Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out on the
street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a monster.
"There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.

----------------------------
https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html

Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history. Illinois is
looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash bail and
the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state could
mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24 hours
to commit all the crimes they wanted.

On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of Illinois.
This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name SAFE-T
is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today. Those
that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those put away
based on the crime.

There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end cash bail.
The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide, robbery,
kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated driving
under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and threatening a
public official.

"I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I do want to
stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are working
very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this law. It is
very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the right
people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets out," said
state’s attorney Robert Berlin.

The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the crimes listed
above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing evidence" that the
alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested criminals
must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours to decide
whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators believe that 48
hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.

On 2022-09-16 2:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out on the
> street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a monster.
> "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
> place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
> wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>
> ----------------------------
> https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html
>
> Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history. Illinois is
> looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash bail and
> the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state could
> mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24 hours
> to commit all the crimes they wanted.
>
> On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of Illinois.
> This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name SAFE-T
> is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today. Those
> that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those put away
> based on the crime.
>
> There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end cash bail.
> The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide, robbery,
> kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated driving
> under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and threatening a
> public official.
>
> "I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I do want to
> stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are working
> very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this law. It is
> very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the right
> people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets out," said
> state’s attorney Robert Berlin.
>
> The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the crimes listed
> above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing evidence" that theA
> alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
> consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested criminals
> must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours to decide
> whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators believe that 48
> hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
> cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.
>
>
At the very very least, I think this bill makes a great argument for
major increases in expenditures for crime labs and the people that can
properly gather evidence from surveillance and stitch it together to
show a chain of events.

--
Rhino

On 9/16/2022 1:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out on the
> street in an hour.

What form of murder is mentioned in the article? Have you morphed into
a garden variety troll now? What a pathetic, mentally weak motherfucker
you turned out to be.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out on the
street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a monster.
"There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>
> ----------------------------
> https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html
>
> Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history. Illinois is
looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash bail and
the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state could
mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24
hours
to commit all the crimes they wanted.
>
> On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of Illinois.
This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name
SAFE-T
is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today. Those
that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those put
away
based on the crime.
>
> There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end cash bail.
The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide,
robbery,
kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated driving
under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and threatening a
public official.
>
> "I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I do want to
stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are working
very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this law. It
is
very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the
right
people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets
out," said
state’s attorney Robert Berlin.
>
> The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the crimes listed
above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing evidence" that
the
alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested
criminals
must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours
to decide
whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators believe that
48
hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.
>

What are they differentiating “cash bail” against?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 9/16/2022 8:01 PM, RichA wrote:
> Leftists and apes. Or should I saw

Would you say your brain has turned to complete HORSESHIT by now?

On 2022-09-17 1:14 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out on the
> street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a monster.
> "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
> place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
> wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>>
>> ----------------------------
>> https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html
>>
>> Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history. Illinois is
> looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash bail and
> the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state could
> mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24
> hours
> to commit all the crimes they wanted.
>>
>> On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of Illinois.
> This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name
> SAFE-T
> is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today. Those
> that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those put
> away
> based on the crime.
>>
>> There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end cash bail.
> The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide,
> robbery,
> kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated driving
> under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and threatening a
> public official.
>>
>> "I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I do want to
> stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are working
> very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this law. It
> is
> very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the
> right
> people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets
> out," said
> state’s attorney Robert Berlin.
>>
>> The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the crimes listed
> above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing evidence" that
> the
> alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
> consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested
> criminals
> must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours
> to decide
> whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators believe that
> 48
> hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
> cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.
>>
>
> What are they differentiating “cash bail” against?
>
If I'm understanding your question, you're asking what incentive are
suspects getting to make them show up to trial since they are being set
free pending trial. I can only assume that the suspect is acknowledging
that they will show up for their trials, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die,
knowing that they will be actively chased by police if they don't appear
and can expect to face additional charges for not showing up.

Whether the police WILL actively look for them or lay additional charges
for absconding from justice is anyone's guess. Myles Sanderson failed to
show up to see his parole officer after one or two visits and was
reported as being "unlawfully at large" but I don't know if any real
searching was done between then and his murder rampage with his brother
on his reserve several months later.

I think sometimes the "active search" consists of flagging the
individual in a police database so that the next officer who encounters
him knows that he is wanted for something. Of course, that also assumes
the suspect gives his correct name when stopped. If I was fleeing
justice, I'd probably make up a new name very quickly and get fake ID of
some kind in the new name so that if I were stopped by police, I could
plausibly say that I am Joe Blow, not Wanted Felon, and very likely
skate away entirely or only have to deal with whatever minor crime I was
being stopped for rather than the more serious crimes I fled from.

