Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
41 minutes 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.  

Pre-trial detention has a very limited purpose. It should not be and is not the default of the legal system in part because pre-trial detention is functionally identical to imprisoning someone without a trial. If your view of "danger to society" was adopted, everyone accused of a potentially violent crime or of crimes like theft would be subject to jail without trial.  Here, the circumstances of this incident don't implicate a general danger to society while out on bond. This appears by all accounts to be an isolated incident with a particular individual in a particular setting. His "admission" to the crime came with a pretty important caveat that he was defending himself AND an expression of concern for the well being of the victim. 

No one is calling you names. No one is attacking you. We are simply explaining the law. And we are explaining why your argument isn't and should be a basis to jail him prior to any conviction. Stop being so sensitive. Man up. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Pre-trial detention has a very limited purpose. It should not be and is not the default of the legal system in part because pre-trial detention is functionally identical to imprisoning someone without a trial. If your view of "danger to society" was adopted, everyone accused of a potentially violent crime or of crimes like theft would be subject to jail without trial.  Here, the circumstances of this incident don't implicate a general danger to society while out on bond. This appears by all accounts to be an isolated incident with a particular individual in a particular setting. His "admission" to the crime came with a pretty important caveat that he was defending himself AND an expression of concern for the well being of the victim. 

No one is calling you names. No one is attacking you. We are simply explaining the law. And we are explaining why your argument isn't and should be a basis to jail him prior to any conviction. Stop being so sensitive. Man up. 

If more men could do this, there'd be a lot fewer men and boys constantly walking around with weapons on them.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If more men could do this, there'd be a lot fewer men and boys constantly walking around with weapons on them.

Message boards would also be much less popular.

Posted

Certainly not a criminal lawyer but $250K seems pretty low for a murder rap.  I would expect $500K -$1MM more typical.  Anyone with knowledge want to weigh in?  I'm not looking for arguments what "should" be the case.  I'm asking if any practitioner has relevant market insight.

Posted
46 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Pre-trial detention has a very limited purpose. It should not be and is not the default of the legal system in part because pre-trial detention is functionally identical to imprisoning someone without a trial. If your view of "danger to society" was adopted, everyone accused of a potentially violent crime or of crimes like theft would be subject to jail without trial.  Here, the circumstances of this incident don't implicate a general danger to society while out on bond. This appears by all accounts to be an isolated incident with a particular individual in a particular setting. His "admission" to the crime came with a pretty important caveat that he was defending himself AND an expression of concern for the well being of the victim. 

No one is calling you names. No one is attacking you. We are simply explaining the law. And we are explaining why your argument isn't and should be a basis to jail him prior to any conviction. Stop being so sensitive. Man up. 

All fair points. So what standard of “danger to the public” needs to be met so that someone is not released on bond?

Posted

The amount bail and reasoning behind it is at the discretion of the judge or magistrate.  This is the guidance from the statute:

Quote

 

(b) In setting bail under this article, the magistrate shall impose the least restrictive conditions, if any, and the personal bond or cash or surety bond necessary 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.

(c) 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.

 

Feel free to read the statute.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Hate said:

So what standard of “danger to the public” needs to be met so that someone is not released on bond?

It's going to be entirely fact-specific.

Imagine if you killed someone (it could happen).  The circumstances would likely be a pretty freakish one-off.  Your deranged neighbor comes over and threatens you, he lunges at you.  You are one of those guys who carries a basic lockblade knife with him.  You are able to pull it, and you stab him, he dies.  Maybe a witness saw y'all arguing beforehand, so your self-defense claim isn't enough, and you get charged with murder.

The circumstances are that you have a clean record, no history of violence of violent threats, and whatever the case (murder or self-defense), your violent act here was clearly a product of a particular circumstance, not some wider violent trend.  Bottom line, even if you DID murder your neighbor, you're not likely to be a threat of violence to anyone else.

Compare that to someone who is charged with killing a member of a rival gang.  The accused has a long record of violent offenses and threats to kill others.  The accused has a record of a long-standing beef with the entire rival gang, and was heard at various times threatening members of the rival gang.  He is reasonably likely to commit further violence along those lines if he's released.

It's not just the act alleged (you killed someone).  It's the circumstances that make you a likely future threat to others or not.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's going to be entirely fact-specific.

