Is letting the criminals run free where we are headed??

Wahoo98

Active Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2022
Messages
38
Location
Middle, TN
There is an article from Nashville about one of Zero's children committing an armed car jacking this week while out on bond awaiting court on another armed carjacking charge.

It never ends around here with the District Attorney the Nashville libs elected.
GF is terrible. Unfortunately, unless he gets himself indicted, Nashville still has 7 more years before his current term ends.
 

moondawg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
24,841
Location
Millington, TN
Hoping Lee kicks Mulroy out of office,
As much as people want this to happen, I don't see it happening. It would have to be proven that he is not doing his job. Just as we all know OJ killed his wife, it has to be proven. That's the tricky part.

Rumor has it that he has a higher office in his sights. Cohen's seat, perhaps.

I heard from a well placed source Mulroy FIRED a ton of attorneys in the DA's office once he was in charge. More than a few had trials in progress, including murder.
I heard that and that others left on their own.
 
Last edited:

BigCityBubba

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2022
Messages
1,227
Location
Anywhere but here
Personally, I was responding to the title of the thread: "Is letting the criminals run free where we are headed??"

The answer is yes. Because it's part of the Progressive Plan.
In other words, the content of the post was irrelevant to the title. That being said, Dyersburg is considered the most dangerous city in TN.
 

Wildcat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2000
Messages
72,113
Location
Western Ky.
Look all throughout history. When people wanted to force something, an issue, to put certain people in power, or a political view, they needed to create chaos and disorder. It happened in Germany, Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and half the countries in South America.

All of them started out small and grew with more and more chaos, turning to violent riots. and worse.

People lose faith in their govt.
 

BigCityBubba

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2022
Messages
1,227
Location
Anywhere but here
No, it was not irrelevant, but your response seems to be defending - or at least hiding the truth - about Progressivism.
But it is irrelevant. Its comparing a sheriff, more than likely from a conservative town, not kicking in someone's door over a court order to go to rehab to the way the DA's are handling crime in large cities. How are the similar? As for hiding the truth about progressivism, I don't see any examples of republican run large cities that have a dense population of people living below the poverty line that has a low crime rate. I brought up Dyersburg because it isn't a large city, its a rural town that has the highest crime rate in the state which throws off the theory that its only large cities run by progressives. I don't necessarily agree with their solutions but I also don't see any suggestions coming from the other side either. I only see criticisms. Is the solution to raise taxes so we can hire more LEOs and build more prisons? Is the solution to raise taxes so we can somehow figure a way to convince these people not to commit crimes? Is the solution to raise taxes and do both? Whatever it is, it will involve money which is the problem.
 

BMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
27,035
Location
Middle TN
The movie the purge comes to mind. It seems we are all free game to criminals. I keep my eye on all points of entry and exit.

If they ever did have a "purge night," the criminals are the ones who will come out on the short end of the stick. Bigly.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2023
Messages
499
Location
Middle Tennessee
I've always thought the idea of a bond was stupid. You're either non-violent and okay to be in the community, and can be trusted to show up to your court date, or you're too dangerous to be running around. There's no middle ground, and paying a few thousand dollars for a bond doesn't stop any crime, nor does it seem to help the criminal show up to court. The amount of money that somebody has should have no bearing on their treatment in the court system.

I know two guys who got into a fist fight, it was mutual, but the state I was in could prosecute anyway, so they did. One of the guys had enough cash in his pocket to bond out as soon as he went to the jail, the other guy didn't have a lot of money and sat in jail for almost 2 months waiting for his "trial". They both committed the exact same offense, but only one was penalized, entirely based off of income.

I'm convinced that the only people who support cash bonds are bondsmans themselves, they really don't serve much of a purpose. You're either going to show up to court or you aren't, putting some money up isn't going to fix things, not to mention that most of the bonds are paid by the offenders family, it's not even their money to start with.

I don't think any non-violent (with some exceptions like people who make legitimate threats and similar things) offenses should be held on any type of bond. Violent offenses should have automatically no bond, at least until they see a judge and are judged based on threat level.
 

Bambi Buster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
30,161
Location
Middle Tennessee
"......Hernandez is a known gang member with a violent criminal history, and was on probation and post-release community supervision at the time of the shooting spree......."