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On 2022-09-17 1:14 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out on the
>> street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a monster.
>> "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
>> place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
>> wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------
>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html
>>>
>>> Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history. Illinois is
>> looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash bail and
>> the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state could
>> mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24
>> hours
>> to commit all the crimes they wanted.
>>>
>>> On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of Illinois.
>> This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name
>> SAFE-T
>> is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today. Those
>> that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those put
>> away
>> based on the crime.
>>>
>>> There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end cash bail.
>> The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide,
>> robbery,
>> kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated driving
>> under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and threatening a
>> public official.
>>>
>>> "I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I do want to
>> stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are working
>> very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this law. It
>> is
>> very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the
>> right
>> people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets
>> out," said
>> state’s attorney Robert Berlin.
>>>
>>> The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the crimes listed
>> above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing evidence" that
>> the
>> alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
>> consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested
>> criminals
>> must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours
>> to decide
>> whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators believe that
>> 48
>> hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
>> cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.
>>>
>>
>> What are they differentiating “cash bail” against?
>>
> If I'm understanding your question, you're asking what incentive are
> suspects getting to make them show up to trial since they are being set
> free pending trial. I can only assume that the suspect is acknowledging
> that they will show up for their trials, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die,
> knowing that they will be actively chased by police if they don't appear
> and can expect to face additional charges for not showing up.
>
> Whether the police WILL actively look for them or lay additional charges
> for absconding from justice is anyone's guess. Myles Sanderson failed to
> show up to see his parole officer after one or two visits and was
> reported as being "unlawfully at large" but I don't know if any real
> searching was done between then and his murder rampage with his brother
> on his reserve several months later.
>
> I think sometimes the "active search" consists of flagging the
> individual in a police database so that the next officer who encounters
> him knows that he is wanted for something. Of course, that also assumes
> the suspect gives his correct name when stopped. If I was fleeing
> justice, I'd probably make up a new name very quickly and get fake ID of
> some kind in the new name so that if I were stopped by police, I could
> plausibly say that I am Joe Blow, not Wanted Felon, and very likely
> skate away entirely or only have to deal with whatever minor crime I was
> being stopped for rather than the more serious crimes I fled from.
>
>

Thanks, but what I don’t understand is what “cash bail“ is as opposed to
any other kind of bail.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2022-09-17 9:54 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-09-17 1:14 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out on the
>>> street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a monster.
>>> "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
>>> place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
>>> wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html
>>>>
>>>> Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history. Illinois is
>>> looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash bail and
>>> the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state could
>>> mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24
>>> hours
>>> to commit all the crimes they wanted.
>>>>
>>>> On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of Illinois.
>>> This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name
>>> SAFE-T
>>> is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today. Those
>>> that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those put
>>> away
>>> based on the crime.
>>>>
>>>> There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end cash bail.
>>> The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide,
>>> robbery,
>>> kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated driving
>>> under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and threatening a
>>> public official.
>>>>
>>>> "I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I do want to
>>> stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are working
>>> very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this law. It
>>> is
>>> very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the
>>> right
>>> people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets
>>> out," said
>>> state’s attorney Robert Berlin.
>>>>
>>>> The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the crimes listed
>>> above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing evidence" that
>>> the
>>> alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
>>> consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested
>>> criminals
>>> must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours
>>> to decide
>>> whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators believe that
>>> 48
>>> hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
>>> cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are they differentiating “cash bail” against?
>>>
>> If I'm understanding your question, you're asking what incentive are
>> suspects getting to make them show up to trial since they are being set
>> free pending trial. I can only assume that the suspect is acknowledging
>> that they will show up for their trials, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die,
>> knowing that they will be actively chased by police if they don't appear
>> and can expect to face additional charges for not showing up.
>>
>> Whether the police WILL actively look for them or lay additional charges
>> for absconding from justice is anyone's guess. Myles Sanderson failed to
>> show up to see his parole officer after one or two visits and was
>> reported as being "unlawfully at large" but I don't know if any real
>> searching was done between then and his murder rampage with his brother
>> on his reserve several months later.
>>
>> I think sometimes the "active search" consists of flagging the
>> individual in a police database so that the next officer who encounters
>> him knows that he is wanted for something. Of course, that also assumes
>> the suspect gives his correct name when stopped. If I was fleeing
>> justice, I'd probably make up a new name very quickly and get fake ID of
>> some kind in the new name so that if I were stopped by police, I could
>> plausibly say that I am Joe Blow, not Wanted Felon, and very likely
>> skate away entirely or only have to deal with whatever minor crime I was
>> being stopped for rather than the more serious crimes I fled from.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks, but what I don’t understand is what “cash bail“ is as opposed to
> any other kind of bail.
>
I believe some of the leaders of the Freedom Convoy who were in jail
pending trial were made to provide guarantees that they would appear at
trial in the form of property: if they failed to appear, the property
would be forfeit to the government. Perhaps that's the distinction
they're making: cash bail is actual currency (or close equivalent like
certified cheque) but "property bail" is land or a house or something of
that kind?

