• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You bet my bail reforms will kill people': Shocking 2007 admission by woke Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm who freed Waukesha parade killer

Maidenrules29

Death to all but METAL!!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
7,821
Reaction score
4,022
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is the D.A. for the county where Darrell Brooks ran over those people at the parade and killed 6, including one child. He knew his bail reforms would cause some criminals to be let out to eventually murder people but he didn't care because "equity"

Woke DA admitted bail reform guaranteed killers would go free

Milwaukee County DA John Chisolm, who wants to abolish cash bail, said in 2007 that his bail reforms 'guaranteed' some of the killers he let go would end up murdering people, but he still did it anyway.
www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Do you have a source that is at least a quarter of the way credible?
 
Are these clowns who don’t want police, prisons etc reptiles like Zorkin? I mean how fricking stupid can they be? It’s mind boggling. Thank God Americans are armed and ready for this. Oh well.
 
RAMOSS said:
Do you have a source that is at least a quarter of the way credible?
Click to expand...
If you actually bothered to read the article, it links the quotes from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but your partisanship will of course, ignore anything that doesnt fit your woke beliefs.
 
PoS said:
If you actually bothered to read the article, it links the quotes from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but your partisanship will of course, ignore anything that doesnt fit your woke beliefs.
Click to expand...
Shoot the messenger. That’s what the left does when they don’t like the facts of the message.
 
The kind of bail program the DA was referring to had no connection to Brooks’ bail. Apples and oranges.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
He knew his bail reforms would cause some criminals to be let out to eventually murder people but he didn't care because "equity"
Click to expand...
Heard about this today on FOX.

The woke media are ignoring it.

Only FOX has the guts to report the news that exposes the Dems' woke agenda.

That's why so many Dems "dislike" FOX.

"When you are over the target, you can expect flak."
 

Conservatives Should Resist the Urge To Blame Bail Reform for the Waukesha Parade Deaths

An SUV plowed into a Christmas parade Sunday evening in Waukesha, Wisconsin, a horrible incident that has left five dead and at least 40 injured. The
reason.com

 
This line is a real... WTF??

"The goal of bail reform is not to free people like Brooks. The goal is to make sure the court system focuses on people like Brooks."

If the goal is to "focus" on people like Brooks, then the whole idea is a complete an utter failure! They HAD the chance to focus on him and CHOSE not to.
 
So you didn't read the rest of the article.
 
Airyaman said:
So you didn't read the rest of the article.
Click to expand...
I was in the process of doing so when that quote jumped out at me. After reading it, I made a conscious decision that anything THAT contradictory wasn't worth any additional effort.
 
What are you arguing, when Trump allies get arrested they shouldn't be entitled to bail?

If everyone, who is innocent until proven guilty had to wait in jail until trial -- which may be months or years away, there wouldn't be room for those who get convicted. In the meantime, all of those held will lose their jobs, even if what they were being held for was minor.

The article is a sensationalist hit piece attacking the AG for a policy that he didn't create and is sensible. We can't throw everyone in jail before trial without bail.
 
When I saw this thread my first thought was, “I guess they didn’t want Rittenhouse to get out on bail.”
 

The full quote is "Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into treatment program, who's going to go out and kill somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It's guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.".

Leaving out the last sentence puts an entirely unwarranted spin on what was actually said.

Of course, putting unwarranted spin on someone's words in order to push an agenda is as American as "Mom (invented several thousand years before the founding of the United States of America) and Apple Pie (invented between 4,000 and 10,000 years ago in China)".
 
Roadvirus said:
That is so Strawman it makes Wizard of Oz's Scarecrow jealous.
Click to expand...
Why? If giving people bail is bad, doesn't not giving it apply to everyone -- or is it only for the rich, white and connected?
 
Notice how the left argue in bad faith.
 

If my kid or granny had died in that parade, I would sue the DA, judge, and city for releasing him.
 
Schism said:
If my kid or granny had died in that parade, I would sue the DA, judge, and city for releasing him.
Click to expand...
And you would lose. None of them acted maliciously, nor to create foreseeable harm. In any case, public officials have immunity for official acts.

33. Immunity of Government Officers Sued as Individuals for Official Acts

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
www.justice.gov
 
John Chisholm's bail reform policies targeted nonviolent drug offenders.

Given that this dude had a violent record, seems like the reason his bail was set absurdly low was due to other factors, but you can always count on right-wingers to start screeching and drawing unwarranted conclusions before they start comprehending anything.

Also aren't some of you mother****ers always going off on some tangent about how you don't care how more freedom sometimes = more death? Especially when it comes to guns and disease? Because freedom and rights? The cash bail system in this country is an absolutely travesty for anyone who's bothered to study it, but yeah, keep on going about how much y'all love freedom and call yourselves "libertarians."

You can always sniff out the supposed "libertarians" who are actually conservatives by another name by their attitudes towards civil liberties and the criminal justice system.
 
Last edited:

I don't believe that extends to the states. Regardless, I would sue the city and county, and would name the judge and DA in the filing.

There WILL be lawsuits in this case, no?
 
Schism said:
I don't believe that extends to the states. Regardless, I would sue the city and county, and would name the judge and DA in the filing.

There WILL be lawsuits in this case, no?
Click to expand...

The general principle is
​
​

33. Immunity of Government Officers Sued as Individuals for Official Acts​


​
The general rule at common law was that in order for a government official to be protected by absolute immunity for common law torts, not only did the official have to be acting within the outer perimeter of his/her official duties, but the conduct at issue also had to be discretionary in nature. Westfall v. Irwin, 484 U.S. 292, 297-298 (1988). In enacting the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (FELRTCA), Congress abrogated this common law rule and extended absolute immunity for common law torts to all federal employees regardless of whether the conduct at issue was discretionary. See United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (1991). FELRTCA confers such immunity by making the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for all common law torts committed by federal employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). However, the immunity conferred by FELRTCA does not extend or apply to suits against federal employees for violation of the Constitution or federal statutes. Thus, government officials sued for constitutional torts continue to be protected only by qualified immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2). See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978). Where applicable, qualified immunity protects an official from trial and the burdens of litigation. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).​
[SOURCE]​
​

If you think that state legislators are so stupid that they could not see the personal advantage of extending the same protection to themselves, then you should be voting for "The Surprise Party".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…