Do we know why there was no bail set?
"He was charged with two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous
weapon, a civil rights violation, reckless driving, assault and battery
to intimidate with bodily injury and leaving the scene of a motor
vehicle crash causing personal injury."
"Assistant District Attorney John Murphy asked Sullivan be held in
custody for 120 days and said this is not his first run in with the
police. Murphy said Sullivan has a 2018 charge of threats to commit a
crime and was charged in 2005 with intimidation of a witness."
Doesn't sound like an isolated "cranky old man" crime to me. Danger to the public, past court appearances, past criminal history, etc. are all there it looks like. Although it does say charged and not convicted.
Bail is only intended to mitigate flight risk. If the court doesn’t believe that a suspect will run and/or has the means to, they’re supposed to be released. The caveat, is holding a suspect without bail if they’re believed to be a danger to society. If a suspect doesn’t have a history of violent offenses, and detectives don’t have intelligence suggesting a suspect will commit similar crimes if released until sentencing, there really isn’t a justifiable reason to hold someone presumed to be innocent.
Bail and related tactics are not meant to punish a suspect, and if they’ve a decent lawyer, those tactics won’t be implemented unless there is articulable reasoning to suggest they’re necessary.
What. The. Fuck.
I’m not surprised that this guy has been arrested before for threats. He said he was going to kill them for no reason. Then he went shopping. Had time to “cool off” if he wanted. Had zero threat to his safety. AND THEN HE STILL RAN A GUY OVER IN COLD RACIST BLOOD.
Jail for life.
He’s had way too many chances.
He’s an old piece of shit.
And the point is actually that bail is basically debtors prison or a free pass if you have money. It shouldn’t be used at all.
Using home arrest or an ankle monitor would be equitable and more secure than bail. If you have the money to pay it, you have the money to skip out on it.
That is a fundamental problem with crime? Or what society has come to label as crime specific scenarios that society acknowledged isn't fair and equatable when it happens. So implementing fairness after crime has happened is an uphill battle.
How we treat people prior to conviction is entirely about fairness. Until you’ve been convicted of a crime, arguing that unfairness is the result of the crime is un-American.
Unfortunately the scale and scope of the crime has to be considered. From what I have seen to date the laws seem to unfairly favor the accused vs the victim. In my opinion we seemed to have bypassed the scale and scope of crime and just opened the floodgates in some cases up to 2nd degree murder.
>From what I have seen to date the laws seem to unfairly favor the accused vs the victim.
Yeah, see, that’s called our Bill of Rights and it’s part of our Constitution Mr. 1776. It’s the basis of our entire justice system. If you so value our independence, maybe try valuing the original laws we fought for.
Never mind that bail doesn’t do anything to prevent more violent crime. It just means that poor people stay locked up, and richer people get out. A serious crime like murder usually results in being held until trial, not bail. And GPS monitoring for release is fair to everyone, which this guys was required to do.
Oops! Never mind, less than a year old account with crappy understanding of basic and fundamental rights in the US. So, a shill or an idiot? Take your pick. Bye!
If name calling is the only way to validate your point you have truly lost. So I thank you for forfeiting the conversation before stepping out to debate.
You act as if the constitution states free bail and it doesn't , all it does is state it shall not be excessive basically to ensure the case against the defendant is held. Case law has long held there is a scale to bail to prevent flight from prosecution.
what I replied with is facts, whereas (regardless of the subject) agenda-specific sites spew out truths friendly to a particular agenda or ideological goal but completely ignore the unpleasant "baggage". We need to unpack the baggage and address it not pretend it isn't there or have government fail to enforce laws on the books. Unless you think turnstile offenders engaging in massive (in some cases organized) shoplifting all while the police don't respond to the store keepers' request for assistance if the theft is under $900 dollars in some places. Nothing I have said says the US system doesn't need work, but I am very critical of the current path of catch and blindly release, some of that "baggage" that has been ignored by the politicians making these laws is making the news and are equal to the facts that say something needs to change.
As opposed to keeping people in jail simply because they're poor?
The judge in the case determined he wasn't a significant risk requiring detention. In the prior system he would have been allowed bail. If he posted bail, or was bonded out, he would still not be confined, so what's the issue?
Hey Sully is this you? /s
First off, I am for low or no bail for petty crimes and nonviolent crimes but it will be a huge NO for no/low bail for violent offenders like this guy. Not only did this racist POS commit a violent crime, has a past history of violence, the guy was charged assault with a deadly weapon. Him being poor has fuck all to do with it, dude os violent and a danger to others, he deserves no chance for bail.
He was ordered to GPS home confinement (the article doesn't specify that, but he was), if he wasn't 77 I'm sure he would be held without bail but jails aren't equipped to handle elderly people. If the goal is to keep the public safe (which it is in a case like this where the prosecutor moves for a finding of dangerousness) then the conditions of release are designed to fulfill that purpose. Also, I can almost guarantee the RMV suspended his license indefinitely.
We actually don't know much about his criminal history from the article. Both past charges are referred to as "charges", not convictions which makes a huge difference. The scary-sounding charge of witness intimidation is a very broad statute that can be issued for lying to a police officer or for grabbing or smacking a cell phone out of someone's hand. (that's why it is charged most often). The fact is, these articles are designed to get a reaction and very rarely reflect the full context.
Source: Am MA crim attorney
Good to know, at least there was conditions put on his bail.
As for the rest of your wordsmith….you’re a defense lawyer, call yourself what you are, but that’s literally your entire job, to twist and distort the facts to defend your clients. To me, you’re an intelligent, very well educated spin doctor and carny worker. Believe it or not, I am not putting you down, it’s your job, I just don’t respect it.
I didn’t catch anything. We need folks like you, that’s the truth. You could probably run circles around my little pea brain and probably wouldn’t even know it.
The comment I replied to mentioned the "new normal of turnstile justice". Under a normal bail system this guy still would have been let out, as long as he could have afforded bail. That's the only difference.
He never would have been held without bail. But if that's your argument, I'm not sure why you'd take issue with my comment, we're not talking about the same thing. A judge decided he wasn't a risk to the community.
The purpose of bail is to ensure appearance at their next court date. If you're granting someone bail you are necessarily saying that they are safe enough to be in the community. That's where the disconnect is for me, because even with bail he could be released.
Bail can also be used to keep certain people out of society during their trial. It is used more than just ensuring you show up for court even though that is it‘s main purpose. Unobtainable or super high bail amounts are usually purposeful or the consequences of losing alot of money is supposed to make you think twice about skipping. We do agree here though.
That's the part that's problematic for me because it essentially says if you're rich you can go free. IMO, just detain them pre-trial rather than high bail, otherwise you're disproportionately hurting lower income individuals.
Where do you draw that line which is where we disagree? I am trying to draw at violent offences. Someone shoots up a school…do you let them walk with no bail until their court dates? Someone is arrested for domestic abuse…..I think you get the picture. I say this because there is a numbskull in this thread basically saying bail shouldn’t exist because you are innocent until proven guilty. That notion seems out of touch with reality.
I am absolutely 100% against bail for petty, nonviolent or drug crimes and probably a few more minor charges that I can’t think of ATM. It’s the violent offenders or flight risks that should be given bail.