--
Rhino

On 9/17/2022 7:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-09-17 9:54 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-17 1:14 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out
>>>>> on the
>>>> street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a
>>>> monster.
>>>> "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the
>>>> first
>>>> place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity.
>>>> Oh, no,
>>>> wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history.
>>>>> Illinois is
>>>> looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash
>>>> bail and
>>>> the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state
>>>> could
>>>> mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24
>>>> hours
>>>> to commit all the crimes they wanted.
>>>>>
>>>>> On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of
>>>>> Illinois.
>>>> This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name
>>>> SAFE-T
>>>> is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and
>>>> Equity-Today. Those
>>>> that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those
>>>> put
>>>> away
>>>> based on the crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end
>>>>> cash bail.
>>>> The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide,
>>>> robbery,
>>>> kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated
>>>> driving
>>>> under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and
>>>> threatening a
>>>> public official.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I
>>>>> do want to
>>>> stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are
>>>> working
>>>> very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this
>>>> law. It
>>>> is
>>>> very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the
>>>> right
>>>> people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets
>>>> out," said
>>>> state’s attorney Robert Berlin.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the
>>>>> crimes listed
>>>> above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing
>>>> evidence" that
>>>> the
>>>> alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
>>>> consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested
>>>> criminals
>>>> must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours
>>>> to decide
>>>> whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators
>>>> believe that
>>>> 48
>>>> hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
>>>> cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are they differentiating “cash bail” against?
>>>>
>>> If I'm understanding your question, you're asking what incentive are
>>> suspects getting to make them show up to trial since they are being set
>>> free pending trial. I can only assume that the suspect is acknowledging
>>> that they will show up for their trials, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die,
>>> knowing that they will be actively chased by police if they don't appear
>>> and can expect to face additional charges for not showing up.
>>>
>>> Whether the police WILL actively look for them or lay additional charges
>>> for absconding from justice is anyone's guess. Myles Sanderson failed to
>>> show up to see his parole officer after one or two visits and was
>>> reported as being "unlawfully at large" but I don't know if any real
>>> searching was done between then and his murder rampage with his brother
>>> on his reserve several months later.
>>>
>>> I think sometimes the "active search" consists of flagging the
>>> individual in a police database so that the next officer who encounters
>>> him knows that he is wanted for something. Of course, that also assumes
>>> the suspect gives his correct name when stopped. If I was fleeing
>>> justice, I'd probably make up a new name very quickly and get fake ID of
>>> some kind in the new name so that if I were stopped by police, I could
>>> plausibly say that I am Joe Blow, not Wanted Felon, and very likely
>>> skate away entirely or only have to deal with whatever minor crime I was
>>> being stopped for rather than the more serious crimes I fled from.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, but what I don’t understand is what “cash bail“ is as opposed to
>> any other kind of bail.
>>
> I believe some of the leaders of the Freedom Convoy who were in jail
> pending trial were made to provide guarantees that they would appear at
> trial in the form of property: if they failed to appear, the property
> would be forfeit to the government. Perhaps that's the distinction
> they're making: cash bail is actual currency (or close equivalent like
> certified cheque) but "property bail" is land or a house or something of
> that kind?
>
That's a Canadian "thing", no such provisions in US law that I'm aware
of. Someone may mortgage their property to come up with the funds to
make bail but they don't hawk the property directly to the government,
they would have to either deal with a bail bondsman or a regular loan
institution. Given the usual timeline it would be the bondsman almost
always.

To answer Anim's question the "opposed to cash bail" is remand to jail.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 9/17/2022 7:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2022-09-17 9:54 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-17 1:14 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out
>>>>>> on the
>>>>> street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a
>>>>> monster.
>>>>> "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the
>>>>> first
>>>>> place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity.
>>>>> Oh, no,
>>>>> wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history.
>>>>>> Illinois is
>>>>> looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash
>>>>> bail and
>>>>> the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state
>>>>> could
>>>>> mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24
>>>>> hours
>>>>> to commit all the crimes they wanted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of
>>>>>> Illinois.
>>>>> This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name
>>>>> SAFE-T
>>>>> is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and
>>>>> Equity-Today. Those
>>>>> that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those
>>>>> put
>>>>> away
>>>>> based on the crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end
>>>>>> cash bail.
>>>>> The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide,
>>>>> robbery,
>>>>> kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated
>>>>> driving
>>>>> under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and
>>>>> threatening a
>>>>> public official.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I
>>>>>> do want to
>>>>> stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are
>>>>> working
>>>>> very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this
>>>>> law. It
>>>>> is
>>>>> very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the
>>>>> right
>>>>> people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets
>>>>> out," said
>>>>> state’s attorney Robert Berlin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the
>>>>>> crimes listed
>>>>> above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing
>>>>> evidence" that
>>>>> the
>>>>> alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
>>>>> consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested
>>>>> criminals
>>>>> must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours
>>>>> to decide
>>>>> whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators
>>>>> believe that
>>>>> 48
>>>>> hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
>>>>> cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are they differentiating “cash bail” against?
>>>>>
>>>> If I'm understanding your question, you're asking what incentive are
>>>> suspects getting to make them show up to trial since they are being set
>>>> free pending trial. I can only assume that the suspect is acknowledging
>>>> that they will show up for their trials, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die,
>>>> knowing that they will be actively chased by police if they don't appear
>>>> and can expect to face additional charges for not showing up.
>>>>
>>>> Whether the police WILL actively look for them or lay additional charges
>>>> for absconding from justice is anyone's guess. Myles Sanderson failed to
>>>> show up to see his parole officer after one or two visits and was
>>>> reported as being "unlawfully at large" but I don't know if any real
>>>> searching was done between then and his murder rampage with his brother
>>>> on his reserve several months later.
>>>>
>>>> I think sometimes the "active search" consists of flagging the
>>>> individual in a police database so that the next officer who encounters
>>>> him knows that he is wanted for something. Of course, that also assumes
>>>> the suspect gives his correct name when stopped. If I was fleeing
>>>> justice, I'd probably make up a new name very quickly and get fake ID of
>>>> some kind in the new name so that if I were stopped by police, I could
>>>> plausibly say that I am Joe Blow, not Wanted Felon, and very likely
>>>> skate away entirely or only have to deal with whatever minor crime I was
>>>> being stopped for rather than the more serious crimes I fled from.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, but what I don’t understand is what “cash bail“ is as opposed to
>>> any other kind of bail.
>>>
>> I believe some of the leaders of the Freedom Convoy who were in jail
>> pending trial were made to provide guarantees that they would appear at
>> trial in the form of property: if they failed to appear, the property
>> would be forfeit to the government. Perhaps that's the distinction
>> they're making: cash bail is actual currency (or close equivalent like
>> certified cheque) but "property bail" is land or a house or something of
>> that kind?
>>
> That's a Canadian "thing", no such provisions in US law that I'm aware
> of. Someone may mortgage their property to come up with the funds to
> make bail but they don't hawk the property directly to the government,
> they would have to either deal with a bail bondsman or a regular loan
> institution. Given the usual timeline it would be the bondsman almost
> always.
>
> To answer Anim's question the "opposed to cash bail" is remand to jail.
>

