Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

There's been a movement to eliminate cash bail and return the focus solely on danger to the public and flight risk. The reasoning makes sense, it's often a get out of jail pass for wealthy people and pre-conviction jail for poor folks. This kid was given house arrest with an ankle monior so there was some concern but not enough for pre-trial lockup.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

I can tell you from local feedback many don't understand how bail/bond works and there has been concern that this is somehow an indication of reduced charges/leniency which is simply not the case.  

I had the conversation with my daughter on the drive last night from a game that innocent until proven guilty is a statute that everyone receives.  This is not an indication of the trial, but pre-trial processes that are afforded to everyone.  She gets it, but it was of course reactionary from someone in the impacted community.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
45 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That is stupid and you're stupid for thinking it. 

I know I laid out some hyperbole.  I just don’t understand why you guys feel the need to reiterate what is known and obvious.  Every time in one of these threads. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I can tell you from local feedback many don't understand how bail/bond works and there has been concern that this is somehow an indication of reduced charges/leniency which is simply not the case.  

I had the conversation with my daughter on the drive last night from a game that innocent until proven guilty is a statute right that everyone receives.  This is not an indication of the trial, but pre-trial processes that are afforded to everyone.  She gets it, but it was of course reactionary from someone in the impacted community.  

Good on you for sharing that very important information with your kid. It’s a hard lesson to learn, but being impulsively reactionary is often how we lose our hard-won rights.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

I know I laid out some hyperbole.  I just don’t understand why you guys feel the need to reiterate what is known and obvious.  Every time in one of these threads. 

How do you know someone is vegan, a cross-fitter, or a lawyer?  They'll tell you.....over, and over, and over.....;)

Posted
22 minutes ago, 'stache said:

There's been a movement to eliminate cash bail and return the focus solely on danger to the public and flight risk. The reasoning makes sense, it's often a get out of jail pass for wealthy people and pre-conviction jail for poor folks. This kid was given house arrest with an ankle monior so there was some concern but not enough for pre-trial lockup.

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I can tell you from local feedback many don't understand how bail/bond works and there has been concern that this is somehow an indication of reduced charges/leniency which is simply not the case.  

I had the conversation with my daughter on the drive last night from a game that innocent until proven guilty is a statute that everyone receives.  This is not an indication of the trial, but pre-trial processes that are afforded to everyone.  She gets it, but it was of course reactionary from someone in the impacted community.  

The average person's understanding of bail and the reasons for it is.....very, very low.  The fact that the lack of understanding is so ubiquitous doesn't speak as poorly of the audience as it does of how we as a society have messaged it over the years (meaning that we haven't messaged it at all).

Most everyone would agree with the principle of "society can lock you up in prison unless and until you've been convicted of a crime."

Yet we also look at people accused of a crime who are arrested and detained in jail . . . and based on the fact that they are accused of a crime (but NOT yet convicted), we default to thinking that they should stay in jail.  Cool, cool....what if they are ultimately found not-guilty?  Do we say "whoops, our bad, sorry we kept you in jail for a year, ruining your life, only to find out we had it wrong/had the wrong guy/etc.?"  And the response of "well, we KNOW this guy did it, there were witnesses, etc. etc."....again, the one thing we know with certainty is that we don't know everything about the event and its circumstances.  Maybe the victim said -- in a voice audible only to the killer and one other person -- "I'm gonna fucking kill you."  That changes the self-defense picture.  I'm not saying that's what happened here -- I'm simply noting that nearly 100% of the time, "shit that we didn't know about" comes out as the process moves forward.

So, we stick with foundational principles: innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Bail is to 1) ensure appearance at future proceedings, and 2) protect society from ongoing threats.  And understand that it's not really good at the second thing.  It's not like someone who is a threat to commit more violence is LESS of a threat if they post $500k bail instead of $250k bail.  Other conditions of release are much more effective in that respect (e.g., ankle monitoring and house arrest).