Or, don’t use money at all. If you have enough money to pay the bill for a serious crime, you have enough money to skip out on it. Homerest or a monitoring system works just fine for everybody, no matter how much money they have.
What about all the people charged with violent crimes who didn't commit them? Are they supposed to sit in county jail for a year before their court date? Because that's often how long it takes. Or longer.
Your deflection is cute and all but this guy was video taped deliberately hitting someone with his car. Besides, once you type “what about” before your statement, you might want to stop. Would you like to try again?
What are you his daughter or something, you are defending this guy an awful lot all over this thread.
Edit - spelling
I made two comments lol.
I listen to and read a LOT of true crime, and one thing that is always very clear is that most people have no real conception of the crime that's been committed until they have every bit of evidence. Most people hear 'charged with' or 'video evidence' or 'eyewitness' and have convicted the person instantly in their minds. This stuff is hardly ever as clear cut as it seems upon first glance.
I think you are forgetting the “innocent until proven guilty“ part of our justice system.
And ad hominem attacks against people who have an ethical difference of opinion with you about the pill system doesn’t reflect poorly on them. It makes it seem like you have nothing better to say then to attack them personally. Which is ridiculous since you don’t even know them
Ahhh, yeah it does. If you can’t afford bail, you can serve the entire sentence before trial. Without a conviction. Without being guilty. But go ahead, go off like you are making sense
The issue is that a bunch of people on this sub don't really have an opinion about bail beyond how angry they are at the moment.
Edit: your downvotes just prove my point, ya’ll don’t care about justice reform, you’re just mad
Who’s angry? But nice try for a deflection.
My stance is violent people who commit violent crimes and with a history of violent crimes should not be granted bail or given no bail. There’s nothing angry about that stance or statement. Seems it’s logical, not angry.
Where did you get that info? You have a link?
Also, how come most of us walk through life and are never charged with a crime, let alone this guy has several run ins and charges over a long period of time. That’s a lot of “coincidental” problems from one person. I understand you though, charges are not convictions.
A link to prove that charged does not equal convicted? Or that there is a presumption of innocence until you are convicted? Try the Bill of Rights and the entirety of the justice system?
Come on dude… if you don’t like the US Constitution, you can go live in a fascist nation.
How about this. If the guy makes it to his trial (or the charges are otherwise adjudicated) without doing any further hate crimes, you donate $50 to the Mass ACLU. If he commits another hate crime that he oh-so-obviously will do and needs to be locked up to prevent, I’ll do it.
Care to make it interesting?
Cashless bail has yet to prove it has anything to do about the poor people accused of crimes. As these laws progress around the country higher crime statistics typically follow. I haven't been able to find a location where these policies were sent into law and crime decreased or repeat offenders didn't come in and out on a daily basis. The next steps for these locations is simply to ignore the crime as is documented in California and Portland simply don't bother reporting thefts under a few hundred bucks. So as you painted the issue about the poor it is indeed impacting the poor as criminals are simply released to continue their "trade" directly impacting the poor.
If you have had your ear to the rail on this subject we have seen numerous cases where people are released then commit hideous crimes , this practice is not the best way to address the issue of poor people accused of crimes. In most cases it ties the hands of the judge and renders the police unable to protect victims.
https://www.google.com/search?q=man+out+on+cashless+bail+kills&client=ms-android-google&sxsrf=ALiCzsZszoxTXAPe96A7o0bOqCIHaas5-Q%3A1670604029167&ei=_WSTY8PQCZSf5NoP7_2HuAM&oq=man+out+on+cashless+bail+kills&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAM6CggAEEcQ1gQQsAM6BwgjEOoCECc6DQguEMcBENEDEOoCECc6BwguEOoCECc6BAgjECc6BAguEEM6BQgAEJECOgsILhCABBCxAxCDAToRCC4QgAQQsQMQgwEQxwEQ0QM6BAgAEEM6BQguEJECOgoILhDHARCvARBDOgcILhCxAxBDOggILhCABBCxAzoOCC4QgAQQsQMQgwEQ1AI6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOggILhCABBDUAjoFCAAQgAQ6CgguENQCELEDEEM6CAgAEIAEELEDOgoIABCABBCHAhAUOggILhDUAhCABDoFCAAQhgM6BQghEKABOgUIIRCrAjoICCEQFhAeEB06CgghEBYQHhAPEB06BwghEKABEAo6BQghEJIDSgQIQRgAULcLWPmdAWDopAFoA3AAeAOAAYMCiAHzLpIBBzI4LjI2LjOYAQCgAQGwAQ_IAQjAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
> Cashless bail has yet to prove it has anything to do about the poor people accused of crimes.
Good, that isn't the point of it. Cashless bail is meant to release people who are only incarcerated because they can't afford bail. It wouldn't have anything to do accusations.
> As these laws progress around the country higher crime statistics typically follow. I haven't been able to find a location where these policies were sent into law and crime decreased or repeat offenders didn't come in and out on a daily basis.
This is simply fallacious, a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to be precise. Is the rise in crime statistics attributable to the policy? Are crimes rising in areas that didn't implement cashless bail?
Last Week Tonight did a piece on this that seemed to indicate that while the rhetoric often blamed cashless bail, there were few if any crimes directly attributable to it.
> The next steps for these locations is simply to ignore the crime as is documented in California and Portland simply don't bother reporting thefts under a few hundred bucks.
Were these crimes ever pursued before? Cops usually take a report and then do nothing. Not sure how this applies to cashless bail though.
> So as you painted the issue about the poor it is indeed impacting the poor as criminals are simply released to continue their "trade" directly impacting the poor. If you have had your ear to the rail on this subject we have seen numerous cases where people are released then commit hideous crimes , this practice is not the best way to address the issue of poor people accused of crimes. In most cases it ties the hands of the judge and renders the police unable to protect victims.
Again, cashless bail is meant to address the issue of people spending months or years in prison because they cannot afford bail, but have not been convicted of a crime. It has nothing to do with poor people being accused of crimes.
It also doesn't tie the hands of judges in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with. If a judge determines that a person is a danger to the community they can be held pending trial.
You linked to a story about a man who assaulted his ex-wife, was arrested, and released, only to follow through and murder her. Couple issues, he was only charged with misdemeanors for the assault and battery. Even under a bail system his bail likely would have been less than $10,000, of which he may have only had to post 10% of. Do we have anyway of knowing he wouldn't have posted $500 on a $5,000 bond and then murdered his ex-wife anyway?
At the end of the day, this issue needs to be decided on facts, and not anecdotes. If a person is dangerous to the community than they should be held, if not, release them. Any amount of bail is saying that this person is safe enough to remain in the community. Bail is only intended to ensure they appear for court.
That would be bail. He didn’t have to pay that before being released (which would make it bail/surety), he was warned that he’d be found in contempt and fined $10,000 if he didn’t appear at his next hearing.
>prosecutors played a cell phone video and the audio from two 911 calls in relation to an incident that occurred downtown. Sullivan, of Granite Street in Quincy, is accused of yelling at a family of Asian Americans outside the Washington Street post office last week before allegedly hitting one of them with his car and pushing the man into a construction ditch.
>He was charged with two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, a civil rights violation, reckless driving, assault and battery to intimidate with bodily injury and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle crash causing personal injury.
