you face, and how you can limit those years is a nice cold slap in the face. The system is supposed to default to leaving criminal defendants free to assist in their defense, earn a living, see family and friends, just like any other innocent person. To overcome that, one has to show that they are a danger to commit more crimes, a threat to safety, or likely to flee. Being a hanger on at a serious crime, even if guilty of the larger crime by way of principal liability, makes one less likely to be a future threat or to flee. The guys who were real threats, who showed a propensity for defying authority, they're still in jail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:
I think she is a risk to the community. Even if her presence at Malheur is explained by her being impressionable and subject to the influence of her husband (which unreasonably minimizes her agency as a 59 year old adult human being), that suggests she's likely to follow the lead of whatever Oathkeeper / three percenter idiots she inevitably winds up associating with once she's out. I don't think it would be surprising in the slightest if she winds up doing something stupid and criminal. Whether her risk to the community can be demonstrated to the clear and convincing standard required under the statute is a reasonable question. For my money, if you can show it for the rest of the final four, you can show it for her. The judge disagreed. Oh well. The more likely risk is that she does not show up for trial. Being surrounded by the FBI and cut off from the world with a warrant out for her arrest did not motivate her to surrender. She did not surrender until they closed in to 50 feet away from her. Now we're supposed to believe that she is now somehow inclined to voluntarily face the music on the appointed date? Yeah right. And I think it is far easier to demonstrate that no set of conditions will guarantee her appearance to the preponderance of the evidence standard required for that basis for detention. I'm pretty surprised the judge found that she is more likely than not to appear under these conditions. All of her actions and words make it pretty clear she is not willing to face the consequences of her actions. Either is sufficient to detain her until to trial. I'm not sure where you guys come off suggesting anyone is arguing against either due process or the equal application of the law. There is a law that says you can detain people before trial if certain conditions exist. I am arguing that she meets those conditions. How on earth does that mean I am arguing for an inequitable application of the law? If the judge had bought the government's argument and detained her, how would her due process have been violated? Due process doesn't require she be released, due process requires she get a fair detention hearing, which she got. torgeaux posted:Not "criminal record," "criminal history." He had the 2014 issue as his history, and even though unresolved, and therefor "innocent" the court can still consider, not for punishment, but for admin considerations like bail (or ability to pay bail, or roots in the community). Like I said, the reference to Cliven was dumb hyperbole, however, if you want to argue that point Cliven's 2014 issue can't be his criminal history, that's what he's currently charged with. He has a history of ignoring civil court orders. If Bundy ignoring civil orders is somehow a slam-dunk case for detention, it seems difficult to just brush off Sandy Anderson's open defiance of a warrant for her arrest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:The justice system, and judges, understand what you do not: A person's attitude and compliance can and normally will radically change after arrest and being hauled into court. Talking to a lawyer about how many years you face, and how you can limit those years is a nice cold slap in the face. Saying "What if it was a black man with a joint why do you hate freedom  " isnt
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:It's seriously one of the stupidest and most purposefully dense counter arguments I've seen in D&D for forever and I can't believe there are more than one person advocating it To be honest, she's probably not a non-zero flight risk, but you're understating the burden of pretrial confinement to the average working class schlub and we absolutely want the requirements for it to be as stringent as possible, lest accusation become a punishment in and of itself. In terms of her risk of flight though, her husband being in prison is definitely a factor in favor of compliance. Going on the lam means she won't get to see him or communicate with him at all until the end of his sentence, at minimum, and they both get to spend the rest of their lives as perpetual fugitives. If they cooperate then they can at least have a normal life after their release.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:
I just said just the opposite. It is his criminal history, just not his criminal record. If you have someone charged with rape, they may be eligible for bail, circumstances depending. If you have someone charged with 23 rapes, one per month for two years? Yeah, he's currently charged with all of it, so no criminal record. He's presumed innocent. But, the judge can consider the evidence the gov't gives him supporting the serial nature of the crime, and determine they are a future risk of serious criminal conduct. Here, one, albeit one long, criminal endeavor is not as indicative of future conduct. Given removal of the opportunity to consort with her husband and co-conspirator, her limited financial means, and that she has a full time job? She's a typical candidate for bail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:To be honest, she's probably not a non-zero flight risk, but you're understating the burden of pretrial confinement to the average working class schlub and we absolutely want the requirements for it to be as