Post New

As we were talking - bringing problems purposely caused by liberals, right to their doorstep.

This is not even CLOSE to what I want - but nevertheless it's tasty all around.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/santa-monica-city...

"Santa Monica city councilman attacked by homeless man on 3rd Street Promenade"

Then the Council man called cops and held the guy down until officers got there.

LOL they get all "law AND ORDER" all of a sudden.

Speaking for myself - too bad the homeless person was a wimp. I'd loved to have seen this ratcheted up a bit.

WiltonKnight: As we were talking - bringing problems purposely caused by liberals, right to their doorstep.

This is not even CLOSE to what I want - but nevertheless it's tasty all around. ... Then the Council man called cops and held the guy down until officers got there.

LOL they get all "law AND ORDER" all of a sudden.


There's WiltonKnight once again gleeful that someone he perceives as a 'liberal' was attacked, only sorry he wasn't actually hurt or killed.

I don't know anything about Santa Monica politics but I do know how to Google and, gee, Phil Brock ran on a law and order platform.

From his campaign website: "I Am Committed to Reducing Crime and Restoring Public Safety. Between the cacophony of major crime, burglaries, assaults, and robberies the dream of Santa Monica has been lost. We must have city council members with backbone, who are firmly committed to restoring the soul and safety of our city. I'm fed up! I hope you are as well. It's time to make a change."

And, from your linked article, the suspect, Sawyer Walden Allee, 20, was ripping signs off storefronts and dropping them to the sidewalk when Brock asked Allee not to litter. The attack, from what is shown on the video, was Allee shouting obscenities and yelling and screaming incoherently at Brock before trying to take his hat several times, finally grabbing it off his head. Allee then through soda on Brock and his girlfriend and struck Brock with the soda can.

Allee is currently being held on a 5150 hold and was booked on charges of battery and grand theft. The article doesn't mention what was stolen. Allee had been arrested twice before in the past few weeks on felony charges but the article doesn't list the crimes he was charged with previously.

'5150 is the number of the section of the Welfare and Institutions Code, which allows an adult who is experiencing a mental health crisis to be involuntarily detained for a 72-hour psychiatric hospitalization when evaluated to be a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled,' according to the Orange County Health Care Agency.

Brock said he hopes Allee gets the mental health treatment he needs through the judicial system.

The Downtown Santa Monica Inc. board recently voted to move forward with the initiative that will see a private security company patrolling the Third Street Promenade and surrounding area.

So, not the bloody mess you seem to continually hope for and maybe albaby1 can explain the "grand theft" charge or why he was free after two felony charges in less than a month but I'll leave you with a little John Prine, a lyric I often associate with your posts:

Unhappy, unhappy
You have no complaint
You are what your are and you ain't what you ain't
So listen up buster, and listen up good
Stop wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood

maybe albaby1 can explain the "grand theft" charge or why he was free after two felony charges in less than a month....

As for grand theft, that's defined by California penal code as any theft with a value greater than $950. Per the article, he was ripping signs off of storefronts. That can either be mere property damage (tearing them off for no reason) or theft (tearing them off to keep them) - and since the former is probably a lesser included charge within the latter, you charge with the higher offense until you know what his motives were. Similarly, I expect that the arresting officers didn't know exactly the value of the signs, so it might be their policy (just speculation here) to charge with grand theft rather than petty theft until they know the facts. Since one policy goal behind the charges is to inform the defendant of what they're accused of, it can be the appropriate call to overcharge at the initial stage and then just reduce charges later if the value turns out to be lower.

As for the other charges, again this is just speculation - but prosecutors probably couldn't have proven that this guy needed to be incarcerated prior to trial. You're presumptively innocent of crimes, so until you get convicted of those crimes you have to meet certain criteria for pre-trial detention. Depending on his history and what the felony charges were, prosecutors may not have been able to establish that.

albaby1: As for grand theft, that's defined by California penal code as any theft with a value greater than $950. Per the article, he was ripping signs off of storefronts. That can either be mere property damage (tearing them off for no reason) or theft (tearing them off to keep them)...

Thanks. Looking at the video (around 1:15+), the 'signs' Brock picks up from the sidewalk look like sheets of cardboard or paper and there doesn't seem to any wall damage, but maybe there were other signs.

Thanks for the other info, too.

So, so much wrong with this story,

The suspect's records revealed he had been released twice from Los Angeles County jail on felony charges just a few days before the Santa Monica attack.