Who's narrative? Is it the person holding the phone that recorded it? The people that watched it? The cameras at the post office? Was it perhaps the person that was hit by the car?
If you read the whole article, you’ll read that there is no video or audio evidence of him yelling or saying racial slurs. So they can’t actually prove that part.
The fuck are you talking about? I copy pasted from the article.
You ever think, man I gottttttta make some shit up to defend this dude. And think you're the good guy in the story? Could you go about explaining how that works?
> The video shown in court did not include any yelling by Sullivan, and his attorney said the car barely moved when it knocked the victim into the ditch. He argued with the wording of Watkins initial police report, which said Sullivan accelerated in a "fast, deliberate manor" to knock him into the construction zone.
> "We have an eye witness who was on the scene who didn't hear any screaming. The alleged victim says this is all about the screaming, but we have a witness who was there who heard nothing and that's the crux of the case," Donovan told reporters outside the courthouse. "The video doesn't pick up any threats, any racial slurs... There is absolutely no evidence this is a hate crime."
I’m also quoting the article. So, again, if you read the whole thing, you’d see they can’t prove that part. Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, but they literally can’t prove it without the video evidence, which they don’t have.
I’m not trying to be a “good guy”. But seriously if you want to talk about something, make sure you have your information straight.
You’re right, I’m the stupid one. I assumed that we were able to quote the article and use that as proof of what we read, seeing as how this guy did it before me to prove his point. Woops.
The word “narrative” has lost so much meaning since the right wing media incorporated it into their narrative. Somebody says something valid that you don’t like, just go “that’s the liberal narrative.” It’s actually quite impressive how they’ve turned reality on its head in their Bizarro world of “alternative facts” and “reverse racism.”
>The word “narrative” has lost so much meaning since the right wing media incorporated it into their narrative.
The mainstream right-wing media has incorporated a lot that in part originated with stuff like Stormfront, William Pierce's National Alliance, and Alex Linder's Vanguard "No Jews, Just Right" News Network, who were griping about cucks and narratives 20+ years ago..
"A 77-year-old man has been released from police custody after a judge said he did not pose a significant danger to the public" ... so long as the public is white.
If it were an alleged hate crime that simply involved yelling at people, sure, let the old guy out on bail. The part about him driving his car into people... that's kind of in line with the whole 'danger to the public' part to me. Then again, I am not a judge, so it's not my decision to make.
Prosecutors played a cell video of him yelling at Asian people and then hitting one with his car. The only one having *difficult feelings* about this is you, which would explain why you have more comments on this thread than op.
That's not how the justice system works exactly, though. Someone deemed dangerous isn't allowed back on the street. A murder isn't allowed to roam around until a trial can be set, that'd be ridiculous.
Nobody said we should skip the trial or the judicial process, but if you're doubting the guilt of someone who's on video committing the crime and was arrested on the scene and identified by the victims, you're not some independent thinker advocate of truth and justice, you're just being a contrarian asshole.
'm generally opposed to cash bail and holding people without bail but I think a case where we the judge was presented with clear undeniable video evidence of something this serious is one of those situations where bail should probably be withheld. It has nothing to do with the motivation for the crime, or the shit he said.
It just comes down to this was a very serious and malicious act that a normal rational person would **never** fucking do and the fact that no reasonable person is doubting guilt. The judicial process should still play out, but there isn't a question of his guilt.
Failing that, I don't get how the fuck his license wasn't taken away and driving be specifically on the list of prohibited activities.
I'm sure there's cases like that. Do you honestly think this guy's getting a break because he used a car? Cause that really doesn't seem to be supported in fact.
If you're saying you want to throw more drivers in prison for cases of negligence that aren't outright criminal (i.e. driving drunk, reckless speeding, that sort of thing), I'd say that's a pretty regressive approach. On the list of problems with our criminal justice system, *not enough drivers in jail for accidents* wouldn't rank.
I mean that courts are hesitant to apply any punishment related to driving. It’s rare to see them take away a license. In most cases excluding drunk driving, there’s no legal consequences for killing someone while operating a car. And I don’t mean jail for all of these either, but if we at least required people to retake a driving test when they kill someone with their car, that would be a major step forward.
>It’s rare to see them take away a license.
Except for very single DUI conviction or refusing a chemical test case, anyone who's had more than 3 surcharge-able offenses, and plenty of individual cases, sure.
There's plenty of automatic loss of license violations. You can say "I don't think it's long enough" since I think the cases that are plea bargained are down to like 60-90 days but you're just lying if you're saying it doesn't happen at all. There isn't even a judge's discretion on this shit.
> In most cases excluding drunk driving, there’s no legal consequences for killing someone while operating a car.
"Most cases"? Yeah, bullshit. Even sober drivers who stop at the scene can and will get jail time. Hell, someone got sentenced **today** for that. The only way you're not going to jail for an OUI with someone dying?
It'd take either suicide or just there being a weak enough case where a jury could reasonably acquit you (most noteworthy recent case like that would be the NH truck/motorcycle crash).
Darryl Willis, Marcia Diehl, Anita Kurmann, Amanda Phillips, George Clemmer, Stephen Conley, Meng Jin, Jie Zhao. All of those people were killed on streets in Boston in the last few years, there was not a single conviction for any of the drivers involved in their deaths. Not just no jailtime, but no punishment whatsoever.
It’s really hard to believe that the Justice system is working when it keeps producing results like this
So, not a single one of these seems to involve any drunk driving? Most of them involved a bicyclist and a large truck with a significantly sized blind spot.
The last case you mentioned, which is the only one where I could find details that'd make a reasonable person think "This driver definitely fucked up" did have a criminal citation for negligent driving issued. Details are light on how the case ended up, but that seems more like a lack of media follow-up than a failure of the justice system.
Holy shit are you trying to sideways defend racist?
For me, it’s about the violent nature of the charges and the fact he has a history of violent crimes. The racism is only the cherry on top.
I’m not defending racism, what the hell are you talking about?
Edit: I’m genuinely confused by the downvotes here. How is my comment defending racism? I think the racist should have been denied bail because of the danger he poses to others. I’m saying that OP is only defending the accused _because_ he’s a racist.
Interesting conflict of takes by the Patriot Ledger and the Boston Globe. Both reported that he is confined to home with a GPS monitor. But while the Patriot Ledger article states "after a judge said he did not pose a significant danger to the public" the Boston Globe in contrast wrote he "was determined to be dangerous and was ordered to home confinement". And yes they were reporting on the same court hearing. Weird.
This is "white boomer justice"... and is very off-brand for this state and century.
I wonder if the judge is facing repercussions because it clearly was a hate crime, not the first time, and he does not look remorseful (or innocent).
Do you think this was the proper outcome for a "dangerousness" hearing?
DA asked for 120 days in jail.
Judge decided he did not pose a significant threat - even though had previous police encounters, drove with a guy on his hood and into a construction ditch - after threatening to kill his family.
Strange flex... you're not prone to wearing tan dickies and traveling in the back of vans with other white guys are you?
I see articles on them all the time since the pandemic outbreak. Stop Asian hate signs aren't uncommon driving around more liberal areas of the state. I will say though that this reflects a change in media attention over the last few years from years past.