stringent as possible, lest accusation become a punishment in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Spending two weeks besieged in a tarp fort in the freezing cold would probably sap your will to fight or run a bit. Yeah, I would expect her to be pretty utterly beaten at this point. If she had any fight left in her she'd still be at the refuge. I can definitely understand the arguments for keeping her confined but it is absolutely preferable for the justice system to err on the side of less people in prison. To the people calling this line of reasoning willful density: congratulations, you're part of the problem with America's awful hateboner for vindictive legal punishments. Voyager I fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Feb 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Oh now you're staking out the "it's not violent until someone pulls the trigger" argument. Come on you're smarter than that. or maybe not. It's Jarmak, I'm going with the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I can't think of a person more likely to flee while on bail than a sovcit crazy person who knows the government's going to try to put her away for a decade+ and who has huge support from that movement, who have shown they're totally cool with aiding and abetting people they view as their own when the government's after them I guess it's feasible that she could try to flee somewhere to escape a trial, though I really don't think someone who thought joining any of this was a good idea is very likely to be able to evade authorities for very long. Her best idea in that regard might be to hide out at a relative or friend's house, or maybe a motel somewhere? But I really doubt she has the money for that sort of thing for the long haul - or that she'd even be able to do the latter period because she would probably be too well recognized. Her husband is in jail and for all the stupid decisions that have been made between the two - they both seemed very much happy to make them together. Maybe I'm being a bit romantic, but I have a feeling that she's not going to really do anything that separates her in any permanent way from her husband. It will probably happen anyways when she eventually goes to trial and is sentenced. I think there's possibly more of a likelihood that she could try to do something bad to herself when looking at the reality and upcoming consequences of her actions. ..but I have a very hard time seeing her thinking the best course of action after all this is to just run out and repeat it all over again. There really is no advantages to that line of thinking - and it's going to be crystal clear in her - and others' heads especially right after being taken in and realizing they now have to face the music.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the FBI have bigger fish to fry than dealing with her. I doubt she has a lot of pull among the 3% ers and even if she does run she is a federally wanted criminal. She won't get far, these people leave trails like loving caterpillars. And I wouldn't worry about her becoming a sovcit hero. These people are equally likely to crucify her as a false flag FBI plant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
hey any of you idiots willing to make the US justice system even harsher on suspected criminals, you wanna bet on sandra running away? wanna bet on her occupying another federal building? because i'll gladly take those bets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:It's seriously one of the stupidest and most purposefully dense counter arguments I've seen in D&D for forever and I can't believe there are more than one person advocating it Yeah when the scope of people telling you you're wrong include two people who are usually opposed on literally every criminal justice debate that happens on this forum and a judge maybe you should consider you're the one who's being dense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
If she does anything stupid while she's out or some other sovcit idiots attempt to protect her from going to court/prison then she and anyone else involved is gonna get extra hosed by the justice system. I don't really see the problem here
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
What if she's just a honeypot? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Maybe it's sexism? 100% of the female suspects have been released, while most of the male suspects are still in custody.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:Maybe it's sexism? 100% of the female suspects have been released, while most of the male suspects are still in custody. Wait that rear end in a top hat with the porn star name got let go? E: and that guy's annoying wife with her god drat michele bachmann accent?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
If she's not allowed to have firearms, does that mean she has to give up her guns to local police, or can she give them to someone else to hold onto? I cannot imagine they don't have multiple guns in their home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:Maybe it's sexism? 100% of the female suspects have been released, while most of the male suspects are still in custody. The authorities recognize the women come from a strongly patriarchal system where they are deprived of agency, and are thus unlikely to misbehave on their own volition when deprived of their negative male influencers? I don't know the name for it, but there's some argument that the lower ratio of women in prison, and the fact that a lot of women in prison are there for crimes committed along with a male partner, isn't indicative of any inherent lack of propensity towards crime by women, but of women's lack of social latitude to independently act, in many societies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
lol if you think sandy anderson has the initiative to try to run away to canada or barricade herself in her home with guns or anything other than possibly missing her court date out of laziness/confusion
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Wait that rear end in a top hat with the porn star name got let go? Pretty sure this is the guy's annoying wife. And if you mean the singer who reported a potentially inaccurate and emotionally biased account of the Finnicum shooting, she was never charged with anything and probably shouldn't be based on available information. Singing at protests is not a crime (even if the protest has elements of one) and other than that she just happened to be in the car with a dead seditionist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
I think he means Shawna Cox, the one who filed the $666 billion dollar countersuit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
XMNN posted:I think he means Shawna Cox, the one who filed the $666 billion dollar countersuit. I wonder, does that case make her vulnerable to a counter-countersuit from the judge that gets her case and sues for damages after he hurts himself laughing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:I was a cook in the national guard for 10 years and our mobile kitchen was pulled by a big rear end truck with a 50cal m2 mount out the cab top. So that landed us cooks the job of shooting the 50 Cal during our two week camps. They would just pour 10w 40 car oil in the thing and start shooting. When the range day was over they would stick the various crews who shot on gun cleaning duty. Combine that with not a whole lot to do and they made sure these things were spotless. 4 guys and a couple hours. We said gently caress that and made our way into the kitchen. They were basically unused at this point during our two weeks. But they had enough to setup and turn on the dish washer. We sent the 50 Cal through a couple times and dropped it off. The first Sargent was relishing the thought of white gloving this thing since it took all of 20 minutes. You could see his the delight in his eyes as he pulled out a bunch qtips. This quickly changed when he could find nothing on the gun. He was very confused at how we got it that clean that quickly, and was even more so by why it was so warm. I have an image of the First Sergeant sitting bolt upright in bed a month later and shouting "THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS!".
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
XMNN posted:I think he means Shawna Cox, the one who filed the $666 billion dollar countersuit. ...Those loving clever bastards. They want her to drag as many militia assholes and money down the drain with her fighting this lost cause. Oh please, Miss Cox, come back with as much SovCit help as you can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I have an image of the First Sergeant sitting bolt upright in bed a month later and shouting "THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS!". but Jet Dry Can't Melt Steel Grease
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:I was a cook in the national guard for 10 years and our mobile kitchen was pulled by a big rear end truck with a 50cal m2 mount out the cab top. So that landed us cooks the job of shooting the 50 Cal during our two week camps. They would just pour 10w 40 car oil in the thing and start shooting. When the range day was over they would stick the various crews who shot on gun cleaning duty. Combine that with not a whole lot to do and they made sure these things were spotless. 4 guys and a couple hours. We said gently caress that and made our way into the kitchen. They were basically unused at this point during our two weeks. But they had enough to setup and turn on the dish washer. We sent the 50 Cal through a couple times and dropped it off. The first Sargent was relishing the thought of white gloving this thing since it took all of 20 minutes. You could see his the delight in his eyes as he pulled out a bunch qtips. This quickly changed when he could find nothing on the gun. He was very confused at how we got it that clean that quickly, and was even more so by why it was so warm. The best Guardsman. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
text editor posted:lol if you think sandy anderson has the initiative to try to run away to canada or barricade herself in her home with guns or anything other than possibly missing her court date out of laziness/confusion This. People seem to mistake her for a hardened criminal, when in reality she's obviously more of a cheerleader than anything else. I know sovcits are unpredictable, like that kid pulling an AK to gun down those two officers, but if she wanted to go down swinging, she would have done so already. After getting owned this hard by the FBI she (along with the rest of her movement) the most she can do now is whine impotently on the internet. And I'd like to remind you that it's likely her fellow militants consider her a persona non grata. Her missing the court date is almost guaranteed too  In short, let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Sandy Anderson knows what she's doing. She knows JACKSHIT what she's doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
That dishwasher story is nowhere near as good as the goon that let a superior officer electrocute himself on an ungrounded helicopter crane.  Dr. Killjoy fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Feb 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:This. People seem to mistake her for a hardened criminal, when in reality she's obviously more of a cheerleader than anything else. I know sovcits are unpredictable, like that kid pulling an AK to gun down those two officers, but if she wanted to go down swinging, she would have done so already. After getting owned this hard by the FBI she (along with the rest of her movement) the most she can do now is whine impotently on the internet. And I'd like to remind you that it's likely her fellow militants consider her a persona non grata. Why doesn't what you say apply to any one of them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:That dishwasher story is nowhere near as good as the goon that let a superior officer electrocute himself on an ungrounded helicopter crane. You can't say that and not at least try to find a link to the post mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