This part sums up what it's like to live in blue cities. These democrat clowns never hold felons for trial - they just let them out to go victimize the citizenry again. When confronted with this stuff they always shrug their shoulders and say, "This is a crisis...but what can you do?"

This guy was lucky in two ways. I'll be that there's a 99% chance he identified himself as a city councilman on the phone to 911. Anybody else? The police never would have shown up.

And notice also how this idiot was actually helping the homeless guy tear the signs down? Why not say, "Stop tearing the signs down?"

You're 1,000% right on the homeless fat guy being a wimp. A lot of them carry knives around - it's common here in Seattle to see them with butcher knives tucked behind their pants. Since most laws don't apply to these people, who cares if they're carrying something with more than 4" of blade? This dude is lucky he didn't get his face slashed off.

I don't care whether the guy is Liberal or Conservative- collateral damage is acceptable to me :)

Nad yes, he has the Law and Order stuff on the website - care to tell us what party he is part of?


In the meantime.....

The point remains....

Crime MUST be brought face to face with the Ruling Class, and usually that will be Liberal.

More More more!

Sing all you want, I charge a billion in federal debt for each one.

Thanks LOL

PS: Planet warmer :)

These democrat clowns never hold felons for trial

Accused felons. That's the key - they're innocent until proven guilty.

You can't just throw someone in jail simply because you have accused them of a crime. They have to go to trial first. Until they go to trial, they are still innocent in the eyes of the law. Pre-trial detention is only permitted if you can establish a specific set of circumstances that warrants imprisoning people without trial. Under the California constitution (not the policy choices of blue cities), you can't require pre-trial detention without bail unless the defendant was charged with a felony crime of violence against another person (or certain other specific crimes not apparently present here). And you can't set bail at a higher level than is necessary to ensure appearance in court and that the defendant can pay, absent proof of risk of pre-trial flight.

This really is a "what can you do" kind of situation. One aspect of a society based on personal liberty is that the state can't lock people up without a trial. Until the guy's tried and convicted, he's a free man.

<<These democrat clowns never hold felons for trial - they just let them out to go victimize the citizenry again.>>

Yeah, like that rapist Donald Trump for example...

In June, Trump was arraigned on 37 felony counts.

In April, Trump was arraigned on 34 felony counts.

Why is he still "out there victimizing the citizenry?"

Darn Liberals always following the Constitution...

Accused felons. That's the key - they're innocent until proven guilty.

Of course. And in blue cities, increasingly they're not held for trial. So they go out and reoffend.

https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-bartender-...

SEATTLE ' A bartender in Seattle is outraged that the man accused of slashing her in the face was let out of jail by a judge on the promise he'll show up for his next court date.

Surveillance video captured the brutality of that attack and Felicite Ogilvy questions her safety knowing the man arrested is back on the streets.

There have been cases in CA like this also. In WA it's a state sport:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-judge-releases-...

A Seattle man charged with murder related to a mass shooting in 2020 was released to home detention at his grandmother's house ahead of his trial.

William Tolliver, 27, was charged with first-degree murder and six counts of first-degree assault, as well as unlawful possession of a firearm, in relation to the January 2020 shooting.

Eventually he was sentenced
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/m...
Tolliver was sentenced to 48 months for second-degree manslaughter and 16 months for third-degree assault and second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. He will serve his term concurrently. Tolliver must also serve 18 months in community custody.

A judge also imposed a $500 victim penalty assessment and restitution that will be determined at a later time. Tolliver must also register as a firearm offender.

There's some hard core punishment, there.
"Mr. Tolliver was initially charged with murder," the King County Prosecutor's Office wrote in a statement. "In any case, there is never a guarantee of what will happen at a trial. This guilty plea considers the evidence and provides some measure of accountability."

Plea down murder to Manslaughter 2 and get a little over 5 years. Yay, King County Prosecutor.

Here's a good one:
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/08/man-beate...
Just days after being released from jail, a serial criminal violently beat a man to death with a metal bar in Seattle in broad daylight. The killing took place on the sidewalk of a busy street.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

You can certainly cite individual examples. I'm sure there are a number of them. That doesn't negate albaby's point of presumption of innocence. And if you are innocent, then it's not right for you to be incarcerated for any time. Which is why they invented "bail". I don't know the particulars of any given case, plus any state laws that may be applicable. The judge(s) may have been following established procedure, or they may have been careless. Dunno.

That is the price we pay for a system where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes bad people go free (both before and after trial). We still end up with a shocking number of innocent people in jail, as later demonstrated when new evidence is found, or new techniques are invented (e.g. DNA freed a lot of people), etc.

You can certainly cite individual examples. I'm sure there are a number of them. That doesn't negate albaby's point of presumption of innocence.

No one is questioning that. He's shifting the debate from the on-the-ground reality of how the system actually works and delivers results to a principle that literally no one has a problem with. Classic Motte and Bailey debate tactics.

In all the cases I cited, the system could have remanded these people to custody to await trail because of a lengthy track record of arrests, some violent. That has nothing to do with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

And in blue cities, increasingly they're not held for trial. So they go out and reoffend.

Yes - because you can't just be "held for trial." Because that's being "imprisoned without conviction." If you haven't been convicted of a crime, you can't have a punishment imposed (being locked in a jail) before the trial.

There are exceptions. If prosecutors can demonstrate that you're a flight risk, they can take measures that will ensure that you will show up when required. Only in certain, very specific instances will those measures include pretrial detention - usually you can avoid pre-trial detention by posting bail, and you have a constitutional right that such bail not be "excessive."

Again, this is an essential and unavoidable consequence of personal liberty. Perhaps the most significant state power is the ability to incarcerate you. For all the concern about deprivations of personal liberty that get discussed at length in political conversations, virtually no action by the State results in a greater loss of more liberties than being imprisoned. So you have rights against the state to keep them from being able to imprison you without a trial - which includes not being imprisoned for the time between being accused of a crime and the trial on that accusation.

Albaby

In all the cases I cited, the system could have remanded these people to custody to await trail because of a lengthy track record of arrests, some violent. That has nothing to do with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, it does. It has everything to do with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

You cannot be considered guilty of a crime because you have a track record of arrests. You cannot be considered guilty of a crime because some of those arrests were for violent crimes. You cannot be considered guilty of a crime just because your alleged victim is fearful of what might happen if you are released.

You are considered innocent of the crime you are accused of until trial - regardless of your past criminal history, your past arrest record, or any other circumstance. In limited circumstances you can be subject to pre-trial detention without bail, which vary based on state law (though are constrained by the U.S. Constitution).

In the cases you cited, it seems pretty likely that the prosecution would not have been able to establish the circumstances necessary for pre-trial detention without bail. Or I should say "case" - the other two were about the length of sentencing on conviction, not pre-trial detention.

Albaby

Yeah, like that rapist Donald Trump for example...

In June, Trump was arraigned on 37 felony counts.

In April, Trump was arraigned on 34 felony counts.



And don't forget his conviction on sexual assault, he (and his sons) having been found guilty of defrauding people who enrolled in his "college," etc etc etc. Oh....and going back a good while....defaulting on money he owed contractors who worked on his Taj Mahal....etc etc etc. And......and......

Yes - because you can't just be "held for trial." Because that's being "imprisoned without conviction." If you haven't been convicted of a crime, you can't have a punishment imposed (being locked in a jail) before the trial.

Judges can hold people for custody (or not) for a variety of reasons - whether or not the suspect is

*A flight risk
*A repeat offender
*Charged with an especially heinous crime
etc.

There are exceptions. If prosecutors can demonstrate that you're a flight risk, they can take measures that will ensure that you will show up when required. Only in certain, very specific instances will those measures include pretrial detention - usually you can avoid pre-trial detention by posting bail, and you have a constitutional right that such bail not be "excessive."

And this is where the no-cash bail laws that blue states and cities are enacting come into play. Suspects don't even need to bother to post bail; as long as there is a bail set, they're out.

Local jurisdictions, as you saw in my previous post, often also don't even charge up to the maximum level they could.

You cannot be considered guilty of a crime because you have a track record of arrests.

Judges have this discretion - they can order an offender to be held without bail.

That is the price we pay for a system where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. - 1pg

----------------

It is just common sense to make a distinction between a first time offender and a career criminal, even if both are presumed innocent of the recent crime that got them arrested. The general population has rights too that should include keeping dangerous predators off the street while they wait trial.

Perhaps there should be an escalating minimum detention with each felony conviction say 3 months per felony, so the ten time offender will spend 30 months waiting for trial on his current offense. If still no trial after 30 months, then bail will be considered. Who knows, such certainty may reduce recidivism. Can't hurt and would certainly make the streets safer for the law abiding population.

Judges have this discretion - they can order an offender to be held without bail.

