See, this is what Democrats want. If you’re a lawful firearms owner, they want to take away your guns. If you’re a criminal, especially a minority criminal, they want you released with no bond after committing multiple violent felonies
Teen Who Shot Houston Cop Was Released Without Paying Bail After Carjacking
The gunman who shot a Houston police officer multiple times during a violent crime spree on Sept. 12 had been released from jail on his own recognizance just days before the attack.
Brandon Bell, 17, and two other teens were arrested for allegedly carjacking a woman at gunpoint at she was passing out campaign fliers on Sept. 2, KPRC reported.
“‘Get out of the car,†he said, according to victim Tina Kingshill. “I got this gun and I will shoot you.â€
Bell also allegedly pointed the gun at another volunteer who was with Kingshill at the time.
Those are all felonies, right?
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office subsequently charged Bell with a misdemeanor count of criminal trespass to a motor vehicle, and he was released on a no-cost, “personal bond,†according to KPRC.
According to the Houston Police Union, Bell failed to show up at court on Sept. 10, but he was not penalized and his bail was never revoked, KPRC reported.
Two days later, he and three accomplices embarked on a violent crime spree beginning at a Valero gas station on Griggs Road, according to KTRK.
And crime spree it was, ending with the shooting of a police officer. After jacking a few cars, attempting to murder a priest, and much more (worth reading). The Harris County District Attorney’s office is run by DA Kim Ogg, unsurprisingly a Democrat, who’s major theme for election was “bail reform.” Her office has seen almost 150 members leave, forcibly and not forcibly, most of whom aren’t taking the line that this has something to do with post-Hurricane Harvey, but the policies Ogg put in place which are soft on crime.
And this is exactly what Democrats nationally want. You have the Democrat contenders, especially Kamala Harris, yammering about doing away with bail. They’re all excited about taking away guns from the law abiding, but, say nothing about cracking down on criminals that use them and shouldn’t lawfully have them in the first place.
I hope the GOP is paying attention.
GEORGE SOROS seriously funded AG and DA races all over the country in RED STATES.
The purpose is to make sure that any laws passed the left doesnt like will NOT be upheld by local and state AG’s. This is a classic example. The same holds true with the AG who was in charge of the Jesse Smollet Case. She was given large sums of money to beat other democratic AG candidates so she could be a raving idiot when it came to upholding the laws in Chicago.
SOROS realizes the left has no chance nationally so he has set his sights on local and state level elections. President is not important if you own the states, Senate and house.
I HOPE THE GOP IS PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT HAPPENED IN 2018. and again this year and next.
That damn Constitution with its bail provision
Is it time to forget that “innocent until proven guilty” thing?
“Is it time to forget that “innocent until proven guilty†thing?”
Ask Judge Kavanaugh.
kavanaugh was never tried. He lied to Congress, but that’s not a sin in Republican circles.
Christine Blasey Ford lied to Congress, but that’s not a sin in leftist circles.
There. Fixed that for you.
That damn Constitution with its bail provision
Except for the voices in your head, no one is arguing the Constitutionality of bail, John.
Bail itself has several purposes:
“The excessive bail clause revolves around the principle that “an accused is presumed innocent until found guilty.†Bail is an amount the courts may require an accused to furnish as security to ensure the accused person’s appearance for trial. The bail amount can be money, property or a bond. Although, the bail amount is decided by the court, the excessive bail clause requires reasonableness in fixing the amount. If the accused is able to furnish the bail amount to the court, then the accused will be set free on bail until trial. During the bail period the accused can go back into normal society. The bail system ensures that the accused will come back to court for trial. Courts consider the following in determining bail: 1) the severity of the offence, 2) levels of evidence proffered against the accused, 3) family and employment ties and commitments of the accused, 4) if the accused is able to furnish the bond amount, and 5) if there is any possibility for the accused to flee.
Using the standards above, courts set a reasonable bail amount however, the bail amount should not be too low so that the accused is enticed into forfeiting the bail amount and fleeing. If a court finds that the accused, if released, will likely cause danger to the community a court may deny bail altogether.
If the accused appears for future court proceedings the accused will get back his/her bail money upon conclusion of the court proceedings. If the accused fails to appear he/she forfeits the bail amount.”
source: https://system.uslegal.com/u-s-constitution/amendment-viii-excess-bail-or-fines-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-1791/
In this case, a woman was robbed at gunpoint and her car taken. That would be a rather serious crime in most people’s eyes. As someone who has spoken out against gun violence, one would think that you would support the idea that a violent crime using a weapon was committed.
Instead of pursuing that idea, the DA in the case did not seek bond, and allowed the person accused of the heinous crime to go free.
In essence, strike one against the liberal DA was that she was not following the provisions of bonds while allow (and some would say require) bond for serious offenses.
Without objection from the DA, the man was released without having to post any bond.
The second problem comes in when one realizes that bond is there to make sure the person shows up for court. If they do not, the bond is forfeited and a warrant sought by the DA. In this case, there was no bond to forfeit because the DA had not sought a bond in the first place, and then the DA did not seek a warrant for the arrest of the man when he failed to show up for court.
Two days later, the man goes on a crime spree with friends instead of being in jail.
They stole an SUV at gunpoint. When the SUV ran out of gas, they ditched that vehicle and robbed a priest, taking his phone. They tried to shoot the priest but the gun malfunctioned. They then took another vehicle at gunpoint from another victim and stole the victim’s phone as well.
The person who should not have been eligible for release under “no bond” and then did not have a warrant issued when they failed to show up for court on the original case, shot an officer 3 times as part of a gun battle in which he was killed.
People were injured, harmed and property stolen because the DA failed to follow the basic tenants of bail, John.
THAT’S the issue.
If the DA had done her job, it more likely than not that the subsequent crimes would not have happened, people would not have been robbed, people would not have guns fired in their direction, people would not have been shot, and a person killed.
It has nothing to do with the provision of bail or the idea that a person is “innocent until proven guilty.”
What happened here was that the DA set themselves above the law and placed a community at risk based on a social issue that someone how bail is wrong.
Once again, all you have done is shown that you don’t understand basic concepts and cannot read.
What kind of hate fills your heart that you support a criminal over law abiding citizens?