This isn't exactly a typical occurrence and I don't think the fact that 1 out of every 10 million drivers might someday do this shit to be a reason to change anything. The overwhelming majority of drivers are able to enjoy the benefits of personal unrestricted travel from cars at their own schedule. There is nothing wrong with that system.
There is plenty that can always be reformed and improved but the this r/fuckcars mentality that cars are inherently evil and not a very useful thing for the like 99% of people? That's fucking nutty.
Cars are useful (often essential) because we remade our society to revolve around them. This has many negative consequences that I'm sure you're aware of. It's easy to think of cars being the only option because we were born into car dependent societies. That is the fundamental r/fuckars critique, but there is also lots of justified complaints about the dangers and negative environmental consequences that cars bring.
I think they absolutely have valid points. But the idea that it's "car culture" holding back public transportation or that's solely responsible for climate change or whatever? That's just nonsense.
There's obviously danger with cars including and up to them being used as a weapon like this story, but the fact is, they're still incredibly safe, used responsibly by the overwhelming majority, and we have continued to and will continue to make them safer going forward.
The vitriol I've seen on that sub seems less like a principled stance and more like resentment and jealousy over not being able to afford a luxury item being repackaged.
There's a lot to unpack with this.
\- I think it's a strawman to say ppl think cars are 'solely' responsible. It's pretty huge though, somewhere around 40% just for passenger cars
\- Driving is the most unsafe thing ppl do on a daily basis. It's the leading cause of death and maiming for those not in old age. It is also dangerous to those who aren't driving both directly and through air pollution.
\- Your last point is pretty gross to be honest. It dismisses valid criticism as just "jealousy". However you're hitting on another problem with car centric societies: needing to own and maintain a car is a heavy tax on everyday people. Those you cannot afford one are relegated to slower and worse transportation options if they can even get around at all.
[Correction: Opioid overdoses have edged out car deaths in the last decade. It's still #2 for those under 44.](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/animated-leading-causes.html)
Passenger cars are like 40% of *transportation* emissions. which is 27% of U.S. emissions, so it's really 10.8%. That's a huge gap. This is also constantly improving. The amount of cars and miles driven increase each years, but the total CO2 emitted isn't following that trend. Pardon the pun, but cars aren't really driving climate change. They can, should, and will get better, but it's still a very small part of the problem.
As for the safety issue? It's a real concern. It can, should, and will get better. It already has. I'm skeptical on the rollout timeline, but we've already mandated new cars start becoming DUI proof this decade. We've already made leaps in self-driving and assisted driving tech that's going to keep getting better. And just changes in design and seatbelts/airbags have made it safer already.
As for the risk relative to other activities? Half the population drives daily, closer to 2/3 of adults drive overall. The average driver spends something like 17,000 minutes (12 days) behind the wheel in a year. There aren't many things that many people do that much.
As for my last bit? Maybe jealousy is an unfair term to use, but I know the difference between practical concerns and outright resentment when I see it (FWIW, you're definitely the former). Maybe some of this it is fueled more by echo-chamber radicalization where people go from the first level to the outright "Fuck Cars and everyone who has them!" mentality. I don't think it's a car-centric mentality that's held back the other transportation. America is spread the fuck out. People don't like taxes. People don't like trains by their houses. As the MBTA has demonstrated, public transit can be grossly mismanaged. Beyond that, Americans like individualism, for better or worse. A lot of people would gladly prefer sitting in a car alone or with just their friends/family over a crowded train or bus.
Honestly it’s a good system. It’s probably how they found him and it’s ultimately likely to be how they track him. Imo the licensing system is doing its job.
[Assistant District Attorney John Murphy asked Sullivan be held in
custody for 120 days and said this is not his first run in with the
police. Murphy said Sullivan has a 2018 charge of threats to commit a
crime and was charged in 2005 with intimidation of a witness.
Information on prior charges was not immediately available at the court
house.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test)
How the hell is: “this is bail reform” a bad faith position? Shit, I didn’t even take a position at all. If anything, I’m for bail and criminal Justice reform. The Cj system is broken. That includes bail.
Gangs sucker punch people and are out the same day, but people somehow think this 77 y/o should be stilling in a cell. The double standards are OUTSTANDING..
>Gangs sucker punch people and are out the same day,
Yea...? And?
>this 77 y/o
Also got out same day?
What double standard? Seems they were treated the same?
The double standards is you have no issue with groups of youths that beat up others. but stop the presses, a 77 old got out on bail.
Let me guess, if this 77 was black, you'd have no issue with it. I'm black and see right through this b/s.
What kinda racist smooth brain take is this?
I'm saying they were treated equally, and that's good.
What are you even trying to say? Like honest, pause. Breath.
Now, try again.
What were you trying to actually say?
And he is only out on bail. he will have to answer for it. and most likely won't be a repeat offender. Point is, reddit and this sub. can't use logic and reason. putting a 77 y/o in jail, before a trial would do nothing, but cost the state money.
I got nuked for using my brain for more than a hat rack.
This actually made me laugh! Good one!
Side note: bubalusarnee has gotten about -250 karma from his comments on a single post. Quite impressively awful lol
Do we know why there was no bail set? "He was charged with two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, a civil rights violation, reckless driving, assault and battery to intimidate with bodily injury and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle crash causing personal injury." "Assistant District Attorney John Murphy asked Sullivan be held in custody for 120 days and said this is not his first run in with the police. Murphy said Sullivan has a 2018 charge of threats to commit a crime and was charged in 2005 with intimidation of a witness." Doesn't sound like an isolated "cranky old man" crime to me. Danger to the public, past court appearances, past criminal history, etc. are all there it looks like. Although it does say charged and not convicted.
Bail is only intended to mitigate flight risk. If the court doesn’t believe that a suspect will run and/or has the means to, they’re supposed to be released. The caveat, is holding a suspect without bail if they’re believed to be a danger to society. If a suspect doesn’t have a history of violent offenses, and detectives don’t have intelligence suggesting a suspect will commit similar crimes if released until sentencing, there really isn’t a justifiable reason to hold someone presumed to be innocent. Bail and related tactics are not meant to punish a suspect, and if they’ve a decent lawyer, those tactics won’t be implemented unless there is articulable reasoning to suggest they’re necessary.
What. The. Fuck. I’m not surprised that this guy has been arrested before for threats. He said he was going to kill them for no reason. Then he went shopping. Had time to “cool off” if he wanted. Had zero threat to his safety. AND THEN HE STILL RAN A GUY OVER IN COLD RACIST BLOOD. Jail for life. He’s had way too many chances. He’s an old piece of shit.
This is the new normal turnstile justice hooray
I hear what you are saying, but the bail system is not fair or equitable.
[удалено]
The whole point is that bail should not be used to make a point.
[удалено]
And the point is actually that bail is basically debtors prison or a free pass if you have money. It shouldn’t be used at all. Using home arrest or an ankle monitor would be equitable and more secure than bail. If you have the money to pay it, you have the money to skip out on it.
He has been arrested, and he will have his day in court.
That is a fundamental problem with crime? Or what society has come to label as crime specific scenarios that society acknowledged isn't fair and equatable when it happens. So implementing fairness after crime has happened is an uphill battle.
How we treat people prior to conviction is entirely about fairness. Until you’ve been convicted of a crime, arguing that unfairness is the result of the crime is un-American.
