Why was yet ANOTHER bail set for Waukesha killer?

After committing this atrocity while out on bail, why was bail set AGAIN for this piece of human waste? Is there nothing that someone can do that is bad enough for bail to not be set? If someone was able to pay the bond, he could have killed another bunch of people! Where the hell does it stop? What sort of a JOKE country is the US?

 

His bail was set at 5 million. There's not a soul on this Earth that would have given $500k up front to spring this idiot from jail. His own mother has even stated that she regrets paying his bail last time...

 

Why was it set AT ALL?

 

Don't you agree that it shouldn't have been set AT ALL?

 

Maybe because that is the law.

 

I'm sure that it uses discretion.

 

Compare this to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol mob.
A few of the men were denied bail even though there was no specific evidence they had done any other crime than trespass.
Judge denies bail to man for being a member of the Oathkeepers

This woman was also denied bail and kept in solitary confinement until she agreed to plead guilty:
Maria Butina, convicted of being a "Russian agent"

This young man was denied bail simply because police found 2 empty gun magazine parts (not even any guns or bullets) in this man's apartment.
He had been arrested for trespassing into a public bridge access area and using a fake ID card:
New Jersey court denies bail because man had empty magazines

You'll notice that bail was denied in all three of these stories for political reasons.

 

cause of the whole innocent until proved guilty in a court of law thing

 

If it’s cash bail and not a signature bond the amount needed is 5 mil.

 

What the hell does that have to do with bail?

 

First two are federal government, right?

 

waiting in jail for trial was never meant to be a punishment, just meant to make sure you show up for trial as you're still considered innocent

there are special cases where one is considered a danger to themselves or others to deny bail, but that is harder for the da to make happen, so many just request high bails

 

When they are letting murderers go free, but keeping others in prison for 18 months before their trial based on some flimsy suspicion or something classified as illegal that was found in that person's home, there is a big issue.

Judges have a lot of discretion and sometimes they let their bias cloud their decisions.

Why should we be surprised that this happens when there is nearly no accountability?

No one questions these judges, they just say "they probably had a reason to make the decision that they made", and that's the end of it.

 

In what way was this worthless piece of human waste NOT a danger to others? Maybe you haven't seen his rap sheet which is longer than your arm.

 

have to finish reading what I wrote "but that is harder for the da to make happen, so many just request high bails"

 

So you think that this case was worthy of being a "special case?"

 

A $5,000,000 bail is clearly unconstitutional per the federal and Wisconsin State constitutions. The judge should disbarred.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment

Section 6
Text of Section 6:
Excessive Bail; Cruel Punishments

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor shall excessive fines be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Wisconsin_Constitution

Unlike some States, the Wisconsin constitution does not prohibit bail, regardless of the crime.

For example =
Section 11
Text of Section 11:
“ All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor shall cruel or unusual punishments be inflicted. Witnesses shall not be unreasonably detained, nor be confined in any room where criminals are actually imprisoned.
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_North_Dakota_Constitution

Section 12
Text of Section 12:
A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties, except for:

(a) Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great;
(b) Felony offenses involving acts of violence on another person, or felony sexual assault offenses on another person, when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person's release would result in great bodily harm to others; or
(c) Felony offenses when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and convincing evidence that the person has threatened another with great bodily harm and that there is a substantial likelihood that the person would carry out the threat if released.
Excessive bail may not be required. In fixing the amount of bail, the court shall take into consideration the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at the trial or hearing of the case.

A person may be released on his or her own recognizance in the court's discretion.
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution

Section 13
Text of Section 13:
Bail, Fines and Punishments

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishments inflicted.

Section 14
Text of Section 14:
Prisoners to Be Bailable; Habeas Corpus

All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses when the proof is evident of presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Pennsylvania_Constitution

 

Happened to read section 12b of your own post?

How many did he kill 12 or so? Has a history of being violent while released on bail.

What would you do if you were the judge release him on his own recognizance?

 

Isn't it still more lenient than NO bail at all? Presumably the judge could have said NO bail.

 

The Wisconsin constitution does not prohibit bail for violent crimes. And $5,000,000 bails are excessive and a violation of the State constitution.

 

Criminal suspects in Wisconsin are entitled to bail per the State constitution. Abide by the constitution.

 

Please read the link. Section 12b is from the California State constitution. It is not applicable to Wisconsin criminal proceedings. If the dummies in Wisconsin wanted to deny bail to violent suspects then they should amend their constitution to mirror the language in the California constitution. BTW, the California State constitution does not have a specific article in its Bill of Rights that states that people have the right to bear arms.

 

Does the law define "excessive?"

 

Who cares what the California Bill of Rights States? The Constitution spells out the right to bear arms.
Since this is a Wisconsin case, I'm uncertain as to why you would post information relevant to California?
The suspect was not denied bail, given the nature of his crimes the bail was reasonable.
He obviously represents a clear threat to the people around him.

 

Not giving the heinous nature of his crimes in his history of violence and the likelihood he would commit more if he was released.

Would you want to be the judge that granted him a bail when he goes out and kills someone else and then the family turns around and sues you?