 

BSK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 1999
Messages
80,614
Location
Nashville, TN
But it is irrelevant. Its comparing a sheriff, more than likely from a conservative town, not kicking in someone's door over a court order to go to rehab to the way the DA's are handling crime in large cities. How are the similar?
I did not see it that way at all. Where did the original poster say anything about wanting LE to kick anyone's door down? They talked about having a legit court order the police were not going to enforce unless they just happened upon the suspect. In my view, big difference.
 

BigCityBubba

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2022
Messages
1,227
Location
Anywhere but here
I did not see it that way at all. Where did the original poster say anything about wanting LE to kick anyone's door down? They talked about having a legit court order the police were not going to enforce unless they just happened upon the suspect. In my view, big difference.
How do they enforce it? What does that mean? Do they knock on his door and ask him politely to go to rehab? What if he says no? What if he refuses to answer the door? What if he answers the door with a gun in his hand? Why is this even the sheriff's responsibility? How is this similar to a DA not prosecuting criminals?
 

DaveTN

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
9,672
Location
Middle Tennessee
I've always thought the idea of a bond was stupid. You're either non-violent and okay to be in the community, and can be trusted to show up to your court date, or you're too dangerous to be running around. There's no middle ground, and paying a few thousand dollars for a bond doesn't stop any crime, nor does it seem to help the criminal show up to court. The amount of money that somebody has should have no bearing on their treatment in the court system..

I agree. You are either safe to be around other people or you aren't. That's the way it was moving, but went way beyond that to…bonds not fair, so no one has to post it, in some jurisdictions. Illinois went that way. It's yes or no on holding violent offenders. They can hold them until trial but the Judge has to write an explanation to justify why he did it. If they decide not to hold them there is no bond required.

But neither liberals nor conservatives are okay with this. Many people think violent criminals should be held until trial. Until it's their family member. Then suddenly its "He's no danger to anyone!".

I know two guys who got into a fist fight, it was mutual, but the state I was in could prosecute anyway, so they did. One of the guys had enough cash in his pocket to bond out as soon as he went to the jail, the other guy didn't have a lot of money and sat in jail for almost 2 months waiting for his "trial". They both committed the exact same offense, but only one was penalized, entirely based off of income.
I've posted before that we often see members post "You are innocent until proven guilty!" Thats a feel-good statement, and the way it should be, but that doesn't play out in real life. I suspect anyone saying that has never been arrested.

I commonly went on calls where two guys got in a fight. It was usually mutual until one got their azz beat. Then they wanted the other arrested. I usually told them if I arrest one, I'm arresting both and let the court settle it. The Police have no business being involved in grown azz men getting in a fight.

However… if they were related or lived together it was domestic violence and one of them went to jail. They took our discretion away on that.

I'm convinced that the only people who support cash bonds are bondsmans themselves, they really don't serve much of a purpose. You're either going to show up to court or you aren't, putting some money up isn't going to fix things, not to mention that most of the bonds are paid by the offenders family, it's not even their money to start with.
Exactly. Where I was the state was the bond agent. You had to put up 10% of the bond. If the charge was serious, and bond was high, you may also have to put up collateral for the full amount. As you say, usually a family member and usually their house. Skip out and the family member loses their house, or car, or whatever to the state. If the charges were dropped or the person was found not guilty all money was returned. If they were convicted the 10% was usually applied to fines or compensation to victims. It appears to me it could be kind of expensive to get arrested in Tennessee. If charges or dropped or you are found not guilty does the Bondsman give that 10% back??

I don't think any non-violent (with some exceptions like people who make legitimate threats and similar things) offenses should be held on any type of bond. Violent offenses should have automatically no bond, at least until they see a judge and are judged based on threat level.
I agree that nonviolent offenses should get a notice to appear. But when they don't appear, and are then arrested on a traffic stop for failure to appear, they should be held until trial, not given another notice to appear. We all know what you call it when you keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

But as I also have said time after time…. We need to build more prisons and jails. Many Judges don't have anywhere to hold offenders. Jail or prison time should be the standard for violent offenders.
 
Top