OK so sorry to keep flogging the dead horse but why are they calling it
“cash bail” and not just “bail”?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 9/17/2022 2:32 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 9/17/2022 7:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-17 9:54 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-09-17 1:14 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out
>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>> street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a
>>>>>> monster.
>>>>>> "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity.
>>>>>> Oh, no,
>>>>>> wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history.
>>>>>>> Illinois is
>>>>>> looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash
>>>>>> bail and
>>>>>> the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24
>>>>>> hours
>>>>>> to commit all the crimes they wanted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of
>>>>>>> Illinois.
>>>>>> This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name
>>>>>> SAFE-T
>>>>>> is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and
>>>>>> Equity-Today. Those
>>>>>> that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those
>>>>>> put
>>>>>> away
>>>>>> based on the crime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end
>>>>>>> cash bail.
>>>>>> The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide,
>>>>>> robbery,
>>>>>> kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated
>>>>>> driving
>>>>>> under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and
>>>>>> threatening a
>>>>>> public official.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I
>>>>>>> do want to
>>>>>> stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are
>>>>>> working
>>>>>> very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this
>>>>>> law. It
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the
>>>>>> right
>>>>>> people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets
>>>>>> out," said
>>>>>> state’s attorney Robert Berlin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the
>>>>>>> crimes listed
>>>>>> above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing
>>>>>> evidence" that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
>>>>>> consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested
>>>>>> criminals
>>>>>> must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours
>>>>>> to decide
>>>>>> whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators
>>>>>> believe that
>>>>>> 48
>>>>>> hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
>>>>>> cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are they differentiating “cash bail” against?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If I'm understanding your question, you're asking what incentive are
>>>>> suspects getting to make them show up to trial since they are being set
>>>>> free pending trial. I can only assume that the suspect is acknowledging
>>>>> that they will show up for their trials, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die,
>>>>> knowing that they will be actively chased by police if they don't appear
>>>>> and can expect to face additional charges for not showing up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether the police WILL actively look for them or lay additional charges
>>>>> for absconding from justice is anyone's guess. Myles Sanderson failed to
>>>>> show up to see his parole officer after one or two visits and was
>>>>> reported as being "unlawfully at large" but I don't know if any real
>>>>> searching was done between then and his murder rampage with his brother
>>>>> on his reserve several months later.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think sometimes the "active search" consists of flagging the
>>>>> individual in a police database so that the next officer who encounters
>>>>> him knows that he is wanted for something. Of course, that also assumes
>>>>> the suspect gives his correct name when stopped. If I was fleeing
>>>>> justice, I'd probably make up a new name very quickly and get fake ID of
>>>>> some kind in the new name so that if I were stopped by police, I could
>>>>> plausibly say that I am Joe Blow, not Wanted Felon, and very likely
>>>>> skate away entirely or only have to deal with whatever minor crime I was
>>>>> being stopped for rather than the more serious crimes I fled from.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, but what I don’t understand is what “cash bail“ is as opposed to
>>>> any other kind of bail.
>>>>
>>> I believe some of the leaders of the Freedom Convoy who were in jail
>>> pending trial were made to provide guarantees that they would appear at
>>> trial in the form of property: if they failed to appear, the property
>>> would be forfeit to the government. Perhaps that's the distinction
>>> they're making: cash bail is actual currency (or close equivalent like
>>> certified cheque) but "property bail" is land or a house or something of
>>> that kind?
>>>
>> That's a Canadian "thing", no such provisions in US law that I'm aware
>> of. Someone may mortgage their property to come up with the funds to
>> make bail but they don't hawk the property directly to the government,
>> they would have to either deal with a bail bondsman or a regular loan
>> institution. Given the usual timeline it would be the bondsman almost
>> always.
>>
>> To answer Anim's question the "opposed to cash bail" is remand to jail.
>>
>
> OK so sorry to keep flogging the dead horse but why are they calling it
> “cash bail” and not just “bail”?
>
Because people are stupid probably. I suspect because it sounds better
for a politician to say "we got rid of cash bail" instead of "we got rid
of bail".

