Bail Reform Laws...What say you?

[Joe]

12 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

Imagine thinking human freedom was a PsyOp, and that weaponizing the justice system against innocent poor people was a virtue.

Imagine believing that libertarian societies are actually possible without becoming Somalia.

 

Libertarians live in a fantasy world.

 

Also, imagine libertarians thinking they care about the poor other than as grist for the business class

Edited November 27, 2021 by Joe

[Fansince88]

On 11/25/2021 at 9:37 AM, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

@Joe

 

Your dopey emoji isn’t an argument, Joe.

 

The prison system is both an industry, and an exercise in judicial and prosecutory misconduct; and it shouldn’t be.

 

The Rittenhouse trial should have proved this to everyone.

 

The justice system doesn’t seek justice, it hunts in service of ideology and politics, and it abuses the poor.

 

Police lie, and DA’s over-charge. This is purposeful. Bail gets set, and innocent individuals take pleas in order that they don’t sit in cells awaiting trial because they can’t afford to.

 

This is the common case, and it’s a huge miscarriage of justice.

 

It’s why bail reform was necessary.

 

Of course there’s an anecdotal downside, but so is there for innocent until proven guilty.

 

Yes, some of the guilty will go free, but it serves to protect the innocent.

 

The Rittenhouse trial should have demonstrated this as well.

 

As a family member and friend of many in the turnstile we call law enforcement I have to say the above is by far the most misrepresentation of the truth I have read on here save the covid thread. Are there some that are wrongfully arrested? Yes. That said, explain your position above to the family in Plattsburg NY that buried their daughter after she was cut to pieces in the mans backyard she ratted on for moving Fentanyl into the area. He was let out without bail because it was an "Non-violent" offense. 4 hours later he found out who ratted her out and killed her. The arresting officer told my son he has not been able to get his narcs to talk anymore because they know how it works. Narc and the one who is let out because of "bail reform" Kills you or messes up your family.

 Dont even get me started on the family members that work in the prison system. We are now paying for the meth addicts' to have meth in NYS system because expecting them not to use when they have to be imprisoned for years is just plain wrong. Also when a prisoner is written up for sticking a shank in an officer they cant go to solitary confinement because they were there less then 30 days before. The pendulum has swung too far the wrong way bud.

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

On 11/27/2021 at 2:22 PM, Fansince88 said:

As a family member and friend of many in the turnstile we call law enforcement I have to say the above is by far the most misrepresentation of the truth I have read on here save the covid thread. Are there some that are wrongfully arrested? Yes. That said, explain your position above to the family in Plattsburg NY that buried their daughter after she was cut to pieces in the mans backyard she ratted on for moving Fentanyl into the area. He was let out without bail because it was an "Non-violent" offense. 4 hours later he found out who ratted her out and killed her. The arresting officer told my son he has not been able to get his narcs to talk anymore because they know how it works. Narc and the one who is let out because of "bail reform" Kills you or messes up your family.

 Dont even get me started on the family members that work in the prison system. We are now paying for the meth addicts' to have meth in NYS system because expecting them not to use when they have to be imprisoned for years is just plain wrong. Also when a prisoner is written up for sticking a shank in an officer they cant go to solitary confinement because they were there less then 30 days before. The pendulum has swung too far the wrong way bud.

Mmhmm…

 

Yeah…

 

So, while I thank you for your contribution of an anecdotal example, no, I don’t need to answer your ask of “providing an explanation”, because multiple anecdotes is not a synonym of “data”.

 

The law cannot be legitimate when it’s structured against a consistency of justice.
 

Bail reform has not gone *far enough*.
 

Cash bail needs to be abolished completely.

 

The justice system begins with corrupt politicians who pass unjust laws.

 

Next up comes the police, a pool of people who are drawn, 40% of whom beat their wives.

 

Then we involve prosecutors and DAs who are political predators, disinterred in justice.

