Lololol, you're making progress. At least you didn't claim she didn't donate.

For a liberal to make progress in telling the truth, it's something to celebrate.

She posted a Tweet years before the case Trump was talking about (Tillman). No evidence she donated money. That's about the end of it.

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

It's not THAT she wanted people to support this bail fund. It's WHY and WHO she wanted bail for. She was encouraging people to support the looting and rioting and destruction that Democrats brought on our cities that summer. This isn't debatable, she said it.

Rocag said:

---

She posted a Tweet years before the case Trump was talking about (Tillman). No evidence she donated money. That's about the end of it.

---

I knew you couldn't tell the truth.

Trump was in NC THIS week. He said Kamala helped raise money to bail out criminals. She did via that fund.

What is it about liberals? They simply cannot be honest. SMH

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

The opposition to a two tiered criminal justice system in which the poor are intentionally punished harsher than others.

Kind of like the idea that any law for which the penalty is only a fine functionally doesn't exist for the wealthy.

---

I'm not referencing any specific case or person. I never argued for punitive bail or a black and white carte blanche application.

Let's take three hypothetical individuals... All with otherwise clean records, maybe some speeding tickets, charged with negligent homicide. Again purely hypothetical...

One retired and 9 figures wealthy.
No a large cash sim might not move this person's needle. A million bucks is a color days market returns. For this person liens on assets or surrender of a passport world be better.

One blow collar with a start at home wife and kids
Can't wait to have the country and good reasons to stay. Easily tracked through regular credit/debit card use. $1000 bucks gets this person back at work on Monday going that tire on the truck holds out till payday.

Destitute bordering on homeless
Can't afford $10 and isn't sure where their next meal will come from if not at the shelter. Has no ties, might just skip the country and never come back. Or try to stay over under a new identity in a different state.

It doesn't entitle anytime to a charity picking up the tab. Now it's not my place to tell people how to spend their money, but my opinion is thatanyone donating to bail fund are giving it away with no return or societal improvement.

---

I don't disagree with most of this. You certainly have no obligation to donate to this fund or any similar one. Ideologically, I disagree with cash bail and support efforts to reform the system. I see groups like this as a part of that effort.

Why lie when we have the receipts?

"the bail fund has come under fire for helping put rapists and murderers back on the streets. Minneapolis-based FOX 9 reported that the fund spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to free an alleged knife murderer and a twice convicted rapist who was facing charges of sexual assault and kidnapping, among others."

Logos Stick said:

---

Rocag said:

---

She posted a Tweet years before the case Trump was talking about (Tillman). No evidence she donated money. That's about the end of it.

---

I knew you couldn't tell the truth.

Trump was in NC THIS week. He said Kamala helped raise money to bail out criminals. She did via that fund.

What is it about liberals? They simply cannot be honest. SMH

---

Did you read Trump's quote? He wasn't talking about protesters. He was talking about Shawn Michael Tillman. Go back and read it. It's not difficult.

Why continue to lie?

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

One blow collar with a start at home wife and kids. Can't wait to have the country and good reasons to stay. Easily tracked through regular credit/debit card use. $1000 bucks gets this person back at work on Monday going that tire on the truck holds out till payday.

---

Is this a blow collar worker?

Rocag said:

---

Lots of innocent people are charged with crimes and have to pay bail. What about them?

---

With Harris in office, innocent people should be worried

Kamala Harris' office framed this innocent man for murder, he ended up getting a 13.1 million settlement from the City of San Francisco, he spent 7 years behind bars. pic.twitter.com/RNi4XcYXU9

— Harrison Krank (@HarrisonKrank) July 26, 2024

Nothing I've said here has been a lie. You're purposefully confusing two separate issues. Harris never did anything to directly assist Tillman. Her Tweet came two years before his case.

Rocag said:

---

Nothing I've said here had been a lie. You're purposefully confusing two separate issues. Harris never did anything to directly assist Tillman. He Tweet came two years before his case.

---

Hey Einstein, do you think people are more likely to commit a crime if they know it's more likely they'll get bailed out immediately?

Rocag said:

---

Nothing I've said here has been a lie. You're purposefully confusing two separate issues. Harris never did anything to directly assist Tillman. Her Tweet came two years before his case.

---

Harris championed and supported that fund. She told people to donate. That fund got Tillman out on the streets. Stop lying.

