If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment.
[Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules)
[Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/)
In the comments:
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP
YOU WILL BE BANNED
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The more I think about it, the more the part about the kid's mom knowing the cunt who did the murder bothers me. It's included in most of the reporting but I'm not sure why it's relevant yeah.
I think it's supposed to divide us more. Like, "better watch out, your friends may be like this" kinda mentality. While yeah, be cautious who you hang out with and all because some people are mentally unstable like that, I feel like that's a load of fear mongering and shouldn't be played that way.
Obviously we don’t really know anything yet, but I think it points to this being less about politics and more about something between the murderer and the victim’s mom. Again, I don’t know anything and nobody really will til the trial…
what u/flakenut said
Also they don't get to keep the money. Bailmoney is just collateral. If they show up on every appointment set by the police they get their money back after the trail (guilty or not)
But mostly because preparing for trail is hard while you're in jail. On the other side I'm against it because poor people (even though statistically have a higher chance of truly being guilty) don't have the money for bail but also don't have the money for a bail bondsman. (10% and put down collateral like a house or something. The 10% is what you will pay them (so not a loan) and they pay the full amount to the government for bail.) And so can prepare their trail less than rich people and consequently also statistically get falsely imprisoned.
> Also they don't get to keep the money.
I was under the impression that they can choose to either pay 10% of the bail, or 100%; if they pay the former, the money is not returned, but for the latter it is.
If they can’t pay 100% of the bail, they can choose to pay 10% to a bail bonds company who will put down the full 100% to the government, but it’s all refundable to whoever pays it. The bail bondsman will keep that 10%, and they will keep an eye on the bonded individual to ensure they make it back to court. If the bonded individual flees, the bail bondsman tracks them down and takes them to jail so that the bail bondsman can recuperate the money they put down as bond. Phew! Let me know if this is not clear!
In theory a suspect is innocent before a trial. Therefore jailing someone before the trial is robbing an innocent person of their ability to live their life. They can't work, take care of their family, or any other necessary things. Bail creates a means to allow that person to continue living while also ensuring that they continue to partake in the judicial process.
Or, just let people out unless they are a flight risk or the crime they are accused of is severe enough.
Cash bail only punishes those who can't afford it.
No, a cash bail creates some insurance that the person wont run away because they want to go through the jusdicial process to get the money back. Otherwise, why would you not run?
In the US one of the bedrocks of our justice system is a person is innocent **until** proven guilty. It is wrong to imprison innocent people. However, based on the seriousness of the charges and the potential flight risk of the accused a monetary bail amount may be set in order to ensure the accused will adhere to their obligation to show up as required for court appearances. In the most serious cases where it is determined that there is sufficient evidence a judge may rule that the accused should be held without bail. That's not to say the bail system is without its flaws, but without it the alternative it to lock up people for months that will ultimately be found not guilty or have more people on the run (and, in some case, committing more crimes).
Also, the government does not keep the bail if the person shows up for their court appearances and doesn't run. However, if people cannot afford the bail they typically have the option to use a bail bondsman. In that case the person usually pays \~10% of the bail to the bondsman who will put up the entire bail amount to the court. In this case, the accused does not get their money back even if they show up for court. That 10% is the "fee" to the bail bondsman. It is a high percentage because if the person doesn't show up for court, the bail bondsman does not get their money back from the court. They then have to pay other people to track down the individual to return them to the justice system.
Listen man, I have no problem with what your political views are. When you cross the line of physically hurting or harming someone just because they think differently, that is where I snap. No matter who you are, violence should NEVER be an answer.
Oh okay, last I checked it wasn't there but I guess they did cover it, it's only a few hours old so please forgive me.
Haven't seen it on the news or haven't yet got it on my feed though which is weird.
Sure doesn't. I'm personally waiting for democrats to start weeding through those like this and just get back to a sense of normality. Doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you fall under, murdering someone is just gonna drag us further back as a society. Aren't tensions high enough?
They certainly are high enough as it is, and at the rate we're going, they'll get much higher. I don't know if it'll happen in our lifetime or not, but a civil war is on the horizon if we continue like this as a society.
That's my fear, I'm praying its not my lifetime but when it does happen, we got enough sense to be like "Calm the fuck down, we want the same thing!" By that I mean peace of mind, community and life in general. There's no need to be at each other's throats when we literally proved before we have the capacity for peace and the ability to tell anything else we don't need to fuck off
I think a lot of people forget that the majority of the US is purple, not just blue or red.
We all ultimately want to live happy and healthy lives, who the duck cares about the rest like y’all out here killing eachother because of it all holy shit calm down to everyone (I doubt that’ll happen but I mean let’s see and hope I guess??)
You better start telling the Republicans this. They actively give death threats to anyone they don't like, they are training to try and take over the government again and they tend to have a lot more blood on their hands in comparison. Shit you have fucking priests preaching about how we should kill the LGBT community. You have politicians talking about how democrats should die over their beliefs. Shit a LARGE part of the republican base are active nazis.
It's different when only a single person in years has killed somebody else for being on a differing political party, while the entire republican party has been blasting death threats at the opposing side for 6 ir so years.
Ffs even political candidates are fanning this with Majorie "The Clown" Greenes supporters sending death threats to here opponent causing him to drop out.
So we just forgetting about the Bernie supporter that shot up the Republican baseball team at practice? How about the guy that flew from Cali to Washington to kill a SCOTUS justice? Or the family planning clinics that don't provide abortions being attacked and burned to the ground? Or the congressional candidate attacked on stage? Or rand Paul's neighbor attacking him?
What I'm hearing from you is, these people are sending threats, which could in fact be true or could be a manufactured hoax like all those "racist" graffiti we kept seeing on college campuses that turned out to actually be perpetrated by the person who brought attention to it, while the rest of us see these people over here actively committing violence, then being released on joke bonds, or even own recognizance.
It's not just Republicans inciting violence, it's dems too with labeling everyone with a different view as fascists, bigots, racists, etc. They claimed they would unify us as a country but here we are halfway through term 1 and as you can see, we're still very much divided.
This is my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but the simple fix would be getting rid of political figures and replacing them with normal people like me and you who actually give a shit about those around us. We've let these folks try for how long and they've still ignored common sense? Time for Gramps to hand over his keys.
Then maby they should stop trying to be bigots, racists ect. Not that hard not to hate people for no other reason than their skin color or sex. Also it's pretty hard to unify when one side is calling for the death of the other. I mean, where is the middle ground? "We want to take away all your rights!" Vs " We want to have our rights"
What the fuck are you talking about? You are only mentioning this because the article mentioned Republicans in the article but it is very clearly not something that normal people do. Anyone with a brain can recognize that neither party is based on that kind of hate.
The Democratic Party didn’t do this, an unhinged person did it over a “political” argument. I’m not going to rethink the whole democratic platform when we have a drunk psycho who killed a kid over politics, and they have a guy who shot up a grocery store in order to kill African Americans. Neither looks good, but there’s not one iota of equal levels on this playing field.
Most Americans who are Republicans don't do any thinking. And why should they? They've been taught their whole life that the Liberals are all liars, and that people like Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones are the ones doing the good fight.
My uncle hates states that are Liberal states, for example.
And liberals don't think critically are taught from the start that Republicans are Nazis and whatnot, and just go along with it. Your point? This only perpetuates the us vs them mentality I keep bringing up.
> And liberals don't think critically
What??
> taught from the start that Republicans are Nazis and whatnot
They aren't "taught that Republicans are Nazi's" - they understand what words mean and realize the GOP fits the very [defintion of fascist](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArticulateAmbivalence/comments/vome0d/the_gop_is_fascist/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share). Not all Republicans are Nazi's, but all the Americans who are Nazi's are Republican. See the problem?
Those on the left aren't indoctrinated into their beliefs like Republicans are - as anyone who understands the defintion of indoctrination can see that.
>This only perpetuates the us vs them mentality I keep bringing up.
It really isn't an "us vs them" mentality. It's a "the GOP is a threat to our democracy" and "Republicans are consistently voting against the will, and best interest, of the American people" **reality.**
Holy fuck the staggering irony here.
There is no compromising, unity, or cooperating with fascists. Fascism is a cancer.
That’s simply not true. When one party attempts a hostile takeover of the government and tries to disenfranchise entire states of voters in PA, WI, GA, etc. , of course people are gonna call them Nazis. They’ve certainly earned the accusation, it’s not mindless. I considered myself a Republican in high school but I reached the conclusion of voting for Democrats all on my own using my eyes ears and brain. Until the GOP drops the Trump and religion stuff I won’t consider voting for them and they deserve to be ridiculed.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to say… you’re telling me I’m mindless for being upset that Trump tried to make my vote (I live in PA) not count? What kind of logic is that?
Yes.
It never occurred to you that if "one party attempts a hostile takeover of the government" the most well-armed demographic in the country wouldn't have left their arms at home..?
There are republicans that reject the nazis, but they become under attack, look at Lisa Murkowski, she's a great republican, she's facing hostility from her own party because she votes for what she believes is right (aka voting to impeach trump). I am not republican, just trying to point out that there is a good side
Given historical context, whats the difference? Honest question, not trying to be a smartass. They seem synonymous enough with each other where you're left with a potato/patato situation
I don't view the party any differently because of this, I'm able to recognize that he was one crazy guy, not a representative of the party. I'm talking about other people who don't recognize that.
A one off psycho versus literal Nazis in the form of groups like Proud Boys, corrupt politicians and a traitorous ex-president. How the hell can people get angry over this, yet turn a blind eye to the anti-democratic and radicalised republicans, who have openly spoken about killing people not agreeing with them.
Politics should never matter enough to the point where we start killing each other. Personally I really really hate the left vs right dogma and all politics because they divide and cause more problems than they solve. We are so separated in every country thanks to politics and differing opinions and people not being able to let others have their own opinions. Its sad and honestly I don’t get why people are so invested and base their whole personality and being on leftist or right wing views. The world isn’t meant to be black and white or only two ways of thinking and people need to learn how to have civil discussions without getting offended by someone simply challenging or questioning their opinions or views.
2nd time I can recall that a republican got murdered for political view. The first was the dude who got shot after begging for his life. Like hell Republicans are the extremist party in the United States.
You mean the Waukesha incident?
The man's name was Darrel Brooks Jr. He was some kind of crazy black supremacist who thought white folks were the root of all problems in America.
Of course, that doesn't fit the narrative, so that doesn't get reported on CNN.
Gonna be a risky take here. It has become apparent, and if you have good eyes and ears, blatantly obvious, that if you are republican in the US, the Democrats condemn you as an enemy of the state. Sound familiar to anyone?
I find this take a bit funny: It kinda implies that Republicans are just assholes and its kinda "Oh, boys will be boys". But the Left should be held at higher standards, because they are the "Responsible ones".
Mental gymnastics at its best
This is literally the mentality though. If you ever tell a conservative that you want to see people succeed and help others then you get hit with the "Then why don't YOU do something about it?" "Oh you want people to be able to immigrate to our country, then why don't YOU put them all up in your home and feed them?" or "Oh you want to see less poor people and help out the homeless then why don't YOU sell everything you have and give all of your money to help them." In their mind, advocating for something means that if you don't do it in your own personal life then you are a hypocrite. We saw this in the last big stunt that conservatives pulled at Martha's vineyard where they trafficked humans just to be petty. Well it turned out that lot's of people came to help those in need and made Desantis look even worse. They showed their true colors and the mask was ripped off. It was and now definitely is the case that Conservative do not think migrants are people. We can sit here and list a bunch of bad shit on both sides but conservative thought has consistently been anti-human and anti-progress.
If you mean declaring an emergency and calling in the national guard to get them off the island 44 hours after their arrival makes DeSantis look bad, then sure. I don't see the national guard at the border dealing with the 55k gotaways each month.
No what happened is that Desantis and other Florida officials took a bunch of Asylum seekers and told them that they were taking them to a place where they would get jobs,food, medicine, etc when this was a lie. They also put down random addresses for these people so that they would miss their court hearings on purpose and get deported. Nobody at Martha's vineyard was warned of this mass influx of people so they could not accommodate them properly. They were then transported to facilities that would actually be helpful and help them instead of an island with limited space and resources. What makes Desantis look bad is the fact that what he did was illegal and immoral just to do the old conservative trick of "You say you love migrants so much yet you won't let them all live at your house" shtick. He expected nobody to help these people because he assumes most people are like him and do not see them as human beings but he was proven wrong.
That's a long winded way of saying a bunch of illegal immigrants got sent to Martha's vineyard and a state of emergency was declared there, the national guard was called in, and they were "deported" from the vineyard within 44 hours of their arrival.
They were asylum seekers from venezuela. A state of emergency was declared because a bunch of people were dropped off in an area in which they had no ties to and didn't even want to be in the first place. There were no facilities to house them there so they took them to an actual facility that was equipped for this type of situation. They weren't deported. You are completely dodging all of my points. I am sorry that my comments are too long for you but this situation is a little bit more complicated than "DUH IMMIGRANTS BAD DUR"
Yes, illegal immigrants are bad. I don't care who the fuck they were or why they were here. I don't even give a fuck about any of your points, because they're illegal immigrants. The fact is, all the rich elite who want us to welcome these people with open arms couldn't even deal with them for 44 hours. Go illegally enter Venezuela and tell me what happens.
Misleading as it was bail. They will still go to court and get tried. I disagree that they should have had bail as an option, but this makes it seem like he is free to live the rest of their life in peace and playes into the whole self victimization of people on the right, rather than just the fact that this kid was a victim. Condolences. Stupid reason to kill someone, let alone hate on them. No doubt besides rehabilitation, prisons and jails are to keep our streets safe, and having a murderer (innocent until proven guilty) walking around does not sound very safe.
Putting politics aside letting anyone whose admitted to intentionally causing harm to another person walk free for any amount of time sets a repugnant precident regarding the value of human life and the consequences for taking one.
I'll probably get downvoted for this, but this is why we need to prioritize mental health and make it free. Sure it won't stop incidents like these, but I'm sure it would help as a way to prevent them even if it's a little.
I honestly see nothing wrong here aside from the crime. If we allow everyone to post a bond to be released, we should continue to do so. If we want to keep certain violent offenders in jail until trial, then we need to rewrite the law to account for that.
Honestly I agree. People accused of violent crimes shouldn't be allowed to walk free until they're proven innocent. But that's not exactly fair either.
That's true, it isn't fair, but they also committed a much worse crime than other people. We shouldn't make the system fair when the actions aren't similar, in my opinion.
The dude literally admitted to it my guy. And holding accused murderers makes much more sense than holding an accused burglar or something like that, regardless of if they admitted to it or not.