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 9/17/2022 8:54 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-09-17 1:14 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you’re back out on the
>>> street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they’ve created a monster.
>>> "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
>>> place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
>>> wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html
>>>>
>>>> Illinois is passing a law that some would say will make history. Illinois is
>>> looking to be the first state in the United States to abolish cash bail and
>>> the consequences of passing such a law have many believing the state could
>>> mirror the horror movie THE PURGE. In the film, citizens were given 24
>>> hours
>>> to commit all the crimes they wanted.
>>>>
>>>> On January 1st of 2023 the SAFE-T Act will commence in the state of Illinois.
>>> This act will get rid of the cash bail system in its entirety. The name
>>> SAFE-T
>>> is an acronym for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today. Those
>>> that instated the act believe it will reduce arrests and limit those put
>>> away
>>> based on the crime.
>>>>
>>>> There are 12 non-detainable offenses where the new law would end cash bail.
>>> The law includes second-degree murder, arson, drug-induced homicide,
>>> robbery,
>>> kidnapping, aggravated battery, burglary, intimidation, aggravated driving
>>> under the influence, fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and threatening a
>>> public official.
>>>>
>>>> "I'm very concerned about an increase in violent crime but again I do want to
>>> stress there is still time to fix it. And the state's attorneys are working
>>> very hard as we have been for the last year and a half to fix this law. It
>>> is
>>> very fixable, where we can still eliminate cash bail but make sure the
>>> right
>>> people are in custody and everybody else who's not a danger gets
>>> out," said
>>> state’s attorney Robert Berlin.
>>>>
>>>> The Safe-T Act would allow criminals a pre-trial release for the crimes listed
>>> above and if prosecutors fail to show "clear and convincing evidence" that
>>> the
>>> alleged could be a threat to a specific individual. Unfortunately, the
>>> consequences of the Safe-T Act make an impact on how fast arrested
>>> criminals
>>> must be dealt with. Because prosecutors would only have 48 hours
>>> to decide
>>> whether the alleged criminal should be released. Investigators believe that
>>> 48
>>> hours isn’t enough time to collect valuable evidence from surveillance
>>> cameras, laboratory work, and forensic research.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are they differentiating “cash bail” against?
>>>
>> If I'm understanding your question, you're asking what incentive are
>> suspects getting to make them show up to trial since they are being set
>> free pending trial. I can only assume that the suspect is acknowledging
>> that they will show up for their trials, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die,
>> knowing that they will be actively chased by police if they don't appear
>> and can expect to face additional charges for not showing up.
>>
>> Whether the police WILL actively look for them or lay additional charges
>> for absconding from justice is anyone's guess. Myles Sanderson failed to
>> show up to see his parole officer after one or two visits and was
>> reported as being "unlawfully at large" but I don't know if any real
>> searching was done between then and his murder rampage with his brother
>> on his reserve several months later.
>>
>> I think sometimes the "active search" consists of flagging the
>> individual in a police database so that the next officer who encounters
>> him knows that he is wanted for something. Of course, that also assumes
>> the suspect gives his correct name when stopped. If I was fleeing
>> justice, I'd probably make up a new name very quickly and get fake ID of
>> some kind in the new name so that if I were stopped by police, I could
>> plausibly say that I am Joe Blow, not Wanted Felon, and very likely
>> skate away entirely or only have to deal with whatever minor crime I was
>> being stopped for rather than the more serious crimes I fled from.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks, but what I don’t understand is what “cash bail“ is

I don't understand is what is you're trying to say.

On 9/17/2022 4:32 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>> To answer Anim's question the "opposed to cash bail" is remand to jail.
>>
>
> OK so sorry to keep flogging the dead horse but why are they calling it
> “cash bail” and not just “bail”?

That's what you get when you cavort with dipshits. From Google:

The seven different types of bail are:

Surety Bonds.
Property Bonds.
Citation Release.
Recognizance Release.
Cash Bail.
Federal Bail Bonds.
Immigration Bail Bonds.

Sep 2, 2022

An Explanation of the 7 Types of Bail Bonds

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you're back out on the
>street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they've created a monster.
>"There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
>place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
>wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.

Didn't I write about this at the time it passed?

