Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

QuidProJoe2020 t1_j9rnphg wrote

750k for a brutal beating that is clearly 2nd degree murder at the least. Would have expected a mill bail, at least, but maybe age played a factor.

Organizations against cash bail are great for like drug crimes or prostitution crimes. Things like murder, however, don't deserve a pouring in of outside funds. Kids beat a old man with their bare hands to death. Fuck giving him funds to get out lol

388

cerialthriller t1_j9rp86w wrote

The one kid got like $10k bail as a repeat offender of armed robbery before he finally killed someone. It’s a joke

207

AbsentEmpire t1_j9rv9wm wrote

Bail fund organizations that bail out a repeat violent offender who goes on to murder someone should be open to a liability lawsuit from the victim's family.

171

OnionLegend t1_j9rwnuq wrote

Honestly, it should be a criminal offense.

45

cockytiel t1_j9s399d wrote

To post bail? So like you show up, post bail and get arrested?

I dunno, is a 14 year old that much of a flight risk? He'd have to live of being a criminal so he'd get picked up eventually. He hasn't been convicted yet.

−52

cerialthriller t1_j9s4wcp wrote

They’re saying if you post bail for someone and they go and murder another person since you know they’re awaiting trial for already murdering someone

46

PhillyPanda t1_j9up6nf wrote

> I dunno, is a 14 year old that much of a flight risk?

Did they ever catch the first identified teen in the roxborough shooting?

6

ScottEATF t1_j9rr7hj wrote

Pre-trial release shouldn't hinge on whether you're rich in not.

Either you're a risk to the community or you aren't. It shouldn't be about if you have money or not.

138

QuidProJoe2020 t1_j9rregz wrote

Yea, I totally agree, but the offense needs to be considered. Beating a man to death with your bare hands shows you shouldn't get out on bail, regardless of finacial circumstance

105

Aromat_Junkie t1_j9s0bwp wrote

yeah I don't know why this is controversial. Bail exists to ensure you show up to court, if you are not a risk. Risk is determined by judges and with input given by the DA and information provided by the police - later the defendants lawyer can petition to reduce it or review it or whatever.

it's a higher bail because someone is a flight risk, not because they're more dangerous. higher Potential sentencing outcomes = higher bail.

33

ScottEATF t1_j9seofh wrote

Our current system is controversial because you end up with situations where pre-trial detention isn't about whether a defendant is a danger to the community or how much of a flight risk they are, but simply did they have money or not.

That's what cash bail reform is about.

39

Aromat_Junkie t1_j9tk29g wrote

The problem with all of these isn't when the state gets it right, and keeps a murderer locked up - but that it consistently and egregiously gets it wrong.

11

ScottEATF t1_j9sf3xb wrote

That's the rub of the situation.

If cash bail reform was in place, the odds that this defendant gets out of pre-trial detention is significantly lower than our current cash bail system where it is just about can you find the money.

32

Trafficsigntruther t1_j9tpwo6 wrote

1st and 2nd degree Murder charge is ineligible for bail in PA.

6

Mehndeke t1_j9u8sul wrote

Unless you're a juvenile who can't get mandatory life in prison if convicted. It's not about the charges, it's about the possible punishment. It's just that the only charges that carry mandatory life are 1) 1st degree murder, 2) 2nd degree murder, or 3) 2+ counts of 3rd degree murder, and only for those over 18 years old.

Juveniles can't be sentenced to mando life. They can get life, but it can't be mandatory.

5

freddyoff t1_j9rtu1s wrote

You’re correct, it should be about killing people with traffic cones you jabronie

1

ScottEATF t1_j9sdi56 wrote

Yes, that's near the entire point of bail reform.

10

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_ja0p2j1 wrote

If it's your money on the line it gives you an incentive to not break the bail agreements. When you just let people out for free or have a comically low amount for a crime where the person knows their life could be over then they will act much more reckless.

It's not fair, but it's even less fair to the majority of the city that isn't committing violent crimes especially the people in the poor neighborhoods where they are being sent back into.

1

Vague_Disclosure t1_j9roc4x wrote

I really want to know how these proggie groups select who gets their funds, according to influence watch this organization has around $9M in assets

57

Mehndeke t1_j9u8apn wrote

I said it in another comment, but it's the fact that they're juveniles. Juveniles can't get sentenced to a mandatory life sentence. Since the sentence isn't mandatory, they're entitled to bail under PA laws. Bail is only prohibited in cases where mando life is the punishment.