Judges' discretion is limited - after all, they too are part of the state, and are constrained in just throwing someone in prison without them having been convicted of a crime. Accusations and arrests are not a conviction. Most states have statutory or constitutional provisions that set out the conditions under which pre-trial detention can be ordered.

Here in Florida, those conditions are (mostly) limited to situations where the defendant is either accused of a "dangerous" crime (statutorily defined, consisting mostly of felonies of violence against other persons and various DUI charges), there is evidence of prior violations of pre-trial release/parole conditions, evidence that they'll flee the jurisdiction, etc. It varies from state to state, but that's generally the case: if you're not being charged with a serious felony involving personal violence or a few other specified crimes, and aren't likely to skip town or otherwise violate your pre-trial release conditions, the judge is not going to be able to order pre-trial detention.

The criminal justice system is part of the state. It's part of the government. Any system of robust protections of personal liberty is going to make it difficult for the government to imprison you before you're convicted of a crime. That's just the nature of personal liberty in a free society.

Albaby

It is just common sense to make a distinction between a first time offender and a career criminal, even if both are presumed innocent of the recent crime that got them arrested.

Perhaps, but that's not demonstrated in the case that started off this thread. The homeless man in question had prior arrests, but it does not appear that he had previously been convicted. And I suspect from the description in the article that those prior arrests weren't due to him pursuing crime as a career, but rather having significant mental health problems.

First Dope states:
<<These democrat clowns NEVER hold felons for trial - they just let them out to go victimize the citizenry again.>>

Of course the one case he offers to support his claim, doesn't hold up, which is pointed out by albaby.

Then Dope moves the goalposts and says:
<<In blue cities, increasingly they're not held for trial. So they go out and reoffend.>>

So he went from, "democrat clowns NEVER hold felons for trial" to "in blue cities, increasingly they're not held for trial."

Slowing inching closer to reality...

I doubt he'll get there.

Judges have this discretion - they can order an offender to be held without bail. - dope

----------------

Was a judge involved in the lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes in solitary, of the accused but still innocent J6 offenders?

prior arrests weren't due to him pursuing crime as a career, but rather having significant mental health problems. - albaby

---------------

So what! The decision to put you back on the street should be based on the threat you pose regardless of the reason you are a threat. Innocent regular citizens deserve protection and should have their rights respected to a higher degree than the career criminal or dangerous nutjob. This appears to be yet another one of those cases where the law deviates from plain old common sense.

The decision to put you back on the street should be based on the threat you pose regardless of the reason you are a threat.

Certainly that's the way security states and dictatorships are run, but not states that have protections against personal liberties. If you have been accused or convicted of a crime of violence, you can't be put in prison on a 'preventative' basis just because a bureaucrat thinks you might be a threat.

This man might have severe mental health issues - but until he goes on trial for his crimes, he can't be imprisoned (subject to exceptions not relevant here).

Innocent regular citizens deserve protection and should have their rights respected to a higher degree than the career criminal or dangerous nutjob.

"Dangerous nutjobs" are innocent regular citizens unless and until there is a trial that determines they're not. That's the point - we don't give the government the unfettered ability to decide who is innocent and who is not except if they have a trial. This man appears not to have been convicted of any crime at all yet - at least, the article only mentions earlier arrests, not convictions. He is an innocent, regular citizen in the eyes of the law until he has had his day in court.

If you have been accused or convicted of a crime of violence, you can't be put in prison on a 'preventative' basis just because a bureaucrat thinks you might be a threat. = albaby

-----------------

Lets focus on the freshly arrested for lets say beating a defenseless woman senseless on a subway, and that innocent accused has four or five conviction for violent crimes on his record. That guy should not be released back onto the street based on his well earned threat level. If a convicted felon can have the right to vote taken away or his 2A rights taken away, why not take away the violent felons right to bail, at least for some period to make the act of getting arrested for another felony something he might want to avoid in the future.

Was a judge involved in the lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes in solitary, of the accused but still innocent J6 offenders? BHM

More than 700 defendants have been arrested in the Jan. 6 attack

Lake said defendants were being held in "prison" without being charged, but defendants are held pre-trial in jails. The majority of defendants awaiting trial have been released from jail pending the outcome of their case. The number of defendants detained pretrial is between 75 and 85 at any given time, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

As of March 6, more than 775 defendants had been arrested in connection with the Capitol attack.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., summarized the charges in a recent update. More than 245 individuals have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding police officers or employees, with over 80 of those charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.