Even bail for smaller crimes can fail in that respect -- look a the asshole going around UT punching people.  After the second or third offense in rapid sequence, it seems that the calculus on future threat should be one of "he fucking definitely is," and he should be denied bail or have it set prohibitively high.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I know I laid out some hyperbole.  I just don’t understand why you guys feel the need to reiterate what is known and obvious.  Every time in one of these threads. 

I think it's very different for a lay person to say "that guy is guilty" and for an attorney to say "that guy is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".  I mean, this doesn't seem difficult.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

That is stupid and you're stupid for thinking it. 

Surly isn’t a court of law, just a site for opinions……and we all live up to the relevant connotation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Most everyone would agree with the principle of "society can lock you up in prison unless and until you've been convicted of a crime."

Shit, realized an important typo there:

Most everyone would agree with the principle of "society can't lock you up in prison unless and until you've been convicted of a crime."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I know I laid out some hyperbole.  I just don’t understand why you guys feel the need to reiterate what is known and obvious.  Every time in one of these threads. 

People know the phrase "innocent until proven guilty," but don't think about it much on a deeper level or truly understand what it means, as is demonstrated in this thread.

People do not understand bond, its purpose, or the legal requirements around, as is demonstrated in this thread. 

And people still say incredibly ignorant and stupid stuff like "He clearly did it, is clearly a murderer, is clearly the aggressor and @BabaYaga’s use of “legal cunt” is the perfect descriptor of most in here. Yes, this guy absolutely is guilty until proven innocent, regardless of what you think. That is the way society works when 30 people watched you stab a guy in the heart." 

What you think is "known and obvious" obviously isn't.

 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Yeah the presumption of innocence is just a bunch of words to people until they really have to think about it. 

And sometimes they never think about it until they are on the wrong end of am accusation from the government. 

Kind of like people think they understand the right to counsel and then misapprhend the criminal lawyer's job, which is to put the government through its paces, regardless of the seeming guilt, innocence, or worth of the defendant. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think it's very different for a lay person to say "that guy is guilty" and for an attorney to say "that guy is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".  I mean, this doesn't seem difficult.

Of course but that is not what is occurring here. There are a litany of attorneys prematurely poking holes in the story. 

Posted
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

How do you know someone is vegan, a cross-fitter, or a lawyer?  They'll tell you.....over, and over, and over.....;)

As an attorney, I find this offensive.

  • Haha 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

and @BabaYaga’s use of “legal cunt”

Can you sensitive twats take this quote in context.  This was a question to the lawyers that love to opine on just about everything on an actual legal question:  switching legal teams this early in the process.  Is this usual, or a result of now having deep pockets, going after an expensive ringer?

Quote

On to actual fucking updates - apparently the attacker has ditched his first defense team and gone with someone new, a Mike Howard out of north Dallas.  For all you legal cunts, is this a result of flowing GoFund me money now, or a result that the family didn't like the direction the first attorney was going/steering?

 

Posted
37 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

People know the phrase "innocent until proven guilty," but don't think about it much on a deeper level or truly understand what it means, as is demonstrated in this thread.

People do not understand bond, its purpose, or the legal requirements around, as is demonstrated in this thread. 

And people still say incredibly ignorant and stupid stuff like "He clearly did it, is clearly a murderer, is clearly the aggressor and @BabaYaga’s use of “legal cunt” is the perfect descriptor of most in here. Yes, this guy absolutely is guilty until proven innocent, regardless of what you think. That is the way society works when 30 people watched you stab a guy in the heart." 

What you think is "known and obvious" obviously isn't.

 

I’ve said nothing about the bond reduction. I’ve said nothing about the prospect of a “light” sentence given his age and other unknown factors. Mainly because neither bother me.

What I typed was hyperbole as admitted. It has no bearing whatsoever on what occurs in a jury trial (except the human nature of certain undetected jurors).  But it’s absolutely true in the world outside of the law. I know many think it’s “incredibly ignorant” but it’s the reality we live in. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I know many think it’s “incredibly ignorant” but it’s the reality we live in. 

Oh, my brother....you and I have never been more in agreement than we are right now.

