world

Waukesha parade crash suspect's bail raises questions

33 Comments
By SCOTT BAUER, BERNARD CONDON and MIKE HOUSEHOLDER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


33 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

This is no more than a wedge issue, bail is a constitution protected right, Trump will be on bail soon

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

bail is a constitution protected right

Everybody knows about the bail system but if you read the article, it has to do with the cheap bail given to a man with a long criminal history and running over his child's mother. The man was an obvious danger to society and deserves no bail or high costing that he is unable to afford. He has had both types before.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Some Republicans were quick to jump on the case as an example of a broken legal system.

Because they aren’t intelligent enough to understand how the system works so mouth off with less than half the facts.

Of course they do, and why wouldn’t they? For one thing they have the same access to the law as any liberal, second-the issue is why was this individual (I’ll be diplomatic) even granted bail with his lengthy criminal record and even the video he made showed this guy was a serious threat to society The guy made had made bail twice in Wisconsin this year despite having an active sex crime warrant out of Nevada and claiming to be indigent, court records show. This is yet, another reason why the Democrats are losing more and more seats. People are just tired of this, they are tired that criminals are released either earlier than they should be allowed, or that they won’t get prosecuted for serious crimes or that they can make bail for the most egregious of crimes.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Setting bail so high that a defendant cannot afford it is skirting the constitution. Glad to see you’re okay with skirting the constitution.

The same constitution that includes self-defense? Didn't see you caring about the Constitution then.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Released on BAIL for BAIL JUMPING!? I understand that some prosecutors are pushing for bail reform and lenient bail sentences, but my lord that's pushing it a bit isn't it? The judge is just as responsible, if not more, for releasing that *****.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Quote the text of the constitution that includes self-defense. I’ll wait.

Tell me where in the Constitution does it say that it isn't a right.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Thanks for demonstrating my point for me.

Lol, a bit different from what you were implying….

7 ( +12 / -5 )

a man with a long criminal history and running over his child's mother.

Sorry, all I see here is a whole lot of victim coddling. Mass media will be off of this topic in 1 or 2 days after the Arbury case comes to a close.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

This is yet, another reason why the Democrats are losing more and more seats. People are just tired of this, they are tired that criminals are released either earlier than they should be allowed, or that they won’t get prosecuted for serious crimes

Keep this in mind, per the article:

*"Legal experts cautioned that one extreme case should not be reason to push for higher bail amounts that would keep poorer defendants behind bars longer while they await trial."*

The U.S. has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world, so it wouldn't seem that the system is too soft on crime. And I don't know why you seem to be blaming Democrats for this incident, except that maybe Tucker 'n' Lil Friends thought they'd crank up the outrage machine for you.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

The same constitution that includes self-defense? Didn't see you caring about the Constitution then.

I don't get your point. Are you saying that it's your argument ignoring the constitution is justified due to your perception that someone else has ignored the constitution?

So you are agreeing with that person that the constitution means nothing? Or...?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

This is yet, another reason why the Democrats are losing more and more seats. 

This is why (insert random claim about people turning against Democrats) and (insert random prediction about Democrats losing). The Bass template.

Someone screwed up the bail, it’s not a left wing conspiracy.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The U.S. has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world,

Seems like it should be higher actually.

so it wouldn't seem that the system is too soft on crime.

Yes!

And I don't know why you seem to be blaming Democrats for this incident,

Look at the “largest urban cities”, take your pick with the highest population and look at the crime stats.

except that maybe Tucker 'n' Lil Friends thought they'd crank up the outrage machine for you.

Hmmm, yeah, try again…

5 ( +10 / -5 )

And I don't know why you seem to be blaming Democrats for this incident, except that maybe Tucker 'n' Lil Friends thought they'd crank up the outrage machine for you.

