ACLU sues Sarasota & Manatee sheriffs over unaffordable bail amounts - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
 
  1. #11
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for a prosecutor to "stack the charges" to intimidate a defendant into accepting a lesser plea deal, but in the United States, it is a common practice, especially if a defendant refuses to accept a plea deal that is offered by the prosecution. The Rittenhouse trial is a perfect example of that. Rittenhouse rejected the "plea deal" that was offered by the prosecution e.g. Rittenhouse refused to plead guilty, so the prosecution subsequently "stacked the charges" against Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse then demanded a jury trial - and the jury found him not guilty on all counts. However, it is extremely stressful for a defendant to take all those "stacked charges" to trial, because it's possible that the defendant could be found guilty of trumped up prosecutorial charges. In the famous video that everyone saw, Rittenhouse collapsed under the stress of it all, after the jury announced he was not guilty on all prosecutorial counts.

    If a prosecutor cannot make a case on the original charge/allegation, then it should be illegal in the U.S. for an American prosecutor to add "stacked charges" to force a defendant into accepting a prosecutorial "deal." Again, stacking the charges is a standard practice in the U.S. system.
    An individual agrees to take a plea bargain, when their lawyer, along with the prosecutor, pressures them to take the plea, since the charges against them could result in them going to jail or prison, for much longer than they ordinarily would, if they do not take the offered plea deal. The defendant agrees and accepts the plea, to avoid harsher sentencing, even though they did not commit the enhanced criminal allegations by a prosecutor. Utilizing a just lawyer, who upholds the law, can significantly reduce the rate of wrongful convictions of innocent individuals. However, lawyers are too expensive for most people.

  2. #12
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for a prosecutor to "stack the charges" to intimidate a defendant into accepting a lesser plea deal, but in the United States, it is a common practice, especially if a defendant refuses to accept a plea deal that is offered by the prosecution. The Rittenhouse trial is a perfect example of that. Rittenhouse rejected the "plea deal" that was offered by the prosecution e.g. Rittenhouse refused to plead guilty, so the prosecution subsequently "stacked the charges" against Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse then demanded a jury trial - and the jury found him not guilty on all counts. However, it is extremely stressful for a defendant to take all those "stacked charges" to trial, because it's possible that the defendant could be found guilty of trumped up prosecutorial charges. In the famous video that everyone saw, Rittenhouse collapsed under the stress of it all, after the jury announced he was not guilty on all prosecutorial counts.

    If a prosecutor cannot make a case on the original charge/allegation, then it should be illegal in the U.S. for an American prosecutor to add "stacked charges" to force a defendant into accepting a prosecutorial "deal." Again, stacking the charges is a standard practice in the U.S. system.
    It pisses off some prosecutors if a defendant refuses to plea out to the original charge. Unfortunately, many pissed-off prosecutors take a not guilty plea personally. They, the pissed-off prosecutor will add to the original charge, to psychologically force a defendant into accepting a plea to the original charge. In a defendants mind, if he takes a case to trial, based on his innocence, he could conceivably be found guilty and would then have a criminal conviction for the rest of his life. That's the tool that some prosecutors use to force plea deals on defendants. Pissed-off prosecutors threaten to charge defendants with additional, multiple enhanced charges, which scares most defendants into accepting the original plea deal. IF a defendant refuses the prosecutors plea deal and IF the defendant is found guilty of the prosecutors additional enhanced criminal charges, then the prosecutor will recommend to the judge the harshest sentence possible. Thus, a defendant has to make a decision:

    • Accept the prosecutor's plea deal and get time served (or whatever the deal is) or
    • Plead not guilty and demand a trial, which is what Rittenhouse did.
    • If a defendant rightfully pleas not guilty, then IF he is found guilty of the prosecutor's additional enhanced charges, then the defendant will get hammered at sentencing. For example, instead of getting time served, the defendant might go to prison for 3+ years (or whatever).

    Unfortunately, it is perfectly legal for a prosecutor to threaten a defendant with MORE trumped-up charges, if a defendant does not accept a prosecutor's plea deal to the original charge. The Florida State Statute is a BIG BOOK and everyone knowingly or unknowingly breaks multiple misdemeanor and felony laws every week.

    If a prosecutor cannot make a criminal case stick, based on the original charge that a defendant was arrested for, then the case should be dropped. However, many prosecutors take not guilty pleas personally, instead of looking at a case from a neutral or objective perspective. Magically conjuring up additional charges to spite a defendant is immoral, albeit it is perfectly legal. Rittenhouse took a huge gamble and he won, but most defendants will not take that chance, even if they are legally innocent. Should the law be changed to address this? Yep.

    Adding legs (charges) to an original charge to force it to walk is the politics of prosecution.

