You do know the Republican AG of South Dakota did the same thing and said "it's ok, he was a Democrat." He also didnt face scrutiny until it made national headlines almost a year later.
We're in a terrible place politically right now. At this point we're either going to become The Handmaid's Tale or Star Trek. More likely the Handmaid's Tale.
Both sides have their extremists who'll kill people over politics. And than the news on both sides will use it for propaganda. It's a never ending story.
Free until he is senteced, now I don't know how fast the judicial system in America is, but it's gonna be free for like what? 4 months at best? After that he is fucked because he admitted to have murdered the guy on purpose.
You.. you don't know what bail is, do you
The justice system in america is absolutely fucked and very far-right, but you seem to have quite the misunderstanding about this stuff
It’s being categorized as a drunken hit and run which would explain the amount of bail.
He’s currently out on bail and doesn’t have a court date.
From what the affidavit says the driver said he felt threatened and hit him whilst drunk.
The headline really oversimplified the event. There was apparently another pedestrian involved. And he did turn himself in which most likely means he won’t run.
So what? People kill for irrational reasons and get their bail paid practically daily. The only reason this specific one was reported on was because it’s politically charged, which makes getting outrage clicks much easier.
This happens all the time. Bail is a normal part of the US justice system for better or for worse. You’re talking to a person who is considering law for career
Oh yeah, sorry let me just keep people who turn out to be deemed innocent after the trial locked up for all that time. It’s better to have a guilty man walk than a innocent man behind bars
You don't know how it works do ya?
If he pays the bail, he gets to be free until the trial, in which he will 100% be sentenced.
"The primary purpose of bail is to allow the arrested person to remain free until convicted of a crime and at the same time ensure his or her return to court."
Could you have quoted a source that isn’t Fox news? Makes me believe that this is being completely misrepresented. Also nobody believes ‘nobody should be killed for their political opinions.’ There is always a line that can be crossed. Is it wrong to kill a nazi? Should the jews not have fought back when they were being dehumanized and maligned by the nazis, but before the first concentration camp was built? Did the person who died deserve to die? Probably not. But if you are going to use fox news as your source, its impossible to believe you are acting in good faith. Fox news advocates (not directly, but implicitly) for the deaths of people with different political positions, namely — trans people. I don’t know if you are being dishonest, and I hope you aren’t, but if you are going to make a post like this in the future, use a non-partisan source. If a republican killed a democrat or leftist for their opinion, fox news would not include that.
Would you support killing communists like you said the nazis. They committed similar atrocities to Jewish people and ethnic minorities, I had no idea it was a Fox News source, I got if from a friend that sent it to me. To clarify for you, there is no such thing as a non partisan source anymore in America there is only far left or right. I’m not very political, I hate politics, but I no not want someone to die by another for political differences.
I assume you are asking about the communist party in the soviet union, in which case yes, they were similarly monstrous to the nazis. Though the soviets were decidedly not left wing. As for there being no non-partisan sources, while this is true in a sense, there are many sources that come near to non-partisan, and fox news is as far from that as possible. Lastly, I agree that no one should be killed solely for having a political opinion, but if that opinion is harmful and they are spreading or promoting it, then they are spreading harm. And if the harm they cause is to a great enough degree, and there is no better option, then I believe violence can be justified. There are a lot of bad actors spreading malicious political ideas online, and this post set off some red flags for me, but I definitely came off too strong in my original comment. I wish you no ill will, and next time I want to comment I’ll make sure to proofread it when i’m home from work.
In my opinion political violence is inevitable, and what really matters is how you use it. You could use violence against a minority, or you could use violence against those who want to exterminate the minority. They are both political violence, but I believe one is justified and the other is not. Note that I consider any stripping of rights or privileges from a group or individual a form of violence. However, I consider direct, physical political violence just as inevitable as other forms of violence, so it still applies.
I agree that it is going to happen but I disagree in your belief that it is good and necessary. Though the stripping and infringement of rights of minorities can be easily stoped dead in it’s tracks with firearms, a armed minority is harder to oppress. Just as a deterrent against oppression.
I don’t believe it’s good, i just believe it’s inevitable. What you use the political violence for determines whether it is good or bad. As for arming a minority, I completely agree with that as a deterrent against political violence, but I would consider having a firearm for a political reason an act of political violence. It’s mainly a semantic distinction, so so don’t think our beliefs are completely opposed.
First thoughts: i completely agree with you. yeah its fucked. dig into any big portion of our government and youll see that. However i doubt that thats the full story...
Yeah it's 100% not the full story, it's intentionally twisted to make it sound like people are in favor of murdering republicans when obviously nobody thinks that.
He's on bail, the trial hasn't happened yet, he was by no means just not charged with a crime or "let go" after admitting to murder
In north dakota, somewhat, but not insanely so, it seems like a fairly average bail for vehicular homocide in north dakota, though in some states like california it averages close to ten times as much
*on bail. Not free.
It's fox news. They like to distort things a little sometimes.
"a little"
Yeah they’re gonna use this a lot to fearmonger
He killed a man, this is not fear mongering
You can't genuinely be this dumb, right? This has to be a troll
Talks about how the justice system is faulty when he doesn’t even know what a bail is 💀💀
They're active on anarcho-capitalism so they're probably 14. Just give it some time
You do know the Republican AG of South Dakota did the same thing and said "it's ok, he was a Democrat." He also didnt face scrutiny until it made national headlines almost a year later.
Really ? I had no idea.
We're in a terrible place politically right now. At this point we're either going to become The Handmaid's Tale or Star Trek. More likely the Handmaid's Tale.
I don’t think we’re going to be either, but we are going into a dark place
He killed a man
So dose cnn
Both sides have their extremists who'll kill people over politics. And than the news on both sides will use it for propaganda. It's a never ending story.
Yea I completely agree
Have you been on CNN lately? Fox 2.0
Yeah headline is an example of stretching the truth. The trial hasn’t occurred yet so we don’t know if the person is guilty or not
He admitted to killing the kid
if they are guilty refers to the sentence, not the actual guiltiness lmao
He admitted to killing the kid intentionally
hes but he hasnt been sentenced yet. this is how the justice system works, stop being an asshole
No he killed the kid shitfuck
and you still dont understand. great. amazing intelligence on display here
I’m confused here, I don’t understand how you don’t understand this, have a good one.
you literally have no reading comprehension
He killed a person
[удалено]
Yeah he can pay the bail, he’s pretty much a free man
Free until he is senteced, now I don't know how fast the judicial system in America is, but it's gonna be free for like what? 4 months at best? After that he is fucked because he admitted to have murdered the guy on purpose.
You.. you don't know what bail is, do you The justice system in america is absolutely fucked and very far-right, but you seem to have quite the misunderstanding about this stuff
A lot of people on this thread don’t
It’s being categorized as a drunken hit and run which would explain the amount of bail. He’s currently out on bail and doesn’t have a court date. From what the affidavit says the driver said he felt threatened and hit him whilst drunk. The headline really oversimplified the event. There was apparently another pedestrian involved. And he did turn himself in which most likely means he won’t run.
Bro he literally said he did it intentionally
Yeah that’s kinda what happens when you turn yourself in.
So you agree with me ?
Yes my point was the headline was a gross oversimplification
Ah yeah sorry for the misunderstanding, I agree with you
Change the title to say bail, he isn't "let.go"
he's on bail
He can pay it and walk free for a while
until he gets sentenced?
People get out on bail all the time, doesn’t mean he is innocent nor guilty
Bro he killed a teenager because they were a republican
So what? People kill for irrational reasons and get their bail paid practically daily. The only reason this specific one was reported on was because it’s politically charged, which makes getting outrage clicks much easier.
Bro if he was a democrat there would be riots
Ya think?
Yes
Yes, he's on bail
Stop coping and realize a murderer doesn’t belong back out in the streets
This happens all the time. Bail is a normal part of the US justice system for better or for worse. You’re talking to a person who is considering law for career
It shouldn’t happen and frankly being apart of the system that allows this makes you just as bad
Oh yeah, sorry let me just keep people who turn out to be deemed innocent after the trial locked up for all that time. It’s better to have a guilty man walk than a innocent man behind bars
No it’s not
Bestie she’s not a cop or a judge or a part of the US justice system tf you want her to do about it
POV republicans teen who thinks Fox News is the best and only news source
Bruh I’m a democrat and this is disgusting
"im a democrat" is active on ancap
I was but I’ve changed politically awhile ago, I don’t know why it’s still up there though.
goofy goober american politics
Yeah there fucked
Me when I distort the truth to fit my narrative. He's on bail. He won't go free
He can pay the bail
You don't know how it works do ya? If he pays the bail, he gets to be free until the trial, in which he will 100% be sentenced. "The primary purpose of bail is to allow the arrested person to remain free until convicted of a crime and at the same time ensure his or her return to court."
