- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are they detaining Pelosi attacker without bail
Posted on 11/1/22 at 4:34 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 11/1/22 at 4:34 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The only charges filed against him thus far are under federal statutes. The federal criminal system does not provide for pretrial release on bail.
He has not yet been arraigned on the likely state court charges. I think the state arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow. The State Court may set bail, or it may not.
Wrong. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do provide for pre-trial release as required by the 8th Amendment.
Pre-trial release or detention.
8th Amendment
1
Posted on 11/1/22 at 4:41 pm to DaBike
Wanna bet this goes away after the election?
Posted on 11/1/22 at 4:54 pm to tigerfan 64
quote:
Why would a local prosecutor make any announcements on fed charges?
Isnt that an ADA'S responsibility?
The Assistant District Attorney is the local prosecutor. The Assistant US Attorney is the federal prosecutor.
The initial arrest was made by local police for a local offense after a complaint was made to the 911 call center which is a local process.
The federal agents have filed charges in the case, so there will likely be a strange combination of charges while the local and federal entities sort this out. Likely a federal Writ of Habeas corpus ad prosequendum was filed and served. That does not prevent local prosecution, but pre-emptively moves the defendant to federal court for the moment.
They really should have a meeting and get on the same page.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 5:09 pm to DaBike
Well, they have to watch him to make sure he commits - wait - I mean, doesn't "commit suicide".
Posted on 11/1/22 at 5:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The Rand Paul situation seems to have arisen from a years-long dispute about Rand not maintaining his yard in “adequately spiffy” fashion to suit his neighbor.
These statutes typically extend protections to governmental employees and officials who put themselves in harm’s way. First responders. Police officers. Postal workers. Judges. Yes, elected officials.
If a criminal assaults such a person, he is not just assaulting an individual. He is assaulting the institutions that they represent. He is interfering with the orderly operation of our society.
Anarchists will see that as a “good thing.” But the very nature of the crime is different from a simple assault. It is an assault upon society as a whole.
Should these protections extend to family members? That is a valid question to ask. The family members are not exposing themselves to risk, but attacking a family member is certainly a way to influence the behavior of a public official.
No one likes politicians, in a very general sense. It is very easy to frame this discussion in the context and make snarky comments.
Look instead at a cop who is arresting drug dealers. Should a drug gang not face greater penalties for assaulting his wife or child in order to influence his enforcement actions?
Hank has this one nailed here.
The concept is that an attack on our government officials who are in the performance of their official duties or because of those duties is an attack upon our society. The effect damages all of us by impairing the effective function of our government.
Hank's example of Rand Paul is perfectly chosen and articulated.
The same issue is core to the Pelosi case. Was the attack due to a bro-mance gone wrong or due to the fact that his wife is a disliked US Senator?
That is a major issue to watch very closely.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 5:22 pm to Rabby
quote:The problem here is that the language of Section 111 (public official) and of Section 115 (family members) is NOT parallel on the intent issue, but our posters are attempting to analyze the two as being identical.
The same issue is core to the Pelosi case. Was the attack due to a bro-mance gone wrong or due to the fact that his wife is a disliked US Senator?
An intent that would send an assailant to prison under 115 might NOT send an assailant to prison ubder 111.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 5:47 pm to DaBike
quote:
What is (D)ifferent ?
He’s in federal custody
Posted on 11/1/22 at 5:51 pm to Rabby
quote:
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do provide for pre-trial releas
Yes. But not when the accused is a threat to the community. I think everyone, regardless of political persuasion, would agree that this lunatic is a threat to the community
Posted on 11/1/22 at 6:24 pm to DaBike
That guy had better turn and appeal to the incoming Republican Congress to put him in a witness protection program. Given his obvious mental instability, he is a serious liability to Nancy, and that spells doom for him.
Of course, Biden is that.
Of course, Biden is that.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 6:37 pm to AggieHank86
Aggieproggie doing work!
Posted on 11/1/22 at 7:34 pm to DaBike
How do we know he's even alive anymore? You can't let a dead person out on bail can you?
This post was edited on 11/1/22 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 11/1/22 at 7:51 pm to K2LAW
quote:
Yes. But not when the accused is a threat to the community. I think everyone, regardless of political persuasion, would agree that this lunatic is a threat to the community
Risk of flight or a danger to the community are the factors to be weighed. But the earlier context was whether federal bail was allowed at all.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 7:52 pm to Geaux Tahel
quote:
How do we know he's even alive anymore? You can't let a dead person out on bail can you?
He pleaded not guilty to all charges. Figure that out
Posted on 11/1/22 at 7:54 pm to DaBike
They’re afraid he won’t kill himself if let go.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 7:55 pm to DaBike
Probably better he gets treated this way. Cash bail dude would be dead or run away.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 9:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The problem here is that the language of Section 111 (public official) and of Section 115 (family members) is NOT parallel on the intent issue, but our posters are attempting to analyze the two as being identical.
An intent that would send an assailant to prison under 115 might NOT send an assailant to prison ubder 111.
The laws and facts are a bit similar, so people might easily be confused. But they are not identical. Section 111 deals directly with a federal official and Section 115 deals with family of a federal official. They both mention language about "on account of official duties" which at first glance seems to require a degree of intent tied to retaliation for or interference with official duty for both.
However, 111 is different in that it also states "while engaged in" official duties. This changes the effect so that when the federal official is performing official duties at the moment and the action of the defendant has the effect of interfering with the official's duties, even without intent - possibly even without knowing that the person is a federal official, one can be convicted.
(See US v Marcello - assault conviction against FBI Agent Collins)
Posted on 11/1/22 at 9:40 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The only charges filed against him thus far are under federal statutes. The federal criminal system does not provide for pretrial release on bail bond.
What are you talking about? This is absolutely not correct and would be facially Unconstitutional if implemented.
Are you actually pretending to be an attorney or just outside of your depth on Criminal Procedure?
Posted on 11/1/22 at 9:52 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Mea culpa. I always admit my errors. Some federal courts DO allow the use of a bail bond. I was wrong.
I initially did only cursory research and promptly found several lawyers’ sites saying that federal courts do not use bail bondsmen, and as a result I vastly oversimplified the matter. Federal law does allow the discretion to use them, even if most districts seem to not do so. The following is from the public defender in the Central district of California:
Quit attempting to speak with authority over things you have to Google.
Reasonable Bail is guaranteed by the Constitution. Some people are held without bail due to probation violations. Case law has allowed some Defendants to be held without bail following the Bail Reform Act, but this is still in conflict with the Eighth Amendment in my opinion. I won't be surprised if this is overturned before my life/career is over.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 9:55 pm to K2LAW
quote:
a threat to the community
What percentage of the freaks in SF aren’t a threat to the community?
Posted on 11/1/22 at 10:32 pm to DaBike
Federal charges only think keeping him
In there
In there
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News