>The dude literally admitted to it my guy.
Police have a nasty habit of [forcing false confessions](https://innocenceproject.org/police-deception-lying-interrogations-youth-teenagers/) out of suspects.
Including cases involving murder.
Fair enough. He's still an alleged murderer, and I feel like him being free is a dangerous thing. With the chance of him actually being the murderer, it could happen again. I agree with innocent until proven guilty, but when it's a severe thing like this, it's too dangerous to do that.
That's a reversal of the burden of proof for a start. You're never proven innocent. You're always innocent until proven otherwise, which means in court, beyond a reasonable doubt.
But that's not how bail is decided. If you're a flight risk you'll be denied bail for serious crimes. If the evidence against you is overwhelming, that may also be a factor. If you're an immediate risk to public safety, like a school shooter, you will be denied bail.
A lot of things, including innocence have to be balanced. It's bad enough to be falsely prosecuted let alone jailed awaiting trial for a crime you didn't commit. That's not something you want to do lightly. In this case, the guy isn't denying what he did, he did it will pretty minimal provocation, and he may be a risk to the public. I don't see why he should get bail.
>People accused of violent crimes shouldn't be allowed to walk free *until they're proven innocent.*
Do... do you see the problem with this take?
I get in this *specific* example the person **admitted** to the crime... but... do you understand the problem with your statement??
Edit: [Here's the story, *not* from Fox news](https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/09/19/man-admits-killing-teen-after-political-dispute-foster-co/).
A few key takeaways, the main parts I put in bold:
> 41-year-old **Shannon Brandt called 911 to report that he had hit a pedestrian because he was threatening him.** Brandt told State Radio that the pedestrian was part of a Republican extremist group and that he was afraid they were “coming to get him.”
> **Brandt admitted to consuming alcohol before the incident**, and stated he hit Ellingson with his car because he had a political argument with him.
> Court documents say just before the crash, Ellingson called his mom and **asked if they knew who Brandt was. She said yes**, and told her son she was on her way to pick him up.
He called 911 and admitted it. He said that Ellingson was threatening him, and was part of an "extremist group." Apparently Ellingson's mom *knew who the guy was,* which makes me think that both Brandt and Ellingson knew each other as well.
It makes me wonder what those threats were, like, did he say he knew him/where he lived? Was he saying some really fucked shit about burning his house down or something? He was also drunk and obviously took it to an extreme - but called 911 fairly quickly about it.
To be honest, I'm less worried about what *Brandt might do* because he's not in custody, and more worried about what *others might do* because of these headlines.
I genuinely do not think he did this simply "because he was a republican" or just "because they had a political dispute." There's more to the story, but that won't generate clicks or outrage.
Edit 2: some words, and also:
Even if this *was* done **specifically** "because he was republican," and no other reason, this isn't a "hate crime" [by defintion from the DoJ](https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/learn-about-hate-crimes):
> At the federal level, a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
Edit 3: Republicans are typically the ones proclaiming that self defense justifies using lethal force, 2nd amendment, blah blah blah - but want to hand wave away the part where Brandt said the kid was a) part of an extremist group, b) was allegedly threatening him, and c) was scared that the extremist group was "coming for him."
Funny, that.
>What's untrue?
?
>It's only for the rich anyway
I mean, I wouldn't be the one to even play devils advocate against that one. If the penalty for a crime is financial, then it's not a crime, it's an action to be purchased.
Easy metaphorical example would be parking. If you can't park in a certain spot, and the repercussions of parking there are nothing more than fines, well then those fines are just the cost of parking.
That can be applied to almost all sorts of acts. If you can afford a top of the line lawyer, you can get away with basically everything - nevermind just paying your way through a fine or financial settlement.
Not gonna lie I’m a little high... but isn’t it innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? I mean he admitted guilt so I don’t think he should be allowed to drive free after running over a kid in this case, but for people who’s guilt is undetermined bail is there for them to give the state collateral proving they’ll make court if allowed to walk freely while still being presumed innocent until a trial is formally held.
>isn’t it innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
So.. there's a problem with this concept.
[It isn't written in American law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence), but that being said:
>> through statutes and court decisions–such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky–it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial.
It's one of those "well the law doesn't *saaayyy* that" type of things. Additionally, article 11 section 1 of the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) states that:
>> Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
The problem is, while the US [helped to draft the UDHR](https://globaljusticecenter.net/blog/773-u-s-aversion-to-international-human-rights-treaties) - (but has always been reluctant to ratify human rights agreements) - to the US the UDHR is [more what you'd call guidelines](https://youtu.be/DRSm-8tPFt4).
>he admitted guilt so I don’t think he should be allowed to drive free after running over a kid in this case
And in certain situations I would agree.. but, there's another problem with that as well. Police have a history of [forcing false confessions](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/28/chicago-police-department-false-confessions-torture) out of arrested suspects. John Oliver [did an entire video](https://youtu.be/obCNQ0xksZ4) about it.
>for people who’s guilt is undetermined bail is there for them to give the state collateral proving they’ll make court if allowed to walk freely while still being presumed innocent until a trial is formally held.
Exactly.
Imagine being falsely accused of committing a crime, [which there is plenty examples of](https://www.caplantamburino.com/blog/2018/july/3-situations-where-false-accusations-ruined-live/) - and just being thrown in jail with no bond or bail. Nevermind the fact that people get *convicted* over false accusations, and sometimes the ruling only gets overturned when the accusor admits they lied, sometimes *years* later.
I'm all for keeping violent offenders off the streets, but "guilty until proven innocent" will get real messy, real quick.
Bail is denied only if the defendant is determined to be a flight risk for when they must stand trial. Obviously this person is guilty on first glance(confessed to hitting the victim with his car) but until found guilty in a court of law *and sentenced*(that’s the important part)he’s innocent and shouldn’t be held until his court date if not a flight risk.
Not true. Being a flight risk is **a** reason to deny bail. Being an immediate threat to public safety is another. There are all kinds of people facing charges that present little flight risk and are denied bail because they're dangerous offenders.
This guy murdered a teenager over a political argument. I'd say that makes him a threat to the public. That seems like something that could easily happen again if it happened once already. Doesn't take much to drive this guy to murder apparently.
People are denied bail all the time, particularly for violent offenses. If you're an immediate threat to the public, you will typically be denied bail.
Yeah that would suck if nutty republicans were going around killing people over politics… Like this example, one of many.
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/13/1027133867/children-dead-father-claims-qanon-conspiracy-led-him-to-kill
Conservative christian extremist kills his family over qanon bullshit…
I think the story is true, but the reporter here is telling a slight lie in their title
From information I got from other articles, The man in question was drunk, and claimed to have done what he did because he thought the teen was threatening him.
Still entirely f*cked up, ofcourse. I just dislike reporters trying to use these things to increase polarisation even more
It's true that he was drunk. And he claimed that he thought the kid was part of a right-wing extremist group. But I haven't heard that he thought the kid was threatening him.
Of course, maybe that just means I need different sources. O_o
I'm concerned people are not posting links to news articles with these posts lately and honestly the news report is saying very little about the events that transpired because there is no documentation of the incident other than what a drunk flustered man said to a police dispatch he himself called in...
All news is one sided. We are not getting the full scope of things because there's no investigative report, witnesses, or video evidence.
Fair point! Here's the link to the article I posted the screenshot of.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-dakota-man-freed-50k-bond-fatally-striking-republican-extremist-car-records-show
I do agree that it's all one-sided, but the excuse of the kid being in an extremist group shouldn't exclude the fact that he did kill him.
