In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1537
Online now 2219 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
All that is fine and dandy... but how many of those people that you arrested had no priors, were attending town hall meetings in the act of their crime with their family present ? Not saying that gives her a hall pass by any means... but you are comparing apples to oranges.
Golden is better then Jimbo... I feared it was true. He is going to hoist a crystal ball there - fsufsu
She was charged with making terroristic threats.
She may be the victim here, if so she gets her guns back, and she can sue the people who slandered her
But if she really made those threats then the police and court system has a duty to make sure she doesn't carry out those threats while on bond.
This isn't national news because it isn't a big deal to people that have a rational understanding of how The police and government works in America.
I'm sure she's innocent though. OJ said he was innocent too. So she must be telling the truth.
If I accuse you of rape, you make bail, you're saying the system has a right to remove your penis so that you don't carry out any other rapes while you're awaiting trial ? Cool.
3 time POTW, member since 2006, MLWTI: 4-3
and if she did not say anything about using a gun?
She can sue... You know, because that's the American thing to do these days.
Getting that deep in minutiae will always result in cases having differences. But quite often people in DV cases don't have priors, and the lady who tried to run over her husband didn't have a criminal history. Now how much of that comes from her husband not reporting her actions I don't know. But we also don't know if this lady has threatened other people and they just blew it of because she is a middle class Jewish woman.
But once it has been determined their is probable cause to make an arrest law enforcement and the judiciary have a responsibility to act. It is easy to blow the story off behind a keyboard. But if your career is on the line it is much safer to arrest the woman instead of taking the chance she won't shoot someone. And as a judge it is much safer to require her to turn in her firearms or face a high bond than it is to give her a 2,000 dollar bond, she pays a bondsman 200 and then goes home gets a firearm and shoots a politician. As violent as our society has become the law is going to err on the side of caution.
If she didn't say anything about using a weapon, and it can be proven that she didn't, then she can push the issue to have charges brought for filing a false police report.
This post was edited by osceolafan 13 months ago
So once she's cleared of any wrong doing, she can file a police report claiming Andrew whatever (the accuser) contacted her & threatened her life by running her over repeatedly with his car... By your logic, I'd assume he'd be locked up until he handed over the keys.
Listen Cane... I am tired of being entertained at how you poke holes in other people's logic.
I am also tired of agreeing with you on all these issues.
You're actually making me think that not all Cane fans are bad
Just trying to provide some perspective as to how foolish their stance really sounds.
As for the Cane fans not being bad, at least a few of the 293 of us are good people.
Let us know if there are any updates that you see or get sent to you. I am curious how this turns out.
The stance only sounds foolish because you are fundamentally against it and ignoring the plight of any accuser. Are you against restraining orders because stalkers haven't killed yet? Or because an accused rapist hasn't been convicted yet so he should be able to sit next to the victim any place she chooses to eat? How about him sitting across the street from her house since he isn't on her property and hasn't been convicted? Do you think people charged with DUIs should be able to bond out hit and bar and drive all over town because they haven't been convicted? How about just letting a guy charged of beating his wife senseless? Should he be allowed to just go back home to the house she lives in because he has only been charged and not convicted? How about if someone walked up to your wife and told her they were going to shoot her in the head? You want the police to take the gun then? Or do you think you walking side by side would stop someone 200 yards away from shooting her with a rifle?
There is a responsibility to protect the accuser and/or general public until the end of a trial. The majority of people understand this.
Once again, all that is great. My issue is that they have no grounds to demand her guns to be turned in. In fact I'd imagine that's against her constitutional rights. If they think she is a danger to society then keep her locked up until she stands trial. (after all, convicted felons can't have firearms) Don't make loop holes saying they'll let her out if she does this & that. Either she is a danger or she isn't. If she is then what's to keep her from getting a gun from registered in her husbands name or from some guy on the street? Where there's a will there's a way. This is about pushing an agenda, not preventing a crime. The majority understand this.
There are safeguards to stop Judges from holding people without bond. People who are often threats to individuals and society are given a bail because if you widen the scope of when you have hold a person without bond you have in affect convicted them without a trial and their trial is more akin to an appeal. The work around are the bond guidelines. But this brings up the question, would you be more comfortable with this woman stuck in a cell with a 2 million dollar bond? Is it better for the government to keep her locked in a cell, the only way her kids can see her is behind a wall of glass holding a phone, than for her to turn over her weapon? The judge looked at the facts presented to him, which is all likelihood were more than you have, and decided she was a danger with access to firearms and less of a danger without. Thus conditions of her release. If instead of a small woman this were a 6 foot 2 inch, 215 lbs former SF soldier the ruling would probably be different. So he issued a ruling that would allow her to be able to hug her children in the morning.
As for their always being a way, bond hearings are about acceptable risk. At the end of the day a restraining order is just a piece of paper. So telling this woman to turn in her weapons could be empty words by the judge. It is up to him to look at the case and make a ruling he is comfortable with that he feels is fair to the accuser and the accused.
What agenda is this about pushing by the way? This is not a new practice. This happens under Dem and Republican administrations. This is normal and has been for decades. Only difference is a portion of the population is now worried someone is going to take all their weapons now.
You view it as a less obstruction of one's rights and due process to keep someone locked up without bail as opposed to confiscating their guns until they stand trial?
I didn't say that. All I said is whether or not she is a gun owner should have no barring as to what the judge sets her bail at. If he thinks she is a danger, set it high. If not, set it low.
See my above response. I don't think her owning a gun should change the outcome of her set bail. I think that's a load of crap about the more dangerous with part. She's had them all along & never committed a crime. Set it high. Set it low. Don't care. Just stop making it about something it's not. Just like I pointed out with the car scenario.. You'd never see that happen.
I didn't read the article so I'm not sure exactly what she said, but to your part about "she's had them all along and never committed a crime," that's all well and good. But doesn't that change if she says something like, "I'm going home to get my shotgun and I'm going to shoot you in the fvcking face?" It doesn't seem any different to me than someone who is drunk and not doing anything, but if they say, "Well, bye guys, I'm going for a drive!" someone better lay his ass out and confiscate those keys.
wtf? Another step towards what we all know is coming
I hope she sues NJ for everything it is worth
This post was edited by Jeff4SC 13 months ago
TheBlaze is the troof
Like I pointed out above if she reports the same guy confronted her & told her he was going to run her over/kill her, would they force him to turn in his car keys before releasing him?
They would either restrict him from driving or issue a restraining order requiring him to stay away from him. Up to the judge's discretion. The judge probably could have issued a restraining order in this case instead of taking her gun, but since the alleged victim works in a place where she has a legal right to go and be heard confiscating her weapons may have seemed more reasonable to the judge.
Wouldn't bother me at all if it was a legitimate threat.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports