Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
This dude is cooked.
He's got a long record, his crime was egregious, and white supremacists are abandoning him. Nick Fuentes came startlingly close to defending black people by saying that "Chud's" behavior was responsible for the violence.
Don't be fooled though. Chud's sin with white supremacists is making them look bad.
White supremacists don't exactly need help making themselves look bad. The mere fact that someone is s white supremacist marks them as the scum of the earth.
Why does he call himself Chud? What's the backstory to that
A rare moment of self-awareness?
Naw, that's not likely.
I’m not siding with this guy, but he had bail set and if the money can’t be used to pay bail then he is being denied bail. Just don’t let him post bail at all.
This is like, oh you’ll never get a million bucks, oh wait I mean a million of the right kind of money.
But bail is supposed to be set relative to the amount of money the defendant has and the crime committed. Kinda defeats the purpose if the dude just got piles of magic Internet money to post bail.
Bail is a system to oppress poor people. Bail should not exist. He should either be released until trial or held until trial (I side with holding him).
Gov says, “here is an amount we know you don’t have!”
Then they somehow raise that money from the community.
Now Gov says you can’t use that money because we never were gonna let you out.
That’s the part that is wrong.
Let's back up a step. In common law, bail is the set of conditions imposed on someone in exchange for their not being held in custody until trial. In the US, that primarily includes being required to post a bond or some other surety, but it can also include conditions such as not approaching trial witnesses, not leaving town, etc.
And it's entirely reasonable that, if you're posting a surety, it has to be something of your that's at risk. Otherwise, you've got no skin in the game, which defeats the purpose of the surety, which is to ensure you don't skip down before the trial.
Based on that, bail's a good thing in general. The thing that's fucked up in the US is the over-reliance on posting a bond and the excessive size of bonds that are required, and that's what disproportionately hurts poorer people.
They reduced it from 1.25m to 1m
He's only raised 0.25m
The issue is this "fundraiser" existed prior to the shooting and is not for legal defenses. It's blatantly and explicitly so he can go around and do the shit that lead to him shooting someone else and himself.
Like, you're "not siding with the guy" but are just wholesale making shit up to defend him...
Quick edit:
Because some people may need the math spelled out:
$1,250,000 reduced to 1,000,000 means the 250,000 he can't use for bail, he just gets to keep it.
He can't use it for bail but bail was already adjusted like it was.
And he can still (presumably) use it for legal fees.
Just what are you so upset about that you had to leap to an out an blantant racists defense?
Fuck the dude and fuck you. If you got put in jail and you said “here is money” and they said “no not that money” you’d be pissed.
As I said, you fuck, they should have just denied bail.
You, a moron, cannot see how that’s just the slippery slope to courts doing anything they want.
Screw off, asshole.
It's either money or it's being denied bail.
It can't be both and justifying the breach of law when it applies to people you don't agree with; it's funny how quick liberals are to abandon their principles when its liberalism dysfunctioning on someone they don't like.
What US law says you cannot use crowdfunded money to post bail?
None that I'm aware of. Reread my comment and don't assume you are under attack. The judge is wrong here and givesomefucks is being inconsistent with their idealogical position.
SOREY!!! It’s Lemmy, everyone’s gonna shank you.
Reread, and yes. You’re right. This criminal is a bad bad man, but if bail is set, it’s set.
I just don’t understand why the judge didn’t deny him bail. He’s a violent offender, and it really would not take much to justify that decision. I’m sure there is plenty of precedence of denying bail for far lesser crimes.
Here are the facts: Tennessee explicitly authorizes courts to conduct bond source hearings to prevent defendants from using the proceeds of illegal activity to secure their release. These hearings are required by state law for any bond set at $75,000 or higher — Eatherly’s $1 million bond clears that threshold by a significant margin, making this procedure entirely standard and not specific to his case. The burden lies completely on the party seeking to post the bond. Whoever is paying must prove that the money is derived from legitimate sources rather than illegal activities. Defense attorneys generally have to present bank statements, pay stubs, tax returns, or other financial records to satisfy the judge. If the judge is not satisfied with the legitimacy of the funds, the defendant will not be allowed to post bond and will remain in custody, regardless of whether they have the physical cash on hand.