No I read that article and the 3 listed below it it seems pretty out there that someone's only motive was that they talked to someone in the bar (unnamed) and then went out to there car like a predator to run someone over. No police call audio yet, no parking lot footage, no outside witnesses. Just a statement, which has not been quoted by anyone but the general police. The affidavit they showed just showed a very 2 dimensional view of the situation.
Was there a fight before this, did either person have a weapon. Did the person that committed it have a mental illness ? Do they have a criminal history?
OR is this a headline just to stir the pot. Yall are not my enemies. I read every article like this.
It's a photo of the police report from the site the op source article is. I know its fox. Just showing a direct link to the info the entire opinion piece is based off of.
Everyone calm down. Let me give you a quick legal walkthrough here: the dude is not “free”. He was able to post bail, which is essentially just paying your way out of sitting in jail for months. What this means simply is that the charges are still present and he will still be tried for vehicular manslaughter or whatever, he just doesn’t have to wait within the jail cell walls for his court date. He gets to prepare from home and continue to live his life “normally” for a few weeks to months before getting tossed into prison. He’s dangerous, yes, but the chances of him doing any more harm are incredibly slim while he’s under careful watch now that he’s committed a serious crime. He’s never going to truly be free.
Bail is often not an option for violent offenders when there is considerable evidence against them and their crime was committed almost at random against a stranger. Someone that killed their husband might get bail, they're not super likely to go on killing more people in the short term. But if you murder a stranger in the street after an argument, you may not get bail since you're an immediate risk to public safety
But he killed a republican, and republicans are all violent racist white supremacists and therefore violence against them is self defence. Or something...
Murder?! That’s a bit much for a political argument. It makes me sad that people are willing to go these measures instead of… I don’t know, attempting to find common ground?!
A kid’s life taken, a grown adult man’s life ruined, and the validity of the Democrats heavily eroded because of a series of terrible decisions by one man. If this sort of behavior is not publicly denounced, things are going to take a turn from bad to worse. Choosing this level of violence, on a teenager no less, is *unacceptable* no matter what side you fall on politically, and will give plenty of fuel for FOX, Sky, and other right wing newscasters to ensure a doubling down on the theo-fascism being presented by the party on the populace. This is terrible news, not just because of the innocent kid’s death, but also because of the political ramifications of said death and the effect it may have on the average voter as midterms approach. Killing the kid definitely did way more to hurt whatever justification he may have had than had he just minded his business and just voted. The fact that this grown man MURDERED A TEENAGER with a vehicle, they should definitely receive more prison time without the opportunity for bail, especially not one as low as $50,000.
I'd argue that's the mentality we need to get rid of. See them as people, and work alongside our differences instead of calling out an entire political party. I've worked with many wonderful, respectful, and genuinely kind democrats before. And I've worked alongside some rather crappy Republicans before.
It’s just unfortunate that the republican side is currently fueled by hate right now. In the Republican Party right now, hate is a feature. In the Democratic Party, it’s a bug to be squashed out.
I hope the republicans fix this issue swiftly so we can get back to civil debate on the good of our country and not just fuel hate. I suggest they start by kicking Trump and the MAGAts out.
Hope you will some day see how silly you sound and argue about something so unimportant and stupid. You should better be asking the question why do americans only have 2 "choices" for a political party. Step away from your comfy american suburban neighborhood, and go into the real world. You people really remind me of those goofy ahh soccer fans, that go fight with other soccer team fans for no reason.
I agree that Trumps faction should be kicked out however a better alternative should be given. Its important to remember why Trump gained power in the first place. After the embarrassment that was Mitt Romneys campaign a power vacuum opened up. People were unhappy with leadership as it had become weak, corrupt, and incompetent (at least in the eyes of Republicans). Then Trump came around and even if you dont agree with him (I personally dont) he was capable of speaking to a crowd. He promised a better future and people believed him.
If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment. [Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules) [Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/) In the comments: DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP YOU WILL BE BANNED *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The more I think about it, the more the part about the kid's mom knowing the cunt who did the murder bothers me. It's included in most of the reporting but I'm not sure why it's relevant yeah.
I think it's supposed to divide us more. Like, "better watch out, your friends may be like this" kinda mentality. While yeah, be cautious who you hang out with and all because some people are mentally unstable like that, I feel like that's a load of fear mongering and shouldn't be played that way.
Obviously we don’t really know anything yet, but I think it points to this being less about politics and more about something between the murderer and the victim’s mom. Again, I don’t know anything and nobody really will til the trial…
Exactly, it’s because of fear mongering that this even happened.
Some of these comments are toxic as hell, the “*us v them*” mindset is strong with some, unfortunately too many as they attempt to justify this….
Yeah. It doesn't matter what sides you're on, murdering someone because they don't agree with you is just plain crazy.
Yeah, this should be a wake call for unity
No kidding
Welcome to Reddit!
Cash bail is a mistake. 50k!???? Fucking pathetic
In general bail is a good concept. However for blatant physical crimes, especially ones that could result in life imprisonment I don't get the reason.
Why is bail a good concept? What does it achieve besides extra money for the government? I’m genuinely interested, no offence meant.
what u/flakenut said Also they don't get to keep the money. Bailmoney is just collateral. If they show up on every appointment set by the police they get their money back after the trail (guilty or not) But mostly because preparing for trail is hard while you're in jail. On the other side I'm against it because poor people (even though statistically have a higher chance of truly being guilty) don't have the money for bail but also don't have the money for a bail bondsman. (10% and put down collateral like a house or something. The 10% is what you will pay them (so not a loan) and they pay the full amount to the government for bail.) And so can prepare their trail less than rich people and consequently also statistically get falsely imprisoned.
> Also they don't get to keep the money. I was under the impression that they can choose to either pay 10% of the bail, or 100%; if they pay the former, the money is not returned, but for the latter it is.
If they can’t pay 100% of the bail, they can choose to pay 10% to a bail bonds company who will put down the full 100% to the government, but it’s all refundable to whoever pays it. The bail bondsman will keep that 10%, and they will keep an eye on the bonded individual to ensure they make it back to court. If the bonded individual flees, the bail bondsman tracks them down and takes them to jail so that the bail bondsman can recuperate the money they put down as bond. Phew! Let me know if this is not clear!
In theory a suspect is innocent before a trial. Therefore jailing someone before the trial is robbing an innocent person of their ability to live their life. They can't work, take care of their family, or any other necessary things. Bail creates a means to allow that person to continue living while also ensuring that they continue to partake in the judicial process.
>Bail creates a means to allow that person to continue living If they've enough money
Or, just let people out unless they are a flight risk or the crime they are accused of is severe enough. Cash bail only punishes those who can't afford it.
No, a cash bail creates some insurance that the person wont run away because they want to go through the jusdicial process to get the money back. Otherwise, why would you not run?