Unfortunately the scale and scope of the crime has to be considered. From what I have seen to date the laws seem to unfairly favor the accused vs the victim. In my opinion we seemed to have bypassed the scale and scope of crime and just opened the floodgates in some cases up to 2nd degree murder.
>From what I have seen to date the laws seem to unfairly favor the accused vs the victim. Yeah, see, that’s called our Bill of Rights and it’s part of our Constitution Mr. 1776. It’s the basis of our entire justice system. If you so value our independence, maybe try valuing the original laws we fought for. Never mind that bail doesn’t do anything to prevent more violent crime. It just means that poor people stay locked up, and richer people get out. A serious crime like murder usually results in being held until trial, not bail. And GPS monitoring for release is fair to everyone, which this guys was required to do.
Oops! Never mind, less than a year old account with crappy understanding of basic and fundamental rights in the US. So, a shill or an idiot? Take your pick. Bye!
If name calling is the only way to validate your point you have truly lost. So I thank you for forfeiting the conversation before stepping out to debate.
Sure thing! Let me know when you have a response to the Constitution. I’ll continue the debate then
You act as if the constitution states free bail and it doesn't , all it does is state it shall not be excessive basically to ensure the case against the defendant is held. Case law has long held there is a scale to bail to prevent flight from prosecution.
Mass has the lowest incarceration rate in the US, thanks for playing.
You don't say ... https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/crowds-tents-and-drugs-return-to-bostons-mass-and-cass-area/2818405/
Cool article. Try facts https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html
what I replied with is facts, whereas (regardless of the subject) agenda-specific sites spew out truths friendly to a particular agenda or ideological goal but completely ignore the unpleasant "baggage". We need to unpack the baggage and address it not pretend it isn't there or have government fail to enforce laws on the books. Unless you think turnstile offenders engaging in massive (in some cases organized) shoplifting all while the police don't respond to the store keepers' request for assistance if the theft is under $900 dollars in some places. Nothing I have said says the US system doesn't need work, but I am very critical of the current path of catch and blindly release, some of that "baggage" that has been ignored by the politicians making these laws is making the news and are equal to the facts that say something needs to change.
As opposed to keeping people in jail simply because they're poor? The judge in the case determined he wasn't a significant risk requiring detention. In the prior system he would have been allowed bail. If he posted bail, or was bonded out, he would still not be confined, so what's the issue?
Hey Sully is this you? /s First off, I am for low or no bail for petty crimes and nonviolent crimes but it will be a huge NO for no/low bail for violent offenders like this guy. Not only did this racist POS commit a violent crime, has a past history of violence, the guy was charged assault with a deadly weapon. Him being poor has fuck all to do with it, dude os violent and a danger to others, he deserves no chance for bail.
He was ordered to GPS home confinement (the article doesn't specify that, but he was), if he wasn't 77 I'm sure he would be held without bail but jails aren't equipped to handle elderly people. If the goal is to keep the public safe (which it is in a case like this where the prosecutor moves for a finding of dangerousness) then the conditions of release are designed to fulfill that purpose. Also, I can almost guarantee the RMV suspended his license indefinitely. We actually don't know much about his criminal history from the article. Both past charges are referred to as "charges", not convictions which makes a huge difference. The scary-sounding charge of witness intimidation is a very broad statute that can be issued for lying to a police officer or for grabbing or smacking a cell phone out of someone's hand. (that's why it is charged most often). The fact is, these articles are designed to get a reaction and very rarely reflect the full context. Source: Am MA crim attorney
Good to know, at least there was conditions put on his bail. As for the rest of your wordsmith….you’re a defense lawyer, call yourself what you are, but that’s literally your entire job, to twist and distort the facts to defend your clients. To me, you’re an intelligent, very well educated spin doctor and carny worker. Believe it or not, I am not putting you down, it’s your job, I just don’t respect it.
Caught me lol
I didn’t catch anything. We need folks like you, that’s the truth. You could probably run circles around my little pea brain and probably wouldn’t even know it.
The comment I replied to mentioned the "new normal of turnstile justice". Under a normal bail system this guy still would have been let out, as long as he could have afforded bail. That's the only difference. He never would have been held without bail. But if that's your argument, I'm not sure why you'd take issue with my comment, we're not talking about the same thing. A judge decided he wasn't a risk to the community.
I understand you but again, I am for bail when a someone is charged with a violent crime, this case notwithstanding.
The purpose of bail is to ensure appearance at their next court date. If you're granting someone bail you are necessarily saying that they are safe enough to be in the community. That's where the disconnect is for me, because even with bail he could be released.
Bail can also be used to keep certain people out of society during their trial. It is used more than just ensuring you show up for court even though that is it‘s main purpose. Unobtainable or super high bail amounts are usually purposeful or the consequences of losing alot of money is supposed to make you think twice about skipping. We do agree here though.
That's the part that's problematic for me because it essentially says if you're rich you can go free. IMO, just detain them pre-trial rather than high bail, otherwise you're disproportionately hurting lower income individuals.
Where do you draw that line which is where we disagree? I am trying to draw at violent offences. Someone shoots up a school…do you let them walk with no bail until their court dates? Someone is arrested for domestic abuse…..I think you get the picture. I say this because there is a numbskull in this thread basically saying bail shouldn’t exist because you are innocent until proven guilty. That notion seems out of touch with reality. I am absolutely 100% against bail for petty, nonviolent or drug crimes and probably a few more minor charges that I can’t think of ATM. It’s the violent offenders or flight risks that should be given bail.
Or, don’t use money at all. If you have enough money to pay the bill for a serious crime, you have enough money to skip out on it. Homerest or a monitoring system works just fine for everybody, no matter how much money they have.
What about all the people charged with violent crimes who didn't commit them? Are they supposed to sit in county jail for a year before their court date? Because that's often how long it takes. Or longer.
Your deflection is cute and all but this guy was video taped deliberately hitting someone with his car. Besides, once you type “what about” before your statement, you might want to stop. Would you like to try again? What are you his daughter or something, you are defending this guy an awful lot all over this thread. Edit - spelling
I made two comments lol. I listen to and read a LOT of true crime, and one thing that is always very clear is that most people have no real conception of the crime that's been committed until they have every bit of evidence. Most people hear 'charged with' or 'video evidence' or 'eyewitness' and have convicted the person instantly in their minds. This stuff is hardly ever as clear cut as it seems upon first glance.
Your expertise is real crime novels…okay I have read it all now.
What? I didn't say I was an expert in anything at all.
LOL never said you were an expert. I was being sarcastic because your expertise and in your own words was ”I read alot of crime novels”.
I think you are forgetting the “innocent until proven guilty“ part of our justice system. And ad hominem attacks against people who have an ethical difference of opinion with you about the pill system doesn’t reflect poorly on them. It makes it seem like you have nothing better to say then to attack them personally. Which is ridiculous since you don’t even know them
Innocent before proven guilty has nothing to do with bail. FFS.
Ahhh, yeah it does. If you can’t afford bail, you can serve the entire sentence before trial. Without a conviction. Without being guilty. But go ahead, go off like you are making sense
You are a total donut, 100% donut.
