• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Virginia judge denies bail to crying neo-Nazi Christopher Cantwell

Moon said:
So basically you're no better than the people you condemn. Congrats.
Click to expand...

No I believe they should have have rights, and they have rights but the world would be far better off without them.
 
Carjosse said:
No I believe they should have have rights, and they have rights but the world would be far better off without them.
Click to expand...
That's contrary to what you posted.
 
Carjosse said:
They do but they do not deserve them.
Click to expand...

Do to some of your opinions we feel that you do not deserve the rights you have.

hmmm you see why what you spout is a bad idea? probably not.
 
Carjosse said:
I have to disagree there is a pretty big line in the sand and Nazis and ISIS sympathizers belong on the other side.
Click to expand...

Disagree all you want, and you can believe one should die based merely on opinion, but you can do nothing about it.

Opinion is opinion, we're all free to hold and express them. You don't get to kill anyone for just an opinion. That slippery slope has terrible consequences.
 
Moon said:
That's contrary to what you posted.
Click to expand...

How? They are not deserving of the rights afforded to them but they should have them none the less and the world is still better off with them dead.
 
Ikari said:
Disagree all you want, and you can believe one should die based merely on opinion, but you can do nothing about it.

Opinion is opinion, we're all free to hold and express them. You don't get to kill anyone for just an opinion. That slippery slope has terrible consequences.
Click to expand...

They are free to hold and express them too, but if they die who gives a ****. It is no different than thinking if a serial killer gets executed it is a good thing.
 
Ikari said:
Depending on what exactly went down, I would agree. If he pepper spray-ed someone, particularly if he's claiming defense, then "no bail" is egregious. In fact, I have thought we use bail far too aggressively in general these days.

8th Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I really think we've been real loosey goosey on this one.
Click to expand...

We just need to get rid of bail. A person is either a flight risk, a danger to him/herself or others, or they are neither of those things and shouldn't be in jail. No one should be able to buy their way out.
 
Carjosse said:
How? They are not deserving of the rights afforded to them but they should have them none the less and the world is still better off with them dead.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you're no better than they are and you keep proving it with every post.
 
Carjosse said:
Nazis are nothing but the worst of the worst, they have nothing but contempt for society and every other person on Earth. There is no such thing as a decent Nazi, they are defined by nothing but pure evil.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet that at one time Hitler said the only good Jew is a dead Jew, in German or course.

You sound very similar to the way they thought.
 
Carjosse said:
How? They are not deserving of the rights afforded to them but they should have them none the less and the world is still better off with them dead.
Click to expand...

As a point of order, rights are not "afforded" to anyone. They are possessed by the individual.
 
Moon said:
Like I said, you're no better than they are and you keep proving it with every post.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me the world would not be better off without ISIS or serial killers?
 
Mason66 said:
I would be willing to bet that at one time Hitler said the only good Jew is a dead Jew, in German or course.

You sound very similar to the way they thought.
Click to expand...

Like I said in my above post you don't think the world would be better off without ISIS or serial killers?
 
Carjosse said:
So you are telling me the world would not be better off without ISIS or serial killers?
Click to expand...
You keep moving the goalposts, so you obvious you know that what you said is pretty vile, and no better than those you hate.
 
We don't have the whole story the Judge is looking at.

If he is being denied bail, then other warrants may be out on him, and he is being held for their execution.
 
backpacker said:
It isn't about the charges necessarily. The bond standards in Virginia primarily look at two factors--the risk to re-offend and the flight risk. Since he is from out of state, he is a flight risk since a bond would require he not leave the state. Given his activism, he also is a risk to re-offend.
Click to expand...

Well, the link between charges and bail is that the more severe the charge, the greater risk of flight. So for example murder defendants are rather unlikely (understatement) to be freed on bail.

I'm not sure what you mean "risk to re-offend" unless it's another way of referring to dangerousness (and in MA, they can request a hearing to determine dangerousness; if found dangerous, he's held without possibility of release until trial).



There are plenty of more factors in play, as well. Ties to the community, etc.
 
Carjosse said:
So you are telling me the world would not be better off without ISIS or serial killers?
Click to expand...

Of course it would be, but what you're obtusely refusing to understand is that if you strip one group of rights because you don't like them, then that creates a extreme expansion of government power that could be used against everybody.

It's like people who want to create internet firewalls to stop kiddie porn, when those same firewalls start to get used by political parties to block their opponents.

The government does not deserve the power to kill or censure dissent, even if you violently hate a particular group. If you disagree then you don't belong in a Democratic country. Your view is actually more dangerous than that of the Nazis because at least we can identify the Nazis and respond to them directly. If people like you had their way, the government would black bag special interest groups and we'd live in some kind of Orwellian fake society.
 
Moon said:
You keep moving the goalposts, so you obvious you know that what you said is pretty vile, and no better than those you hate.
Click to expand...

There is no difference between a Nazi and an ISIS supporter, one uses religion to justify their evil and the other their race.
 
Northern Light said:
Of course it would be, but what you're obtusely refusing to understand is that if you strip one group of rights because you don't like them, then that creates a extreme expansion of government power that could be used against everybody.

It's like people who want to create internet firewalls to stop kiddie porn, when those same firewalls start to get used by political parties to block their opponents.

The government does not deserve the power to kill or censure dissent, even if you violently hate a particular group. If you disagree then you don't belong in a Democratic country. Your view is actually more dangerous than that of the Nazis because at least we can identify the Nazis and respond to them directly. If people like you had their way, the government would black bag special interest groups and we'd live in some kind of Orwellian fake society.
Click to expand...

I am not saying to start taking their rights away but if they die would gives a ****, they got what they had coming to them.
 
backpacker said:
It isn't about the charges necessarily. The bond standards in Virginia primarily look at two factors--the risk to re-offend and the flight risk. Since he is from out of state, he is a flight risk since a bond would require he not leave the state. Given his activism, he also is a risk to re-offend.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
Well, the link between charges and bail is that the more severe the charge, the greater risk of flight. So for example murder defendants are rather unlikely (understatement) to be freed on bail.

I'm not sure what you mean "risk to re-offend" unless it's another way of referring to dangerousness (and in MA, they can request a hearing to determine dangerousness; if found dangerous, he's held without possibility of release until trial).



There are plenty of more factors in play, as well. Ties to the community, etc.
Click to expand...



I should add: risk to re-offend is more a consideration for parole.


Dangerousness is more: if we let him out on bail, is he going to attack the victim, someone related to the victim or the prosecution, or just people in general? I suppose you could call that "re-offend" in a colloquial sense because it's another offense if you attack someone, but it's also sort of a term of art in law and is typically used when you're talking about whether an inmate is sufficiently rehabilitated before having completed the entire term of the sentence, hence, should they be out on parole.
 
Carjosse said:
I am not saying to start taking their rights away but if they die would gives a ****, they got what they had coming to them.
Click to expand...
Pick a position and stick with it.
 
Mr Person said:
Not enough info in the article.

I seem to recall him making remarks about there being a warrant out for him and wanting to get away/hide, but my memory isn't clear enough for me to say that this is definitely true. If it is, that would be a reason to hold him without bail. Though, I'd note, he turned himself in.

It doesn't mention any dangerousness hearing.

But if not, then it would be an absurd overreach to hold someone without bail even on those charges.





I utterly despise these neo-nazi's but fair is fair. The only way to secure freedom is to always play by the rules, no matter the defendant, prisoner, or "detainee".
Click to expand...


Yeah, poor story. Normally a judge would explain why bail was denied. The reporter should have been able to get that information without difficulty.
 
Mr Person said:
I should add: risk to re-offend is more a consideration for parole.


Dangerousness is more: if we let him out on bail, is he going to attack the victim, someone related to the victim or the prosecution, or just people in general? I suppose you could call that "re-offend" in a colloquial sense because it's another offense if you attack someone, but it's also sort of a term of art in law and is typically used when you're talking about whether an inmate is sufficiently rehabilitated before having completed the entire term of the sentence, hence, should they be out on parole.
Click to expand...

The risk to re-offend while out on bond. You get picked up for a new offense while already on bond, you may not be getting out again before trial. It is a good behavior while on bond consideration. It is part of the reason some murderers get bond and some do not.
 
Mr Person said:
Well, the link between charges and bail is that the more severe the charge, the greater risk of flight. So for example murder defendants are rather unlikely (understatement) to be freed on bail.

I'm not sure what you mean "risk to re-offend" unless it's another way of referring to dangerousness (and in MA, they can request a hearing to determine dangerousness; if found dangerous, he's held without possibility of release until trial).



There are plenty of more factors in play, as well. Ties to the community, etc.
Click to expand...

Ties to the community go to flight risk. Re-offend goes to violate the bond condition that you be of peace and good behavior, which is also a probation condition. Sometimes the court will let a person leave the state and return on bond but usually that is more like a person in the military who gets arrested in a state other than their base, have ties to the community, etc. than just your run of the mill white supremacist agitator. If this were one of the NC KKK people and they were arrested further south in the state, then they might be allowed to be bonded and leave the state because their NC HQ is just across the border but they are still part of the wider local community for instance because they are in a bedroom community tethered to a VA city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom