|
botany posted:You're wrong, domestic terrorism is a different part of the statute, and the bail text refers explicitly to terrorism transcending national boundaries. Fair enough. The terms transcending and in addition to struck me as meaning something different but that would make sense
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:00 |
|
|
Since we are playing speculation roulette with her intentions. If she told the judge that she had no intent to continue doing the crimes she has already been charged for, you can't automatically assume that she will re-offend. This is key because of the lack of prior convictions. Also, according to the law, she has yet to be found guilty. Keeping her detained because you don't like her, and she did something, which she is being charged for, doesn't automatically mean she will do it again. Also, laws are set up to be prohibitive, if she runs her mouth about cops on-line, or gets busted drunk driving, now that she is awaiting trial she will be detained due to the laws you are stating. If she skips the court date, her bail bondsman will hire Dog and Beth, who will make TV money going after her and you'll get to see the resulting chase live in a prime time special. If, like most other people who have a trial date, she just lives her life until a verdict is reached, it will save all you Americans tens of thousands of dollars to not have her detained.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
botany posted:Those threats occurred before the arrest, you have to show she'll be a danger afterwards. Again, the question is not what she did but what she is likely to do. If you think that she is absolutely likely to start shooting up a police station or mail pipe bombs to Quantico, that's fine, that's a reason to deny her bail. I don't think that's likely however. I'd believe her capable of holing up at some armed miltia compound the moment they let her out custody. Which would cause a threat to officer safety when they attempt to bring her to trial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'd believe her capable of holing up at some armed miltia compound the moment they let her out custody. Which would cause a threat to officer safety when they attempt to bring her to trial. Do you really think she's willing to take that risk against literally never seeing Sean again for the rest of their lives?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Do you really think she's willing to take that risk against literally never seeing Sean again for the rest of their lives? That's like asking "do you really think she'll make a stupid decision?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Do you really think she's willing to take that risk against literally never seeing Sean again for the rest of their lives? Absolutely. People who make rational decisions don't occupy federal facilities and threaten law enforcement in the first goddamn place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'd believe her capable of holing up at some armed miltia compound the moment they let her out custody. Which would cause a threat to officer safety when they attempt to bring her to trial. "She's accused of doing it once" is not sufficient reason to revoke bail, that argument could apply to literally any defendant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:"She's accused of doing it once" is not sufficient reason to revoke bail, that argument could apply to literally any defendant. "Accused."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:"She's accused of doing it once" is not sufficient reason to revoke bail, that argument could apply to literally any defendant. By your spurious logic, Bundy himself should be released on bail. gently caress that. Regardless of whether he's been convicted yet, Bundy absolutely has shown himself to be dangerous to apprehend, and was only captured when he made a stupid mistake away from his lunatic bodyguards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's like asking "do you really think she'll make a stupid decision?" Talmonis posted:Absolutely. People who make rational decisions don't occupy federal facilities and threaten law enforcement in the first goddamn place. I mean, these aren't entirely UNFAIR points, but I don't think that a person being a complete idiot, or even being mostly crazy, necessarily leads you straight to "she's unable to recognize that she'll be permanently separated from the most important person in her world". chitoryu12 posted:"Accused."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Rebel Blob posted:I guess there is the distinction between Santilli's actions in Nevada and Oregon. The Nevada Indictment has Santilli dead to rights, but we are all waiting to see the broader case made against him for the Oregon occupation. Definitely strange that Macnab believes he is a journalist even for the Nevada standoff, where Santilli clearly participated. I want to believe Macnab is acting out of general 1A press concerns like the ACLU probably is, but Pete is a really bad person to try and use for this. Doesn't matter if he has a full time job as a reporter for MSNBC or Fox, if you're actively leading this stuff your press-related work means gently caress all and the last American who was an active voice and leader for an anti-American organization was taken out in a drone strike.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I mean, these aren't entirely UNFAIR points, but I don't think that a person being a complete idiot, or even being mostly crazy, necessarily leads you straight to "she's unable to recognize that she'll be permanently separated from the most important person in her world". During the live stream the night before her surrender, she was convinced that she'd be permanently separated from her husband anyway because the feds would just pile charges onto both of them to keep them in prison forever rather than letting them Fight the Good Fight. If she hasn't changed her tune, she likely still believes that. quote:Dude, yes, it's incredibly important that we treat even the obviously guilty as accused until convicted. And yet we still maintain a policy of locking up people like Ammon Bundy in solitary confinement and restricting them to messages passed by their lawyer to keep them from inciting further violence, despite still being "innocent until proven guilty" in the legal sense. Turns out we still treat people charged with crimes differently based on the severity and context of their crimes!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I mean, these aren't entirely UNFAIR points, but I don't think that a person being a complete idiot, or even being mostly crazy, necessarily leads you straight to "she's unable to recognize that she'll be permanently separated from the most important person in her world". Pretty sure there more than a few moments during the occupation where she probably should've realized her actions would ultimately result in her being permanently separated from her husband, yet she just kept on trucking, weird
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I mean, these aren't entirely UNFAIR points, but I don't think that a person being a complete idiot, or even being mostly crazy, necessarily leads you straight to "she's unable to recognize that she'll be permanently separated from the most important person in her world". When it comes to bail hearings, I'd absolutely make it depend on the circumstances. For instance, I'm not going to let an "accused" mass murderer out. Or a domestic abuser with a wife in traction. Or a rich guy with access to private jets and a passport (Polanski comes to mind).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I mean, these aren't entirely UNFAIR points, but I don't think that a person being a complete idiot, or even being mostly crazy, necessarily leads you straight to "she's unable to recognize that she'll be permanently separated from the most important person in her world". She was unable to recognize it when she committed the crimes in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:And yet we still maintain a policy of locking up people like Ammon Bundy in solitary confinement and restricting them to messages passed by their lawyer to keep them from inciting further violence, despite still being "innocent until proven guilty" in the legal sense. Turns out we still treat people charged with crimes differently based on the severity and context of their crimes! Either way, it happened, and we can see if she does anything dangerous. I don't think there's a clear reason to expect that not to happen, even if we can think up scenarios where it won't. SedanChair posted:She was unable to recognize it when she committed the crimes in the first place. I'd argue that the reason she was arrested was BECAUSE she initially recognized that she didn't want to be separated from him, followed by denial of reality towards the end of the occupation when she was basically mentally ill from stress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'd believe her capable of holing up at some armed miltia compound the moment they let her out custody. Which would cause a threat to officer safety when they attempt to bring her to trial. Honestly, I doubt that very much. The fact that these militias failed to show at the Malheur occupation, when Ammon and Pete and at least a dozen others were begging for their support, is significant. If they failed to mobilize then, when the occupation was still going on, are they going to go and suddenly involve themselves in a public and illegal way now, when the FBI is in the midst of making a huge example out of Cliven and gang? The time to get involved for any militia interested in joining the fight was weeks ago; I doubt any are going to jump in now that the victor is clear. Maybe Cliven or one of the other leadership figures would have been able to rally enough support for that, but not Sandy. There's also the question of how far she'd trust any help from them, given that she was there during the roughest parts of the occupation, when everything looked doomed and their only hopes for freedom were pinned on reinforcements that never came. I think the chances of a repeat standoff right now are minimal. The militias aren't interested and Sandy has seen for herself how difficult and ineffective it can be. Also, there was a pretty obvious combination carrot-and-stick built into her bail conditions - the only place she's going to get to see her spouse in person is in the courtroom, and the judge is in control of how much access to him she gets. If she skips out on the court date, she's probably not going to see him again for at least a decade. Maybe that's a risk she's willing to take, but it appears the judge thought otherwise! Talmonis posted:By your spurious logic, Bundy himself should be released on bail. gently caress that. Regardless of whether he's been convicted yet, Bundy absolutely has shown himself to be dangerous to apprehend, and was only captured when he made a stupid mistake away from his lunatic bodyguards. Bundy has been defying court orders for well over a decade, and had a personal entourage of armed bodyguards for almost two years. He's not being denied bail simply because he participated in an anti-government action, he's being denied bail because of individual factors like his decades-long pattern of open defiance of courts, his leadership position and heroic perception among armed militias, and so on. chitoryu12 posted:And yet we still maintain a policy of locking up people like Ammon Bundy in solitary confinement and restricting them to messages passed by their lawyer to keep them from inciting further violence, despite still being "innocent until proven guilty" in the legal sense. Turns out we still treat people charged with crimes differently based on the severity and context of their crimes! Much like denial of bail, those restrictions are (in theory, anyway - there's some pretty horrific abuse of them out there) a safety measure only applied to specific people for which they are needed based on that person's individual circumstances. They are not supposed to be punitive - rather, they are restrictions to be applied only when thought to be absolutely required to ensure safety. In the case of Ammon's restrictions, they're to prevent leaders in organized crime groups from passing messages and orders to their underlings from prison. Can you see why Ammon, the main organizer and leader of the occupation, might be subjected to those restrictions while Sandy isn't? And, once you've acknowledged that two people who were involved in the same crime may be treated differently based on the specific individual details of their involvement, why isn't the same true for bail?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:By your spurious logic, Bundy himself should be released on bail. gently caress that. Regardless of whether he's been convicted yet, Bundy absolutely has shown himself to be dangerous to apprehend, and was only captured when he made a stupid mistake away from his lunatic bodyguards. I'm not sure what you think spurious means but clearly not what you think. Amusingly your argument about Bundy actually is spurious, it has no applicability to the argument over Sandy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Again, it's helpful to identify why the people who had bail denied, had their bail denied. Evil Fluffy posted:I want to believe Macnab is acting out of general 1A press concerns like the ACLU probably is, but Pete is a really bad person to try and use for this. Doesn't matter if he has a full time job as a reporter for MSNBC or Fox, if you're actively leading this stuff your press-related work means gently caress all and the last American who was an active voice and leader for an anti-American organization was taken out in a drone strike. Macnab has other tweets indicating that Santilli's activities went beyond journalism. Her position is basically "he's a journalist, who then went on to break the law". She also thinks, based on her experience with him, that he's a relatively harmless hanger-on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not sure what you think spurious means but clearly not what you think.  Your line of reasoning was nonsense. You stated that as she was only "accused" of occupying the reserve, she couldn't have that held against her. Bullshit. It's why Ammon is in prison now and not hiding at his father's ranch surrounded by a few dozen armed idiots. The example for Bundy was the logical conclusion of your lovely reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
These last twenty pages of bailchat have definitely been enlightening and not at all a stupid argument accomplishing nothing convincing no one
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Your line of reasoning was nonsense. You stated that as she was only "accused" of occupying the reserve, she couldn't have that held against her. Bullshit. It's why Ammon is in prison now and not hiding at his father's ranch surrounded by a few dozen armed idiots. The example for Bundy was the logical conclusion of your lovely reasoning. Ammon led the occupation and had a more direct role in ongoing conspiracies, but the important factor in his bail determination was a prior criminal history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:These last twenty pages of bailchat have definitely been enlightening and not at all a stupid argument accomplishing nothing convincing no one This thread turns to garbage when no more militia hijinks are going on
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:
That's both not what I argued and not what spurious means so congrats on being 2/2 I guess
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Much like denial of bail, those restrictions are (in theory, anyway - there's some pretty horrific abuse of them out there) a safety measure only applied to specific people for which they are needed based on that person's individual circumstances. They are not supposed to be punitive - rather, they are restrictions to be applied only when thought to be absolutely required to ensure safety. In the case of Ammon's restrictions, they're to prevent leaders in organized crime groups from passing messages and orders to their underlings from prison. Can you see why Ammon, the main organizer and leader of the occupation, might be subjected to those restrictions while Sandy isn't? And, once you've acknowledged that two people who were involved in the same crime may be treated differently based on the specific individual details of their involvement, why isn't the same true for bail? I think the main difference in opinion we have is whether or not Sean, Sandy, Jeff, and David all engaged in activity severe enough to get the same restrictions as other occupiers. Personally, I would say yes: they refused to end an illegal, armed occupation of federal property despite provably being negotiated with for weeks and threatened to kill federal agents in a standoff. Despite their harried claims of "not knowing that they could leave" or insistence that they were "just camping", their recorded words and actions speak for themselves. Cowardly and comical as they are, they're failed domestic terrorists. There's no reason to believe that any of them are rational and subdued enough to willingly sit around following court orders that they believe are illegitimate so they can be convicted and imprisoned, especially considering that they're known to belong to a fringe right-wing group that espouses these beliefs and led to them committing such serious crimes. Regardless of her lack of criminal history, Sandy's own mountains of recorded evidence indicate that she's not exactly the kind of person you'd want to go free.