Of course he is a danger! You misinterpreted my motivations for asking. I am asking the question for a practical answer, because I am not buying that the defendant or the defendant'lawyers. I think their arguments are malarky, and this is all the usual crying for the criminal crap that liberals always dish out. Where is the concern for his victims present and future?
Of course he is a sleezeball. Why isn't this considered a hate crime?
Why isn't the charge attempted murder, multiple counts? He is clearly screwy (not insane)who is a danger to the community. But I guess as long as the judge thinks he is only aiming at republicans, the judge can live with that.
LOL:)
I sure did. You have my abject apologies, HC.
Looking at your post 18, it's all perfectly reasonable. I would only add a couple comments.
The bail amounts at issue (550K reduced to 25K) would not have to be deposited in full by Seltzer's parents, even though they were the indemnitors -- not unless the judge specified cash bond and there is no mention of that in the article. So this is almost certainly a surety bond, meaning the parents had to pay probably 10% of the bond amount as a non-refundable fee to the bondsman. As you've said, they would only be liable for the balance if Seltzer failed to show up to any of his subsequent court appearances. There are property bonds also, but that doesn't apply here either.
I conclude from all this that the parents are probably not well-off, although they may own a modest home. In the first instance, they would have had to pay 50K (non-refundable) and be accountable for 450K if Seltzer blew his appearances. As it stands now, they have only ponied up 2.5K and, in the worst case scenario, will only have to pay another 22.5K. This is a much more tolerable fee (and risk).
But this raises another question. Since the fee entailed by this reduced bail is so low, why couldn't Seltzer have posted bond himself? Why would his parents have to step in? He's a real estate developer and I've yet to hear of one who doesn't own at least his home. I have, however, heard of some whose money is all tied up or whose property is distressed or otherwise encumbered or whose assets are hidden to avoid actual or potential lawsuit payout, back alimony, child support, etc. I strongly suspect Seltzer fits into one or more of these categories. It's possible that he simply hasn't lived or rented in the area for very long, in which case he might not qualify for release on bond, but that seems very unlikely to me.