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.
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.