They’re apparently trying to justify it because some guy he bailed out of jail drowned sometime later with meth in his system, and the coroner couldn’t say whether it was accident, suicide, or homicide.
Sullivan was today charged with possession of methamphetamine, distribution of methamphetamine, attempting to influence a public servant and the misdemeanor solicitation of prostitution.
I’ll note that the person who sold him the meth that night is being held on $25,000 bail on charges of possession of methamphetamine and distribution of methamphetamine.
Calm down. I just thought that the Yahoo article was a bit more explanatory. We’re on the same page. It all gives some insight into the suspicion that there is a lot more to this arrest than there might appear to be on the surface.
We’re on the same page? Why do I keep arguing with you that his bail is unreasonably high, then?
What has been released so far indicates that there is nothing more to this arrest than the stated charges. TV, newpapers, and you are engaging in nothing more than wild speculation with no evidence.
Your previous theory was that he was a drug kingpin; your current theory appears to be that he is a murderer. So far, there is evidence that Sullivan committed the four crimes with which he was charged today. There is no evidence that he committed any other crimes. Evidence appears to be irrelevant to you.
I must be sleeping because I still don’t see any mention of him being CHARGED with anything but trading drugs for sex. Maybe you can help my poor addled brain by citing where he’s been charged in the murder of Sean Moss.
I don’t know about you, but I always thought bail had to do with the crime you were charged with, not a crime police couldn’t even prove WAS a crime that they thought, maybe, you were involved in, you know, if it was a crime.
You want to set bail like he’s a murderer, charge him with murder.
You are wrong and you are naive. Bail involves lot more than just the crime you are charged with. A destitute person will get a lower bail than a prosperous person if there is chance that they could be a flight risk. The amount of bail should be onerous to the person charged and how that bail is being posted needs to be taken into consideration. That’s the job of judges and the court when arguments are presented when criminals are indicted. The judges aren’t sitting there with a sheet that lays out the amount of bail for a particular crime. There are a lot of other factors under consideration. The judge’s job is to make a determination and set bail accordingly.
Holy shit, I must have nodded off again. I feel like I read this whole post and didn’t see a single mention of increasing bail because the cops suspect that the prisoner was involved in a crime different than the one he was charged with. Is that also the judges job? To set bail based on unsubstantiated claims regarding a death that wasn’t even ruled a homicide?
The constitution prohibits excessive bail, and a half mil for trading $100 of meth for sex seems pretty excessive to me.
Where does the constitution prevent excessive bail and/or what is excessive? Based on the constitution who is to determine what is excessive? If a judge has reason to believe that someone brought before him/her might be guilty of crimes (based on argument from the DA) and/or that the person might be a flight risk the judge can set bail at a level that the judge feels comfortable will insure that the defendant will appear for trial. That’s a subjective judgement that is part of the judge’s power. That’s the judge’s job. You can’t sit there with your Judge Judy experience and pretend that judges have to work off a price list menu as if they were an order taker at MacDonald’s.
Don’t slag on Judge Judy, without her I would never have heard of the eighth amendment. The one that starts off with “excessive bail shall not be required”
I would also direct you to the SCOTUS ruling in Stack v Boyle
Having regard to the nature of the offense charged. That means you can’t charge whatever bail you want for a crappy little offense, evidenced by the SCOTUS reversing a judges bail amount.
BTW, Judge Judy is on at 4pm weekdays, you might learn something.
I’m fine with that and will be interested to see in what direction this case goes. I just hope that with the $50k they have him wear an ankle bracelet.
Pure speculation but it wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve been water-boarding this guy for information on meth distribution in Arapaho County. Maybe they got something which led to the reduced bail. Hey, that’s the way the system works.
The guy pulls a robbery, gets the crap beat out him and gets arrested. The judge sets the bail at $350,000.
Sometimes the judge wants to make sure the guy gets detained for awhile. After he has a lawyer they will go back to court in order to get the bail lowered. That’s how the system works.
Not defending Bundy, but this just pisses me right off. If you “know” the defendant is guilty of other crimes, then charge him, bring forth the evidence, and convict him of those crimes. Nothing new here, they locked up Al Capone for years on a charge of tax evasion. It IS a slippery slope, though, and we are now at the point where we have people held for nearly a decade with no charges, no prospect of there ever being charges brought because authorities claim to “know” they are terrorists. It’s pure bullshit, and the single biggest problem I have with “conservative” views.