 

You can suck all the state dick you want. You’re still morally bankrupt.

[Fansince88]

51 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

Mmhmm…

 

Yeah…

 

So, while I thank you for your contribution of an anecdotal example, no, I don’t need to answer your ask of “providing an explanation”, because multiple anecdotes is not a synonym of “data”.

 

The law cannot be legitimate when it’s structured against a consistency of justice.
 

Bail reform has not gone *far enough*.
 

Cash bail needs to be abolished completely.

 

The justice system begins with corrupt politicians who pass unjust laws.

 

Next up comes the police, a pool of people who are drawn, 40% of whom beat their wives.

 

Then we involve prosecutors and DAs who are political predators, disinterred in justice.

 

You can suck all the state dick you want. You’re still morally bankrupt.

Zero clue your point of the bold. That said, you and I are 100% on the opposite slant of this. You are not going to hear what I say. Im not going to agree either with your dribble. Are police all good people. No. Do 40%beat their wives? That I don't believe. Done with returned rant. I will end it there and discuss in other threads what I agree with you or we can grow from our disagreements.  This isnt one we are swaying on and that is clear. 

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

14 hours ago, Fansince88 said:

Zero clue your point of the bold. That said, you and I are 100% on the opposite slant of this. You are not going to hear what I say. Im not going to agree either with your dribble. Are police all good people. No. Do 40%beat their wives? That I don't believe. Done with returned rant. I will end it there and discuss in other threads what I agree with you or we can grow from our disagreements.  This isnt one we are swaying on and that is clear. 

You can disagree with facts all you want, but that doesn’t in any way mitigate them.

We are on the opposite ends of this because you have an aversion to uncomfortable facts, and don’t seem to desire a justice system which serves justice, but rather prefer one which institutionally abuses the poor.

 

If you don’t want your wildly immoral preferences challenged, don’t share them.

 

[Keukasmallie]

I'm quite sure that there are many "poor" people who don't run up against the justice system because they don't break the law.  When they do make a decision that finds them in the justice system, I want them to be treated the same as everyone else.  I know that the indigent may end up with a public defender while a person of some  means can afford representation of choice.  

 

I also know that along the path to justice decsions are  made that favor one group or another.  Judges are in a position to insure that justice for all is equitably distributed.  I see judges as  key players in the fight to keep equality in place.

 

District attorneys who refuse to apply the law equitably deny equal justice under the law.  They may see themselves as doing good work by undercharging Jamie to make up for the overcharging by an office mate of Lorraine. In fact, that just emphasizes the problem as both parties suffer. 

[Fansince88]

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

You can disagree with facts all you want, but that doesn’t in any way mitigate them.

We are on the opposite ends of this because you have an aversion to uncomfortable facts, and don’t seem to desire a justice system which serves justice, but rather prefer one which institutionally abuses the poor.

 

If you don’t want your wildly immoral preferences challenged, don’t share them.

 

Lived the first 30 years of my 51 years poor. Ever eat popcorn for diner because you had no cash and that was all that was in the house? I have. I know what it is like to eat light because the leftovers are required to sustain you the following day. Don't tell me about poor. I lived this yet only brush with the law was when I turned left at a light and got t-boned by someone running the amber light. guess what I did, I payed my ticket. Why? Because I was in the wrong. Poor or rich if you break the law there are consequences.  Consequences have no baring on your checking account. 

You have offered no facts. Just your opinion. I don't agree with your opinion. You don't agree with mine. 

[Foxx]

21 hours ago, Fansince88 said:

Ever eat popcorn for diner

Back in the day...

 

We had to save our cashola for the important things in life, chicks and beer (not necessarily in that order mind you). As a means to an end, my buddy Tim used to swear by popcorn and Miracle Whip sammies.

[Keukasmallie]

Fourteen of the smash and grabbers were arrested.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/12/02/los-angeles-retail-robberies-arrests/8847556002/

 

And most were released w/ no bail.  Jesus wept, what is the country coming to?

