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.
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?
It is not punishment.
Since "evidence" consists only of testimony under oath or physical items supported by sworn testimony, as of now there is no "evidence" of guilt.
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.
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: F4guy
It is not punishment.
Question: do you agree with this guy being granted bond?
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Russell was arrested on May 20 and pleaded guilty in September to possessing an unregistered destructive device and unlawfully storing explosive material.
He admitted to making the compound, telling the authorities that he used it to boost homemade rockets and balloons, according to an F.B.I. court filing. But an explosives expert with the agency said that the material was “too energetic and volatile” for those uses.