3

QuidProJoe2020 t1_j9udl15 wrote

Yea, I'm saying 750k is low for 2nd degree murder.

I used to work in the preliminary arraignments, I would expect at least a mil here, where brutal murders with guns got 2mill+ .

I don't think I ever saw someone not get bail actually. 75k bail sounds cheap as hell for someone who just murdered a man in cold blood. Doesn't seem to put the communities interest in perspective at all.

1

nolandeluca t1_j9v3lhi wrote

That's still 75k after bail bonds

1

QuidProJoe2020 t1_j9v3zjo wrote

Yea, which is nothing for beating a man to death with your bare hands. Maybe I'm the outlier but I'd rather value lives in my community more than 75k to put this guy back on the street to potentially kill again.

2

nolandeluca t1_j9v5mgs wrote

True, they still have to get approved for a bond lol also I doubt they just have 75k laying around. Let them rot in jail, maybe someone will cut them up

1

QuidProJoe2020 t1_j9v5ui6 wrote

As this article shows, there's outside money getting these people out. The person that allegedly committed this act got someone to randomly loan 75k so he could be free. That's mind blowing given the crime he is charged with.

1

moderately_random t1_j9rs3pi wrote

Why did this organization think it would be a good idea to spring this muderous teen ? Will they be liable if he kills someone else ?

189

FordMaverickFan t1_j9sp7rt wrote

Rich people who live in the suburbs don't have to deal with the consequences.

30

Churrasco_fan t1_j9tmg4a wrote

Well that certainly is a take

I'd be fairly surprised if wealthy suburbanites are donating to inner city black charities, especially this one

20

flamehead2k1 t1_j9tufz1 wrote

Bail funds were widely publicized by rolling stone and others.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-floyd-protests-bail-funds-police-brutality-black-lives-matter-1008259/

8

Churrasco_fan t1_j9twum6 wrote

Okay? Not sure how that ties the donations to wealthy suburbanites. Unless that's not the point you're trying to make

−3

flamehead2k1 t1_j9tz14t wrote

Rolling stone is popular among wealthy suburbanites.

Basically the hippy boomers who now hold a lot of wealth.

6

Churrasco_fan t1_j9tzzdi wrote

You know what isn't popular among wealthy boomer suburbanites? Black criminals

Still not buying this narrative

−2

flamehead2k1 t1_j9u1gz8 wrote

Anecdotal but I know a lot of wealthy suburbanites that donated to these bail funds.

It was a way they could say they "did something " that didn't involve actually interacting with poor minorities.

7

Churrasco_fan t1_j9urwgc wrote

Wealthy Suburbanites: The city is a crime infested hellscape I avoid at all costs

also Wealthy Suburbanites: Cash bail is discriminatory and infringes on the civil rights of low income minorities. I will donate to fight this injustice so those accused of crimes can walk free until their day of court

Make it make sense

−1

flamehead2k1 t1_j9v0pzr wrote

More of a

"We acknowledge there's a problem here but don't really want to get our hands dirty and would prefer to just throw money at the issue"

Similar to how they need to get their house painted but don't want to get paint on their nice clothes

0

Churrasco_fan t1_j9v2st0 wrote

Philadelphians: The wealthy suburbs profit off their proximity to the city but disproportionately hoard money and state resources, leaving the city high and dry

also Philadelphians: how dare you rich snobby suburbanites donate to Philadelphia non profits?!?

Make it make sense

1

flamehead2k1 t1_j9ve9wd wrote

1.5 million people have a variety of opinions and it isn't always black and white.

1

ThatsNotFennel t1_j9u4tb5 wrote

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a large portion of cash donations to a charity are made by people who can afford to do it?

8

FordMaverickFan t1_j9up8y2 wrote

"inner city black charities" tell me you're from West Chester without telling me you're from West Chester

2

Churrasco_fan t1_j9usccb wrote

Montco and over a decade in the city, none of which was spent in college. Nice guess tho

−1

mealpatrickharris t1_j9spsme wrote

what the fuck is wrong with this organization

feel free to ask them here:

https://movementalliance.org/about/#contact

+1 215-821-9632

924 cherry st

106

Katarzzle t1_j9t69n5 wrote

This website reads strangely. They say so much about themselves without saying anything at all.

56

joeheller22 t1_j9t73m1 wrote

Exactly, what the fuck do they even do. The MO theme was definitely supporting a “Philadelphia ecosystem”, which I guess means posting bail for accused violent murderers.