Lets focus on the freshly arrested for lets say beating a defenseless woman senseless on a subway, and that innocent accused has four or five conviction for violent crimes on his record. That guy should not be released back onto the street based on his well earned threat level.

Indeed. But in that circumstance, pre-trial detention is always going to be possible. Even in California, when someone is accused of a violent felony, a judge can order pre-trial detention. In your hypothetical case, the defendant is going to be charged with at least aggravated assault and battery, and probably attempted murder. In any jurisdiction, pre-trial detention will be available in that scenario. Of course, the prosecutors still have a burden to meet. In most states, they still have to prove to the judge's satisfaction that they're likely to prevail in the criminal trial and that other forms of pre-trial restrictions aren't sufficient to protect the public. It's not automatic. But the judge will always have the ability to order pre-trial detention under those charges, where those factors have been met, in any state.

However, that's not the scenario presented in the OP article. Or in the pre-trial detention example cited by Dope1.

Indeed. But in that circumstance, pre-trial detention is always going to be possible. Even in California, when someone is accused of a violent felony, a judge can order pre-trial detention. In your hypothetical case, the defendant is going to be charged with at least aggravated assault and battery, and probably attempted murder. In any jurisdiction, pre-trial detention will be available in that scenario. Of course, the prosecutors still have a burden to meet. In most states, they still have to prove to the judge's satisfaction that they're likely to prevail in the criminal trial and that other forms of pre-trial restrictions aren't sufficient to protect the public. It's not automatic. But the judge will always have the ability to order pre-trial detention under those charges, where those factors have been met, in any state. = albaby

------------------

Thanks albaby, there is some comfort in knowing that.

However it seems that in today's woke environment, judges are reluctant to impose pre-trial detention or local governments have restricted its application, or local prosecutors don't do their part.

I see news reports all the time about some savage attacking an innocent and it comes out he has a lengthy record of prior violence and is out and about as he is awaiting trial for a couple more felonies. One here is Houston was actually wearing an ankle monitor as he attacked and killed someone.

I see news reports all the time about some savage attacking an innocent and it comes out he has a lengthy record of prior violence and is out and about as he is awaiting trial for a couple more felonies. One here is Houston was actually wearing an ankle monitor as he attacked and killed someone.

Except that your Houston example isn't a case where the person had a lengthy record of prior violence.

I believe you're referring to this case:

https://www.harriscountyda.com/houston_man_sentenc...

Looking at the facts described in the article, it's hard to see how the judge in the prior crime could have ordered pre-trial detention. The defendant was a minor, 16 or 17 years old. He was charged with attempted burglary - a crime that the Texas state legislature (not a body known for being "woke") has not included in the list of "offenses involving violence" for which pre-trial detention can be authorized. And under Texas law (again, set by the conservative state legislature), the law is tilted towards presuming that a person should be released on bond:

"In each criminal case, unless specifically provided by other law, there is a rebuttable presumption that bail, conditions of release, or both bail and conditions of release are sufficient to reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court as required and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of the alleged offense."

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR....

Based on the facts presented in the article, the magistrate in the first case was probably required by state law to release him on bond with an ankle monitor.

Albaby

I don't want to derail the thread, but note that this is another example where having a gun in the house ended up being a terrible thing for the gun owner. Victim was being robbed, but managed to go for his gun - but instead of preventing the robbery, victim ended up being shot to death when the perp shot back. If he hadn't owned a gun, victim would have had a good chance of surviving the encounter.

The decision to put you back on the street should be based on the threat you pose regardless of the reason you are a threat.

That would include any person who brandishes a gun in a spousal fight, a civil argument, or a road rage incident? Lotsa gun owners gittin' locked up.

Pro Crime Party=Democrat Party

LuckyDog2002: Pro Crime Party=Democrat Party

Well, then, that's settled.

Thank you for that detailed, comprehensive analysis, carefully supported by rock solid evidence, irrefutable examples, exhaustive research, and a litany of notes, data, and links. I stand in awe and salute you!

I stand in awe and salute you!

You should. It's not a fact in dispute.

You should. It's not a fact in dispute.

Yes it is.

Yes it is.

Heh. Up here in WA state it is.

I was thinking more nationally. I'm not really familiar with WA state programs, so can't comment in any informed manner. Seattle did seem to have issues when I visited, unlike NYC when I visited there. But that also may be a function of the locales I visited.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.