MAGA Terrorist Attacks Nancy Pelosi's Husband With A Hammer

Misterpicture, we all know that there's more to the story about the guy stealing $7.  Give us a name so we can learn the truth.

What a monumentally stupid question.

One of the reasons to not release a defendant on bail is if he poses a danger to others. Someone suspected of beating another person unconscious with a hammer qualifies.

Duh.

The specific story doesn't matter. The relevant concept is that the Constitution of the US, as well as many states, prohibits "excessive" bail.

Good question actually. I found the story about it in the LA Times and a couple of other papers, and they all linked to the same place on the CA Supreme Court site which was...dead. So I don't know.

I'm assuming the person in question was a real dirtbag who had committed numerous similar and worse offenses and would probably be predicted to do so in the future. Fair?

But if the bail set were reasonable for his income/assets, the bail amount would be allowed under current California law. But if the bail was so large as to be a form of punishment and pre-incarceration before the determination of guilt, then it's unconstitutional.

Boiler's a little confused about the role of the US Constitution in the affairs of states. Excessive bail is expressly prohibited--but of course, that leaves it up to the states, initially anyway, to determine what constitutes "excessive." HOWEVER, any defendant charged bail that he considers excessive can seek relief through the federal courts. States CANNOT nullify rights guaranteed in the Constitution--which, of course, is why the Dobbs decision was so terribly, terribly wrong.

The attacker's  social media feed looks remarkably similar to the one David Miller shares here regularly.    Just sayin.

  You are always "just sayin"....

Why shouldn't someone who is accused of a crime be "turned loose"? They haven't been convicted of anything yet, so how do you justify preemptively punishing them?

Keep in mind that bail isn't supposed to be punitive; it's meant to assure that the accused shows up for trial.

I vote according to whether a candidate supports fundamental human rights--for EVERYBODY. So anyone pontificating that people accused of crimes should be treated as if they were automatically guilty wouldn't get my vote.

These are your words Kevin

That was my thought too.

As opposed to you, who are always farting?