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Can you sensitive twats take this quote in context.  This was a question to the lawyers that love to opine on just about everything on an actual legal question:  switching legal teams this early in the process.  Is this usual, or a result of now having deep pockets, going after an expensive ringer?

 

To be clear, I was just quoting Rex. I didn't take any offense at all.

To answer your question, hard to say from what we know. It could be the other attorney no longer wanted to handle the case or didn't feel prepared. It could be they found a better fit. It could be a financial issue. Or it could be because of a disagreement on strategy. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

New word is the family is using a large portion of the gofund me money and using it but a 500K+ house.  Claims of threats, etc.  It's their money, they can do what they like with it, but from a legal perspective, does this seem wise?  There is also word they changed lawyers yet again - this time it's Kim T. Cole of Next Generation Action Network Foundation.  

Posted
New word is the family is using a large portion of the gofund me money and using it but a 500K+ house.  Claims of threats, etc.  It's their money, they can do what they like with it, but from a legal perspective, does this seem wise?  There is also word they changed lawyers yet again - this time it's Kim T. Cole of Next Generation Action Network Foundation.  
By changing lawyers this many times, does this signal they didn't think the case was winnable and advising them to settle? Not sure how much Discovery the DA has provided at this point. I'm wondering if they have seen the footage the FriscoPD said they are reviewing.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Luigi Mangione changed lawyers too and I think it made sense because shitstain Pennsylvania and NYC are two very different places, and now with Pam Barbie seeking the death penalty he might need another kind of lawyer. I still want revenge on Carmelo Anthony for dominating the final four but I won't criticize him for firing lawyers if he didn't think they were up for the task anymore.

Posted

By the way, we have no real evidence that Mangione is guilty, but at least I've seen the video in that case. All I see is some person testing out his weapon when some asshole got in the way. No intent, no conviction!

Posted
18 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:
New word is the family is using a large portion of the gofund me money and using it but a 500K+ house.  Claims of threats, etc.  It's their money, they can do what they like with it, but from a legal perspective, does this seem wise?  There is also word they changed lawyers yet again - this time it's Kim T. Cole of Next Generation Action Network Foundation.  

By changing lawyers this many times, does this signal they didn't think the case was winnable and advising them to settle? Not sure how much Discovery the DA has provided at this point. I'm wondering if they have seen the footage the FriscoPD said they are reviewing.

No.  The first hire was likely the result of a familial or friendly reference. The second hire was likely done after deliberation.  Because of the voluminous evidence  in cases like this and the speed that it trickles in, no attorney at this stage would have enough information to be advising a client to plea or have a trial.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

New word is the family is using a large portion of the gofund me money and using it but a 500K+ house.  Claims of threats, etc.  It's their money, they can do what they like with it, but from a legal perspective, does this seem wise?  There is also word they changed lawyers yet again - this time it's Kim T. Cole of Next Generation Action Network Foundation.  

How on earth would anyone know that? That just sounds like people making up bullshit. 

Posted

Stepping away from the gossiping hens of Collin county chatter and to something rooted in fact and not hearsay; Karmelo and his family have aligned themselves with the great and honorable Dominique Alexander.

Posted
5 hours ago, 'stache said:

There's been a movement to eliminate cash bail and return the focus solely on danger to the public and flight risk. The reasoning makes sense, it's often a get out of jail pass for wealthy people and pre-conviction jail for poor folks. This kid was given house arrest with an ankle monior so there was some concern but not enough for pre-trial lockup.

And given the case, imo, this is a reasonable choice. Frankly, bail, last I checked is 10% non-refundable of the total. So, at $250k that's $25k they aren't getting back innocent or not and I'd wager there aren't a lot of folks that can afford to lose $25k before lawyer's fees. 

When it was $1m I'd argue that as unreasonable given the circumstances even though its a murder charge. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

How on earth would anyone know that? That just sounds like people making up bullshit. 

Maybe from the family themselves 

Quote

“I think at this point, living in a gated community, given everything, the safety of their younger children is very warranted. Security details and criminal defense are not cheap.”