Sign me up for a reoccurring donation!! /s

38

EnemyOfEloquence t1_j9td06j wrote

> supporting a “Philadelphia ecosystem”, which I guess means posting bail for accused violent murderers

Lmao, sadly that's actually pretty onbrand for us.

17

mrmemo t1_j9ta8ks wrote

I bet you a nickel, it's a shell company aimed at drumming up "charitable donations for social change" from local businesses. Basically a scam that tells businesses, "Hey you want to look like you care, right? Donate to us, we'll make it look like you care!"

And then they use that money to bail out murderers IT'S JUST STANDARD REALLY.

36

Strawb3rry_Slay3r666 t1_j9tpwoe wrote

I think your right, they must randomly choose someone who’s been on the news for an offense to bail out so it looks like they actually do what they claim

9

hexagonalshit t1_j9ukln6 wrote

They're trying to create controversy to gain more funding/ notoriety

It's disgusting

4

mortgagepants t1_j9ttoh1 wrote

lol your comment makes me think of the chris farley adam sandler meme.

1

RobinKennedy23 t1_j9tedtk wrote

Foreign money influenced to sow civil discontent.

19

bayoubilly88 t1_j9w80dx wrote

It’s crazy that I have to scroll this far down to find a person who understands what is happening here.

2

memphisbelle t1_j9tf6vl wrote

Hahaha based on their website I have NO clue what they do

16

TheNightmareOfHair t1_j9ubt3d wrote

It doesn't seem all that complicated to me. It looks like this is an umbrella org that provides logistical/financial support for a lot of local leftist causes -- including some really excellent orgs -- that are too small to do/fund certain things themselves. I'm guessing that the Philly Community Bail Fund is probably the org that actually made the decision.

10

failedabortion4444 t1_j9w8e6w wrote

that’s disappointing. there’s no nuance at all with these organizations and as a “leftist” i’m ashamed frankly. wonder how they feel when/if they get assaulted and robbed.

5

illy-chan t1_j9tn71o wrote

Thought that too. It's buzzword vomit without any sort of hard definition on what they actually do.

From other sources, it looks like they probably posted the bail because they're anti-cash bail but damned if you could guess that was a stance of theirs from their website.

4

PhillyPanda t1_j9uqx5q wrote

Lol click on their updates . They recently took a 5 month hiatus from working to reflect on their past work.

4

leninluvr t1_j9ua088 wrote

I think they took down the contact page, I saw it earlier but appears to be gone now

2

MaoZedongs t1_j9tp0le wrote

I’d bet if you dig deep enough, you’ll find ties to Philly Socialists or Socialist Party USA. The site has a very Trotsky or Lenin feel to how it’s written. Sort of “baffle them with bullshit”.

−15

mortgagepants t1_j9ttz1j wrote

you made up your own boogie man and then blamed it on someone else. do you really think people who are in favor economic equality are also in favor of beating people to death? grow up.

15

MaoZedongs t1_j9tyf12 wrote

Ahh yes, there’s the downvotes and angry tongue lashing lol. You know what they say. If you start catching flak, it means you’re over the target.

Their office is called “The People’s HQ” lol. It’s right on their website.

−6

mortgagepants t1_j9u1nh0 wrote

you're making your own flak, then catching it, then patting yourself on the back for it. you must be well off and close to retirement.

3

MaoZedongs t1_j9u2qaw wrote

I’m actually neither. I didn’t even say anything negative about any organization. All I did was offer comment in the way the information on the site is presented.

Here’s the problem. This city and nearly every organization in it is completely corrupt. Those wealthy white socialists in West Philly in and around Penn generally have no idea who actually pulls their strings. They just do what they’re told is right. When whatever “movement” or cause does some corrupt shit, they deny everything because “We would never do that!”. Bullshit. The powers that be have been doing it for decades and vast numbers of Philadelphians are just useful idiots in the corruption.

You’ll find out this kid is some 2nd cousin of a friend of Ramona Africa or some bullshit. That’s why their spending other peoples money bonding his ass out.

2

mortgagepants t1_j9uehu1 wrote

oh fuck imagine if we paid three quarters of a billion dollars for a police force.

6

MaoZedongs t1_j9uesy3 wrote

I’ll correct myself.

Every. Single. Organization.

3

Vague_Disclosure t1_j9rkwmx wrote

Headline is a bit misleading, the "I lost it" seems to be in response to the ADA not communicating that the person who killed their family member had posted bail and that they only found out because they saw him on the street. Not sure if it's common for the ADA to inform victims family members of perps posting bail or not.

84

Electronic_Chard_270 t1_j9s5lgn wrote

The ADA did not know, they are not required to be informed, it says it in the article

46

SaltPepperKetchup215 t1_j9tag4y wrote

I’m sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the constant revolving door of inexperienced Ada’s flowing in and out of the DAs office.

−24

Electronic_Chard_270 t1_j9tek0n wrote

Did you read the actual article or are you just spewing vitriol because you hate Krasner? The family very clearly likes the ADA assigned to the case. But don’t let that cloud your partisan opinion

17

SaltPepperKetchup215 t1_j9tibus wrote

Partisan? If thinking victims and their families deserve better and having contempt for the DAs office here makes me a Republican than I better update my voted ID card and see if I have an old red hat laying around.

The families bar is set far too low then.

They deserve better.

Article says the bail is “often done without DAs office being notified”

That’s fine, but an experienced and or more involved Ada might be more on top of things to know right away or very shortly after and thus inform their victims family

Krasners quote that the Commonwealth plans to address it at Mondays hearing.

TGIF baby, we’ll get to it after the weekend

−16

OnionLegend t1_j9rwiwl wrote

Wait, murderers can post bail?

77

Mehndeke t1_j9u814w wrote

Bail is required in all cases where the maximum punishment isn't mandatory life without parole.

So, if you're charged with 1st or 2nd degree murder, where the mandatory sentence if convicted is life without parole, you don't get bail.

If you're charged with 3rd degree murder, max 20, or if you're a juvenile, no mandatory life sentence - though you can get life, you are entitled to bail. What that bail is, and whether you can post it, however, are different questions.

9

muffpatty t1_j9ul3lp wrote

3rd degree is a max of 20-40 years I believe.

3

Mehndeke t1_j9ulpx1 wrote

"Max", as used in PA, just means the highest minimum part of a sentence. And judges have to set both a minimum and maximum, with the minimum being no more than half the maximum. So, 20-40 just means the minimum a defendant has to serve is 20, with parole possible for the next 20 years. A 20-30 year sentence is illegal, while a 15-40 is possible. It's really weird.

And then, if convicted with a 2nd or subsequent 3rd degree murder charge, you get mandatory life!

So, don't kill people. It makes for complicated maths.

3

muffpatty t1_j9useio wrote

No max means 40 years. The way it is defined in PA is that the minimum can be no more than half the maximum. So the max he can get is 40, the minimum can be no more than 20.

0

Mehndeke t1_j9v15a3 wrote

18 Pa.C.S. § 1103:Except as provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 (relating to sentences for second and subsequent offenses), a person who has been convicted of a felony may be sentenced to imprisonment as follows:(1) In the case of a felony of the first degree, for a term which shall be fixed by the court at not more than 20 years.(2) In the case of a felony of the second degree, for a term which shall be fixed by the court at not more than ten years.(3) In the case of a felony of the third degree, for a term which shall be fixed by the court at not more than seven years.

You'll note the lack of 40 in that statute. Not more than = max. The maximum a person can be required to serve in custody, without the right to a parole hearing, is 20 years for a 1st degree felony. That maximum becomes the minimum for a court ordered sentence of 20-40 years, since the minimum has to be, at most, half the maximum.

​

It's semantics, ultimately. The difference between a "legal" max and a "commonly understood to be" max. But when the statutory maximum isn't mandatory life in prison, bail is required.

3

muffpatty t1_j9v20ez wrote

I know we're arguing semantics and ultimately we arrive at the same conclusion, at least relating to 3rd deg murder. But am I crazy or doesn't what you posted mean that mean the max for an F1 offense is 20, meaning 10-20 is the maximum sentence you receive, not 20-40.

1

Mehndeke t1_j9v2qmv wrote

Legally speaking, it means that F1 can be sentenced to 20-40. Anything more than 20 (on the bottom end) results in an illegal sentence that'll get the defendant a whole new sentencing hearing to correct.

Like I said, it goes back to the "maximum" time a defendant can be held in custody following a conviction without requiring a parole hearing. Which becomes the low end of the spread. It's weird. An F2 can get 10-20, and an F3 can get 7-14. Misdemeanors do the same thing at 5, 2, and 1.

1

timesyours t1_j9we3vy wrote

PA Criminal defense lawyer here. u/muffpatty is correct and u/mehndeke is slightly off.