Edited December 3, 2021 by Keukasmallie
correction

[Arm of Harm]

On 11/25/2021 at 9:37 AM, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

@Joe

 

Your dopey emoji isn’t an argument, Joe.

 

The prison system is both an industry, and an exercise in judicial and prosecutory misconduct; and it shouldn’t be.

 

The Rittenhouse trial should have proved this to everyone.

 

The justice system doesn’t seek justice, it hunts in service of ideology and politics, and it abuses the poor.

 

Police lie, and DA’s over-charge. This is purposeful. Bail gets set, and innocent individuals take pleas in order that they don’t sit in cells awaiting trial because they can’t afford to.

 

This is the common case, and it’s a huge miscarriage of justice.

 

It’s why bail reform was necessary.

 

Of course there’s an anecdotal downside, but so is there for innocent until proven guilty.

 

Yes, some of the guilty will go free, but it serves to protect the innocent.

 

The Rittenhouse trial should have demonstrated this as well.

 

There are three reasons why someone could get over-charged:

 

1) Ambition of the prosecutor.

2) Privately owned prison/profit motive.

3) A DA or special council who’s playing politics.

 

The Rittenhouse case and everything brought by the Mueller probe are examples of this third category. Electing more Soros-sponsored DAs can only increase the number of politically-based prosecutions.

 

There also exists the problem of under-prosecution and under-incarceration. Over-prosecution and under-prosecution can exist within the same DA; for example when Kamala Harris chose to put marijuana users away for a very long time, while choosing not to prosecute violent gang members for murder. 
 

The two most fundamental responsibilities of government are to secure the border and to protect against violent criminals. The Left has chosen to abdicate both. The fact the Left sometimes embraces politically-motivated prosecutions, such as the Rittenhouse case, should not be seen as vindication for its abdication of any responsibility for protecting the public from violent criminals. 

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

On 12/5/2021 at 2:49 PM, Arm of Harm said:

There are three reasons why someone could get over-charged:

 

1) Ambition of the prosecutor.

2) Privately owned prison/profit motive.

3) A DA or special council who’s playing politics.

 

The Rittenhouse case and everything brought by the Mueller probe are examples of this third category. Electing more Soros-sponsored DAs can only increase the number of politically-based prosecutions.

 

There also exists the problem of under-prosecution and under-incarceration. Over-prosecution and under-prosecution can exist within the same DA; for example when Kamala Harris chose to put marijuana users away for a very long time, while choosing not to prosecute violent gang members for murder. 
 

The two most fundamental responsibilities of government are to secure the border and to protect against violent criminals. The Left has chosen to abdicate both. The fact the Left sometimes embraces politically-motivated prosecutions, such as the Rittenhouse case, should not be seen as vindication for its abdication of any responsibility for protecting the public from violent criminals. 

The government has no duty to protect the public.

 

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no duty, or responsibility to protect individuals, their property, or their rights.

 

Their exclusive responsibility is to uphold the law, IE enforce government edicts.

 

Legislatures similarly enjoy no such responsibility to the people. There are thousands of unjust laws, most direct Constitutional violations, which serve no purpose other than to harass and incarcerate otherwise peaceful citizens.

 

We have seen major law enforcement agencies weaponized over politics, and currently live in a reality in which the United States government takes political prisoners.

 

In 2015, the year of the most recent comprehensive research, on any given day, roughly 700,000 individuals across the country were being held in local jails pre-trial. Of those more than half had no criminal record prior to their arrest.

 

None of these 700,000 individuals had been convicted of the crime for which they were accused. IE, they were innocent, as they not yet proven guilty, which it the state’s burden, and is the fundamental underpinning of a just, classically liberal, legal system.

 

This is where the prosecutorial segment of governments come into play. Prosecutors and DAs are political creatures, working within a political structure. Their job is not to seek truth, or justice, or to work in the general interests of the citizenry. Their only job is to get convictions.