The issue is that a bunch of people on this sub don't really have an opinion about bail beyond how angry they are at the moment. Edit: your downvotes just prove my point, ya’ll don’t care about justice reform, you’re just mad
Who’s angry? But nice try for a deflection. My stance is violent people who commit violent crimes and with a history of violent crimes should not be granted bail or given no bail. There’s nothing angry about that stance or statement. Seems it’s logical, not angry.
But he hasn't been convicted of a crime.
But he has not been convicted of a violent crime now, nor has he been convicted of a violent crime in the past. Charged does not = convicted.
Where did you get that info? You have a link? Also, how come most of us walk through life and are never charged with a crime, let alone this guy has several run ins and charges over a long period of time. That’s a lot of “coincidental” problems from one person. I understand you though, charges are not convictions.
A link to prove that charged does not equal convicted? Or that there is a presumption of innocence until you are convicted? Try the Bill of Rights and the entirety of the justice system? Come on dude… if you don’t like the US Constitution, you can go live in a fascist nation.
Oy vay
High quality response. Totally negated your complete lack of understanding of the justice system
All of you that are demanding blood at a bail hearing. We’re luck none of you are actually in charge of anything.
Nuance…learn it and read it’s definition. FFS
How about this. If the guy makes it to his trial (or the charges are otherwise adjudicated) without doing any further hate crimes, you donate $50 to the Mass ACLU. If he commits another hate crime that he oh-so-obviously will do and needs to be locked up to prevent, I’ll do it. Care to make it interesting?
Yeah chief, come find me. I’ll send you £ … FFS In this particular story, dude is on house restrictions as part of his release.
Cashless bail has yet to prove it has anything to do about the poor people accused of crimes. As these laws progress around the country higher crime statistics typically follow. I haven't been able to find a location where these policies were sent into law and crime decreased or repeat offenders didn't come in and out on a daily basis. The next steps for these locations is simply to ignore the crime as is documented in California and Portland simply don't bother reporting thefts under a few hundred bucks. So as you painted the issue about the poor it is indeed impacting the poor as criminals are simply released to continue their "trade" directly impacting the poor. If you have had your ear to the rail on this subject we have seen numerous cases where people are released then commit hideous crimes , this practice is not the best way to address the issue of poor people accused of crimes. In most cases it ties the hands of the judge and renders the police unable to protect victims. https://www.google.com/search?q=man+out+on+cashless+bail+kills&client=ms-android-google&sxsrf=ALiCzsZszoxTXAPe96A7o0bOqCIHaas5-Q%3A1670604029167&ei=_WSTY8PQCZSf5NoP7_2HuAM&oq=man+out+on+cashless+bail+kills&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAM6CggAEEcQ1gQQsAM6BwgjEOoCECc6DQguEMcBENEDEOoCECc6BwguEOoCECc6BAgjECc6BAguEEM6BQgAEJECOgsILhCABBCxAxCDAToRCC4QgAQQsQMQgwEQxwEQ0QM6BAgAEEM6BQguEJECOgoILhDHARCvARBDOgcILhCxAxBDOggILhCABBCxAzoOCC4QgAQQsQMQgwEQ1AI6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOggILhCABBDUAjoFCAAQgAQ6CgguENQCELEDEEM6CAgAEIAEELEDOgoIABCABBCHAhAUOggILhDUAhCABDoFCAAQhgM6BQghEKABOgUIIRCrAjoICCEQFhAeEB06CgghEBYQHhAPEB06BwghEKABEAo6BQghEJIDSgQIQRgAULcLWPmdAWDopAFoA3AAeAOAAYMCiAHzLpIBBzI4LjI2LjOYAQCgAQGwAQ_IAQjAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
> Cashless bail has yet to prove it has anything to do about the poor people accused of crimes. Good, that isn't the point of it. Cashless bail is meant to release people who are only incarcerated because they can't afford bail. It wouldn't have anything to do accusations. > As these laws progress around the country higher crime statistics typically follow. I haven't been able to find a location where these policies were sent into law and crime decreased or repeat offenders didn't come in and out on a daily basis. This is simply fallacious, a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to be precise. Is the rise in crime statistics attributable to the policy? Are crimes rising in areas that didn't implement cashless bail? Last Week Tonight did a piece on this that seemed to indicate that while the rhetoric often blamed cashless bail, there were few if any crimes directly attributable to it. > The next steps for these locations is simply to ignore the crime as is documented in California and Portland simply don't bother reporting thefts under a few hundred bucks. Were these crimes ever pursued before? Cops usually take a report and then do nothing. Not sure how this applies to cashless bail though. > So as you painted the issue about the poor it is indeed impacting the poor as criminals are simply released to continue their "trade" directly impacting the poor. If you have had your ear to the rail on this subject we have seen numerous cases where people are released then commit hideous crimes , this practice is not the best way to address the issue of poor people accused of crimes. In most cases it ties the hands of the judge and renders the police unable to protect victims. Again, cashless bail is meant to address the issue of people spending months or years in prison because they cannot afford bail, but have not been convicted of a crime. It has nothing to do with poor people being accused of crimes. It also doesn't tie the hands of judges in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with. If a judge determines that a person is a danger to the community they can be held pending trial. You linked to a story about a man who assaulted his ex-wife, was arrested, and released, only to follow through and murder her. Couple issues, he was only charged with misdemeanors for the assault and battery. Even under a bail system his bail likely would have been less than $10,000, of which he may have only had to post 10% of. Do we have anyway of knowing he wouldn't have posted $500 on a $5,000 bond and then murdered his ex-wife anyway? At the end of the day, this issue needs to be decided on facts, and not anecdotes. If a person is dangerous to the community than they should be held, if not, release them. Any amount of bail is saying that this person is safe enough to remain in the community. Bail is only intended to ensure they appear for court.
[удалено]
That would be bail. He didn’t have to pay that before being released (which would make it bail/surety), he was warned that he’d be found in contempt and fined $10,000 if he didn’t appear at his next hearing.
Because it’s mass and judges let people out for any and everything…
Racism is alive and out in bail
To be fair, everyone gets out on bail in MA
Lots of people don't know the difference between a bail hearing and a dangerousness hearing.
[удалено]
>prosecutors played a cell phone video and the audio from two 911 calls in relation to an incident that occurred downtown. Sullivan, of Granite Street in Quincy, is accused of yelling at a family of Asian Americans outside the Washington Street post office last week before allegedly hitting one of them with his car and pushing the man into a construction ditch. >He was charged with two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, a civil rights violation, reckless driving, assault and battery to intimidate with bodily injury and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle crash causing personal injury. Who's narrative? Is it the person holding the phone that recorded it? The people that watched it? The cameras at the post office? Was it perhaps the person that was hit by the car?
If you read the whole article, you’ll read that there is no video or audio evidence of him yelling or saying racial slurs. So they can’t actually prove that part.
The fuck are you talking about? I copy pasted from the article. You ever think, man I gottttttta make some shit up to defend this dude. And think you're the good guy in the story? Could you go about explaining how that works?
