There is recourse. Each person accused has a right to reasonable and fair bail. That he's not being given bail even though those who were with him were given fair and reasonable bail. He was not, on top of him not being a flight risk, not having a record, and not being accused of something violent like assault. He didn't actually hurt anyone. So why is being held with no bail? Is it because he went viral from photo's? Most likely.
TECHNICALLY, bail is unconstitutional. Each person is innocent until proven guilty and that should factor in to regards to bail. If you're presumed innocent, then the only thing bail should be used for is to prevent flight risk and not danger to community since they are, at the time, innocent of those accusations, but too many judges don't follow that concept. But that's neither here nor there.
The judge is stalling in continuances, which violates his due process and right to a speedy trial. Arraignment hearings take all of 5 minutes. Prosecution recommends bail, defense offers rebuttal, judge typically meets somewhere in between unless the Judge doesn't think there's a flight risk (family in the area, job, etc.). The Judge shouldn't be offering continuances, only the state/defense should be doing that. The Judge should be prepared for a quick and speedy trial each hearing. They're keeping him in there for no reason. He's an old man who's most grievous charge is theft. Not even grand theft. Theft. So he lifted something not even worth 1,000 dollars. That's a misdemeanor. Actually, none of his charges would be felonious in any state in the union. For things not a felony, you're typically given OR. So this is crazy.
This'll likely be a civil suit and he'll most likely win. The Judge should be recusing themselves.
Maybe Joe or Kamala will put up bail money.
I’d like to think there’s recourse for his unfair treatment- but unfortunately, he’s not the right color, or sex or political persuasion.
There is recourse. Each person accused has a right to reasonable and fair bail. That he's not being given bail even though those who were with him were given fair and reasonable bail. He was not, on top of him not being a flight risk, not having a record, and not being accused of something violent like assault. He didn't actually hurt anyone. So why is being held with no bail? Is it because he went viral from photo's? Most likely.
TECHNICALLY, bail is unconstitutional. Each person is innocent until proven guilty and that should factor in to regards to bail. If you're presumed innocent, then the only thing bail should be used for is to prevent flight risk and not danger to community since they are, at the time, innocent of those accusations, but too many judges don't follow that concept. But that's neither here nor there.
The judge is stalling in continuances, which violates his due process and right to a speedy trial. Arraignment hearings take all of 5 minutes. Prosecution recommends bail, defense offers rebuttal, judge typically meets somewhere in between unless the Judge doesn't think there's a flight risk (family in the area, job, etc.). The Judge shouldn't be offering continuances, only the state/defense should be doing that. The Judge should be prepared for a quick and speedy trial each hearing. They're keeping him in there for no reason. He's an old man who's most grievous charge is theft. Not even grand theft. Theft. So he lifted something not even worth 1,000 dollars. That's a misdemeanor. Actually, none of his charges would be felonious in any state in the union. For things not a felony, you're typically given OR. So this is crazy.
This'll likely be a civil suit and he'll most likely win. The Judge should be recusing themselves.
Good to hear your take...I hope he gets justice!