The “you’re next” after referencing a high profile murder is what actually did it.
Like, that’s a credible threat. 15 years is fucking insane, and context is going to matter a lot. Did she just get denied cancer treatment for her 2 year old? Or told it’s not insurance’s fault doctors won’t prescribe opioids? Or any of a million things in between.
That’s why we have trials, to find out all that stuff. And if it’s a jury trial I feel juries would be sympathetic.
The 100k is the real bullshit, but not owning guns doesn’t mean much. It’s insanely easy to buy a gun without a background check thru private seller loopholes.
But our bond system is insane, because the it causes judges to inflate the amount 10x. If you can afford to put it up, you get it all back later. A bondsman you pay 10%, they put up 90%, and they get the whole 100% back. Your 10% is their profit. If a bondsman thinks that’s a good risk, why does the court consistently over estimate the risk?
The “you’re next” after referencing a high profile murder is what actually did it.
Like, that’s a credible threat. 15 years is fucking insane, and context is going to matter a lot. Did she just get denied cancer treatment for her 2 year old? Or told it’s not insurance’s fault doctors won’t prescribe opioids? Or any of a million things in between.
That’s why we have trials, to find out all that stuff. And if it’s a jury trial I feel juries would be sympathetic.
The 100k is the real bullshit, but not owning guns doesn’t mean much. It’s insanely easy to buy a gun without a background check thru private seller loopholes.
But our bond system is insane, because the it causes judges to inflate the amount 10x. If you can afford to put it up, you get it all back later. A bondsman you pay 10%, they put up 90%, and they get the whole 100% back. Your 10% is their profit. If a bondsman thinks that’s a good risk, why does the court consistently over estimate the risk?
Bonds only exist so poor people are punished more than rich people.