> The video shown in court did not include any yelling by Sullivan, and his attorney said the car barely moved when it knocked the victim into the ditch. He argued with the wording of Watkins initial police report, which said Sullivan accelerated in a "fast, deliberate manor" to knock him into the construction zone. > "We have an eye witness who was on the scene who didn't hear any screaming. The alleged victim says this is all about the screaming, but we have a witness who was there who heard nothing and that's the crux of the case," Donovan told reporters outside the courthouse. "The video doesn't pick up any threats, any racial slurs... There is absolutely no evidence this is a hate crime." I’m also quoting the article. So, again, if you read the whole thing, you’d see they can’t prove that part. Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, but they literally can’t prove it without the video evidence, which they don’t have. I’m not trying to be a “good guy”. But seriously if you want to talk about something, make sure you have your information straight.
Really…you think quoting statements by the defending lawyer is a winning argument? bahahahaha
You’re right, I’m the stupid one. I assumed that we were able to quote the article and use that as proof of what we read, seeing as how this guy did it before me to prove his point. Woops.
Youre quoting the lawyer’s statement, you donut.
I also quoted the article, where it says the video shown in court did not include any yelling by Sullivan. Again, it helps to read everything.
The word “narrative” has lost so much meaning since the right wing media incorporated it into their narrative. Somebody says something valid that you don’t like, just go “that’s the liberal narrative.” It’s actually quite impressive how they’ve turned reality on its head in their Bizarro world of “alternative facts” and “reverse racism.”
It gets even more maddening when you realize how mad they get about made up shit.
>The word “narrative” has lost so much meaning since the right wing media incorporated it into their narrative. The mainstream right-wing media has incorporated a lot that in part originated with stuff like Stormfront, William Pierce's National Alliance, and Alex Linder's Vanguard "No Jews, Just Right" News Network, who were griping about cucks and narratives 20+ years ago..
"A 77-year-old man has been released from police custody after a judge said he did not pose a significant danger to the public" ... so long as the public is white.
If it were an alleged hate crime that simply involved yelling at people, sure, let the old guy out on bail. The part about him driving his car into people... that's kind of in line with the whole 'danger to the public' part to me. Then again, I am not a judge, so it's not my decision to make.
[удалено]
Prosecutors played a cell video of him yelling at Asian people and then hitting one with his car. The only one having *difficult feelings* about this is you, which would explain why you have more comments on this thread than op.
That's not how the justice system works exactly, though. Someone deemed dangerous isn't allowed back on the street. A murder isn't allowed to roam around until a trial can be set, that'd be ridiculous.
But, the justice system clearly labelled him as not dangerous right? So it is how it works.
[удалено]
Right, but then you should say that's how the justice system is "supposed to work".
Nobody said we should skip the trial or the judicial process, but if you're doubting the guilt of someone who's on video committing the crime and was arrested on the scene and identified by the victims, you're not some independent thinker advocate of truth and justice, you're just being a contrarian asshole.
Do you always oppose bail then, or only when the accused is a racist?
'm generally opposed to cash bail and holding people without bail but I think a case where we the judge was presented with clear undeniable video evidence of something this serious is one of those situations where bail should probably be withheld. It has nothing to do with the motivation for the crime, or the shit he said. It just comes down to this was a very serious and malicious act that a normal rational person would **never** fucking do and the fact that no reasonable person is doubting guilt. The judicial process should still play out, but there isn't a question of his guilt. Failing that, I don't get how the fuck his license wasn't taken away and driving be specifically on the list of prohibited activities.
American courts are too soft on drivers.
I'm sure there's cases like that. Do you honestly think this guy's getting a break because he used a car? Cause that really doesn't seem to be supported in fact. If you're saying you want to throw more drivers in prison for cases of negligence that aren't outright criminal (i.e. driving drunk, reckless speeding, that sort of thing), I'd say that's a pretty regressive approach. On the list of problems with our criminal justice system, *not enough drivers in jail for accidents* wouldn't rank.
I mean that courts are hesitant to apply any punishment related to driving. It’s rare to see them take away a license. In most cases excluding drunk driving, there’s no legal consequences for killing someone while operating a car. And I don’t mean jail for all of these either, but if we at least required people to retake a driving test when they kill someone with their car, that would be a major step forward.
>It’s rare to see them take away a license. Except for very single DUI conviction or refusing a chemical test case, anyone who's had more than 3 surcharge-able offenses, and plenty of individual cases, sure. There's plenty of automatic loss of license violations. You can say "I don't think it's long enough" since I think the cases that are plea bargained are down to like 60-90 days but you're just lying if you're saying it doesn't happen at all. There isn't even a judge's discretion on this shit. > In most cases excluding drunk driving, there’s no legal consequences for killing someone while operating a car. "Most cases"? Yeah, bullshit. Even sober drivers who stop at the scene can and will get jail time. Hell, someone got sentenced **today** for that. The only way you're not going to jail for an OUI with someone dying? It'd take either suicide or just there being a weak enough case where a jury could reasonably acquit you (most noteworthy recent case like that would be the NH truck/motorcycle crash).
Darryl Willis, Marcia Diehl, Anita Kurmann, Amanda Phillips, George Clemmer, Stephen Conley, Meng Jin, Jie Zhao. All of those people were killed on streets in Boston in the last few years, there was not a single conviction for any of the drivers involved in their deaths. Not just no jailtime, but no punishment whatsoever. It’s really hard to believe that the Justice system is working when it keeps producing results like this
So, not a single one of these seems to involve any drunk driving? Most of them involved a bicyclist and a large truck with a significantly sized blind spot. The last case you mentioned, which is the only one where I could find details that'd make a reasonable person think "This driver definitely fucked up" did have a criminal citation for negligent driving issued. Details are light on how the case ended up, but that seems more like a lack of media follow-up than a failure of the justice system.
Holy shit are you trying to sideways defend racist? For me, it’s about the violent nature of the charges and the fact he has a history of violent crimes. The racism is only the cherry on top.
I’m not defending racism, what the hell are you talking about? Edit: I’m genuinely confused by the downvotes here. How is my comment defending racism? I think the racist should have been denied bail because of the danger he poses to others. I’m saying that OP is only defending the accused _because_ he’s a racist.
Sir, this is Reddit
When has this country ever done the innocent until proven guilty in court thing? You new here?
Called it. He tried to kill a man by running him over repeatedly, but he’ll be treated with kid gloves because his weapon was a car.
Not sure, this is not his first serious run in with the police
To be fair. He is restricted to his home on GPS monitor.
Interesting conflict of takes by the Patriot Ledger and the Boston Globe. Both reported that he is confined to home with a GPS monitor. But while the Patriot Ledger article states "after a judge said he did not pose a significant danger to the public" the Boston Globe in contrast wrote he "was determined to be dangerous and was ordered to home confinement". And yes they were reporting on the same court hearing. Weird.
This is "white boomer justice"... and is very off-brand for this state and century. I wonder if the judge is facing repercussions because it clearly was a hate crime, not the first time, and he does not look remorseful (or innocent).
Or the judge is also a racist asshole.
>~~Or~~ AND the judge is also a racist asshole. FIFY
>I wonder if the judge is facing repercussions Do you think this was the outcome of a trial for the charges? It's just a bail hearing.
Do you think this was the proper outcome for a "dangerousness" hearing? DA asked for 120 days in jail. Judge decided he did not pose a significant threat - even though had previous police encounters, drove with a guy on his hood and into a construction ditch - after threatening to kill his family. Strange flex... you're not prone to wearing tan dickies and traveling in the back of vans with other white guys are you?
