“”What happened to be innocent until proven guilty? In this case that’s not what’s happening.””
Could be some “flight risk” concerns on the part of the judge?
Since the story was published, he was released on $50,000 bond. Not sure of the date of his release.
The $1,000,000 bond ha nothing to do with “flight risk.” It was “to send a message.” Exact words of the Justice of the Peace who set the identical bond for every single one arrested.
People with families, jobs, and no criminal record are “a flight risk”?
In what way?
If you were arriving at a restaurant and fight broke out in the parking lot in which people were shot would your thinking be...I need to get on a plane to France?
I know, dumb question. You post has already indicated that you think exactly that way.
But the rest of us do not and we think that nearly all of these people should never have been arrested at all.
> “What happened to be innocent until proven guilty? In this case that’s not what’s happening.”
If they let them out of jail it will give the impression that their wasn’t a motorcycle gang shootout involving GUNs. And in case anyone ‘s missed GUN crime is through the roof, killing innocent DEMOCRAT babies everywhere. Because of this only certain people should be allowed to own GUNs.
The why is because an agenda is being advanced. They should compare the number of shootings pre-Obama to now. They migh notice some correlations and reach some conclusions...
EVERY accused person has some degree of "flight risk". That, in itself, is not a good reason to post a bail amount that cannot be met.
Especially for people whom the arresting officers cannot show probable cause as being involved in any shooting.
A rational approach might have been to tell the prosecutors "I'll hold them for three days, long enough for the bullets to be taken from the bodies and ballistic tests run to compare with any guns the suspects were found with. Then I'm going to release anybody you do not show me probable cause for".