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/kamala-harris-backed-bail-fund-helped-incarcerated-man-now-charged-with-murder-go-free

From that article published in 2022:

Kamala Harris-backed bail fund helped incarcerated man, now charged with murder, go free

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

People with lower incomes tend to be involved in violent crime more often than people from people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, who generally have more resources to handle life stressors. Look at the number of calls for service to police and emergency services and you will find that the demand comes from poorer parts of your city. It follows that lower income people tend to resort to violence (and property crime) to deal with their issues. Then thuggery becomes socially justifiable if you have no legal sanctions in place, such as bail. HTH.

Rocag said:

---

I disagree with cash bail and support efforts to reform the system. I see groups like this as a part of that effort.

---

I think the term 'cash bail' is misunderstood. I haven't seen a true cash bond in over 20 years. A cash bond is where the defendant, or someone on his behalf, puts up the actual amount of bail in cash. Virtually all defendants today get out on a surety bond. The defendant pays a bondsman, usually 10%, to post the bond for him. The bondsman signs a piece of paper promising to pay the full bond amount if the defendant skips. That never happens. At best, he may have to pay a small percentage of the bond amount. Once the defendant pays the bondsman, that money is gone. He never gets it back, and he has nothing at risk at that point. The bondsman is like an insurance company that collects premiums, but never pays a claim.

With a true cash bond system, the defendant gets his money back when the case is finished, guilty or not. The defendant's cash money is at risk if he skips out. If we had a pure cash bond system, the bonds wouldn't have to be set as high as they typically are today.

It's no lie, no matter how fervently you insist it is.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund paid for Tillman's bail for a nonviolent misdemeanor prior to the murder he was later arrested for. The idea they should have known what he was going to do is ridiculous.

Rocag said:

---

It's no lie, no matter how fervently you insist it is.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund paid for Tillman's bail for a nonviolent misdemeanor prior to the murder he was later arrested for. The idea they should have known what he was going to do is ridiculous.

---

Stop changing the argument.

You accused Trump of lying, which is a lie. Period.



Lib=liar / Titan

Rocag said:

---

It's no lie, no matter how fervently you insist it is.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund paid for Tillman's bail for a nonviolent misdemeanor prior to the murder he was later arrested for. The idea they should have known what he was going to do is ridiculous.

---

From the article

Quote:

---

Shawn Michael Tillman, a repeat felon,

---

Sure, he was in for indecent exposure, but I'd say there were other circumstances

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

I believe the word you are looking for is "deterrent".

Logos Stick said:

---

Rocag said:

---

It's no lie, no matter how fervently you insist it is.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund paid for Tillman's bail for a nonviolent misdemeanor prior to the murder he was later arrested for. The idea they should have known what he was going to do is ridiculous.

---

Stop changing the argument.

You accused Trump of lying, which is a lie. Period.

Lib=liar / Titan

---

I actually didn't call Trump a liar in regards to this. It's more that he was being purposefully misleading. He wanted the audience to believe Harris was personally involved in Tillman's case which is obviously not true. But it's what people believe anyway.

Rocag said:

---

It's no lie, no matter how fervently you insist it is.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund paid for Tillman's bail for a nonviolent misdemeanor prior to the murder he was later arrested for. The idea they should have known what he was going to do is ridiculous.

---

I can't imagine how flexible your brain must be to reconcile this absolute bull**** in order to live with your ridiculous world view. Simone Biles would be envious.

TexAgs91 said:

---

45-70Ag said:

---

Bill Maher just *NUKED* Kamala from orbit 🔥pic.twitter.com/LqCiiIcGvn

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 27, 2024

---

Why is it popular to have in your face captions in the middle of short vertical videos?

---

I forgot the exact analytics, but I think about 80% of those videos are viewed without sound. My wife for instance NEVER watches the shorter videos with sound on.

https://www.nexttv.com/news/mobile-videos-often-watched-without-audio-study-finds

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

The intent of bail is to put a bounty of sorts to ensure that you return to court. Generally if you cannot afford the entire balance then you can go to a bondsman that will, for a fee, post the money on your behalf. I've always presumed that those characters have some seedy back-ally type guys that are more than happy to ensure that you show up to court and the boss gets his money back.

Getting out of jail before your trial is a courtesy and a privilege. It is NOT a right. No where in our founding documents is it listed that you have a right to walk as a free man between your arrest/arraignment and your trial. You simply have a right to a speedy and fair trial before a jury of your peers.

Bail is not a charity that is required.

---

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

honestly we like bail set high bevause it is a punishment without a trial

we dont trust soro das so we realiy of extrajudicial processes to get justice

Some people violate the terms of their bail. Some even commit additional crimes while it on bail. Does that mean we should completely eliminate the bail system because it would be safer? Similar arguments are made for letting people out in parole.

I would argue no in both cases. If we let all of our decisions be based on a fear of what people might do you'd end up giving life sentences to even those convicted of relatively minor crimes.

Multiple indecent exposure incidents including in the presence of a minor, assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. That's who they bailed out

This is a sexual predator.

https://alphanews.org/man-bailed-out-by-freedom-fund-subject-of-dozens-of-sexual-behavior-complaints-from-prison-staff/

Old Army Ghost said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

The intent of bail is to put a bounty of sorts to ensure that you return to court. Generally if you cannot afford the entire balance then you can go to a bondsman that will, for a fee, post the money on your behalf. I've always presumed that those characters have some seedy back-ally type guys that are more than happy to ensure that you show up to court and the boss gets his money back.

Getting out of jail before your trial is a courtesy and a privilege. It is NOT a right. No where in our founding documents is it listed that you have a right to walk as a free man between your arrest/arraignment and your trial. You simply have a right to a speedy and fair trial before a jury of your peers.

Bail is not a charity that is required.

---

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

You're clearly not a lawyer; I am. Bail is not a right. If it were, judges wouldn't be able to deny it.

Sure got quiet in here all of the sudden from the defender of the predator. This guy was literally in the news prior to 2020 for being convicted of a felony for masturbating in front of 2 boys. One google is all it takes to say "maybe we shouldn't bail this one out".

But they don't care. They are happy to unleash predators while using ignorance as cover. "It was a non-violent crime blah blah ****ing blah"

Yeah, he was absolutely a criminal that was guilty of prior crimes. I'd wager most people who are out on bail are. So why should any criminal ever be helped post bail? I'm happy to give you the point of view that most people who oppose cash bail share.

So let's say you have a criminal like Tillman who is accused of a misdemeanor. There's a good chance that the punishment for that crime won't actually include any time in jail. So once his trial is over he's going to be back out on the streets and free in relatively short order anyway. But whether or not they were able to post bail could heavily impact what happens then.

In one case, the accused can't afford bail and so they have to sit in a cell waiting for their court date. While that's going on, there's a pretty good chance that if they did have a job they're going to be fired since they can't show up to work. Most poor people also don't have the most stable living arrangements either. So while they're in jail unable to work they're either getting way behind on rent or maybe they're even getting evicted.

On the other hand the person is provided bail and able to work and maintain their normal living arrangements while they wait for trial.

The court case comes and goes and now that person is back out on the streets. One still has a job and place to live. The other doesn't. Which of those do you think is more likely to go out and commit more crimes? Which do you think is more likely to create better outcomes for the community?

Your justification was it was nonviolent. This guy is clearly a sexual predator with a nasty history and a history of assault. So no, he was not worthy of help with bail. But thank you for clarifying you are good with putting sexual predators back on the street ASAP. He needs to be able to hold down a job so he can go out and masturbate in front of more kids. Surely he will have a better chance at turning his life around if we get him in the streets more quickly

Or maybe while in jail unable to make bail, he spanks it in front of a guard like he couldn't seem to stop doing and he gets held for much, much longer. And an innocent person doesn't get killed

Old Army Ghost said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I posted similarly yesterday but I'll repeat it here: there is no reason to be ashamed of supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund in the first place.

Their mission is to provide bail money for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. These people are already eligible for bail according to the courts, the only question is can they afford it. And these are people accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

Can anyone give me one good reason that poor people eligible for bail should be forced to stay in jail while people with access to money go free? How is that not inherently unjust to the poor?

---

The intent of bail is to put a bounty of sorts to ensure that you return to court. Generally if you cannot afford the entire balance then you can go to a bondsman that will, for a fee, post the money on your behalf. I've always presumed that those characters have some seedy back-ally type guys that are more than happy to ensure that you show up to court and the boss gets his money back.

Getting out of jail before your trial is a courtesy and a privilege. It is NOT a right. No where in our founding documents is it listed that you have a right to walk as a free man between your arrest/arraignment and your trial. You simply have a right to a speedy and fair trial before a jury of your peers.

Bail is not a charity that is required.

---

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

No, bail is set high based on perceived threat to public safety.

He was accused of a misdemeanor. He was never going to get a significant jail sentence for that charge either way.

If your argument is that his prior convictions should have carried heavier penalties that's fine, but it is a separate issue.

His threat to society is anything but a separate issue. This is a guy who could not control himself. You leave him in as long as possible, he'll **** up while in there, and you keep holding him…. if anyone with a any sense is involved