At the very beginning of the new 2021-22 session of the state legislature
Speaker of the House Mike Madigan, due to federal rumors of impending
indictments (not happened yet), lacked sufficient support among the
Democratic caucus to remain Speaker. He'd been Speaker since 1983 (with
the exception of the Republican majority in 1995-96), ever since the
constitutional amendment took effect created single-member House districts
and reducing their number by 1/3.

Madigan resigned his seat as Representative shortly thereafter as he
didn't wish to be a back bencher.

Chris Welch, black but a protoge, became the new Speaker. Illinois ain't
ready for reform.

All you had to do was say "Remember George Floyd!" and any criminal
justice reform could pass failing to consider any potential for adverse
consequences.

With lightening speed, this poorly thought through no-bail-bond system
plus myriad other criminal law amendments was forced to vote to be
presented to the governor. It was either the first or among the first
bills Pritzker signed from that session of the legislature.

There were a number of police reforms requiring a more regular system of
investigating police-involved shootings and misconduct as small police
forces around the state had too little procedure, with some of the
burden on state police to investigate. That probably made a lot of sense.

Here is a summary of the legislation written by the state:

https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/the-2021-safe-t-act-icjia-roles-and-responsibilities

Note that this agency is mostly local criminal justice grant awarding
but has some review (but not auditing) authority over state police and
state prisons. It is not an Inspector General.

The burden is on the prosecutor to show that the defendant is such a
danger to society, potential for future criminally violent behavior,
that he must be held in pre-trial confinement without bond.

In truth, there was nearly no burden on the prosecutor to make all that
much of a showing before as bail hearings were perfunctory and the judge
at arraignment put nearly no thought into it.

But we went from one extreme to the other.

The effect of the no-cash-bail-bond provision was delayed till 2023.

>----------------------------
>https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-becomes-first-state-pass-121500362.html

>. . .

RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>Leftists and apes. Or should I saw (as in Planet of the Apes)
>orangutans and gorillas.

bonk

Neither were leftists. It was a caste system. The gorillas were the guards
and the orangutans were the elites who ran everything and hid the truth
from the chimpanzee scientists.

Did you see the movie? Of course not.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you're back out on the
>>street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they've created a monster.
>>"There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
>>place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
>>wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.

>Didn't I write about this at the time it passed?

btw, please admit that my state is clearly leading here.

>. . .

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>. . .

>Thanks, but what I don't understand is what "cash bail" is as opposed to
>any other kind of bail.

There is a long-standing concept of individual recognizance bonds for
some misdemeanors. There is no arraignment before a judge. The desk
sergeant simply makes the decision to require the arrestee to post cash
bail or a no-cash bond. There are still the usual "bail conditions" of
showing up on time for the next court date and not getting arrested for
another crime prior to the next court date, otherwise bond is revoked
and the defendent is supposed to be held in pre-trial detention at
county jail.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> Thanks, but what I don't understand is what "cash bail" is as opposed to
>> any other kind of bail.
>
> There is a long-standing concept of individual recognizance bonds for
> some misdemeanors. There is no arraignment before a judge. The desk
> sergeant simply makes the decision to require the arrestee to post cash
> bail or a no-cash bond. There are still the usual "bail conditions" of
> showing up on time for the next court date and not getting arrested for
> another crime prior to the next court date, otherwise bond is revoked
> and the defendent is supposed to be held in pre-trial detention at
> county jail.
>

Aha! So minor property crimes like murder will just get set free by the
desk Sergeant who will tell them to be careful out there. Got it, thanks!

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>Thanks, but what I don't understand is what "cash bail" is as opposed to
>>>any other kind of bail.

>>There is a long-standing concept of individual recognizance bonds for
>>some misdemeanors. There is no arraignment before a judge. The desk
>>sergeant simply makes the decision to require the arrestee to post cash
>>bail or a no-cash bond. There are still the usual "bail conditions" of
>>showing up on time for the next court date and not getting arrested for
>>another crime prior to the next court date, otherwise bond is revoked
>>and the defendent is supposed to be held in pre-trial detention at
>>county jail.

>Aha! So minor property crimes like murder will just get set free by the
>desk Sergeant who will tell them to be careful out there. Got it, thanks!

Hey! Wait until January 1! It's not yet in effect.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> . . .
>
>>>> Thanks, but what I don't understand is what "cash bail" is as opposed to
>>>> any other kind of bail.
>
>>> There is a long-standing concept of individual recognizance bonds for
>>> some misdemeanors. There is no arraignment before a judge. The desk
>>> sergeant simply makes the decision to require the arrestee to post cash
>>> bail or a no-cash bond. There are still the usual "bail conditions" of
>>> showing up on time for the next court date and not getting arrested for
>>> another crime prior to the next court date, otherwise bond is revoked
>>> and the defendent is supposed to be held in pre-trial detention at
>>> county jail.
>
>> Aha! So minor property crimes like murder will just get set free by the
>> desk Sergeant who will tell them to be careful out there. Got it, thanks!
>
> Hey! Wait until January 1! It's not yet in effect.
>

Do you really think the people this will affect are smart enough to read a
calendar?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Sep 18, 2022 at 9:04:00 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you're back out on the
>>> street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they've created a monster.
>>> "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
>>> place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
>>> wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>
>> Didn't I write about this at the time it passed?
>
> btw, please admit that my state is clearly leading here.

