It does matter because we have ppl here suggesting that he shouldn’t be released because of the severity of the crime. Well, clearly, that argument doesn’t hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny when you have other individuals committing similar crimes and being allowed bail almost immediately. That’s a problem. Either let Cain out too to be with his family until he’s convict or don’t let out anyone. And definitely don’t use the severity of his crimes as the reasoning behind his continued incarceration when others are let out for doing the same thing.
Even this guy is being held on $5 million bail. So, I’ll ask you: Do you believe that the judge in that case has a right to offer that criminal murderer bail at the sum of $5 million, but the judge in Cain’s case has the right to hold Cain indefinitely? If so, then I say get rid of that judge. Get rid of both judges. Get rid of the entire court system. What justice is there in giving an even worse criminal the opportunity to be released, but not to a man who has otherwise been a decent and contributing member of society?
In a perfect world, justice is served equally…however we know the world’s not perfect, and rarely works as it should…
But in Cain’s case, do you not realize any chance that Cain had to be released on bail, was drastically impacted with how he handled himself?
As in, at the first bail hearing where he told the judge if let out “he will kill the guy”…that’s bail denied all day, everyday! Doesn’t matter who you are, who has been released on bail elsewhere. You are not getting out…Then at another bail hearing, it was argued that Cain has CTE, to the point he couldn’t control himself, resulting in an attempt to kill someone and severely injured another…You wanna’ use that as a defense in court, good luck, but it’s not gonna’ get you bail either.
This is all self inflicted damage to his own case.
Don’t disbelieve you, but do you have a source for that? Haven’t found it in my few minutes of searching.
That’s what I thought too when I initially heard that…as in no fucking way he said that…but apparently he did.
There’s a thread or two about it on here, has clips of a podcast where they talk about what happened at the hearing.
1 Like
Ellie Neslar shot a fucker in the court house and in front of the judge, but was still granted bail.
Alright well you definitely have an argument for keeping him in there if he said that, but no one here was arguing that that is why he should stay in jail. Sofa’s argument, for example, basically boiled down to the opinion that judges can basically do what they want.
And not to try to destroy what you said or make it irrelevant, but I’d still like to see the sources documenting that he did in fact say that because no articles or quotes from the judge in the articles I’ve found reference that. They simply say that the judge said ‘the risk is too great’ but not why she thinks that and certainly not because he said he’d try again.
1 Like
There’s the old thread where it’s mentioned…Watching the little clip again, it’s apparently something nobody really wanted to mention around why bail was denied.
1 Like
Yeah, dude, literally no one I have spoken with has mentioned that and no one here in this thread is using that as the reason for not letting him out. Which, imo, makes their reasoning moot and entirely void regardless.
Yet, I’m sure sofa will love to see this and I’m sure he’ll be happy to finally have an actual reason behind why Cain isn’t out, which makes his opinion moot and void as well imo.
Why do you keep asking me about these other cases that you already know about while i already said i didnt read about them? Caim is the topic. Go argue racism im the OG.
You knew about them the second you read my posts, but your argument still boiled down to the belief that judges can essentially do what they want. Which isn’t an argument at all, it’s cope.
If youbactually read thst thread tou qould see my posts and others where we discussed this already. I was actually the first posted on thisnforum about it, but why let thinfs like research and facts distract you frim tour endless racism and pilitical arguments?
Right, so why not mention that now? Did you forget? Because the only argument you made was that it was a different judge in a different state and that that is somehow enough to justify indefinite detention. Your vagueness there is sus. Why not include the crux of your argument if that’s what it actually is.
I dont constantly repeat myself. You should try it. Makes it so much more enjoyable for the liatener.
Right, so do you think should remain in jail? Do you think he should remain in jail because he told the judge he would try to kill this chomo again? Or do you think the judge kept him without bail because he said he would try to kill the chomo again?
That wasnt an argument.
Where did i say anything aboutjustification or indefinite detention. Tou are literally making up bullshit.
I already did but you ignored it. Let me sum it up like this.
Me: My friend shot a guy brealing in his houae in los angeles last year. I shot shot a guy in a fight at an atlanta strip club last week. He got bail but i didnt. He ended up getting no jail time and a fine but my lawyer says i may do prison time.How come il not getting the same treatment he did?
You: It must be racist.
You explained away the differing handlings of the two cases by suggesting it was a different judge in a different state. You would be better off to say nothing. Or better yet, tell me why should Cain be remanded to a cell while others are let free or given the opportunity to be released on bail for doing worse?
So what are you saying? That because what you did is worse than what your friend did that he should be given bail while you shouldn’t? Or that just because you’re in a different state that you have less of a right to bail than in another for an entirely different ‘crime’?
Being arrested in a different state and being held to a different account doesn’t justify or explain why Cain shouldn’t be allowed to be bailed out outright. You could certainly argue that because he said he would try again that the judge would then opt to deny him bail, but you never suggested that at all.
And that is the crux of what I’m saying.
You simply screamed ‘different circumstances’ but never explained what those circumstances were.
Imagine not going into detail in your reasoning until the person you were speaking to found out what your actual reasoning was; that being that he was held without bail because he literally told the judge he would try again.
Your logical reasoning is clown level and infantile in application. Like the hypothetical 4 year old who’s on the phone with you 30 miles away, but can’t seem to fathom why you can’t see what he’s looking at right in front of him while you’re talking to him.
You can’t seem to understand that what judges do sets precedent. It doesn’t matter what state you’re in or what the crime is. Even the most heinous criminals have been allowed bail (like the scumbag in Wisconsin).
Even criminals who have committed worse or who have committed the same crime have been given bail. Someone here made a great reference to Ellie Nelsar who shot and killed someone in front of a judge in a courtroom and was still given bail.
You could certainly suggest that Ellie may not have been a risk to anyone else since her target was already dead, but you never even suggested that Cain was not being let out because he stated he would try to kill his target again, which like I’ve said several times already, makes any point you are trying to make null and void as a result.
The offense having occurred in another state is not a justification. It either makes the ruling in Cain’s case unjust or the ruling in Wisconsin unjust. But it doesn’t make it nothing and it doesn’t make it something that you can just shrug your shoulders at.