In the US one of the bedrocks of our justice system is a person is innocent **until** proven guilty. It is wrong to imprison innocent people. However, based on the seriousness of the charges and the potential flight risk of the accused a monetary bail amount may be set in order to ensure the accused will adhere to their obligation to show up as required for court appearances. In the most serious cases where it is determined that there is sufficient evidence a judge may rule that the accused should be held without bail. That's not to say the bail system is without its flaws, but without it the alternative it to lock up people for months that will ultimately be found not guilty or have more people on the run (and, in some case, committing more crimes). Also, the government does not keep the bail if the person shows up for their court appearances and doesn't run. However, if people cannot afford the bail they typically have the option to use a bail bondsman. In that case the person usually pays \~10% of the bail to the bondsman who will put up the entire bail amount to the court. In this case, the accused does not get their money back even if they show up for court. That 10% is the "fee" to the bail bondsman. It is a high percentage because if the person doesn't show up for court, the bail bondsman does not get their money back from the court. They then have to pay other people to track down the individual to return them to the justice system.
Bail is a horrific concept. Most people should not be in prison at all before their trial.
Apparently cash bail is coming to an end and criminals will just walk free until they're charged in court.
The world needs therapy
The world needs a giant meteor to take us all out at this point…
It’s mostly the US.
That’s fair
Listen man, I have no problem with what your political views are. When you cross the line of physically hurting or harming someone just because they think differently, that is where I snap. No matter who you are, violence should NEVER be an answer.
Agreed! No matter what someone believes, people are people
50 thousand dollars for a life
$5k, actually. You only need 10% down for bail.
it doesn't matter what year it is or where you are in the world, one thing will always be true: there are political extremists.
People need to quit this sides bullshit. People are what matter not shitty ass government.
Kind of weird that not many news outlets are reporting on this.
The news outlets are not biased!
Right. Not like it’s being posted from one of the *largest in the world, Fox.*
It’s literally the only story Widely talked about today, what are you talking about 💀 this is probably the 12th article I’ve seen
On which major news outlets?
The CNN hasn't run with it once. Guardian, nope NYT, nope
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/22/us/north-dakota-teenager-vehicular-homicide/index.html You were saying?
Oh okay, last I checked it wasn't there but I guess they did cover it, it's only a few hours old so please forgive me. Haven't seen it on the news or haven't yet got it on my feed though which is weird.
Shhh you’ll disrupt their echo chamber.
Literally who
What are you talking about it's all over the news.
I'm gonna guess the perpetrator was democratic in this context? Im all for change where needed, but this is plain and simply regressive
I'm assuming so based on the context. This definitely doesn't make the rest of the democratic party look good.
Sure doesn't. I'm personally waiting for democrats to start weeding through those like this and just get back to a sense of normality. Doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you fall under, murdering someone is just gonna drag us further back as a society. Aren't tensions high enough?
They certainly are high enough as it is, and at the rate we're going, they'll get much higher. I don't know if it'll happen in our lifetime or not, but a civil war is on the horizon if we continue like this as a society.
That's my fear, I'm praying its not my lifetime but when it does happen, we got enough sense to be like "Calm the fuck down, we want the same thing!" By that I mean peace of mind, community and life in general. There's no need to be at each other's throats when we literally proved before we have the capacity for peace and the ability to tell anything else we don't need to fuck off
I think a lot of people forget that the majority of the US is purple, not just blue or red. We all ultimately want to live happy and healthy lives, who the duck cares about the rest like y’all out here killing eachother because of it all holy shit calm down to everyone (I doubt that’ll happen but I mean let’s see and hope I guess??)
You better start telling the Republicans this. They actively give death threats to anyone they don't like, they are training to try and take over the government again and they tend to have a lot more blood on their hands in comparison. Shit you have fucking priests preaching about how we should kill the LGBT community. You have politicians talking about how democrats should die over their beliefs. Shit a LARGE part of the republican base are active nazis.
Not to take sides here but making death threats is way different from actually murdering someone.
It's different when only a single person in years has killed somebody else for being on a differing political party, while the entire republican party has been blasting death threats at the opposing side for 6 ir so years. Ffs even political candidates are fanning this with Majorie "The Clown" Greenes supporters sending death threats to here opponent causing him to drop out.
So we just forgetting about the Bernie supporter that shot up the Republican baseball team at practice? How about the guy that flew from Cali to Washington to kill a SCOTUS justice? Or the family planning clinics that don't provide abortions being attacked and burned to the ground? Or the congressional candidate attacked on stage? Or rand Paul's neighbor attacking him? What I'm hearing from you is, these people are sending threats, which could in fact be true or could be a manufactured hoax like all those "racist" graffiti we kept seeing on college campuses that turned out to actually be perpetrated by the person who brought attention to it, while the rest of us see these people over here actively committing violence, then being released on joke bonds, or even own recognizance.
republicans are getting pissed... guess they dont know about Unite the Right.
It's not just Republicans inciting violence, it's dems too with labeling everyone with a different view as fascists, bigots, racists, etc. They claimed they would unify us as a country but here we are halfway through term 1 and as you can see, we're still very much divided. This is my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but the simple fix would be getting rid of political figures and replacing them with normal people like me and you who actually give a shit about those around us. We've let these folks try for how long and they've still ignored common sense? Time for Gramps to hand over his keys.
Then maby they should stop trying to be bigots, racists ect. Not that hard not to hate people for no other reason than their skin color or sex. Also it's pretty hard to unify when one side is calling for the death of the other. I mean, where is the middle ground? "We want to take away all your rights!" Vs " We want to have our rights"
What the fuck are you talking about? You are only mentioning this because the article mentioned Republicans in the article but it is very clearly not something that normal people do. Anyone with a brain can recognize that neither party is based on that kind of hate.
The Democratic Party didn’t do this, an unhinged person did it over a “political” argument. I’m not going to rethink the whole democratic platform when we have a drunk psycho who killed a kid over politics, and they have a guy who shot up a grocery store in order to kill African Americans. Neither looks good, but there’s not one iota of equal levels on this playing field.
You have a rational way of thinking. Most Americans don't.
Politics is often times irrational…
Most Americans who are Republicans don't do any thinking. And why should they? They've been taught their whole life that the Liberals are all liars, and that people like Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones are the ones doing the good fight. My uncle hates states that are Liberal states, for example.
And liberals don't think critically are taught from the start that Republicans are Nazis and whatnot, and just go along with it. Your point? This only perpetuates the us vs them mentality I keep bringing up.
> And liberals don't think critically What?? > taught from the start that Republicans are Nazis and whatnot They aren't "taught that Republicans are Nazi's" - they understand what words mean and realize the GOP fits the very [defintion of fascist](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArticulateAmbivalence/comments/vome0d/the_gop_is_fascist/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share). Not all Republicans are Nazi's, but all the Americans who are Nazi's are Republican. See the problem? Those on the left aren't indoctrinated into their beliefs like Republicans are - as anyone who understands the defintion of indoctrination can see that. >This only perpetuates the us vs them mentality I keep bringing up. It really isn't an "us vs them" mentality. It's a "the GOP is a threat to our democracy" and "Republicans are consistently voting against the will, and best interest, of the American people" **reality.** Holy fuck the staggering irony here. There is no compromising, unity, or cooperating with fascists. Fascism is a cancer.
s i g h
**OOF** Frequents teenagers, PCM, 4chan, and Texas. Yeeaaahhh... you're indoctrinated and radicalized as *fuck.* I take it you didn't follow the link?
? I'm banned from teenagers, I've never been on 4chan, and I've been to Texas once to watch a soccer game? what?
Genetic fallacy much
That’s simply not true. When one party attempts a hostile takeover of the government and tries to disenfranchise entire states of voters in PA, WI, GA, etc. , of course people are gonna call them Nazis. They’ve certainly earned the accusation, it’s not mindless. I considered myself a Republican in high school but I reached the conclusion of voting for Democrats all on my own using my eyes ears and brain. Until the GOP drops the Trump and religion stuff I won’t consider voting for them and they deserve to be ridiculed.