  3. #13
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Cool Speedy trial doctrine v. Jury trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Another issue that was settled by SCOTUS in the 20th Century are "plea deals," which did not exist in 1776. SCOTUS settled the issue of plea "deals" by allowing them to continue. If plea deals were not allowed, then the court system could not handle the incoming caseload (and the justice system would collapse under the weight of all the allegations/accusations). FACTOID: It is impossible to offer a trial to every defendant that is accused of a crime.
    The vast majority of ALL cases are handled with plea deals that are offered by the prosecution. The court system would collapse if plea deals were not heavily used, due to the speedy trial doctrine. If the ACLU were to:
    1. Orchestrate as many defendants as possible
    2. to plead not guilty nationside
    3. during a predetermined quarterly date
    4. and demand jury trials instead
    5. then it would cause most B.S. cases to be completely dismissed (nolle prose)
    6. due to the speedy trial doctrine in the U.S. Constitution.

    That type of coordinated judicial orchestration would force prosecutors to prioritize their cases by eliminating weak BS cases, to focus on only serious criminal cases. However, since the ACLU never reads fringe websites like leoaffairs, they will never think of coordinating that kind of nationwide action.

    LOL

  4. #14
    Unregistered
    Guest
    You don’t have to agree but the ACLU has a case. If they didn’t they would not have filed it. I think criminals belong in jail but I get my news from Tic Tok just like you. So until the jury decides the case suspects are innocent and have the God given right of freedom.

  5. #15
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    You don’t have to agree but the ACLU has a case. If they didn’t they would not have filed it. I think criminals belong in jail but I get my news from Tic Tok just like you. So until the jury decides the case suspects are innocent and have the God given right of freedom.
    Isn't that why the "speedy trial doctrine" is Constitutional? Thus, you can arrest someone and if he or she poses a danger to society, then a judge can keep them locked up WITHOUT BAIL until their speedy trial arrives. If their speedy trial goes beyond a certain timeframe, then they must be released because they are innocent until proven guilty. Correct?

  6. #16
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Isn't that why the "speedy trial doctrine" is Constitutional? Thus, you can arrest someone and if he or she poses a danger to society, then a judge can keep them locked up WITHOUT BAIL until their speedy trial arrives. If their speedy trial goes beyond a certain timeframe, then they must be released because they are innocent until proven guilty. Correct?
    Speedy trial prevents the government from keeping defendants locked up indefinitely. The Constitutional framers inserted speedy trial into the Constitution because the English king was locking people up Americans indefinitely. There is nothing unconstitutional about locking up arrestees without bail, as long as they have a speedy trial. For example, speedy trial in Florida is around 180 days (it's not indefinite).

    The ACLU is Marxist inspired and funded. Any litigation that comes from the ACLU is fruit of the poisonous tree. Nothing good can come from 85% of what the ACLU does.

  7. #17
    Unregistered
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Unregistered;3339248]Speedy trial prevents the government from keeping defendants locked up indefinitely. The Constitutional framers inserted speedy trial into the Constitution because the English king was locking people up Americans indefinitely. There is nothing unconstitutional about locking up arrestees without bail, as long as they have a speedy trial. For example, speedy trial in Florida is around 180 days (it's not indefinite).

    The ACLU is Marxist inspired and funded. Any litigation that comes from the ACLU is fruit of the poisonous tree. Nothing good can come from 85% of what the ACLU does.[/QUOTE

    Maxist inspired. Oh brother. Your MAGA hat is on too tight bro.

  8. #18
    Unregistered
    Guest

    ACLU is Marxist in origin

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The ACLU is Marxist inspired and funded. Any litigation that comes from the ACLU is fruit of the poisonous tree. Nothing good can come from 85% of what the ACLU does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Maxist inspired. Oh brother. Your MAGA hat is on too tight bro.
    The founder of ACLU, Roger Nash Baldwin, wrote the following in 1935:

    • “I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.” - Roger Nash Baldwin, 1935, ACLU

  9. #19
    Unregistered
    Guest
    ACLU's Bail reform movement questioned after Wisconsin massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    ACLU sues Sarasota & Manatee sheriffs over unaffordable bail amounts

    Patch:
    https://patch.com/florida/sarasota/a...natee-sheriffs

    Tampa Creative:
    https://www.cltampa.com/news-views/l...ign=hpfeatures

    Herald:
    https://www.bradenton.com/news/local...255866961.html

    Marxists are using the courts and media to destabilize infrastructure and society.
    Story:
    https://www.oann.com/bail-reform-mov...rade-incident/

  10. #20
    Unregistered
    Guest
    New evidence in "bail massacre" shines uncomfortable light on bail-reforming prosecutors

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    ACLU sues Sarasota & Manatee sheriffs over unaffordable bail amounts

    Patch:
    https://patch.com/florida/sarasota/a...natee-sheriffs

    Tampa Creative:
    https://www.cltampa.com/news-views/l...ign=hpfeatures

    Herald:
    https://www.bradenton.com/news/local...255866961.html

    Marxists are using the courts and media to destabilize infrastructure and society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm
    Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, who is going to go out and kill somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It's guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach [of eliminating bail].
    Story:
    https://justthenews.com/accountabili...bail-reforming

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •