United States George Floyd Protests, Reactions and Riots

[Captain X]

Given that the increases are larger than the decreases do you think the whole thing was a grift by police unions? Because I'd be legitimately impressed if so.

It kind of makes me wonder, because to be honest, the real problem all along has been with police unions being made up of abusive, petty little tyrants, who only really defend bad apples like themselves while actively working against the kind of police the community would actually want on their police force. I'll still never get over how the officer that literally shot an unarmed man begging on his knees not only got his job back, but with back pay thanks to the union. And more recently there's that case where some "informant" lied about a Houston couple and the PD did a no-knock raid on their house and killed both of them for defending against what they thought was a home invasion, and naturally the union has all of their backs, including the guy who lied.

Edit: I should add that I doubt increasing funding now is really going to accomplish anything. It just means the assholes who lie and set up random people while ignoring actual crimes are going to get paid more, because any good cops have probably quit by now, and anyone with good sense wouldn't trust these city governments who have shown that in a jam they will just throw them under the bus.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Hey, maybe they can buy new cops at the same place the demorats get their goons. Thugs'R'us

My guess is that this is unironically the plan. Drum out any remaining 'good cops' - that's to say, anyone who might actually crack down on Antifa and the 'acceptable' kind of mob, and/or hesitate to enforce unconstitutional laws - with a mix of demoralization & cuts, then replace them with suitably corrupt & indoctrinated enforcers who won't balk at being ordered to enforce a permanent state of anarcho-tyranny or to carry out a Ruby Ridge every other day. To create a police state one first needs to have an absolutely, unquestioningly reliable police force after all.

 

[Battlegrinder]

It kind of makes me wonder, because to be honest, the real problem all along has been with police unions being made up of abusive, petty little tyrants, who only really defend bad apples like themselves while actively working against the kind of police the community would actually want on their police force.

I'm not sure about the last part, but as for defending even bad officers, that's not unique to police unions, that's all Americans unions. US unions tend to operate in an adversarial manner (as compared to Europe, where appearently they're more collaborative), and in thst sort of system there's a strong pressure to defend everyone, because once you set a precedent that you won't defend "bad" officers, the other side will use thst as a wedge to try and define a wider and wider category of behaviors as "bad".

Doesn't make it right, but it's also not something you can solve just on the union end.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Minnesota Senate passed a Bill to prevent 'charitible' organizations from bailing out repeated violent offenders. This is meant to target the often Hollywood celebrity and Democratic politician endorsed 'charities' such as the Minnesota Bailout Fund which has paid the bails of everyone from mostly peaceful protesters to violent felons alike.

The fund has also freed people accused of attacking and shooting at police officers, a man accused of raping a child, a twice-convicted rapist, and many domestic abusers with histories of domestic abuse.

A victim pleaded with lawmakers earlier this year to “help me protect my family and my community from the irresponsible behavior of funds like these.”

Meanwhile, Democrats seem to stand firm in their support of the fund and opposition to Koran’s bill.

In a Senate debate about regulating charitable bail organizations, Sen. Jennifer McEwen, DFL-Duluth, repeatedly declared that “the Minnesota Freedom Fund is doing God’s work.”

DFL senator says group that bailed out rapist, domestic abusers is 'doing God's work'

The Minnesota Senate passed a bill Friday to stop charitable organizations from posting bail on behalf of repeat violent criminals.

alphanewsmn.com

 

[Bear Ribs]

I mean... wouldn't it more reasonable to quit allowing bail in such cases instead? I'm under the impression that a Judge is the one to set bail and is allowed to say "No bail" in such situations. If not it seems like passing such a law would be better than preventing charities from bailing people out, which feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.

 

[Zachowon]

I mean... wouldn't it more reasonable to quit allowing bail in such cases instead? I'm under the impression that a Judge is the one to set bail and is allowed to say "No bail" in such situations. If not it seems like passing such a law would be better than preventing charities from bailing people out, which feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.

The cases very a lot, and saying NO BAIL can fall under unnecessary punishment

 

[Bear Ribs]

The cases very a lot, and saying NO BAIL can fall under unnecessary punishment

Okay... but what's the functional difference between "NO BAIL" and "YOU CAN'T AFFORD BAIL AND NOBODY ELSE CAN BAIL YOU OUT" though? I don't get it.

 

[Zachowon]

Okay... but what's the functional difference between "NO BAIL" and "YOU CAN'T AFFORD BAIL AND NOBODY ELSE CAN BAIL YOU OUT" though? I don't get it.

Most places have a set amount of bail based on each crime.
That is the diffrence

 

[Bear Ribs]

Most places have a set amount of bail based on each crime.
That is the diffrence

How is that different?

 

[Zachowon]

How is that different?

Because a bail is always set if they can or can not get it.
Most of the crimes here are ones that are repeat offenders and can usually get higherbail as well. It is also up to a magistrate judge to say No bail or not. Which is usually what happens in certain places. like where I worked

 

[Bear Ribs]

Because a bail is always set if they can or can not get it.
Most of the crimes here are ones that are repeat offenders and can usually get higherbail as well. It is also up to a magistrate judge to say No bail or not. Which is usually what happens in certain places. like where I worked

But the proposal is basically to forbid bail for people who can get it. Why not just remove bail in those cases instead of setting bail and making it illegal to make the bail?

 

[Abhishekm]

If I get this right, the problem seems more to be a complaint of bail being allowed in a situation where the offense was a repeated violent crime and a private organization routinely offering bail to politically aligned perpetrators.