 

Police who have no duty to protect citizens or their rights, and a state which rewards agents of the state for incarceration.

 

This leads, nearly always, to malfeasance. Conservatives, who generally otherwise are happy to concede that government must remain small and uninvasive because it is so corruptible, somehow lack the intellectual consistency to apply this same principle to the justice system.

 

This malfeasance has created a caste system under cash bail, which serves to compel innocent poor to accept plea deals so they do not sit in jail, pre-trial for weeks, sometimes months, awaiting trial.

 

This is a massive injustice.

 

It also certainly cannot be said that the United States has an under incarceration problem.

According to the ACLU, over the past 30 years, the number of jail admissions annually has increased roughly 100% to 12 million; note, not convicted incarcerated, but rather individuals admitted for pre-trial holding. At this same time the average length of pre-trial stay has increased more than 50% from 14 to a now 23 days.

 

According to a report by Business Insider, roughly 54% of the United States lives paycheck to paycheck.

 

The poor cannot afford to be out of work 3 weeks or more sitting in a cell. They cannot afford cash bail. They cannot afford to pay the non-refundable fees to for-profit bail bondsmen.

 

So, to recap:

 

The government has no responsibility to protect citizens or their rights.

 

Prosecutors ad DAs are politically motivated government agents, incentivized by their chosen profession to convict as many people as possible.

 

Pre-trial imprisonments have exploded over the past three decades in both abundance and length of stay.

[Arm of Harm]

25 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

The government has no duty to protect the public.

 

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no duty, or responsibility to protect individuals, their property, or their rights.

 

Their exclusive responsibility is to uphold the law, IE enforce government edicts.

 

Legislatures similarly enjoy no such responsibility to the people. There are thousands of unjust laws, most direct Constitutional violations, which serve no purpose other than to harass and incarcerate otherwise peaceful citizens.

 

We have seen major law enforcement agencies weaponized over politics, and currently live in a reality in which the United States government takes political prisoners.

 

In 2015, the year of the most recent comprehensive research, roughly 700,000 individuals across the country were being held in local jails pre-trial. Of those more than half had no criminal record prior to their arrest.

 

None of these 700,000 individuals had been convicted of the crime for which they were accused. IE, they were innocent, as they not yet proven guilty, which it the state’s burden, and is the fundamental underpinning of a just, classically liberal, legal system.

 

This is where the prosecutorial segment of governments come into play. Prosecutors and DAs are political creatures, working within a political structure. Their job is not to seek truth, or justice, or to work in the general interests of the citizenry. Their only job is to get convictions.

 

Police who have no duty to protect citizens or their rights, and a state which rewards agents of the state for incarceration.

 

This leads, nearly always, to malfeasance. Conservatives, who generally otherwise are happy to concede that government must remain small and uninvasive because it is so corruptible, somehow lack the intellectual consistency to apply this same principle to the justice system.

 

This malfeasance has created a caste system under cash bail, which serves to compel innocent poor to accept plea deals so they do not sit in jail, pre-trial for weeks, sometimes months, awaiting trial.

 

This is a massive injustice.

 

It also certainly cannot be said that the United States has an under incarceration problem.

According to the ACLU, over the past 30 years, the number of jail admissions annually has increased roughly 100% to 12 million; note, not convicted incarcerated, but rather individuals admitted for pre-trial holding. At this same time the average length of pre-trial stay has increased more than 50% from 14 to a now 23 days.

 

According to a report by Business Insider, roughly 54% of the United States lives paycheck to paycheck.

 

The poor cannot afford to be out of work 3 weeks or more sitting in a cell. They cannot afford cash bail. They cannot afford to pay the non-refundable fees to for-profit bail bondsmen.

 

So, to recap:

 

The government has no responsibility to protect citizens or their rights.

 

Prosecutors ad DAs are politically motivated government agents, incentivized by their chosen profession to convict as many people as possible.