As stated.   They are claiming threats and online harassment so they are moving to a gated community and stating that they need additional security.   

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

If people donated for a defense fund, is there no commitment to use it as such?  Legally speaking could the donors sue for their money back?  Basically fraud, no?

Lol. No. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

If people donated for a defense fund, is there no commitment to use it as such?  Legally speaking could the donors sue for their money back?  Basically fraud, no?

Im Rich Kyle Massey GIF by ALLBLK (formerly known as UMC)

Posted
4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

New word is the family is using a large portion of the gofund me money and using it but a 500K+ house.  Claims of threats, etc.  It's their money, they can do what they like with it, but from a legal perspective, does this seem wise?  There is also word they changed lawyers yet again - this time it's Kim T. Cole of Next Generation Action Network Foundation.  

Wonder how daddy Metcalf feels?   I think the Anthony’s were wealthier than the metcalfs to begin with 

Posted
4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

New word is the family is using a large portion of the gofund me money and using it but a 500K+ house.  Claims of threats, etc.  It's their money, they can do what they like with it, but from a legal perspective, does this seem wise?  There is also word they changed lawyers yet again - this time it's Kim T. Cole of Next Generation Action Network Foundation.  

200.gif

Posted
11 hours ago, Hate said:

Jesus Christ yall are beating. I never said he should not be given a fair trial. I replied to someone that suggested the lowered bond would indicate he was not a danger to society. I replied that the fact that he had murdered someone would indicate he is a danger to society. Someone then suggested that I was suggesting he was guilty until proven innocent to which I replied the suspect had told the police that he was not alleged to have done it but that he in fact did actually do it. Never did I suggest that he not be given a trial or have any of his legal rights infringed upon. You people look for any slight nuance in a post that you can use to wow everyone with your enlightenment. Fuck off.  

he told the police he’d stabbed the other guy; that’s homicide, not murder. until he’s  had a trial and been convicted, he’s not a murderer. it’s not slight nuance, it’s a major, distinctive difference.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, Derka said:

he told the police he’d stabbed the other guy; that’s homicide, not murder. until he’s  had a trial and been convicted, he’s not a murderer. it’s not slight nuance, it’s a major, distinctive difference.

So you know he didn't have intent to kill him?

Posted

Ok so is it ‘rule of law’ or no?  Because the lawyers (hint, ‘law’ is in the name) here are explaining how the law works and why it’s not vigilante justice.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Deej said:

So you know he didn't have intent to kill him?

He doesn’t know and I don’t know. Doesn’t mean he isn’t a murderer. Which is exactly what he is. 

Posted

Places weapons prohibited is the Penal
Code infraction for having a pocket knife on school property. By law, he wasn’t allowed to be in possession of the weapon he used to “defend himself”. He escalated the entire encounter with his own illegal activity. The law doggery should be interesting with this one

Posted
7 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

He doesn’t know and I don’t know. Doesn’t mean he isn’t a murderer. Which is exactly what he is. 

and this is why the “guilty until presumed innocent” post was made. you don’t know that he murdered anyone, and until he’s convicted of murder, he’s not a murderer. this isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. you not liking it doesn’t matter.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Deej said:

But yet you seem to know his intent. 

is that a fact? have i made even one statement alleging or assuming his intent?

Posted
7 minutes ago, Derka said:

and this is why the “guilty until presumed innocent” post was made. you don’t know that he murdered anyone, and until he’s convicted of murder, he’s not a murderer. this isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. you not liking it doesn’t matter.

lol. It’s a fact this kid is a murderer. Does that bother you?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

lol. It’s a fact this kid is a murderer. Does that bother you?

it is in fact not a fact that this kid is a murderer. you not understanding the distinction between homicide and murder doesn’t change that. 

Posted
28 minutes ago, Derka said:

it is in fact not a fact that this kid is a murderer. you not understanding the distinction between homicide and murder doesn’t change that. 

Ok. He’s a murderer. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...