re: Why are they detaining Pelosi attacker without bail

quote:

---

He has not yet been arraigned on the likely state court charges. I think the state arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow. The State Court may set bail, or it may not.

---

They have stated he will be held without bail. You think the SF court will let Pelosi’s attacker out without any bail like many Dem DAs have done with accused murderers and violent offenders across the country.

Be honest, you know Pelosi and Dems will not afford this violent offender the same compassion they support and encourage for other violent offenders across the country.

See Manuel Noriega !!! Disappeared into never never land.

corrupt dishonest and stupid

hank hank and hank

I question why this is a federal crime. Pelosi's husband is not a government official and Nancy was not in the state when the attack occurred.

There have been plenty of people who have made threats against republicans who have not been charged by the feds. Also, what is the chance that they put words in the guys mouth just so they could go for Federal charges to protect the truth about Pelosi's husband?

quote:

---

The federal criminal system does not provide for pretrial release on bail.

---

What???

quote:

---

If this had been you or me or someone else outside the political establishment elite the attacker would be out by now.

---

No he wouldn’t. He’d be lying cold on a mortuary table right now.

quote:

---

question why this is a federal crime.

---

Because there are Federal statutes that protect the elites from the proles regardless of whether it has anything to do with interstate commerce.

Mea culpa. I always admit my errors. Some federal courts DO allow the use of a bail bond. I was wrong.

I initially did only cursory research and promptly found several lawyers’ sites saying that federal courts do not use bail bondsmen, and as a result I vastly oversimplified the matter. Federal law does allow the discretion to use them, even if most districts seem to not do so. The following is from the public defender in the Central district of California:

quote:

---

Bail in federal court is different than the California Superior Court and most other state courts. Bail will NOT automatically be set. We typically do not use bail bondsmen. If you are seeking release on bail, an officer from the United States Pretrial Services agency will interview you about your background, health, and finances, and also about people who are willing to serve as sureties for you … The magistrate judge may require only a signature or may require that the bond be secured either by a cash deposit or a lien against a house or other property.

When deciding whether to release you on bail, the magistrate judge will consider factors such as your ties to the community, your employment history, any prior convictions, any prior failures to appear for court, among other things. In general, the law says the magistrate judge can order that you be held without bail only if he or she determines that no conditions can assure the safety of the community and your appearance in court. However, most drug crimes, crimes of violence, and sex offenses lead to a “presumption of detention.” If you are charged with one of these crimes, the judge will keep you in jail until your trial date unless your lawyer convinces the magistrate judge that you should be released.

---

This website seems like a good primer on the federal system, but it is entirely possible that the northern district does things differently. You are probably in a better position to address that question.

quote:

---

quote:

---

question why this is a federal crime.

---

Because there are Federal statutes that protect the elites from the proles regardless of whether it has anything to do with interstate commerce.

---

Texas also has enhancements (e.g. upgrade from misdemeanor to felony) for assaults upon public officials. I suspect that this is true of most jurisdictions. While Texas does not include family members, many states do.

The presumption is that a public official is more likely to be exposed to the crazies among us and that they should be protected accordingly. On the other hand, I suppose it is reasonable to ask whether additional criminal penalties will actually deter a crazy person.

Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with providing some additional protections to those who are exposed to greater risk.