The max for an F1 is 20 years (or 10-20 under the min/max rule). 18 Pa. Section 1103

The max for murder 3 is 40 years (or 20-40 under the min-max rule). 18 Pa. Section 1102(d)

If you’re convicted of an F1 you could only be sentenced to more than 20 years if its stacked consecutively with something else. But murder is not an F1, it’s in a category of its own in PA.

ETA: there are also exceptions under the mandatory minimum sentences for 2nd and 3rd strikes for repeat violent convictions. Strike 3 has a 25 year mandatory minimum

2

muffpatty t1_j9wf0o5 wrote

Thank you, I know. I just didn't care to go back and forth explaining. Lol

1

Hoyarugby t1_j9uqpxl wrote

PA law requires that all charges that do not include life without parole as a punishment allow bail. PA law does not allow sentencing minors to life without parole. Thus, they are legally required to set a bail requirement that can be then posted

5

timesyours t1_j9whktd wrote

Semantics, but PA does allow life without parole for juvenile murderers, it just can’t be a mandatory sentence. (This is federal constitutional law ever since the 2012 SCOTUS decision Miller v Alabama).

If 15 to 18 years old at time of murder - life without parole OR 35 years to life (i.e. chance of parole after 35 years)

If 14 years old or younger at time of murder - life without parole OR 25 years to life.

PA had to change these statutes after Miller to add the 25+/35+ options to replace mandatory LWOP.

(This is all in 18 Pa Section 1102.1(a).)

The statute also has a list of factors which the judge would need to consider on the record prior to imposing a LWOP sentence on a juvenile.

1

OHIO_TERRORIST t1_j9stkpd wrote

They posted 10% or 75,000. You’d think if they had this much money they could pay for a different kids education or something valuable. Not bail for a murderer.

67

cockytiel t1_j9s2ss7 wrote

"The violent murderers are the real victims!"

48

espressocycle t1_j9tm4h1 wrote

Our system is one in which you are innocent until proven guilty. The purpose of bail is to ensure the accused show up for their trials, not ensure pretrial detention. If the accused is deemed too dangerous to release on bail, then no bail of any amount should be offered.

The real scandal here is how long these cases take. The constitution calls for a speedy trial. These kids are on video killing a man. There's no need to spend months putting together a case when you have incontrovertible proof of guilt. These kids should be convicted already.

47

harbison215 t1_j9to0xn wrote

The same constitution you mention about a speedy trial also gives defendants a right to build a case, even if there is video evidence. I don’t think you’re 100% wrong, but a system that judges it’s evidence and then determines what kind of trial to have based on that evidence would not be a good system overall.

18

espressocycle t1_j9ybql9 wrote

I'm not a lawyer but it's not as if the defense can drag things out indefinitely so at some point there's a judge forcing a case to trial, right? So it's really a matter of degree. Under our laws the defense in this case has every right to mount a case that considers things like intent, premeditation, whether a murder was the product of another crime, etc. I simply don't think that's how it should be.

There shouldn't be degrees of murder. If a person is dead because of your intentional actions that could reasonably be expected to cause death, it's murder, period, not manslaughter, second degree murder, etc. Now I admit that would strike many people as unfair and my own instinct is to agree. "But he didn't mean to kill him, just rough him up. Who knew he had a heart condition?" However, it's much closer to how non-western societies view things and I've come to believe that's a better view.

1

harbison215 t1_j9ycnw6 wrote

The problem arises when you we start to get into who should be the arbiter of this decision. Again, you’re saying some people should be able to make a defense, and some shouldn’t. Although watching obviously guilty people form a defense can be repugnant, it would be more repugnant to see innocent people rail roaded by an unequal justice system.

We already have a justice system that can do exactly what you’re saying subliminally based on things like race, due to inherent biases. If you think adding more possible manipulation into the system would be a better thing, that’s where I strongly disagree.

1

espressocycle t1_j9ttu5o wrote

That's only if you think it's appropriate to build a defense case on mitigating factors and all that other stuff common in western legal and moral arguments. Personally, I think that's irrelevant. Either you committed the crime or you didn't. It doesn't even matter if it was premeditated, a crime of passion or an unintentional yet inevitable outcome of reckless behavior. That's why I also think the punishment for attempted murder and murder should be the same. Why should you get a lower sentence for shooting someone just because you missed a major artery? Why should a drunk driver who hits a telephone pole get a lighter sentence than one who hits a person?

−8

harbison215 t1_j9tue52 wrote

You’re saying we should determine who is worthy of even getting to build a defense and who isn’t. Therein lies the problem.