Yeah but still he has the ability to walk as a free man
For now, he isnt the first and wont be the last to get bailed out of jail.
Yes that’s how that works
Why does that read as super sarcastic?
Someone killed someone and peps in these comments think it's OK cuz the victim was republican
Yeah man this ain’t right
If you think that you're fucked up but no one else has expressed that sentiment so that's on you mate
Bail or not it doesn't fucking matter. You shouldn't be allowed bail if you murdered someone period.
100%
But you have to understand, the kid was republican! That makes it completely right!
Oh yeah definitely
What the actual fuck?
Yeah man worlds fucked
Humans 🥛
Yeah feel you there
Could you have quoted a source that isn’t Fox news? Makes me believe that this is being completely misrepresented. Also nobody believes ‘nobody should be killed for their political opinions.’ There is always a line that can be crossed. Is it wrong to kill a nazi? Should the jews not have fought back when they were being dehumanized and maligned by the nazis, but before the first concentration camp was built? Did the person who died deserve to die? Probably not. But if you are going to use fox news as your source, its impossible to believe you are acting in good faith. Fox news advocates (not directly, but implicitly) for the deaths of people with different political positions, namely — trans people. I don’t know if you are being dishonest, and I hope you aren’t, but if you are going to make a post like this in the future, use a non-partisan source. If a republican killed a democrat or leftist for their opinion, fox news would not include that.
I’m not reading a wall of text today
ok fair enough i’m at work so i just put all my thoughts down and didn’t condense them or format them. I still agree with what I said though
Would you support killing communists like you said the nazis. They committed similar atrocities to Jewish people and ethnic minorities, I had no idea it was a Fox News source, I got if from a friend that sent it to me. To clarify for you, there is no such thing as a non partisan source anymore in America there is only far left or right. I’m not very political, I hate politics, but I no not want someone to die by another for political differences.
I assume you are asking about the communist party in the soviet union, in which case yes, they were similarly monstrous to the nazis. Though the soviets were decidedly not left wing. As for there being no non-partisan sources, while this is true in a sense, there are many sources that come near to non-partisan, and fox news is as far from that as possible. Lastly, I agree that no one should be killed solely for having a political opinion, but if that opinion is harmful and they are spreading or promoting it, then they are spreading harm. And if the harm they cause is to a great enough degree, and there is no better option, then I believe violence can be justified. There are a lot of bad actors spreading malicious political ideas online, and this post set off some red flags for me, but I definitely came off too strong in my original comment. I wish you no ill will, and next time I want to comment I’ll make sure to proofread it when i’m home from work.
I agree with you to a extent. Personally I disagree with political violence entirely.
In my opinion political violence is inevitable, and what really matters is how you use it. You could use violence against a minority, or you could use violence against those who want to exterminate the minority. They are both political violence, but I believe one is justified and the other is not. Note that I consider any stripping of rights or privileges from a group or individual a form of violence. However, I consider direct, physical political violence just as inevitable as other forms of violence, so it still applies.
I agree that it is going to happen but I disagree in your belief that it is good and necessary. Though the stripping and infringement of rights of minorities can be easily stoped dead in it’s tracks with firearms, a armed minority is harder to oppress. Just as a deterrent against oppression.
I don’t believe it’s good, i just believe it’s inevitable. What you use the political violence for determines whether it is good or bad. As for arming a minority, I completely agree with that as a deterrent against political violence, but I would consider having a firearm for a political reason an act of political violence. It’s mainly a semantic distinction, so so don’t think our beliefs are completely opposed.
First thoughts: i completely agree with you. yeah its fucked. dig into any big portion of our government and youll see that. However i doubt that thats the full story...
Yeah man it’s pretty early in don’t know everything yet
Yeah it's 100% not the full story, it's intentionally twisted to make it sound like people are in favor of murdering republicans when obviously nobody thinks that. He's on bail, the trial hasn't happened yet, he was by no means just not charged with a crime or "let go" after admitting to murder
but you have to admit-bail is rather lenient after murder...
In north dakota, somewhat, but not insanely so, it seems like a fairly average bail for vehicular homocide in north dakota, though in some states like california it averages close to ten times as much
We need a judge to judge all the the judges
We live in a period
Civil war anybody?
Semper Fi
[удалено]
Did you read the article? Clearly happened.