Yes, you momentarily pulled ahead, but my state just passed legislation that
blatantly defies the 1st Amendment in such a bold way, I don't think I've seen
it's like in many years.

Behold AB 2282:

https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB2282/

Which makes it a crime to display any "hate symbol" either on public OR
PRIVATE PROPERTY if it "terrorizes someone".

"Hate symbol" is, of course, left undefined. Some examples are given-- a Nazi
swastika, nooses, burning crosses or other desecrated religious symbols-- but
the bill specifically states that the definition is not limited to just those
things. So they've left themselves room to add anything they don't like to the
list as time goes on.

Displaying a symbol the state has deemed to be hateful will now land you in
prison for up to three years and cost you as much as $15,000.

(We can't get actual criminals even arrested-- let alone sent to prison--
these days and they're currently letting *murderers* out early, but this?
They'll happily lock you up for putting a picture of Pepe the Frog in your
front window. What do you suppose the over/under is on how long it'll take
before they decree that wearing one of those red Trump ballcaps is a "hate
symbol"?)

Of course all this flies in the face of multiple SCOTUS 1st Amendment cases.
It's well-established that if you're a tremendous asshole, you have the right
to fly the Confederate flag on your own property or even carry a Nazi flag in
a parade down Main Street. (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of
Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)

I just don't understand how bills like this become law (and yes, Governor
Hair-Gel signed it, so it is indeed law now). Something like 90% of the people
in the state assembly are lawyers. They have to know that state censorship of
even appalling speech is unconstitutional, yet they go ahead and do it anyway,
and they'll probably spend millions of tax dollars fighting a doomed defense
of this abortion of a law all up through the court system, where they'll
ultimately be told by the Supreme Court that they're idiots and of course the
state can't imprison people for saying things they don't like.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Sep 18, 2022 at 9:04:00 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>>Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you're back out on the
>>>>street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they've created a monster.
>>>>"There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it in the first
>>>>place and are moving forward with implementation anyway. Insanity. Oh, no,
>>>>wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.

>>>Didn't I write about this at the time it passed?

>>btw, please admit that my state is clearly leading here.

>Yes, you momentarily pulled ahead, but my state just passed legislation that
>blatantly defies the 1st Amendment in such a bold way, I don't think I've seen
>it's like in many years.

>Behold AB 2282:

>https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB2282/

>Which makes it a crime to display any "hate symbol" either on public OR
>PRIVATE PROPERTY if it "terrorizes someone".

If it's not your property, no additional regulation is required.
Vandalism laws apply.

If it is your property, well, a KKK member can still legally burn a cross on
his own property.

Till now.

>"Hate symbol" is, of course, left undefined. Some examples are given-- a Nazi
>swastika, nooses, burning crosses or other desecrated religious symbols-- but
>the bill specifically states that the definition is not limited to just those
>things. So they've left themselves room to add anything they don't like to the
>list as time goes on.

I love this bit:

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature is to
criminalize, for the purpose of terrorizing a person, the
display or placement of the Nazi swastika and not swastikas
associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

Hitler didn't invent the right-facing or clockwise swastika, as the bill
appears to acknowledge, yet still calling it "Nazi swastika". The bill
isn't even specific to the swastika as used on the flag with colors used
by the Nazi Party.

Hell, the symbol is supposed to be a constellation of stars. Whom are
you going to arrest for putting it in the night sky?

>Displaying a symbol the state has deemed to be hateful will now land you in
>prison for up to three years and cost you as much as $15,000.

>(We can't get actual criminals even arrested-- let alone sent to prison--
>these days and they're currently letting *murderers* out early, but this?
>They'll happily lock you up for putting a picture of Pepe the Frog in your
>front window. What do you suppose the over/under is on how long it'll take
>before they decree that wearing one of those red Trump ballcaps is a "hate
>symbol"?)

>Of course all this flies in the face of multiple SCOTUS 1st Amendment cases.
>It's well-established that if you're a tremendous asshole, you have the right
>to fly the Confederate flag on your own property or even carry a Nazi flag in
>a parade down Main Street. (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of
>Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)

>I just don't understand how bills like this become law (and yes, Governor
>Hair-Gel signed it, so it is indeed law now). Something like 90% of the people
>in the state assembly are lawyers. They have to know that state censorship of
>even appalling speech is unconstitutional, yet they go ahead and do it anyway,
>and they'll probably spend millions of tax dollars fighting a doomed defense
>of this abortion of a law all up through the court system, where they'll
>ultimately be told by the Supreme Court that they're idiots and of course the
>state can't imprison people for saying things they don't like.

Can I just take offense at official symbols of state government and win
money?