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's why Ammon is in prison now and not hiding at his father's ranch surrounded by a few dozen armed idiots. No it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:These last twenty pages of bailchat have definitely been enlightening and not at all a stupid argument accomplishing nothing convincing no one I've been making liberal use of my ignore list. It doesn't soothe the disappointment, but it cuts down on the signal-to-noise ratio and filters out the bailchat nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Uh it's nice of you to specifically state that c. doesn't apply at all, but why not? Here's what part of "terrorism transcending national boundaries" pertains to: That provision "is intended to reach violent international terrorist activity that takes place within the United States where at least a part of that activity also occurs outside the United States," so no, it doesn't sound right on target.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Regardless of her lack of criminal history, Sandy's own mountains of recorded evidence indicate that she's not exactly the kind of person you'd want to go free. Which is why she'll probably go to prison after her trial. Is she a risk to the community right now? Probably not, we'll see. A-ha-hennnyhow, have the protests in Burns died down? I really hope the community's gotten back to some semblance of normality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
A bunch of militia members hiding and protecting her isn't the end of the world. Let the feds rack up some easy felony charges on anyone who helps her. I'm perfectly fine with her being a honeypot that results in even more militia members behind bars. Anyone dumb enough to help her or use her as a rally point is looking for anything to spark the revolution. If it's not her it will be something else. We're better off if it's a clear cut charge like harboring a fugitive instead of them terrorizing a town for months with "free speech open carry" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Stop arguing about bail you loving nerds. https://twitter.com/Patztense/status/701840611738050565
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop arguing about bail you loving nerds. What a well trained militia. I mean, accidents happen and all, but I spent four years in the Army, including a year in an active combat zone as well as plenty of trips out to the range. Cumulatively, I was in the vicinity of probably tens of thousands of rifles getting cleared and I never witnessed an accidental discharge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'd believe her capable of holing up at some armed miltia compound the moment they let her out custody. Which would cause a threat to officer safety when they attempt to bring her to trial. I don't think she's smart enough to do this on her own, but some wingnuts who want to control the narrative certainly would arrange for this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop arguing about bail you loving nerds. I'm dyin' here. Ugh, I hate to call the shooting of a 12 year old girl this, but ... it's beautiful. A beautiful tragedy. I shoot guns, have been to many gun ranges. Most 2nd amendment supporters know how ridiculously dangerous guns are. Then you get idiots who just don't know any better and handle a weapon when the range is cold and I'm collecting brass in front of them. And THEN you get idiots who refuse to believe guns are dangerous even when they can still kill innocents while (presumably) the guns are being handled by well-trained, knowledgeable people. Sure, let's own guns! I'm all for it. But safety is the #1 concern, and people need to be trained a LOT more to own a gun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop arguing about bail you loving nerds. Darn, if only there was this sort of health program that wouldn't make them depend on donations to heal the child they wounded with their well trained militia. But only a tyrant would put something like that in place, that would require money to run, that would be collected from taxes that the Constitution shouldn't make ranchers and true Americans such as them pay!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop arguing about bail you loving nerds. Seriously. Mute Jarmak, as he sounds like the worst kind of redditor, and move on. There are rednecks to laugh at and a gut-shot kid to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Stop arguing about bail you loving nerds. poo poo like this is why I hate going to the range. It doesn't matter how careful you are, there are lots of morons with guns in the US and actively putting yourself around them and their guns sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:a stupid argument accomplishing nothing convincing no one We're getting dangerously close to old D&D in this thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
I like it better when the 12 year old with an uzi wastes her instructor
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:00 |
|
|
Hermetic posted:Seriously. Mute Jarmak, as he sounds like the worst kind of redditor, and move on. There are rednecks to laugh at and a gut-shot kid to worry about. Repeating the reasoning of a federal judge: the worst kind of redditor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 03:47
|
|