Imagine if you killed someone (it could happen).  The circumstances would likely be a pretty freakish one-off.  Your deranged neighbor comes over and threatens you, he lunges at you.  You are one of those guys who carries a basic lockblade knife with him.  You are able to pull it, and you stab him, he dies.  Maybe a witness saw y'all arguing beforehand, so your self-defense claim isn't enough, and you get charged with murder.

The circumstances are that you have a clean record, no history of violence of violent threats, and whatever the case (murder or self-defense), your violent act here was clearly a product of a particular circumstance, not some wider violent trend.  Bottom line, even if you DID murder your neighbor, you're not likely to be a threat of violence to anyone else.

Compare that to someone who is charged with killing a member of a rival gang.  The accused has a long record of violent offenses and threats to kill others.  The accused has a record of a long-standing beef with the entire rival gang, and was heard at various times threatening members of the rival gang.  He is reasonably likely to commit further violence along those lines if he's released.

It's not just the act alleged (you killed someone).  It's the circumstances that make you a likely future threat to others or not.

I think his username might be held against him at the bail hearing.

  • Haha 4
Posted
2 hours ago, Hate said:

You people look for any slight nuance in a post that you can use to wow everyone with your enlightenment. Fuck off.

That’s all well and good, but what do you mean by “you people”? 

  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Pre-trial detention has a very limited purpose. It should not be and is not the default of the legal system in part because pre-trial detention is functionally identical to imprisoning someone without a trial. If your view of "danger to society" was adopted, everyone accused of a potentially violent crime or of crimes like theft would be subject to jail without trial.  Here, the circumstances of this incident don't implicate a general danger to society while out on bond. This appears by all accounts to be an isolated incident with a particular individual in a particular setting. His "admission" to the crime came with a pretty important caveat that he was defending himself AND an expression of concern for the well being of the victim. 

No one is calling you names. No one is attacking you. We are simply explaining the law. And we are explaining why your argument isn't and should be a basis to jail him prior to any conviction. Stop being so sensitive. Man up. 

People take legal commentary amazingly personally and read into it things that aren't there.

Also, representing an incarcerated defendant is quite difficult.  You can't just call him up and have a privileged conversation, or have him come by the office for lengthy discussion and witness prep.  You have to do it at the jail, on their schedule, and take extra precautions to avoid eavesdroppers and waiver of privilege.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

People take legal commentary amazingly personally and read into it things that aren't there.

Also, representing an incarcerated defendant is quite difficult.  You can't just call him up and have a privileged conversation, or have him come by the office for lengthy discussion and witness prep.  You have to do it at the jail, on their schedule, and take extra precautions to avoid eavesdroppers and waiver of privilege.

 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

People take legal commentary amazingly personally and read into it things that aren't there.

Also, representing an incarcerated defendant is quite difficult.  You can't just call him up and have a privileged conversation, or have him come by the office for lengthy discussion and witness prep.  You have to do it at the jail, on their schedule, and take extra precautions to avoid eavesdroppers and waiver of privilege.


 

username checks out

  • Haha 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Does the amount of the bond also have any relationship to the means of the defendant and/or their potential to flee the country/state?

It could, but mostly in the case of the uber-wealthy who have a known history of flitting about the globe, but its the latter, a by-product of wealth, rather than wealth itself.  It's mostly taken care of by surrender of passport.

On the other hand, excessive bail can be challenged on the ground that it is unaffordable.

Posted
21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Does the amount of the bond also have any relationship to the means of the defendant and/or their potential to flee the country/state?

Yes.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Lol no kidding. 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. 

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

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

If that's true, then its also true I assume that posts you make on surly can be held against you?

 

Oh shit. 

 

 

What is this, England?

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Lol no kidding. 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. 

nvmnd

Edited by Foosters
Posted
14 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

If that's true, then its also true I assume that posts you make on surly can be held against you?

 

Oh shit. 

 

 

I've heard of a damning deposition testimony regarding the meaning of Tree Fiddy.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Jerry Callo said:

The amount bail and reasoning behind it is at the discretion of the judge or magistrate.  This is the guidance from the statute:

Feel free to read the statute.

04b6bd39-6461-4557-8746-1dd9d8f5bdb5_tex

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 6
  • Like 2
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, 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 2
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
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)

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...