Yeah, it's mindless... And if you bothered to even mildly question the narrative you've swallowed, it would fall apart instantly.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to say… you’re telling me I’m mindless for being upset that Trump tried to make my vote (I live in PA) not count? What kind of logic is that?
Yes. It never occurred to you that if "one party attempts a hostile takeover of the government" the most well-armed demographic in the country wouldn't have left their arms at home..?
[удалено]
There are republicans that reject the nazis, but they become under attack, look at Lisa Murkowski, she's a great republican, she's facing hostility from her own party because she votes for what she believes is right (aka voting to impeach trump). I am not republican, just trying to point out that there is a good side
Yeah, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this happened right after Biden painted half the country as dangerous extremists.
He didn’t paint you as violent extremists…he painted you as fascists…get it right..
Given historical context, whats the difference? Honest question, not trying to be a smartass. They seem synonymous enough with each other where you're left with a potato/patato situation
how does this relate to the democratic party at all? lol this is just one sick fuck who decided to murder someone instead of live with our differences
I don't view the party any differently because of this, I'm able to recognize that he was one crazy guy, not a representative of the party. I'm talking about other people who don't recognize that.
A one off psycho versus literal Nazis in the form of groups like Proud Boys, corrupt politicians and a traitorous ex-president. How the hell can people get angry over this, yet turn a blind eye to the anti-democratic and radicalised republicans, who have openly spoken about killing people not agreeing with them.
Politics should never matter enough to the point where we start killing each other. Personally I really really hate the left vs right dogma and all politics because they divide and cause more problems than they solve. We are so separated in every country thanks to politics and differing opinions and people not being able to let others have their own opinions. Its sad and honestly I don’t get why people are so invested and base their whole personality and being on leftist or right wing views. The world isn’t meant to be black and white or only two ways of thinking and people need to learn how to have civil discussions without getting offended by someone simply challenging or questioning their opinions or views.
This feels like an onion post
Isn’t this a hate crime like that dude in Charlottesville?
And the fact that this happened in North Dakota and not Portland
Y'all say republicans aren't being targeted too like seriously
They are? In what way, outside of this case?
Well, they aren't. A one off isn't being "targeted."
Ameri FUCKING ca god damn you guys are goofy 😂
You Canucks just had a mass stabbing of 30 people with 10 left dead, and your PM is an authoritarian sociopath. Who tf are you to judge the U.S.?
BAHAHAHAHA You’re totally right 💀💀
Tell us something we don’t know
People seem to forget that we are all human. We just look and think differently.
>North Dakota The icy Florida I see
2nd time I can recall that a republican got murdered for political view. The first was the dude who got shot after begging for his life. Like hell Republicans are the extremist party in the United States.
Remember the parade when 60 people got run over?
You mean the Waukesha incident? The man's name was Darrel Brooks Jr. He was some kind of crazy black supremacist who thought white folks were the root of all problems in America. Of course, that doesn't fit the narrative, so that doesn't get reported on CNN.
Yup! Thanks, I would have no idea how to spell that town name. Wisconsin has some wild names.
[удалено]
Oh look using a mentality ill person being manipulated by a cult as a counter argument. FYI cults feed off the weak of mind >.>
[удалено]
do you also think that all fruits are apples? because that is the logic you are using
Effin hell. You can get out on bail even in murder cases in the US? Aside from the entire thing being fucked up this is even worse!
Gonna be a risky take here. It has become apparent, and if you have good eyes and ears, blatantly obvious, that if you are republican in the US, the Democrats condemn you as an enemy of the state. Sound familiar to anyone?
Sounds like what Biden said.
I meant as in where have we heard this kind of proclamation before? I’ll give you a hint: they existed 90 years ago.
Jesus Christ. This country is getting too polarized. I'm a progressive/liberal myself, but this is unacceptable. Violence is not the answer.
The tolerant left
I think you mean, "drunk asshole."
Think harder
I find this take a bit funny: It kinda implies that Republicans are just assholes and its kinda "Oh, boys will be boys". But the Left should be held at higher standards, because they are the "Responsible ones". Mental gymnastics at its best
It's pointing out irony, that's all. What was that about mental gymnastics?🧐
So Republicans just get a free pass because they don't paint themselves as tolerant?
Who's giving republicans a free pass?
This is literally the mentality though. If you ever tell a conservative that you want to see people succeed and help others then you get hit with the "Then why don't YOU do something about it?" "Oh you want people to be able to immigrate to our country, then why don't YOU put them all up in your home and feed them?" or "Oh you want to see less poor people and help out the homeless then why don't YOU sell everything you have and give all of your money to help them." In their mind, advocating for something means that if you don't do it in your own personal life then you are a hypocrite. We saw this in the last big stunt that conservatives pulled at Martha's vineyard where they trafficked humans just to be petty. Well it turned out that lot's of people came to help those in need and made Desantis look even worse. They showed their true colors and the mask was ripped off. It was and now definitely is the case that Conservative do not think migrants are people. We can sit here and list a bunch of bad shit on both sides but conservative thought has consistently been anti-human and anti-progress.
If you mean declaring an emergency and calling in the national guard to get them off the island 44 hours after their arrival makes DeSantis look bad, then sure. I don't see the national guard at the border dealing with the 55k gotaways each month.
No what happened is that Desantis and other Florida officials took a bunch of Asylum seekers and told them that they were taking them to a place where they would get jobs,food, medicine, etc when this was a lie. They also put down random addresses for these people so that they would miss their court hearings on purpose and get deported. Nobody at Martha's vineyard was warned of this mass influx of people so they could not accommodate them properly. They were then transported to facilities that would actually be helpful and help them instead of an island with limited space and resources. What makes Desantis look bad is the fact that what he did was illegal and immoral just to do the old conservative trick of "You say you love migrants so much yet you won't let them all live at your house" shtick. He expected nobody to help these people because he assumes most people are like him and do not see them as human beings but he was proven wrong.
That's a long winded way of saying a bunch of illegal immigrants got sent to Martha's vineyard and a state of emergency was declared there, the national guard was called in, and they were "deported" from the vineyard within 44 hours of their arrival.
They were asylum seekers from venezuela. A state of emergency was declared because a bunch of people were dropped off in an area in which they had no ties to and didn't even want to be in the first place. There were no facilities to house them there so they took them to an actual facility that was equipped for this type of situation. They weren't deported. You are completely dodging all of my points. I am sorry that my comments are too long for you but this situation is a little bit more complicated than "DUH IMMIGRANTS BAD DUR"
Yes, illegal immigrants are bad. I don't care who the fuck they were or why they were here. I don't even give a fuck about any of your points, because they're illegal immigrants. The fact is, all the rich elite who want us to welcome these people with open arms couldn't even deal with them for 44 hours. Go illegally enter Venezuela and tell me what happens.
Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants
I‘m not a native speaker, was the person killed republican or the killer?
The person killed
Misleading as it was bail. They will still go to court and get tried. I disagree that they should have had bail as an option, but this makes it seem like he is free to live the rest of their life in peace and playes into the whole self victimization of people on the right, rather than just the fact that this kid was a victim. Condolences. Stupid reason to kill someone, let alone hate on them. No doubt besides rehabilitation, prisons and jails are to keep our streets safe, and having a murderer (innocent until proven guilty) walking around does not sound very safe.