 

Pre-trial imprisonments have exploded over the past three decades in both abundance and length of stay.

First, I’d like to make a distinction between intrinsic responsibilities versus legally enforceable responsibilities. The government has an intrinsic responsibility to protect against foreign invasion (secure the southern border) and to protect against violent crime. If these intrinsic responsibilities are not legally enforceable, that is a problem with the law. 
 

The presence of over-prosecution is not evidence of the absence of under-prosecution. Both can, and do, exist side by side. For example there is a DA in the NYC area who appears uninterested in prosecuting violent criminals. But if you are a law-abiding citizen who defends himself against criminal attack, this DA will go after you with everything. This DA is under-prosecuting violent criminals and over-prosecuting law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.

 

To take another example: I’ve heard of at least one inner city judge in the Buffalo area who hands out very light sentences to violent criminals. (Under-prosecution, or at least under-conviction.) But, there is a different judge less than an hour away. A woman had an unpaid ticket for a minor traffic violation. She’d forgotten about it, and her punishment was to spend several weekends in jail. The over-prosecution of this woman does not justify the under-prosecution of violent criminals.

 

Or consider the events of January the 6th. The government has chosen to lock up large numbers of people, without trial or conviction, for a long duration. The government is behaving lawlessly. One murder was committed on January the 6th: that of Ashley Babbitt. The police officer who murdered her is not in jail, has been charged with nothing, and no charges are likely to be brought. So, politically-motivated over-prosecution for some, and a politically-motivated non-prosecution for the day’s one murderer. On the other hand, Kamala Harris has established a bail fund for the benefit of George Floyd rioters.

 

If we were a decent society we would prosecute criminals and leave non-criminals alone. Our government has failed at both, and is not a government run by decent people. Only someone lost in a pipe dream could imagine that the election of Soros-funded prosecutors could lead to a more restrained, more decent government. Soros is the enemy of all that is good and decent in this country. 

The solution is for people to accept the notion that the government’s actions should be constrained by morality and by the rule of law. The Left emphatically rejects both constraints upon the government.  The solution to the problems we’ve discussed is to be found outside Leftism. 

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

2 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said:

First, I’d like to make a distinction between intrinsic responsibilities versus legally enforceable responsibilities. The government has an intrinsic responsibility to protect against foreign invasion (secure the southern border) and to protect against violent crime. If these intrinsic responsibilities are not legally enforceable, that is a problem with the law. 
 

The presence of over-prosecution is not evidence of the absence of under-prosecution. Both can, and do, exist side by side. For example there is a DA in the NYC area who appears uninterested in prosecuting violent criminals. But if you are a law-abiding citizen who defends himself against criminal attack, this DA will go after you with everything. This DA is under-prosecuting violent criminals and over-prosecuting law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.

 

To take another example: I’ve heard of at least one inner city judge in the Buffalo area who hands out very light sentences to violent criminals. (Under-prosecution, or at least under-conviction.) But, there is a different judge less than an hour away. A woman had an unpaid ticket for a minor traffic violation. She’d forgotten about it, and her punishment was to spend several weekends in jail. The over-prosecution of this woman does not justify the under-prosecution of violent criminals.

 

Or consider the events of January the 6th. The government has chosen to lock up large numbers of people, without trial or conviction, for a long duration. The government is behaving lawlessly. One murder was committed on January the 6th: that of Ashley Babbitt. The police officer who murdered her is not in jail, has been charged with nothing, and no charges are likely to be brought. So, politically-motivated over-prosecution for some, and a politically-motivated non-prosecution for the day’s one murderer. On the other hand, Kamala Harris has established a bail fund for the benefit of George Floyd rioters.

 

If we were a decent society we would prosecute criminals and leave non-criminals alone. Our government has failed at both, and is not a government run by decent people. Only someone lost in a pipe dream could imagine that the election of Soros-funded prosecutors could lead to a more restrained, more decent government. Soros is the enemy of all that is good and decent in this country. 

