It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alleged Florida neo-Nazi bomb-maker gets bond

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: RomeByFire
I'd like an answer as to why he's not locked up or being checked on a mental evaluation.

People serve longer sentences for smoking pot. Unreal.


He hasn't been convicted of anything. Under our system, he is an innocent man so far.


No, he hasn't been convicted; and therefore presumed innocent.

But should he have been granted bail, considering the serious charges surrounding him and his history?


The purpose of bail is to assure appearance at the subsequent steps in the prosecution. It is not punishment. The Eighth Amendment makesd it clear that there is a right to reasonable bail. The US system of bail is one part of the old English Common Law that was not rejected. Reasonable bail was a requirement of the Statute of Winchester in 1275. It was expanded by the Petition of Right in 1628. In the US, the Bail Reform Act of 1966 made it clear that bail was solely to assure appearance at trial. Since "evidence" consists only of testimony under oath or physical items supported by sworn testimony, as of now there is no "evidence" of guilt. They are only allegations, which may well be disproven. For example, the common cold pack contains a bomb-making chemical and styrofoam napalm is easy to make, a lot of people stockpile bomb making materials.




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

It is not punishment.


I never said, or alluded to the fact, that it was.

But, it is also to ensure that those who are considered a potential danger to society, are not able to either roam free and further harm the community, or abscond, before their trial.


Since "evidence" consists only of testimony under oath or physical items supported by sworn testimony, as of now there is no "evidence" of guilt.


There is "evidence" that he is a potential danger to the community.


For example, the common cold pack contains a bomb-making chemical and styrofoam napalm is easy to make, a lot of people stockpile bomb making materials.


That is the lamest argument I have heard (in this case); he didn't just have some cold packs lying around. Did you read what he is accused of—admitted to—possessing?

Question: do you agree with this guy being granted bond?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: F4guy

It is not punishment.




Question: do you agree with this guy being granted bond?


It doesn't exactly make me happy that the guy is on the streets, but I am glad to see a judge following the clear law rather than bowing to public perception. We don't imprison people because they might, in the future, possibly commit a crime. Not yet, anyway.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: F4guy

It is not punishment.




Question: do you agree with this guy being granted bond?


It doesn't exactly make me happy that the guy is on the streets, but I am glad to see a judge following the clear law rather than bowing to public perception. We don't imprison people because they might, in the future, possibly commit a crime. Not yet, anyway.


No, we don't imprison people because of what they "might" do, but we can—and do—deny bail based upon potential threats t the community in serious cases until they are either acquitted or convicted. The law says bail can be denied.

Would you have the same sentiment if this wasn't a white guy (or a white-supremacist), but a Muslim, or someone else?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: F4guy

It is not punishment.




Question: do you agree with this guy being granted bond?


It doesn't exactly make me happy that the guy is on the streets, but I am glad to see a judge following the clear law rather than bowing to public perception. We don't imprison people because they might, in the future, possibly commit a crime. Not yet, anyway.


No, we don't imprison people because of what they "might" do, but we can—and do—deny bail based upon potential threats t the community in serious cases until they are either acquitted or convicted. The law says bail can be denied.

Would you have the same sentiment if this wasn't a white guy (or a white-supremacist), but a Muslim, or someone else?


There is absolutely no statutory authority for punishing someone for a "potential" threat by denying bail. And that applies to all people to which the Fifth Amendment applies - you know, that stiuff about due process.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy


There is absolutely no statutory authority for punishing someone for a "potential" threat by denying bail.


So, you're saying there is no legal basis for bail, which exists in practically every jurisdiction around the country, because...of due process?

Additionally, denying bail, as I've said, is not "punishment;" nor does it bypass due process.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: F4guy


There is absolutely no statutory authority for punishing someone for a "potential" threat by denying bail.


So, you're saying there is no legal basis for bail, which exists in practically every jurisdiction around the country, because...of due process?

Additionally, denying bail, as I've said, is not "punishment;" nor does it bypass due process.


The legal basis for bail is constitutional (8th Amendment) and denying bail for the non-legal reason of a "potential offense" denies due process. If a person commits another crime then he can be convicted of that crime and punished. But imprisoning someone before a crime is committed by denying bail removes the protections of the presumption of innocence, "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", right to jury trial, right to appear at a grand jury and all other protections provided an accused, and that is a denial of due process. Prosecutors will often try to use a danger to the community argument, particularly on television, where on Law and Order, the ADA always demands remand, but I can tell you that in real life, based on 30 years of practicing law annd several of those years as a judge, the decision on bail is to be based on the potential of the defendant to appear for further proceedings.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join