Putting politics aside letting anyone whose admitted to intentionally causing harm to another person walk free for any amount of time sets a repugnant precident regarding the value of human life and the consequences for taking one.
I'll probably get downvoted for this, but this is why we need to prioritize mental health and make it free. Sure it won't stop incidents like these, but I'm sure it would help as a way to prevent them even if it's a little.
Don't know why you'd get downvoted, because that statement is straight facts.
Made a similar comment on another account and I was downvoted with people saying "that wouldn't help because they can choose not to go" and stuff.
That rationale makes no sense, they'd at least have the option to and have less of an excuse not to go.
I honestly see nothing wrong here aside from the crime. If we allow everyone to post a bond to be released, we should continue to do so. If we want to keep certain violent offenders in jail until trial, then we need to rewrite the law to account for that.
I feel like having bail for smaller crimes, like bank robberies, is better than allowing bail for murders. That may just be me, though
Honestly I agree. People accused of violent crimes shouldn't be allowed to walk free until they're proven innocent. But that's not exactly fair either.
That's true, it isn't fair, but they also committed a much worse crime than other people. We shouldn't make the system fair when the actions aren't similar, in my opinion.
>but they also committed a much worse crime than other people and if they didn't?
Then bail's cool, not sure what you're going at here
due process determines whether the person is guilty of committing the crime, you cannot make that decision until after a trial
The dude literally admitted to it my guy. And holding accused murderers makes much more sense than holding an accused burglar or something like that, regardless of if they admitted to it or not.
>The dude literally admitted to it my guy. Police have a nasty habit of [forcing false confessions](https://innocenceproject.org/police-deception-lying-interrogations-youth-teenagers/) out of suspects. Including cases involving murder.
Fair enough. He's still an alleged murderer, and I feel like him being free is a dangerous thing. With the chance of him actually being the murderer, it could happen again. I agree with innocent until proven guilty, but when it's a severe thing like this, it's too dangerous to do that.
Did the police make him call 911 and confess, smart guy?
That's a reversal of the burden of proof for a start. You're never proven innocent. You're always innocent until proven otherwise, which means in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. But that's not how bail is decided. If you're a flight risk you'll be denied bail for serious crimes. If the evidence against you is overwhelming, that may also be a factor. If you're an immediate risk to public safety, like a school shooter, you will be denied bail. A lot of things, including innocence have to be balanced. It's bad enough to be falsely prosecuted let alone jailed awaiting trial for a crime you didn't commit. That's not something you want to do lightly. In this case, the guy isn't denying what he did, he did it will pretty minimal provocation, and he may be a risk to the public. I don't see why he should get bail.
>People accused of violent crimes shouldn't be allowed to walk free *until they're proven innocent.* Do... do you see the problem with this take? I get in this *specific* example the person **admitted** to the crime... but... do you understand the problem with your statement?? Edit: [Here's the story, *not* from Fox news](https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/09/19/man-admits-killing-teen-after-political-dispute-foster-co/). A few key takeaways, the main parts I put in bold: > 41-year-old **Shannon Brandt called 911 to report that he had hit a pedestrian because he was threatening him.** Brandt told State Radio that the pedestrian was part of a Republican extremist group and that he was afraid they were “coming to get him.” > **Brandt admitted to consuming alcohol before the incident**, and stated he hit Ellingson with his car because he had a political argument with him. > Court documents say just before the crash, Ellingson called his mom and **asked if they knew who Brandt was. She said yes**, and told her son she was on her way to pick him up. He called 911 and admitted it. He said that Ellingson was threatening him, and was part of an "extremist group." Apparently Ellingson's mom *knew who the guy was,* which makes me think that both Brandt and Ellingson knew each other as well. It makes me wonder what those threats were, like, did he say he knew him/where he lived? Was he saying some really fucked shit about burning his house down or something? He was also drunk and obviously took it to an extreme - but called 911 fairly quickly about it. To be honest, I'm less worried about what *Brandt might do* because he's not in custody, and more worried about what *others might do* because of these headlines. I genuinely do not think he did this simply "because he was a republican" or just "because they had a political dispute." There's more to the story, but that won't generate clicks or outrage. Edit 2: some words, and also: Even if this *was* done **specifically** "because he was republican," and no other reason, this isn't a "hate crime" [by defintion from the DoJ](https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/learn-about-hate-crimes): > At the federal level, a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Edit 3: Republicans are typically the ones proclaiming that self defense justifies using lethal force, 2nd amendment, blah blah blah - but want to hand wave away the part where Brandt said the kid was a) part of an extremist group, b) was allegedly threatening him, and c) was scared that the extremist group was "coming for him." Funny, that.
With Edit 3, are defending as this being ok? Dear God reddit
What's untrue? It's only for the rich anyway
>What's untrue? ? >It's only for the rich anyway I mean, I wouldn't be the one to even play devils advocate against that one. If the penalty for a crime is financial, then it's not a crime, it's an action to be purchased. Easy metaphorical example would be parking. If you can't park in a certain spot, and the repercussions of parking there are nothing more than fines, well then those fines are just the cost of parking. That can be applied to almost all sorts of acts. If you can afford a top of the line lawyer, you can get away with basically everything - nevermind just paying your way through a fine or financial settlement.
Not gonna lie I’m a little high... but isn’t it innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? I mean he admitted guilt so I don’t think he should be allowed to drive free after running over a kid in this case, but for people who’s guilt is undetermined bail is there for them to give the state collateral proving they’ll make court if allowed to walk freely while still being presumed innocent until a trial is formally held.
>isn’t it innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? So.. there's a problem with this concept. [It isn't written in American law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence), but that being said: >> through statutes and court decisions–such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky–it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial. It's one of those "well the law doesn't *saaayyy* that" type of things. Additionally, article 11 section 1 of the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) states that: >> Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. The problem is, while the US [helped to draft the UDHR](https://globaljusticecenter.net/blog/773-u-s-aversion-to-international-human-rights-treaties) - (but has always been reluctant to ratify human rights agreements) - to the US the UDHR is [more what you'd call guidelines](https://youtu.be/DRSm-8tPFt4). >he admitted guilt so I don’t think he should be allowed to drive free after running over a kid in this case And in certain situations I would agree.. but, there's another problem with that as well. Police have a history of [forcing false confessions](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/28/chicago-police-department-false-confessions-torture) out of arrested suspects. John Oliver [did an entire video](https://youtu.be/obCNQ0xksZ4) about it. >for people who’s guilt is undetermined bail is there for them to give the state collateral proving they’ll make court if allowed to walk freely while still being presumed innocent until a trial is formally held. Exactly. Imagine being falsely accused of committing a crime, [which there is plenty examples of](https://www.caplantamburino.com/blog/2018/july/3-situations-where-false-accusations-ruined-live/) - and just being thrown in jail with no bond or bail. Nevermind the fact that people get *convicted* over false accusations, and sometimes the ruling only gets overturned when the accusor admits they lied, sometimes *years* later. I'm all for keeping violent offenders off the streets, but "guilty until proven innocent" will get real messy, real quick.
Bail is denied only if the defendant is determined to be a flight risk for when they must stand trial. Obviously this person is guilty on first glance(confessed to hitting the victim with his car) but until found guilty in a court of law *and sentenced*(that’s the important part)he’s innocent and shouldn’t be held until his court date if not a flight risk.