In article <tgb5c5$19f2m$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 18, 2022 at 9:04:00 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
> >wrote:
> >>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you're back out on
> >>>> the street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they've created a
> >>>> monster. "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it
> >>>> in the first place and are moving forward with implementation anyway.
> >>>> Insanity. Oh, no, wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.
>
> >>>Didn't I write about this at the time it passed?
>
> >>btw, please admit that my state is clearly leading here.
>
> > Yes, you momentarily pulled ahead, but my state just passed legislation
> > that blatantly defies the 1st Amendment in such a bold way, I don't think
> > I've seen it's like in many years.
>
> > Behold AB 2282:
>
> > https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB2282/
>
> > Which makes it a crime to display any "hate symbol" either on public OR
> > PRIVATE PROPERTY if it "terrorizes someone".
>
> If it's not your property, no additional regulation is required.
> Vandalism laws apply.

They're talking about things like people wearing t-shirts or carrying
signs while walking down the street. Not private property, but not
affixing anything to something that doesn't belong to you, either.

> If it is your property, well, a KKK member can still legally burn a cross on
> his own property.
>
> Till now.
>
> > "Hate symbol" is, of course, left undefined. Some examples are given-- a
> > Nazi swastika, nooses, burning crosses or other desecrated religious
> > symbols-- but the bill specifically states that the definition is not
> > limited to just those things. So they've left themselves room to add
> > anything they don't like to the list as time goes on.
>
> I love this bit:
>
> This bill would state the intent of the Legislature is to
> criminalize, for the purpose of terrorizing a person, the
> display or placement of the Nazi swastika and not swastikas
> associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
>
> Hitler didn't invent the right-facing or clockwise swastika, as the bill
> appears to acknowledge, yet still calling it "Nazi swastika". The bill
> isn't even specific to the swastika as used on the flag with colors used
> by the Nazi Party.
>
> Hell, the symbol is supposed to be a constellation of stars. Whom are
> you going to arrest for putting it in the night sky?
>
> > Displaying a symbol the state has deemed to be hateful will now land
> > you in prison for up to three years and cost you as much as $15,000.
>
> > (We can't get actual criminals even arrested-- let alone sent to prison--
> > these days and they're currently letting *murderers* out early, but this?
> > They'll happily lock you up for putting a picture of Pepe the Frog in your
> > front window. What do you suppose the over/under is on how long it'll take
> > before they decree that wearing one of those red Trump ballcaps is a "hate
> > symbol"?)
>
> > Of course all this flies in the face of multiple SCOTUS 1st Amendment
> > cases. It's well-established that if you're a tremendous asshole, you
> > have the right to fly the Confederate flag on your own property or even
> > carry a Nazi flag in a parade down Main Street. (National Socialist Party
> > of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)
>
> > I just don't understand how bills like this become law (and yes, Governor
> > Hair-Gel signed it, so it is indeed law now). Something like 90% of the
> > people in the state assembly are lawyers. They have to know that state
> > censorship of even appalling speech is unconstitutional, yet they go ahead
> > and do it anyway, and they'll probably spend millions of tax dollars
> > fighting a doomed defense of this abortion of a law all up through the
> > court system, where they'll ultimately be told by the Supreme Court that
> > they're idiots and of course the state can't imprison people for saying
> > things they don't like.
>
> Can I just take offense at official symbols of state government and win
> money?

If only...

In article <tgb5c5$19f2m$1@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Hitler didn't invent the right-facing or clockwise swastika, as the bill
> appears to acknowledge, yet still calling it "Nazi swastika". The bill
> isn't even specific to the swastika as used on the flag with colors used
> by the Nazi Party.
>
> Hell, the symbol is supposed to be a constellation of stars. Whom are
> you going to arrest for putting it in the night sky?

There is a museum of American Indian art in Phoenix. What we think of
as swastikas are featured in the designs of blankets, clothing and so
on of the Hopi and Navaho people, and there are many examples of them
at the museum. (The symbols are actually sauwastikas, or "backwards"
swastikas.)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>Sep 18, 2022 at 9:04:00 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>>>>Amazing. You commit murder, the cops catch you, and you're back out on
>>>>>>the street in an hour. On purpose. And they *know* they've created a
>>>>>>monster. "There's still time to fix it," they say, but they passed it
>>>>>>in the first place and are moving forward with implementation anyway.
>>>>>>Insanity. Oh, no, wait... we call insanity "Progress!" now.

>>>>>Didn't I write about this at the time it passed?

>>>>btw, please admit that my state is clearly leading here.

>>>Yes, you momentarily pulled ahead, but my state just passed legislation
>>>that blatantly defies the 1st Amendment in such a bold way, I don't think
>>>I've seen it's like in many years.
>>>Behold AB 2282:

>>>https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB2282/
>>>Which makes it a crime to display any "hate symbol" either on public OR
>>>PRIVATE PROPERTY if it "terrorizes someone".

>>If it's not your property, no additional regulation is required.
>>Vandalism laws apply.

>They're talking about things like people wearing t-shirts or carrying
>signs while walking down the street. Not private property, but not
>affixing anything to something that doesn't belong to you, either.

Waitaminit. Bodily autonomy applies only if you're seeking an abortion
but not to wearing a t-shirt or hat?

>>. . .