I might be wrong about this but that seems more like a failure of the presiding judge to decide on bail given the nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the situation than it does a rebuke of the idea of bail.

Honest if implied immunity or some such isn't an issue I would say raising Civil suits against the charity for endangering public safety or as an accessory to any further offenses the people they bailout would be more rational.

If you are going to bail out a repeat offender knowing that there is a good chance they will likely return to the same pattern I don't know how criminal law works on that but civil should be possible right?

Same with public prosecutors or officers that cherry pick their targets. Public immunity and all that but discrimination cases and civil charges of abuse of power or failure of office should be way more common in general in my opinion.

 

[Zachowon]

But the proposal is basically to forbid bail for people who can get it. Why not just remove bail in those cases instead of setting bail and making it illegal to make the bail?

It is going to be illegal for charities to post bail

 

[Abhishekm]

It is going to be illegal for charities to post bail

Kinda don't agree with that to be honest. But holding bailor's atleast civilly accountable for the bailees actions as a result probably wouldn't be that out there. Especially when it is not something like a Bondsman that offers bail in exchange for collateral but a separate individual or group that posts it for their own motivations.

 

[Bear Ribs]

It is going to be illegal for charities to post bail

Yes, I understand that. But why not just deny bail instead of allowing bail while also making it illegal to get bail?

If I get this right, the problem seems more to be a complaint of bail being allowed in a situation where the offense was a repeated violent crime and a private organization routinely offering bail to politically aligned perpetrators.

I might be wrong about this but that seems more like a failure of the presiding judge to decide on bail given the nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the situation than it does a rebuke of the idea of bail.

Honest if implied immunity or some such isn't an issue I would say raising Civil suits against the charity for endangering public safety or as an accessory to any further offenses the people they bailout would be more rational.

If you are going to bail out a repeat offender knowing that there is a good chance they will likely return to the same pattern I don't know how criminal law works on that but civil should be possible right?

Same with public prosecutors or officers that cherry pick their targets. Public immunity and all that but discrimination cases and civil charges of abuse of power or failure of office should be way more common in general in my opinion.

I agree. What this appears to do is make it so that wealthier repeat offenders get out but poor repeat offenders can't, even if the public (in the form of charitable contributions) want that accused out. I realize that in practice, the rich always have significant advantages in the courts but at the least it seems more sane to try and limit that instead of creating laws that actively punish only the poor and remove their recourse. Just give judges guidelines to quit handing out bail for repeat violent offenders in the first place.

 

[Battlegrinder]

The cited law does seem to be more of culture war "haha, see voters, we're totally sticking it to BLM" junk, something that's flashy and easyvto pass but that doesn't address the core issue.

If violent offenders are bring bailed put by outside parties and then going on to reoffend, the problem is that you decided to allow people accused of violent crimes with a high likelihood to reoffend to post bail in the first place, not that someone else actually paid that bail.

There are absolutely issues with the bail system, and the riots last year were absolutely made worse because of groups like the MFF running around letting rioters get out of jail and back to the front lines. However, that's principally not the core issue, the core issue is that these people were allowed out in the first place, and above that, the issue is that many of them had charges dropped or how many rioters were not charged.

I agree. What this appears to do is make it so that wealthier repeat offenders get out but poor repeat offenders can't, even if the public (in the form of charitable contributions) want that accused out. I realize that in practice, the rich always have significant advantages in the courts but at the least it seems more sane to try and limit that instead of creating laws that actively punish only the poor and remove their recourse. Just give judges guidelines to quit handing out bail for repeat violent offenders in the first place.

I would note that per the article, this isn't a blanket ban on charities or other third parties bailing people out, just groups that do do indiscriminately or with some sort of agenda (I haven't checked exactly they define such a group, so ther are probably some loopholes on both sides, but it is at least somewhat targeted).

I'd also note that this isn't purely a negative for would be bailees. Bail isn't a wergild, in the end people that got bailed out will still have a potential prison term to contend with. Keeping them in jail might actually be in thier best interest, because if you let them out to go riot some more, that will judt mean they get a longer rap sheet and have an even longer prison sentence facing them.

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah being bailed out doesnt mean you still don't go to court for your prior crime, so on so forth.
It just means you don't wait for your trial in jail

 

[Abhishekm]

Isn't being a threat to public safety a cause for being denied bail already anyway?

 

[Battlegrinder]

Isn't being a threat to public safety a cause for being denied bail already anyway?

Usually, but "threat to public safety" doesn't mean "likely to reoffend", it's closer to "incorrigible kill crazy manic".

 

[DarthOne]

It's not just them. New York's having to re-fund the police after a massive crime wave as well.



And LA....

Refund the police: LA mayor requests more police funding over high crime, officer shortage | Blaze Media

So much for "defund the police."Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) is proposing to increase the budget of the Los Angeles Police Department amid skyrocketing violent crime and increased vacancies within the department. What are the details?According to the Los Angeles Times, Garcetti is...

www.theblaze.com

Actually cities across the country are discovering what happens when you quit paying for quality law enforcement.

Re-fund the police: These cities will spend more on law enforcement next year - Washington Examiner

Cities and towns across the country are supporting the police by increasing spending for law enforcement next year, despite a national drive from the Left to "defund" the police.In both small and large cities and red states and blue, some police departments are getting more money in 2021, even...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Sadly, I have my doubts the lesson will stick in the minds of the idiot Joes and Janes who voted for this for long.