6

Strawb3rry_Slay3r666 t1_j9tpp0m wrote

I thought they would have been already, I can’t believe they haven’t gone to trial yet, ridiculous

9

Fourlec t1_j9ttsv3 wrote

Wow. What a slap in the face to the family. What the actual fuck.

12

sirauron14 t1_j9tv6xe wrote

can't blame Krasner on

>>The cash bail system requires 10% of the set bail to be paid to get
spring someone free. It does not require a hearing, and it's often kept
between the court and the juvenile system with no notification to the
District Attorney's Office.

8

Aromat_Junkie t1_j9u3e18 wrote

There is 100% a hearing. It's called your preliminary hearing where someone from the DA's office and a judge determine you bail. That's the absolute first thing that happens in any proceedings.

2

sirauron14 t1_j9uenjo wrote

Thats what the article said. I took it from that

3

Aromat_Junkie t1_j9umqfd wrote

I think they meant to imply, there's not some sort of hearing AFTER you post bail. If the DA felt like they were too dangerous to get bail, they had ample time to make that case.

2

Hoyarugby t1_j9uqy6l wrote

PA law requires bail in all cases where the possible punishment doesn't include life without parole. PA law also does not allow minors to be sentenced to life without parole. Therefore, bail was required here, the DA could not legally make the case that bail should be denied

7

Aromat_Junkie t1_j9ux2co wrote

oh... our laws are weird as shit. then why is it 800K and not 5K? surely a underage minor doesnt have access to capital?

I always forget this:

https://www.aclupa.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/broken_rules_statewide_bail_report.pdf

but regardless, you get a bail hearing.

0

Aromat_Junkie t1_j9uxgii wrote

just double replying

"An MDJ may not assign cash bail solely because a defendant faces serious charges.16 The rules further require that an MDJ conduct a careful individualized assessment of the arrested person and look at multiple factors, including the person’s community ties and history of employment.17 If an MDJ determines that cash bail is necessary to ensure appearance, they must then assess the financial ability of the defendant and should only assign a reasonable bail amount “no[] greater than is necessary to reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance and compliance with conditions of the bail bond.”18 Under Pennsylvania law, MDJs may not impose cash bail for the sole purpose of incarcerating someone until their trial date.19 Pretrial detention must be the carefully limited exception to pretrial releas"

So clearly this is a case of "DEJURE" versus "DEFACTO" law/proceedings. Bail is absolutely used to prevent people from exiting jail before trial - the ALCU document pretty much proves that point with figures.

So either we should change the law / constitution or follow the law, and also maybe we need to ring up hollywood and have them stop making up random shit in procedural shows so we can all understnd how it works lol

1

sirauron14 t1_j9un339 wrote

Yeah in those cases yes. I guess the child isn't dangerous

1

Aromat_Junkie t1_j9und0u wrote

As far as I know - Not in some cases, in all cases the preliminary hearing happens first, usually several hours after being charged and arrested. Literally the first thing that happens after they arrest you is put you in front of a judge and the DA and they set or deny your bail...

1

Minqua t1_j9t46n6 wrote

The political machine wants our cities unsafe

5

gwhh t1_j9vdnds wrote

If you ever for a soft on crime official. You have no one but yourself to blame.

3

timesyours t1_j9wceet wrote

It should either be a non-bailable offense or it shouldn’t be.

You should not be stuck in jail simply because you have less money for bail.

Bail shouldn’t be set in the first place for murder, which would require a change in law for third degree murder charges.

2

[deleted] t1_j9rlp8k wrote

[deleted]

−15

Vague_Disclosure t1_j9rnwyy wrote

They reached out for comment via email, phone, and in person. No where did that article make it sound like Fox29 had no clue who the organization was. And the organization never got back to them. I'm not sure what your attack "proves."

If you want even more info on the organization you can find it here

36

sirfuzzitoes t1_j9rn4w4 wrote

I'm baffled that a fox affiliate failed to investigate and report a story. That's like the opposite of what Rupert murdoch wants.

−34

Richardthisisyerdad t1_j9sbgly wrote

Live the dream liberals. Live the dream. When keeping it woke goes wrong.

−45

phillybilly t1_j9upy34 wrote

Go away with your vomit. Your way of thinking is nonsense. This is an issue that affects all Philadelphians no matter which way they lean

5

[deleted] t1_j9si47t wrote

[deleted]

−70

DEATHCATSmeow t1_j9smqj3 wrote

That is seriously one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever heard.

50