The solution is for people to accept the notion that the government’s actions should be constrained by morality and by the rule of law. The Left emphatically rejects both constraints upon the government.  The solution to the problems we’ve discussed is to be found outside Leftism. 

This is entirely tangential to the points I’ve made, and the well established case for the abolition of cash bail.

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

The government has no duty to protect the public.

 

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no duty, or responsibility to protect individuals, their property, or their rights.

 

Their exclusive responsibility is to uphold the law, IE enforce government edicts.

 

Legislatures similarly enjoy no such responsibility to the people. There are thousands of unjust laws, most direct Constitutional violations, which serve no purpose other than to harass and incarcerate otherwise peaceful citizens.

 

We have seen major law enforcement agencies weaponized over politics, and currently live in a reality in which the United States government takes political prisoners.

 

In 2015, the year of the most recent comprehensive research, roughly 700,000 individuals across the country were being held in local jails pre-trial. Of those more than half had no criminal record prior to their arrest.

 

None of these 700,000 individuals had been convicted of the crime for which they were accused. IE, they were innocent, as they not yet proven guilty, which it the state’s burden, and is the fundamental underpinning of a just, classically liberal, legal system.

 

This is where the prosecutorial segment of governments come into play. Prosecutors and DAs are political creatures, working within a political structure. Their job is not to seek truth, or justice, or to work in the general interests of the citizenry. Their only job is to get convictions.

 

Police who have no duty to protect citizens or their rights, and a state which rewards agents of the state for incarceration.

 

This leads, nearly always, to malfeasance. Conservatives, who generally otherwise are happy to concede that government must remain small and uninvasive because it is so corruptible, somehow lack the intellectual consistency to apply this same principle to the justice system.

 

This malfeasance has created a caste system under cash bail, which serves to compel innocent poor to accept plea deals so they do not sit in jail, pre-trial for weeks, sometimes months, awaiting trial.

 

This is a massive injustice.

 

It also certainly cannot be said that the United States has an under incarceration problem.

According to the ACLU, over the past 30 years, the number of jail admissions annually has increased roughly 100% to 12 million; note, not convicted incarcerated, but rather individuals admitted for pre-trial holding. At this same time the average length of pre-trial stay has increased more than 50% from 14 to a now 23 days.

 

According to a report by Business Insider, roughly 54% of the United States lives paycheck to paycheck.

 

The poor cannot afford to be out of work 3 weeks or more sitting in a cell. They cannot afford cash bail. They cannot afford to pay the non-refundable fees to for-profit bail bondsmen.

 

So, to recap:

 

The government has no responsibility to protect citizens or their rights.

 

Prosecutors ad DAs are politically motivated government agents, incentivized by their chosen profession to convict as many people as possible.

 

Pre-trial imprisonments have exploded over the past three decades in both abundance and length of stay.

@TakeYouToTasker 2.0, you've mentioned that the police have no obligation to protect citizens in the past & now reference a 2005 SCOTUS case presumably informing that opinion of yours.

 

Might you be so kind to either provide a link to that case, or at least the name of the case?  Would like to read the justices' opinions & background on that case itself.  TIA. 

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

12 hours ago, Taro T said:

@TakeYouToTasker 2.0, you've mentioned that the police have no obligation to protect citizens in the past & now reference a 2005 SCOTUS case presumably informing that opinion of yours.

 

Might you be so kind to either provide a link to that case, or at least the name of the case?  Would like to read the justices' opinions & background on that case itself.  TIA. 

There’s quite the legal history for this.

 

Start with Warren v. District of Columbia

 

Reaffirmed by Castle Rock v. Gonzales

 

Most recently reaffirmed by a Federal Judge after the Broward County shootings.

 

Here’s a well sourced summary (an OpEd, but it includes footnotes) with additional rulings:

 

https://fee.org/articles/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/

 

 

[Taro T]

38 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

There’s quite the legal history for this.

