SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Rich-and-poor-treated-the-same dept.
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed Senate Bill 10, the California Money Bail Reform Act, eliminating cash bail in the state:
An overhaul of the state's bail system has been in the works for years, and became an inevitability earlier this year when a California appellate court declared the state's cash bail system unconstitutional. The new law goes into effect in October 2019. "Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly," Brown said in a statement, moments after signing the California Money Bail Reform Act.
The governor has waited nearly four decades to revamp the state's cash bail system. In his 1979 State of the State Address, Brown argued the existing process was biased, favoring the wealthy who can afford to pay for their freedom, and penalizing the poor, who often are forced to remain in custody.
[...] Under the California law those arrested and charged with a crime won't be putting up money or borrowing it from a bail bond agent to obtain their release. Instead, local courts will decide who to keep in custody and whom to release while they await trial. Those decisions will be based on an algorithm created by the courts in each jurisdiction.
Bail agents disapprove.
See also: California's 'cautionary tale' for others considering no cash bail system
California's bail bond empire strikes back
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:18AM (14 children)
It takes a special kind of idiot to think someone complaining about being tossed out of McDonalds is making terroristic threats just for smarting off and wanting to bookmark a page.
I could see disorderly conduct, but not terroristic threats.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:43AM (4 children)
You have heard MDC's version of events - I wonder if the police recall the conversation going exactly the same way? No matter, let's make a judgement based on the statement of the person who feels aggrieved by the police action. It's bound to be 100% accurate and entirely unbiased. And it is a good excuse to criticise the police because, you know, they support the Man!.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:42PM (1 child)
Perhaps, but even under his version, be got exactly what he deserved. Had he bookmarked the site when told to leave, it wouldn't have been an issue. And even if he had doneit when the police arrived, it probably wouldn't have been an issue.
Three issue is that he's a jackass that pushed his luck and got exactly what he asked for.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:15PM
Do you enjoy wearing the jackboot, or does it just fit especially nicely?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @03:02PM
I don't care what the thug officers claim, because I know the way this country operates. Most people are terrified of nearly nonexistent threats, which is irrational.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:05PM
As opposed to what, assuming he had an actual atomic bomb wired to a deadman switch?
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:28PM (8 children)
It takes a special kind of idiot to argue or stall when a person with a gun and the backing of the law asks you to leave someone else's property when that someone else wants you to leave. That was problem #1. Problem #2 was the idiotic remark uttered for the reason not to be ejected. When you are in a hole the first rule is to stop digging.
Pissing in the floor or screaming about the unfairness of it all would be disorderly conduct. Remarks to a policeman about planes falling from the sky if he cannot finish his work can be construed as terroristic threats. If you don't agree, try it out yourself and see if your results vary. If you are too smart to attempt a similar stunt, I rest my case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @03:05PM (1 child)
The fact that they can be construed as terroristic threats by a government thug do not mean it is right to interpret it that way. How likely was it that some random guy at a McDonalds was actually making a credible terrorist threat? Well, since terrorists are nearly nonexistent in the US anyway, and since it clearly sounded like a joke, almost none.
The government will likely violate your rights if you say X. So... what? What's your point? That doesn't mean that violating your rights is okay, or that it is in any way reasonable; it only means that it will probably happen.
You are an authoritarian.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:33PM
My point is that most people would realize that this type of thing could or would happen. I don't like it any more than you do, but it is a fact of the world we live in. At some point that may change, but today everyone with any sense at all recognizes that it is likely to happen. The further point is don't be a dumbass and give the police something to cause you trouble. OP was in the wrong when he refused to leave the premises. Red flags were waving when he spent the night playing on WiFi and refused to leave when asked. The airplane comment could then be construed as a threat from the circumstances. I know YOU don't like the call, but cops err on the side of caution these days of mass shootings, people running over others with vehicles and of course 9/11.
Hardly. I support the bill of rights in their entirety. I support free speech. I support liberty. Let me ask you something. Do you support the new laws that authorize the government to confiscate legally owned firearms based upon heresay? California passed a new law allowing teachers, principals, co-workers and employers to also ask for a gun restraining order for people they fear are a threat to themselves or others. How authoritarian are your politics or is that somehow different?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @03:08PM
The probability that it was a credible threat was nearly nonexistent. For one, terrorists in the US are nearly nonexistent. Two, it clearly sounded like a joke.
If you're afraid of nearly nonexistent threats and support destroying people's rights to mitigate them, you have issues.
The fact that government thugs will consistently violate your rights does not in any way make it reasonable or acceptable for them to do so. Seriously, what was your point? We already know that government thugs can interpret your words in the worst light imaginable. We should not applaud this.
You are an authoritarian.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:01PM (4 children)
All that means is that I estimate the chances that the cop is a special kind of idiot are high.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:49PM (3 children)
No. It means you are too intelligent than to do a stupid thing that will follow you the rest of your life. You worry about cops? No problem. The cop can only arrest you. The prosecutor will have to accept the case. The grand jury will have to indict you if they charge it as a felony and the trial jury will have to find you guilty. It's a three strikes crime and you would serve at least 85% of the one to four year sentence. The cop is the least of your worries. It is your "peers" you should fear that may feel a little different about joking about planes falling from the sky to the local constabulary. You need them to have your back. Reread this thread. It's not a bet I would make.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:33PM (2 children)
The prosecutor is more concerned with being able to get a conviction than with the appropriateness of getting a conviction. Grand juries are not a given and in any event, it is a widely held belief that any half decent prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. By that point, the punishment (even though the process is not acknowledged as punishment) has already exceeded the "crime".
Getting to the point, I would refrain not because I believe that the charge of terroristic threats is reasonable, but because I believe the justice system is broken and often unreasonable.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Thursday September 06 2018, @01:18PM (1 child)
Film it yourself. Live stream it. Save proof of the actual interaction. If the justice system is so broken that you believe you could be railroaded, you will be still exonerated by your jury of peers who are independent of the "system." That is, unless you are ultimately wrong about the fairness of the charges themselves. That is my point. If you cannot sow reasonable doubt about your guilt then the conviction would be appropriate. The fact that you disagree about the fairness or appropriateness of the charge is just as meaningless as the OP's belief that the importance of his "research" somehow makes his statement inconsequential.
You refuse to admit it, but your disagreement is with the premise of the law itself, not whether it was applied appropriately. You might even get away with it in a trial in Berkeley, but in areas with lots of active duty or retired military, law enforcement, or the type of people that don't find this type of thing funny, you will be convicted. That it the bottom line and you know it.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday September 06 2018, @06:21PM
Did you miss the part about the process of going to trial already being punishing? Yes, I believe you did. That's what the saying "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" is all about.
And, wrong again. I do believe that it is possible to make credible threats that could be considered terroristic and that doing so is criminal in nature. I just think it is beyond time that authorities in the "Home of the brave" stop behaving like a flock of frightened chickens. If that includes the ex-military you speak of, then shame on them.
It's more than a little disheartening to see grown men terrorized by an obvious child's toy or anything that has wires.