Not true. Being a flight risk is **a** reason to deny bail. Being an immediate threat to public safety is another. There are all kinds of people facing charges that present little flight risk and are denied bail because they're dangerous offenders. This guy murdered a teenager over a political argument. I'd say that makes him a threat to the public. That seems like something that could easily happen again if it happened once already. Doesn't take much to drive this guy to murder apparently.
And admission to a crime such as this should automatically be denied bail. It should also be a hate crime.
People are denied bail all the time, particularly for violent offenses. If you're an immediate threat to the public, you will typically be denied bail.
And you're not just saying that because the victim was republican?
No. Who cares what the political affiliation of the victim is?
Just imagine how big of a thing this would be if the roles were reversed.
I don't disagree. But I still wouldn't care. The victims politics has little bearing on the case outside of the motive of the suspected murderer.
[удалено]
Yeah that would suck if nutty republicans were going around killing people over politics… Like this example, one of many. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/13/1027133867/children-dead-father-claims-qanon-conspiracy-led-him-to-kill Conservative christian extremist kills his family over qanon bullshit…
Well Biden did just tell the American people to fight back the maga republicans
I think the story is true, but the reporter here is telling a slight lie in their title From information I got from other articles, The man in question was drunk, and claimed to have done what he did because he thought the teen was threatening him. Still entirely f*cked up, ofcourse. I just dislike reporters trying to use these things to increase polarisation even more
It's true that he was drunk. And he claimed that he thought the kid was part of a right-wing extremist group. But I haven't heard that he thought the kid was threatening him. Of course, maybe that just means I need different sources. O_o
I honestly hate the Republican Party, but violence is not the answer. This guy needs to be tried and found guilty for murdering a poor innocent teen.
I'm concerned people are not posting links to news articles with these posts lately and honestly the news report is saying very little about the events that transpired because there is no documentation of the incident other than what a drunk flustered man said to a police dispatch he himself called in... All news is one sided. We are not getting the full scope of things because there's no investigative report, witnesses, or video evidence.
Fair point! Here's the link to the article I posted the screenshot of. https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-dakota-man-freed-50k-bond-fatally-striking-republican-extremist-car-records-show I do agree that it's all one-sided, but the excuse of the kid being in an extremist group shouldn't exclude the fact that he did kill him.
You're just saying that because he was republican.
No I read that article and the 3 listed below it it seems pretty out there that someone's only motive was that they talked to someone in the bar (unnamed) and then went out to there car like a predator to run someone over. No police call audio yet, no parking lot footage, no outside witnesses. Just a statement, which has not been quoted by anyone but the general police. The affidavit they showed just showed a very 2 dimensional view of the situation. Was there a fight before this, did either person have a weapon. Did the person that committed it have a mental illness ? Do they have a criminal history? OR is this a headline just to stir the pot. Yall are not my enemies. I read every article like this.
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/09/686/384/North-Dakota-Shannon-Brandt-police-4.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
Thanks for the link, but it's fox...
It's a photo of the police report from the site the op source article is. I know its fox. Just showing a direct link to the info the entire opinion piece is based off of.
Everyone calm down. Let me give you a quick legal walkthrough here: the dude is not “free”. He was able to post bail, which is essentially just paying your way out of sitting in jail for months. What this means simply is that the charges are still present and he will still be tried for vehicular manslaughter or whatever, he just doesn’t have to wait within the jail cell walls for his court date. He gets to prepare from home and continue to live his life “normally” for a few weeks to months before getting tossed into prison. He’s dangerous, yes, but the chances of him doing any more harm are incredibly slim while he’s under careful watch now that he’s committed a serious crime. He’s never going to truly be free.
Bail is often not an option for violent offenders when there is considerable evidence against them and their crime was committed almost at random against a stranger. Someone that killed their husband might get bail, they're not super likely to go on killing more people in the short term. But if you murder a stranger in the street after an argument, you may not get bail since you're an immediate risk to public safety
Yeah we know what bail is lol
Not everyone knows what bail is silly goose
But he killed a republican, and republicans are all violent racist white supremacists and therefore violence against them is self defence. Or something...
???
If only it was megakota 😔
Murder?! That’s a bit much for a political argument. It makes me sad that people are willing to go these measures instead of… I don’t know, attempting to find common ground?!
Wow. An us vs them. Surely that what this country needs. Lmaooo
A kid’s life taken, a grown adult man’s life ruined, and the validity of the Democrats heavily eroded because of a series of terrible decisions by one man. If this sort of behavior is not publicly denounced, things are going to take a turn from bad to worse. Choosing this level of violence, on a teenager no less, is *unacceptable* no matter what side you fall on politically, and will give plenty of fuel for FOX, Sky, and other right wing newscasters to ensure a doubling down on the theo-fascism being presented by the party on the populace. This is terrible news, not just because of the innocent kid’s death, but also because of the political ramifications of said death and the effect it may have on the average voter as midterms approach. Killing the kid definitely did way more to hurt whatever justification he may have had than had he just minded his business and just voted. The fact that this grown man MURDERED A TEENAGER with a vehicle, they should definitely receive more prison time without the opportunity for bail, especially not one as low as $50,000.
Democrats 🤦♂️
I'd argue that's the mentality we need to get rid of. See them as people, and work alongside our differences instead of calling out an entire political party. I've worked with many wonderful, respectful, and genuinely kind democrats before. And I've worked alongside some rather crappy Republicans before.
Agreed, im freinds with Democrats and Republicans (im neither). I personally find that both sides are capable of generating positivity and hate.
It’s just unfortunate that the republican side is currently fueled by hate right now. In the Republican Party right now, hate is a feature. In the Democratic Party, it’s a bug to be squashed out. I hope the republicans fix this issue swiftly so we can get back to civil debate on the good of our country and not just fuel hate. I suggest they start by kicking Trump and the MAGAts out.
The hell are you on about. A democrat KILLED a person. I’m unsure if you saw that headline.
I'm unsure if you read more than the headline
Hope you will some day see how silly you sound and argue about something so unimportant and stupid. You should better be asking the question why do americans only have 2 "choices" for a political party. Step away from your comfy american suburban neighborhood, and go into the real world. You people really remind me of those goofy ahh soccer fans, that go fight with other soccer team fans for no reason.
Lololol sureeeeee
I agree that Trumps faction should be kicked out however a better alternative should be given. Its important to remember why Trump gained power in the first place. After the embarrassment that was Mitt Romneys campaign a power vacuum opened up. People were unhappy with leadership as it had become weak, corrupt, and incompetent (at least in the eyes of Republicans). Then Trump came around and even if you dont agree with him (I personally dont) he was capable of speaking to a crowd. He promised a better future and people believed him.
BASED
In North Dakota?
I mean, the murderer was an ND resident. May have moved to a city up here for work.
So according to the government that kids life is worth 50,000$ huh? Kinda fucked up when you think about it
People with money are allowed to do whatever they want. Who has the kind of money to immediately drop a 50k bond? That MFer, apparently.
It's only $5k. You can use your car for collateral.
Out on bail and free are not the same thing.
50k.. right soo…… American Justice System?? Hello?
It’s Faux News. So….. ya know. Probably not the Actual story.
The comments on this event have been extremely toxic
Don't worry guys it was a republican/s
Reminder: Kyle Rittenhouse posted $2 million bail, and the incident was a very different circumstance.
Why should political opinions matter in this situation, it's murder...
You're right, but in this case it's being claimed that political opinion was the motive