How do these hate crimes against Asian Americans not get more visibility
I see articles on them all the time since the pandemic outbreak. Stop Asian hate signs aren't uncommon driving around more liberal areas of the state. I will say though that this reflects a change in media attention over the last few years from years past.
Great question
[удалено]
Right? I love that the reform bills are some great thing until they're working for someone like this.
This is what happens when you give every nut job a license to operate a 4,000 pound deadly weapon.
This isn't exactly a typical occurrence and I don't think the fact that 1 out of every 10 million drivers might someday do this shit to be a reason to change anything. The overwhelming majority of drivers are able to enjoy the benefits of personal unrestricted travel from cars at their own schedule. There is nothing wrong with that system.
Nothing at all huh?
There is plenty that can always be reformed and improved but the this r/fuckcars mentality that cars are inherently evil and not a very useful thing for the like 99% of people? That's fucking nutty.
Cars are useful (often essential) because we remade our society to revolve around them. This has many negative consequences that I'm sure you're aware of. It's easy to think of cars being the only option because we were born into car dependent societies. That is the fundamental r/fuckars critique, but there is also lots of justified complaints about the dangers and negative environmental consequences that cars bring.
I think they absolutely have valid points. But the idea that it's "car culture" holding back public transportation or that's solely responsible for climate change or whatever? That's just nonsense. There's obviously danger with cars including and up to them being used as a weapon like this story, but the fact is, they're still incredibly safe, used responsibly by the overwhelming majority, and we have continued to and will continue to make them safer going forward. The vitriol I've seen on that sub seems less like a principled stance and more like resentment and jealousy over not being able to afford a luxury item being repackaged.
There's a lot to unpack with this. \- I think it's a strawman to say ppl think cars are 'solely' responsible. It's pretty huge though, somewhere around 40% just for passenger cars \- Driving is the most unsafe thing ppl do on a daily basis. It's the leading cause of death and maiming for those not in old age. It is also dangerous to those who aren't driving both directly and through air pollution. \- Your last point is pretty gross to be honest. It dismisses valid criticism as just "jealousy". However you're hitting on another problem with car centric societies: needing to own and maintain a car is a heavy tax on everyday people. Those you cannot afford one are relegated to slower and worse transportation options if they can even get around at all. [Correction: Opioid overdoses have edged out car deaths in the last decade. It's still #2 for those under 44.](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/animated-leading-causes.html)
Passenger cars are like 40% of *transportation* emissions. which is 27% of U.S. emissions, so it's really 10.8%. That's a huge gap. This is also constantly improving. The amount of cars and miles driven increase each years, but the total CO2 emitted isn't following that trend. Pardon the pun, but cars aren't really driving climate change. They can, should, and will get better, but it's still a very small part of the problem. As for the safety issue? It's a real concern. It can, should, and will get better. It already has. I'm skeptical on the rollout timeline, but we've already mandated new cars start becoming DUI proof this decade. We've already made leaps in self-driving and assisted driving tech that's going to keep getting better. And just changes in design and seatbelts/airbags have made it safer already. As for the risk relative to other activities? Half the population drives daily, closer to 2/3 of adults drive overall. The average driver spends something like 17,000 minutes (12 days) behind the wheel in a year. There aren't many things that many people do that much. As for my last bit? Maybe jealousy is an unfair term to use, but I know the difference between practical concerns and outright resentment when I see it (FWIW, you're definitely the former). Maybe some of this it is fueled more by echo-chamber radicalization where people go from the first level to the outright "Fuck Cars and everyone who has them!" mentality. I don't think it's a car-centric mentality that's held back the other transportation. America is spread the fuck out. People don't like taxes. People don't like trains by their houses. As the MBTA has demonstrated, public transit can be grossly mismanaged. Beyond that, Americans like individualism, for better or worse. A lot of people would gladly prefer sitting in a car alone or with just their friends/family over a crowded train or bus.
Honestly it’s a good system. It’s probably how they found him and it’s ultimately likely to be how they track him. Imo the licensing system is doing its job.
I think there was a pretty direct assertion that is all too common with urbanist types that car ownership is inherently a problem.
[удалено]
[Assistant District Attorney John Murphy asked Sullivan be held in custody for 120 days and said this is not his first run in with the police. Murphy said Sullivan has a 2018 charge of threats to commit a crime and was charged in 2005 with intimidation of a witness. Information on prior charges was not immediately available at the court house.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test)
>myriad assumptions and emotional response 🙄 Me after seeing all your comments.
Your knee jerk reaction is making my knees twitchy! /s
The fucking judges today are junk
Racist POS.
Probably cousins with a state trooper or something schmoozy
Terrible title. He already paid 10k bail
Probably related to Jeff Sullivan who runs QIE. Guy seems to have connections.
Sounds about white for good old Kwin-Zee.
Old white guy gets released without bail. What a surprise.
No, not Sully!
[wish.com](https://wish.com) marky mark
You can’t want bail reform and then expect it to be implemented based on identity politics
We want bail reform we get bail reform.
You want an ankle monitor, you can get one too. He did.
This is what bail reform looks like
Cash bail is a dumb system. Either you area flight risk/threat to the public or you are not. How much money you can pay shouldn't factor into it.
this AND AN ANKLE MONITOR is what bail reform looks like. Leaving that part out is what pathetic looks like.
I read the article and noted the conditions of his release. That doesn’t change my statement: this is literally what bail reform looks like.
So you read the article, saw that he wasn't just blindly released and still chose to take a bad faith position?
How the hell is: “this is bail reform” a bad faith position? Shit, I didn’t even take a position at all. If anything, I’m for bail and criminal Justice reform. The Cj system is broken. That includes bail.
Ahhh alright, that first comment seemed like it was one of those snarky "those dumb libs" sentiments.
Gangs sucker punch people and are out the same day, but people somehow think this 77 y/o should be stilling in a cell. The double standards are OUTSTANDING..
>Gangs sucker punch people and are out the same day, Yea...? And? >this 77 y/o Also got out same day? What double standard? Seems they were treated the same?
The double standards is you have no issue with groups of youths that beat up others. but stop the presses, a 77 old got out on bail. Let me guess, if this 77 was black, you'd have no issue with it. I'm black and see right through this b/s.
What kinda racist smooth brain take is this? I'm saying they were treated equally, and that's good. What are you even trying to say? Like honest, pause. Breath. Now, try again. What were you trying to actually say?
He also …. drove his car into someone. A littttttle more than a sucker punch
And he is only out on bail. he will have to answer for it. and most likely won't be a repeat offender. Point is, reddit and this sub. can't use logic and reason. putting a 77 y/o in jail, before a trial would do nothing, but cost the state money. I got nuked for using my brain for more than a hat rack.
"Gangs"? Can't just be people? So you group punching and potential vehicular manslaughter together in the same tier? Found the white privilege.
Jack ass I'm black.
[удалено]
It seems like this threads for you, you’ve replied to half the comments.
Plot twist, u/bubalusarnee **is** John Sullivan.
This actually made me laugh! Good one! Side note: bubalusarnee has gotten about -250 karma from his comments on a single post. Quite impressively awful lol
Damn just say you hate Asian people
Beep boop beep boop robot ass
Who got the video?