TX lege is abt to make it illegal for bail funds to bail out anyone ever ACCUSED

[Mary Ann]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/11683442

mahatmakanejeeves (36,512 posts)


TX lege is abt to make it illegal for bail funds to bail out anyone ever ACCUSED OF a violent crime.

LolWhatInsurrectionHat Retweeted

Holy crap. The TX lege is abt to make it illegal for bail funds to bail out anyone ever ACCUSED OF (I assume this means arrested for) a violent crime.

Red states are on a preemption spree right now. They are aiming for all but the most mild of criminal legal changes.

Link to tweet

mopinko (59,666 posts)

1. savages.

these people just arent civilized.

Hugh_Lebowski (21,707 posts)

3. Seems like a misinterpretation of the original tweet

"Ban nonprofits from posting bond for those accused or ever previously convicted of a violent crime"

So if the person is CURRENTLY held for a violent crime, or was convicted of one in the past.

Just sayin'

I'm curious to know what the list of 'violent' crimes consists of ... resisting arrest I suppose?

This is almost certainly meant to target protesters.

It's about time.

[thundley4]

Gofundme accounts should be banned for violent criminals.

[SVPete]

Knowing DUmmies cannot be trusted to accurately represent something they knee-jerkingly oppose, and many of their favored sources are similarly dishonest, would this proposed law ban bail for people accused of violent crime? Or would it just forbid activist groups from funding the bail of people accused of violence (as Progs did to return rioters to the streets of Minneapolis, etc.)?

[thundley4]

Or would it just forbid activist groups from funding the bail of people accused of violence (as Progs Kamala Harris did to return rioters to the streets of Minneapolis, etc.)?

[enslaved1]

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/87ccrs/hjr0004.pdf#navpanes=0

Link to the proposal.  My short attention span isn't reading this well, but the original comment/tweet says nonprofits can't be raising bail, not just no bail, and I don't see that wording in there.  But again, short attention span and dislike for legalleese aren't helping read the paper.

[SVPete]

Predictably, DUmmies lied about the actual proposal:

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/HJ00004E.htm

SECTION 1.  Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
    adding Section 11d to read as follows:
           Sec. 11d.  (a) A person accused of committing a violent or
    sexual offense, or of committing continuous trafficking of persons,
    may be denied bail pending trial if a judge or magistrate determines
    by clear and convincing evidence that requiring bail and conditions
    of release is insufficient to reasonably ensure:
                 (1)  the person's appearance in court as required; or
                 (2)  the safety of the community, law enforcement, or
    the victim of the alleged offense.
           (b)  A judge or magistrate who denies a person bail in
    accordance with this section shall prepare a written order that
    includes findings of fact and a statement explaining the judge or
    magistrate's reason for the denial.
           (c)  This section may not be construed to:
                 (1)  limit any right a person has under other law to
    contest a denial of bail or to contest the amount of bail set by a
    judge or magistrate; or
                 (2)  require any hearing or procedure before a judge or
    magistrate makes a bail decision with respect to a person to whom
    this section applies.
           (d)  In this section, "violent offense" and "sexual offense"
    have the meanings assigned by Section 11a of this article.

The proposed amendment to the state constitution would permit denial of bail to those accused of certain violent crimes under certain conditions. It requires a judge denying bail to include in the written order the reasons for denial. It would not limit an accused person's right to contest a denial or the amount of bail.

Unsurprisingly no DUmmie bothered to find the actual text of the proposed amendment to the Texas state constitution. Or maybe the thread died with just 3 responses because some DUmmies did check and were not honest enough to call out the thread's lies.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Gofundme accounts should be banned for violent criminals.

Kyle Rittenhouse had to rely on one.

[thundley4]

Kyle Rittenhouse had to rely on one.

IIRC, gofundme shut his page down, didn't they?  Still, they shouldn't allow the pages for criminals once they are convicted.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

IIRC, gofundme shut his page down, didn't they?  Still, they shouldn't allow the pages for criminals once they are convicted.

Yes, GFM shut down his page, but he moved to a different platform because of the high bail that was set.

[thundley4]

Yes, GFM shut down his page, but he moved to a different platform because of the high bail that was set.

After thinking about it, there have been people that were wrongfully convicted that were only freed because of fundraisers. So it's kind of a sticky thing to get into.

[Old n Grumpy]

The brothers be pissed those asians are taking all their jobs, like brain surgeons, rocket scientists and bidness owners.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

After thinking about it, there have been people that were wrongfully convicted that were only freed because of fundraisers. So it's kind of a sticky thing to get into.

I'm absolutely sympathetic to your thoughts after Harris helped raise funds for rioters with violent criminal histories.