botany posted:hey any of you idiots willing to make the US justice system even harsher on suspected criminals, you wanna bet on sandra running away? wanna bet on her occupying another federal building? because i'll gladly take those bets. Sure, but you do realize the bet should be that she does something dumb enough that shows she shouldn't have been out on bail which is what people have been arguing, so if she violates it in anyway, clamors for armed support, refuses to show up for court, does anything to show she might indeed be a danger to her community etc etc you lose. Now if she magically goes to court like you claim she will then I lose, I mean that is what you are claiming she will do right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Why doesn't what you say apply to any one of them? Because the dangerous ones are already held without bail. Those who are of lesser threat were released on bail. This could be a miscalculation on the part of the FBI, but as I'm gonna assume that they know how to do their jobs. Look how much the movement suddenly quieted down when they arrested everyone. Do you honestly think Sandy can get the ball rolling for another occupation? They couldn't get the True Patriots to band together after the arrest of the ringleaders what makes you think they would want to associate themselves with a woman who's out on bail? Plus you saw the reasons she was granted bail. Is there any legal reason, that you can bring up in a court of law, why she should be denied bail? There's a large burden of proof for that and I doubt the FBI would bother. If she was the sort to climb up a clock tower with a rifle, I'm sure the FBI would have done something by now. And yeah I know she's a sovcit, I brought up the video with the AK teen, but I'd rather the system errs on the side of people instead of caution when it comes to denying bail. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but this has to happen. They can't treat every person in this like Cliven Bundy. Telsa Cola posted:Sure, but you do realize the bet should be that she does something dumb enough that shows she shouldn't have been out on bail which is what people have been arguing, so if she violates it in anyway, clamors for armed support, refuses to show up for court, does anything to show she might indeed be a danger to her community etc etc you lose. Now if she magically goes to court like you claim she will then I lose, I mean that is what you are claiming she will do right? If she violates her bail in any way, then the system will punish her accordingly. What exactly could she do in her present situation? And I like how you stack the rules in your favor, but I wanna be clear. She won't do anything intentionally malicious, like forming another armed group or going on a killing spree. She's more likely to do something stupid, like miss her court date. That's what I'm betting on. Aesop Poprock posted:I can't think of a person more likely to flee while on bail than a sovcit crazy person who knows the government's going to try to put her away for a decade+ and who has huge support from that movement, who have shown they're totally cool with aiding and abetting people they view as their own when the government's after them And how well does that work out for them? And that's just the regular police force. What happens when they try to pull this poo poo with the FBI? No really, IANAL, what happens when you try to run from the FBI and what happens to those who help you? Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Feb 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Sure, but you do realize the bet should be that she does something dumb enough that shows she shouldn't have been out on bail which is what people have been arguing, so if she violates it in anyway, clamors for armed support, refuses to show up for court, does anything to show she might indeed be a danger to her community etc etc you lose. Now if she magically goes to court like you claim she will then I lose, I mean that is what you are claiming she will do right? Yeah no, the the balancing test here is the consequences of her violating bail versus the consequences of tainting the criminal justice system by lowering the standard for pre-trial detention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:You can't say that and not at least try to find a link to the post mentioned. Ehhhhh looking back the poster in question is 50FTANT who IIRC was most likely just a Humper Munky (a forums fiction writer) sock account and even GiP thought he was just telling stories 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah no, the the balancing test here is the consequences of her violating bail versus the consequences of tainting the criminal justice system by lowering the standard for pre-trial detention. Nope, while the judge has used his discretion and disagreed with the opinion of me and many others on this she has done more than enough the be detained until trial and I think in hypothetical universe where she was detained it would be laughable to expect outcries from anybody about lowering standards in detention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
Who cares about a crazy anti-government militia type who will flee or hide in a heavily armed compound being denied bail. The real part of the bail system that's broken is high bail being used to keep poor people in jail. Someone is either a risk or they're not and wealth should not be used as a delimiter for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 05:51
|
|