But it’s not illegal. If it was the money would be seized.
Still, this is giving a judge the right to say “this money is good whereas this money is bad” arbitrarily, and without a chance to appeal the motion in a higher court.
This guy needs to be in jail without bail.
BAIL is a system that was created to prevent poor people from leaving the jail. BAIL needs to be abolished. You either release them until trial or you don’t.
The standard isn’t ‘proven illegal’, it’s ‘proven legitimate’ - those aren’t the same bar. The court doesn’t need to prove the money is dirty to block it, the defense needs to prove it’s legitimate. Unverified anonymous internet donations fail that test not because they’re criminal but because they’re unverifiable. Seizure is a separate legal action with a completely different evidentiary standard.
The procedure is codified in state law with defined standards, not made up on the spot. Bond rulings in Tennessee can be challenged through higher courts, so the ‘no appeal’ claim doesn’t hold up either.
And if you think bail is an unjust wealth-based system, the crowdfunding situation illustrates that perfectly: his supporters are collectively buying his freedom, which is exactly what bail abolitionists object to. That’s an argument for the judge’s skepticism, not against it.
Same exact vibes as Libertarians arguing age of consent laws.
It is quite hilarious that you are so smug and judgemental about someone you claim is "just wholesale making shit up"
When you claim:
The issue is this "fundraiser" existed prior to the shooting and is not for legal defenses.
The op's article clearly states that only funds received AFTER the shooting are not to be used according to the judge. Funds for bail do not need to be acquired specifically for legal defense, in fact him receiving funds from his fans after the shooting most likely for his legal defense is expressly WHY the judge is saying they can't be used.
I guess I shouldn't have given you all this valuable information unless you "asked nicely" first. Silly me.
Apparently there's a legitimate legal reason: https://lemmy.world/comment/23893766
There is no legitimate reason to tell a poor person that the money they have in their hand cannot be used to pay their bail.
That said, he needs to be denied bail because he’s a danger to society based on the accused crime.
You might want to look a little deeper than the headline.
I have. If a person can crowdfund money, it’s money. I don’t care. Even scumbags like this.
Should they have been allowed to crowdfund in the first place? That’s a good question.
I donated to Luigi. And, he wasn’t allowed bail at all.
When a government gets to decide that you can’t use the money you can raise to fund your legal fees (which includes bail), they are deciding how people should be prosecuted on a case by case basis, which is not equal for all.
So many criminals only mistake is forgetting to be a billionaire.
Do the financial crimes first, then once your a billionaire you can do the other crimes.
I was able to finally find an article explaining why the funds couldn't be used, unlike the op article.
One major issue appears to be how the fundraiser was originally described. Critics have pointed out that early campaign messaging focused on supporting Eatherly and his family rather than explicitly stating that funds would be used for legal defence or bail.
Cannabalistic Humanoid Undergroud Dweller.
It has been a long time since I thought about that movie.
Good. I can’t wait until he gets gen pop justice. Try your racist pranks there, loser.
He'll join the White Aryan Brotherhood or some other violent, racist prison gang and get worse. US citizens have a fetish for violence and retribution and seem shocked when they get that on the streets. When we demand rehabilitation and re-education, it may take a generation, but it will become better.
I wonder why Derek Chauvin doesn’t have a gang of protectors. He got colanderized in prison. 😂
Maybe I’m optimistic, but I don’t see the WAB accepting this douchebag. He clearly just wants to get a rise out of people, he doesn’t care about his white pride.
You'll be surprised what people do to survive in there.
At least he won’t be eating good for a long time. 🙂
Until he's pardoned out sent to some club fed (no pun intended, but I'll take it, anyway).