- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Biden judge has ordered 2 of 3 leftists jailed for storming the church to be released
Posted on 1/24/26 at 3:13 am to oldskule
Posted on 1/24/26 at 3:13 am to oldskule
quote:
The Judiciary is weaponized on both sides
How have Republicans tried to weaponize criminal courts? The people who terrorized that church deserved to be arrested. A female parishioner broke her arm trying to flee because believed that they were under attack by a violent mob. Then after the being asked to leave by the leader of the church the agitators refused.
0
Posted on 1/24/26 at 3:39 am to riccoar
This whole thread is a bunch of knee jerk reactions over a stupid misleading X post.
I looked up the release and it's as SFP says minus the small part about staying away from church and not leaving the state.
Below is from a CBS article,
A federal magistrate judge initially ordered their release, citing insufficient evidence for detention, and set conditions including staying within Minnesota and avoiding the church and any witnesses. However, the Justice Department appealed the decision, temporarily keeping them in custody.
I looked up the release and it's as SFP says minus the small part about staying away from church and not leaving the state.
Below is from a CBS article,
A federal magistrate judge initially ordered their release, citing insufficient evidence for detention, and set conditions including staying within Minnesota and avoiding the church and any witnesses. However, the Justice Department appealed the decision, temporarily keeping them in custody.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 4:29 am to Clark14
Are you serious Clark. You point to what the radical left judiciary did to American citizens.not illegals.
Thanks for making the point.
Thanks for making the point.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 4:31 am to Victor R Franko
ordered their release, citing insufficient evidence for detention,
What needs translating here?
What needs translating here?
Posted on 1/24/26 at 4:33 am to themunch
insufficient evidence for detention,
Is this the equivalent to 'no grounds'
Is this the equivalent to 'no grounds'
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:46 am to oldskule
quote:ripped apart by Democrats years ago
Law and order is the main fabric
Posted on 1/24/26 at 6:08 am to themunch
quote:
ordered their release, citing insufficient evidence for detention,
What needs translating here?
Ok, maybe I'm all wet, lets discuss it. They say not enough evidence to detain, they don't say charges dropped. I see it as they can go about their business without being in jail, but they have to show up for their Arraignment. I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is how it'll go.
Do you think that they're off Scott free or something?hing?
EDIT: Damn it, don't make me have to bring SFP and his team of posters in here to add 30 pages of lawyer double talk!
This post was edited on 1/24/26 at 6:10 am
Posted on 1/24/26 at 6:26 am to KCT
quote:
But remember, now. There's absolutely nothing to this ridiculous concept of lawfare. It's just a phony, made-up term.
Am I doing it right, you-know-who?
You are proving my point so well and you don't even realize it
This thread is an IQ test. You failed
I can't wait for you to respond by bringing up something completely framed and irrelevant
This post was edited on 1/24/26 at 6:26 am
Posted on 1/24/26 at 6:31 am to hawgfaninc
But you better not pray outside of an abortion clinic (murder factory).
Posted on 1/24/26 at 6:36 am to BHS78
quote:
But you better not pray outside of an abortion clinic (murder factory).
Was that woman detained pretrial, too? I'm pretty sure she was not.
This post was edited on 1/24/26 at 6:38 am
Posted on 1/24/26 at 6:42 am to Willie Stroker
They are flight risks and have shown zero interest in the judicial process. They should stay right where they are. Zero ties to the area, high flight risk, obvious intent to influence a jury pool.
Nope, this was a mistake
Nope, this was a mistake
Posted on 1/24/26 at 7:18 am to Smokeyone
quote:
Zero ties to the area
bullshite.
Nekima Levy Armstrong is a longtime Minneapolis resident and prominent civil rights attorney in the area. She previously served as president of the Minneapolis NAACP chapter, lives in north Minneapolis (having moved there from Brooklyn Park, around 2015).
Chauntyll Louisa Allen is even more directly tied to the immediately area. She is a current member of the St. Paul School Board, lives in the Hamline-Midway neighborhood of St. Paul with her family, and has been active in local politics there (including running for St. Paul City Council Ward 4). Reports consistently identify her as a St. Paul resident and local official.
What aspects of their life in the area makes them a flight risk?
Or tell me where the above paragraphs are incorrect.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 7:29 am to prplhze2000
quote:
Most federal judges would've required a 5 to 10k bond but she just let them go on their own recognizance
Why require money? There is no evidence that money has any effect on a person’s decision on whether or not to show up for court or become a threat to public safety when they did not previously have that history.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 7:35 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
It's time for judges to be removed. Hopefully peacefully.
We should keep all options on the table.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 7:36 am to BobBoucher
quote:
Released as in no bail? Or charges dropped?
Released on bond. That was the function of the initial appearance.
Charges were not dropped. Based on the quick time frame, the charge was brought by a criminal complaint rather than a grand jury. That means the magistrate judge on duty agreed that there was probable cause to charge them. It’s not likely the same or another magistrate judge in the same district would suddenly dismiss charges after a judge’s signature has already determined the charges can proceed.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 7:45 am to Willie Stroker
Didn't have to pay any bond up front. I read the order.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"Released" as in no pretrial detention, which is pretty standard.
Thanks for the clarification.
What is next?
Posted on 1/24/26 at 7:47 am to Smokeyone
Wrong. Pretty much every federal judge would've given bond in this case. Non violent, no danger to community. Getting bond every time but for this judge.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 8:44 am to prplhze2000
quote:
Didn't have to pay any bond up front. I read the order.
Why should someone have to pay to be released on bond?
This post was edited on 1/24/26 at 8:45 am
Posted on 1/24/26 at 8:44 am to Willie Stroker
I take it that’s sarcasm? You never know these days.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News