 

Start with Warren v. District of Columbia

 

Reaffirmed by Castle Rock v. Gonzales

 

Most recently reaffirmed by a Federal Judge after the Broward County shootings.

 

Here’s a well sourced summary (an OpEd, but it includes footnotes) with additional rulings:

 

https://fee.org/articles/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/

 

 

 

Thank you.  Will check that out.

 

🍺

[Arm of Harm]

On 12/5/2021 at 4:30 PM, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

This is entirely tangential to the points I’ve made, and the well established case for the abolition of cash bail.

The obvious argument in favor of cash bail is that it saves lives. Taking violent criminals off the street and putting them in jail prevents them from committing additional crimes.

 

Your counter-argument is based in large part on the observation that the government is ignoring the rules and abusing its power. There is no longer the same emphasis on due process that there used to be, and people are being held for long periods of time without trial. While I agree this is a problem, the elimination of cash bail is not a solution. Eliminating cash bail will neither force the government to lock up the people they should be locking up, nor prevent them from locking up people they have no business imprisoning. 
 

Opposition to violent crime is one of the most basic and fundamental responsibilities of government. The fact our government is becoming increasingly untrustworthy and unbound by the rule of law does not obviate the need for it to uphold this responsibility. 

[B-Man]

 

 

Just three days after the Waukesha Parade attack, a 33-year-old man named Chad Marcinkiewicz was arrested on suspicion of stabbing a man to death…while out on bail for a previous stabbing this summer that multiple law enforcement sources say left a man seriously injured.  In fact, the morning of the murder, Marcinkiewicz was in court for a preliminary hearing on charges of recklessly endangering safety in connection with that stabbing.

 

The following day, 20-year-old Donta L. Roberts was arrested in the shooting death of Devonta Lusk while out on signature bond for pointing a gun at someone in the summer of 2020.  Roberts is now charged with Lusk’s murder as well as several counts of bail jumping.

 

And just yesterday, a 23-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of killing a 41-year-old man by repeatedly running him over with her car.  The woman, who is not being identified because she has not yet been criminally charged, allegedly ran over the victim so many times that a 911 caller “saw a body part come off the victim.”

 

The woman attacker in the SUV murder was identified Monday as Lydia Carmona-Cartagena. She told police she met the victim, Chad Wilson, on Facebook and spent nearly 24 hours with him, drinking and doing drugs. After their night together, he agreed to drive her home but they got into some kind of fight and he told her to get out of his truck. In response, she stabbed him and then got in his vehicle and ran him over repeatedly:

She wasn’t happy with where he chose to let her out. She pulled out a knife and stabbed Wilson three times in the legs and abdomen. He was able to get the knife away while fighting back.

Carmona-Cartagena should have been in jail instead of on the street. Just like Darrell Brooks, she had recently been arrested for a violent attack on her partner. In fact, she was arrested for attacking her boyfriend twice but in both cases she was not prosecuted:

On June 10th, she was arrested for substantial battery-domestic violence and strangulation after attacking her boyfriend. Assistant District Attorney Elaine Fehrs declined to prosecute; a move called a “no process.”

Exactly four months later, on October 10th, the woman was arrested again for battery-domestic violence and two counts of strangulation for allegedly attacking both her boyfriend and her father. Her case was again “no processed,” this time by Assistant District Attorney Claire Zyber.

Twice in the past six months, the woman was released without facing a single criminal count even though Milwaukee Police recommended serious domestic violence-related charges.

Were these also mistakes by DA Chisolm’s office?

At a certain point it becomes clear that this is just how things operate in Milwaukee County under DA Chisolm.

His office will keep setting you free after you violently attack someone until you actually commit murder. Only then will his office take it seriously.

 

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2021/12/14/weeks-after-the-waukesha-massacre-a-wisconsin-woman-killed-a-man-by-driving-over-him-with-an-suv-n435429