Capitol Riots 2

12467…78

Comments

  • Kat
    Kat Posts: 4,961
    edited March 2021
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Waaaaah.
    :tongue:
    Falling down,...not staying down
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    Kat said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Waaaaah.
    :tongue:
    So he shouldn't be allowed to make bail?

    I don't understand people sometimes...
  • JeBurkhardt
    JeBurkhardt Posts: 5,324
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,426
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.
    bail isnt a requirement. He's had a couple hearings at least.Hecwas denied. Its the Judges discretion.

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Merkin Baller
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,787

    “Chief Judge Beryl Howell cited the news interviews Barnett gave after leaving the Capitol, calling him "a braggart," and added that he is "brazen, entitled, and dangerous."”

    https://www.4029tv.com/article/richard-barnett-ordered-to-stay-in-jail/35355343

  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Poncier
    Poncier Posts: 17,889
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    Because he left his last quarter on Pelosi's desk?
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    edited March 2021
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant. 

    Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.  
    Post edited by oftenreading on
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,426
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    pushing back on this...





    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    mickeyrat said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    pushing back on this...





    Ahhhh.  So it is illegal to have one in the building.
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant. 

    Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.  
    You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.

    I still say he gets bail.
  • Merkin Baller
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,787
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant. 

    Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.  
    You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.

    I still say he gets bail.
    The judge disagrees with you. 
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    Merkin Baller said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant. 

    Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.  
    You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.

    I still say he gets bail.
    The judge disagrees with you. 
    Apparently, lol.  With all the hoopla about bail reform I'm surprised he is being denied.
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,426
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant. 

    Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.  
    You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.

    I still say he gets bail.

    well when they issue you the robe......
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    mickeyrat said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant. 

    Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.  
    You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.

    I still say he gets bail.

    well when they issue you the robe......
    Like I mentioned before, with all the talk about bail reform I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal.
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,216
    Because someone who shows up to an insurrection with a 950,000 volt walking stick stun gun isn't a threat, particularly after posting on social media how they're going to hurt someone. The bail reform movement is typically centered around non-violent drug offenses and other non-violent petty crimes, like shop lifting.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Merkin Baller
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,787
    edited March 2021
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mickeyrat said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant. 

    Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.  
    You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.

    I still say he gets bail.

    well when they issue you the robe......
    Like I mentioned before, with all the talk about bail reform I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal.
    The guy wrote on Facebook in December that he "came into this world kicking and screaming, covered in someone else's blood" and that he was "not afraid to go out the same way," 

    Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/richard-barnett-self-proclaimed-white-nationalist-pictured-pelosi-desk-2021-1 


    I'm going to go out on a limb and trust the judge's decision making process on this one. 
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    Merkin Baller said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mickeyrat said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JeBurkhardt said:
    The insurrectionist who hung out in Nancy Pelosi's office seems to think the consequences of doing it is "not fair". https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-pictured-feet-pelosis-desk-190639419.html

    Does anyone know the reason why he can't make bail?
    A different article said that there still a handful of defendants who had been denied bail because prosecutors had argued that they considered them to be a risk for further potential violence and posed a danger to the community if released. I imagine it had to do with the stuff he posted on social media before January 6th that showed him as more of a person who was dangerous and not just someone who 'wandered" into the Capitol on a site seeing trip. 
    I read that and I replied w this on another site.

    He should be able to make bail or be labeled an Enemy Combatant.  Being labeled an EC he would not have Miranda rights and can be held indefinitely until a trial does or doesn't happen.

    I would be fine with either of the above but not being held and not given bail.

    Decisions around bail are (or at least should be) made on assessment of the risks that the individual poses, balanced with the presumption of innocence. Risks pertain to potential for violence, repeat offending, flight, noncompliance with bail conditions, and the like.  Possessing a weapon during the commission of any offence ups the perceived risk, particularly when you bring that weapon with you and don't just pick it up at the time. Talking about violence ahead of time also ups the violence risk. Comments that he made publicly also point to the potential for him not to honour bail conditions. I don't have an issue with bail being denied under those conditions. It certainly isn't a given. 
    He brought a stun gun which is legal to carry unless it is used to commit a crime, which he never did use it.  
    Giving all the info you just supplied I move to call him an Enemy Combatant still.  If not then let him make bail.  He isn't going anywhere and would be monitored I'm sure.  
    Many guns are legal too but when you use them in the commission of a crime it’s a big deal, so that part of your argument is irrelevant. 

    Edit: you don’t have to fire the gun for it to be considered having been used in the commission of a crime.  
    You are correct but if it was legal for him to possess it but didn't use it(it was illegal for him to have it though)you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction.

    I still say he gets bail.

    well when they issue you the robe......
    Like I mentioned before, with all the talk about bail reform I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal.
    The guy wrote on Facebook in December that he "came into this world kicking and screaming, covered in someone else's blood" and that he was "not afraid to go out the same way," 

    Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/richard-barnett-self-proclaimed-white-nationalist-pictured-pelosi-desk-2021-1 


    I'm going to go out on a limb and trust the judge's decision making process on this one. 
    You know they let Ted Bundy out on bail?  That is crazy to me.

Categories