The question is why are you so nonchalant about this case but were up in arms about the Rittenhouse case? I guess Don Lemon/Joy Reid 'n' Lil Friends had you thumping your chest on the everybody is a white supremacist train.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

I disagree with the premise of this article. We all know cash bail for some criminals—not all, but some— is straight up raycist. This guy should’ve never had to pay bail in the first place. That in itself is racist. I would further question the circumstances of his previous arrests. Gather all bodycam footage. He may have been unjustly arrested by a crooked cop. However, that he was out and about and able to commit this horrendous crime shows that social justice and progressivism have both made great strides and achievements. I just pray for the day when people like brooks will never again have to face such an evil racist institution as the cash bail system.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Someone screwed up the bail, it’s not a left wing conspiracy.

No, P. Smith said it is a constitutional right so no one screwed up. He should be free to terrorize who he likes after posting low bail.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

WAUKESHA, Wis. The suspect in a Christmas parade crash in suburban Milwaukee 

So sad.

i wouldn’t call Waukesha a “suburb” of Milwaukee. I thinks it’s lazy journalism. It’s clearly independent small city/town.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It’s not a Left wing conspiracy. It’s Left wing policy.

And yet the US has the worst incarceration rate on the planet.

Though you extremists think more should be locked up.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

i wouldn’t call Waukesha a “suburb” of Milwaukee. I thinks it’s lazy journalism. It’s clearly independent small city/town.

Is it?

The Milwaukee metropolitan area (also known as Metro Milwaukee or Greater Milwaukee) is a major metropolitan area located in Southeastern Wisconsin, consisting of the city of Milwaukee and the surrounding area. There are several definitions of the area, including the Milwaukee–Waukesha–West Allis metropolitan area

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_metropolitan_area

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The DA who implemented the lax bail policy said that he was sure that someone would be killed because of it. Apparently, he didn't care. A woman was murdered soon after it came into effect.

The US does have the highest incarceration rate. Maybe because it has a lawless society? Look at the mobs ransacking stores in California every day.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Though you extremists think more should be locked up.

It’s not extreme to want Christmas parades to be free of mass murder. Only people that need to be locked up should be locked up. There is no quota and there should not be one. People should be judged by their individual actions. What has changed in recent years is the emergence of a new paradigm of justice modulated on the offenders identity. That is what’s extreme.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There is a lot wrong with the justice system. 2.3 million people, the greatest number in the world, banged up in prisons, many of them private businesses making profits. Plea bargaining. Violent criminals out on bail. The defenders who are poor unable to afford a lawyer

I agree, there is a lot wrong with the US justice system. Wait until Garland has to go to testify again.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/democrats-prefer-reforming-criminal-justice-system-to-punishing-criminals/

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Some Republicans were quick to jump on the case as an example of a broken legal system.

As they should be. Because letting out a criminal on $1000 bail after he hit a woman with his car certainly does not show a legal system that is not broken.

$1000 bail is excessively low.

There are very few Supreme Court rulings on the issue of what constitutes excessive bail. The Eight Amendment does not define excessive bail. But the hearing for Brooks is supposed to have imposed the least restrictive conditions that would assure his appearance in court and public safety.

Anyone think Brooks intended to appear to face the charges? Anyone think public safety didn't suffer because of the low bail imposed upon him?

Would $25 million have been more appropriate? Or is that "excessive"?

https://news.yahoo.com/bail-set-25-million-suge-knight-fatal-hit-175007905.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

P. SmithNov. 24  09:55 am JST

This isn’t what I said or implied. I pointed out that your desire to set bail excessively high to ensure a defendant cannot afford it is unconstitutional. 

The Eighth Amendment, in part, provides constitutional protection against excessive bail, including the practical denial of bail by fixing its amount unreasonably high, as decided in United States v. Motlow, 10 F.2d 657 (1926).

Motlow does not define excessive bail though.

In United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), it can be seen that the Eighth Amendment does not restrict the factors that may be considered when determining bail. The court, for example, may consider risk of flight when determining the amount of bail. 

P. SmithNov. 24  07:48 am JST

Quote the text of the constitution that includes self-defense. I’ll wait.

Here you go----Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This simply means that the Constitution recognizes rights held by the people even if they are not listed in the Constitution. So, in Rittenhouse's case, the right depends on state law. And the state law allowed self-defense, as was seen by the jury's verdict.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites