Jump to content

Safe-T Act Ruled Unconstitutional


sirflyguy

Recommended Posts

On 1/2/2023 at 10:37 AM, soundguy said:

 

That's the gloom and doom "purge"  version of it. In practice, it isn't gonna work that way... not everyone will be released while awaiting trial.

 

 

 

Edited to add a link and text from September 14, 2022:

BLOCK CLUB
 

 

 

The "According to WGN" link:

 

The graphic from WCFN News, referenced above and at the WGN link.

The information contained within the graphic below is false.

 

MicrosoftTeams-image-44.jpg

 

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

Now sow where your opinions, or those of whom you link are actually backed up in the actual act.  Surprisingly missing in all those links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     
  https://www.illinoispolicy.org/everything-illinoisans-need-to-know-about-the-safe-t-act/
   
 
Quote

The omnibus criminal justice reform bill became highly politicized in the November elections, mixing fact and fiction. There are problems with the bill, but state lawmakers can fix them before the SAFE-T Act takes effect in January.

Introduction

The SAFE-T Act has been the source of plenty of controversy during the 2022 election cycle, becoming a favorite campaign issue for those skeptical of criminal justice reform broadly and no-cash bail in particular. Criminal justice reform advocates pushed back, labeling attacks on the bill as cynical fearmongering.

So who is right? While some states have moved towards eliminating cash bail, Illinois will be the first state to totally eliminate it statewide. The SAFE-T Act is a flawed piece of legislation that was rushed through the Illinois General Assembly without proper debate. As a result, the language is confusing and sometimes contradictory. Those issues should be fixed before the bill takes effect in January. 

The omnibus bill made sweeping changes to how criminal justice operates in Illinois, aside from it all but eliminating cash bail. The law revises police use of force standards and procedures, reforms complaints and misconduct proceedings for police officers, amends the police officer certification and decertification process, and amends both pretrial and correctional proceedings. Here is a summary of some of the changes to the law beyond cashless bail:

Police reforms

 The SAFE-T Act implements several reforms to how policing is done in the state and how police officers are held accountable for misconduct. The law:

  • Restricts the ability of police officers to negotiate residency requirements in cities of over 100,000 people
  • Gives the Illinois Attorney General additional authority to investigate civil rights violations committed by police officers
  • Allows anonymous complaints against officers and eliminates the requirement to sign a sworn affidavit
  • Requires the retention of misconduct records and requires increased reporting of crime statistics and use-of-force information by police departments
  • Adds several restrictions to what constitutes a police officer’s justified use of force, including banning chokeholds, clarifications on when deadly force is justified and execution of search warrants
  • Requires all law enforcement agencies to use officer-worn body cameras by 2025.

Correctional reforms 

  • Reforms the Felony-Murder Law so the defendant or someone acting with them must have caused a death in order to be charged with murder
  • Loosens mandatory minimum sentences and supervised release terms
  • Eliminates “prison gerrymandering” by counting inmates as living in their last known place of residence for the purposes of legislative redistricting

 Pretrial detention reforms

Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of cash bail is not to detain dangerous suspects but to ensure they show up for court, even if holding people for bail will incidentally prevent defendants from committing additional crimes if they cannot afford to pay. However, pretrial detention with or without bail can have additional harms including an increased likelihood of recidivism, so that must be weighed against any immediate threat to public safety.

The elimination of cash bail and the amendments to the corresponding pretrial detention provisions is where the SAFE-T Act proves most controversial, and with good reason. Pretrial detention replaces bail to prevent the defendant from fleeing prosecution but also serves to protect the public from the threat posed by dangerous defendants.

But the SAFE-T Act sets multiple standards for pretrial detention layered one on the other. These provisions will make it difficult for prosecutors when petitioning to detain defendants that pose a threat to the public.

How does the current law work?

Arrest: Under current law, all arrested persons, regardless of offense, are to be taken without unnecessary delay to the nearest judge in the county. The SAFE-T Act changes this by limiting this procedure to solely offenses detainable under Section 110-6.1. This effectively lifts the mandate on arrests being made for purely non-detainable offenses, meaning police officers may release criminals committing Class A misdemeanors (i.e., simple battery, theft) without appearing before a judge for a bail or pretrial release hearing. Rather, these offenders would be issued a summons to appear within 21 days.

Initial appearance in court: Under the current law, the judge, among other things, determines the bail amount needed for the defendant to go free until trial.

Release on recognizance: Under the current law, the court has the right to release the defendant on their own recognizance, meaning no bail, given three conditions:

  1. If it unilaterally finds the defendant will appear as required before or after conviction.
  2. If they do not pose a danger to any person or the community.
  3. If they comply with all conditions of bond.

Monetary bail is only to be set if no other conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court, presuming they pose no danger to any person or the community and comply with all conditions of bond. The state has the right to appeal any order of release on personal recognizance.

Pretrial release/bail: The current law states all persons are bailable with certain exceptions such as capital offenses, offenses that may warrant life imprisonment, felony offenses requiring imprisonment, and certain cases in which the defendant poses a real and present threat to the physical safety of anyone.

For bailable offenses, the court must account for multiple factors when considering the bail amount, including the nature and circumstances of the charged offense, the motivation of the charged offense, potential gang affiliations of the defendant and the financial resources of the defendant. The amount of bail shall be sufficient to assure compliance but not financially oppressive, considering the status of the defendant.

How does the SAFE-T Act change things? 

Much of the confusion around the SAFE-T Act comes from the fact it imposes multiple layers of standards for pretrial detention contained in three separate subsections of the pretrial release section of existing law. That makes it complicated to determine when a crime will or will not be eligible for detention. Furthermore, it requires prosecutors to prove a defendant poses a threat to a specific, identifiable person to deny pre-trial release. New Jersey, the only other state that has come close to successfully eliminating cash bail statewide, does not place these stringent layers of standards on prosecutors:

Standard 1: Release on recognizance – Under the SAFE-T Act, detention can only be imposed if the defendant poses a specific, real and present threat to a person or has a high likelihood of willful flight.

The phrase “specific, real and present threat” is not defined, and there is no case law that interprets the meaning of the phrase, though “real and present threat” is a standard used in jurisdictions outside of Illinois. However, 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g) lists factors to be considered in making such a determination. These include the nature of the offense, the history of the defendant, the identity of threatened persons, statements attributed to the defendant, age and physical condition of the defendant and the victim or complaining witness, whether the defendant has access to a weapon, whether the defendant was on probation, and any factors deemed by the court to have reasonable bearing on the defendant’s propensity for violence.

Standard 2: Detainable offenses – A court may only deny a defendant pretrial release if the defendant fulfills one of six categories of offenses and meets the corresponding standard of threat to people or possibly community, or the defendant has committed any felony that is not a Class 4 felony – the lowest category of felony that includes drug and property crimes but also includes certain categories of aggravated assault – and has a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution.

Under this standard, criminal charges under the SAFE-T Act can be broken down into three different types: those that can be called detainable offenses under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1, those that are detainable only under the condition that the defendant is proven highly likely to willfully flee if not detained, and those that can be labeled purely non-detainable.


Standard 3: Petition to deny pretrial release the state has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that (1) there is proof or great presumption that the defendant committed one of the qualifying offenses, (2) the defendant poses a threat to a specific, identifiable person, and (3) no conditions on release can mitigate that threat or the defendant’s willful flight.

The second item appears to require disclosure of particular witnesses, victims or potential victims in order to deny pre-trial release. This is not the case in the only other state to nearly eliminate bail statewide.

New Jersey has a single standard for denying pretrial release: a defendant should be released if “the court finds that the release would reasonably assure the eligible defendant's appearance in court when required, the protection of the safety of any other person or the community, and that the eligible defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process.”

This standard does not impose the several conflicting layers of standards the SAFE-T Act imposes, nor does it place the burden on prosecutors to demonstrate the defendant poses a threat to a specific, identifiable person as opposed to a general threat to the community.

But because Illinois gutted and replaced the bill with a 764-page amendment on the same day it passed, lawmakers could not know what they were voting for. Meanwhile over half of the 102 Illinois state’s attorneys have filed lawsuits over the SAFE-T Act, alleging among other issues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Illinois should take a note from New Jersey, where bail reform seems to be working better than in other states that have attempted it. The standards for detaining defendants need to be clearly defined, and they must be designed to protect the general public.

Conclusion 

Cash bail and pretrial detention together impose an often unfair burden on poor defendants while allowing wealthy offenders to go free. Establishing a risk assessment system that mitigates that unfairness is a noble goal. But any such system must be clear and must balance the interests of the defendant with the risk to public safety. While criminal justice reformers have been quick to celebrate the SAFE-T Act, the law was rushed through the legislative process. Some of the most important provisions when eliminating cash bail – those regarding pre-trial detention – have placed several confusing standards for prosecutors to meet to protect public safety.

Perhaps more importantly, these provisions require that the prosecution identify the threat posed to a specific identifiable person or persons, rather than to the general public, for a defendant to be denied pretrial release. This standard is higher than that of New Jersey, the only other state to come close to eliminating cash bail without having to roll back its reforms. Illinois needs to look to New Jersey’s example and clean up the flaws in the SAFE-T Act before it takes effect in January.

 

   
   
   
  saft.jpg.47425b56dda3486d6b64059f0dd35589.jpg
   
   
   
   
   
 
Edited by cybermgk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 9:18 AM, soundguy said:

...

 

On 1/3/2023 at 12:18 AM, Euler said:

As a separate issue, Class B and lower misdemeanors are no longer arrestable.

 

Link to info about class B misdemeanors:

 

This article was published May 25, 2021. Before the SAFE-T Act. While I don't know what exactly has changed with the SAF-T Act, it seems like not very much. If someone can post exactly what has changed, that would be good.

 

Quote

To my knowledge, there are no Class B misdemeanor offenses on the books in Illinois that require the judge to sentence the defendant to jail. Instead, the court can sentence a person who is found guilty of a Class B misdemeanor to probation and community service, instead of incarceration.

 

...

 

I believe you're conflating arrest, pre-trial detention, and incarceration. Your link discusses incarceration. Whether a Class B (or lower) misdemeanor can be punished by incarceration is irrelevant (or should be) to arrest. Arrest is about whether a cop can detain a criminal or stop a criminal currently committing a crime from continuing the crime.

 

The example discussed previously was trespass. If someone is committing Class B trespass, all the cop can do under SAFE-T is issue a ticket and ask them to stop trespassing. Refusing to leave when asked by a cop does not elevate the trespass to a Class A misdemeanor. An infinite number of trespass tickets does not elevate the trespass to a Class A misdemeanor.

 

It's certainly possible that a creative cop can invent a pretextual Class A misdemeanor to arrest a criminal, but why do we want to create situations where cops need (essentially) to violate the rule of law to enforce the rule of law? It only invites corruption and abuse. Alternatively, do we want to create situations where only private individuals (probably victims) can engage (thus must engage) with criminals to stop crimes? Again, it only invites the worst outcomes. Maybe we should just elevate all crimes to be at least Class A misdemeanors. Better yet, let's make every crime a felony just to show we're really serious about crime, then let the selective enforcement begin. Yet again, we have a solution that is worse than the original problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 5:10 PM, Euler said:

 

I believe you're conflating arrest, pre-trial detention, and incarceration. Your link discusses incarceration. Whether a Class B (or lower) misdemeanor can be punished by incarceration is irrelevant (or should be) to arrest. Arrest is about whether a cop can detain a criminal or stop a criminal currently committing a crime from continuing the crime.

 

The example discussed previously was trespass. If someone is committing Class B trespass, all the cop can do under SAFE-T is issue a ticket and ask them to stop trespassing. Refusing to leave when asked by a cop does not elevate the trespass to a Class A misdemeanor. An infinite number of trespass tickets does not elevate the trespass to a Class A misdemeanor.

 

It's certainly possible that a creative cop can invent a pretextual Class A misdemeanor to arrest a criminal, but why do we want to create situations where cops need (essentially) to violate the rule of law to enforce the rule of law? It only invites corruption and abuse. Alternatively, do we want to create situations where only private individuals (probably victims) can engage (thus must engage) with criminals to stop crimes? Again, it only invites the worst outcomes. Maybe we should just elevate all crimes to be at least Class A misdemeanors. Better yet, let's make every crime a felony just to show we're really serious about crime, then let the selective enforcement begin. Yet again, we have a solution that is worse than the original problem.

All this poop is sickening me.  Let me ask the single pertinent question regarding trespassing:  what was the problem with trespassing being a Class A misdemeanor that this provision was enacted to "fix?"  I have yet to see even an offer of an explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 6:33 PM, 2A4Cook said:

All this poop is sickening me.  Let me ask the single pertinent question regarding trespassing:  what was the problem with trespassing being a Class A misdemeanor that this provision was enacted to "fix?"  I have yet to see even an offer of an explanation.

 

Trespassing wasn't lowered to Class B by SAFE-T. It's been Class B for a while. All Class B and Class C misdemeanors are now unarrestable offenses. The idea is to keep people out of jail, because putting good people in jail, especially for small stuff, can still be harmful. One way to keep them out is never to put them in.

 

Okay. What about the people who aren't "good?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 5:08 PM, Euler said:

 

Trespassing wasn't lowered to Class B by SAFE-T. It's been Class B for a while. All Class B and Class C misdemeanors are now unarrestable offenses.

 

OK, so someone has a psychopath on their property and the crazed nutjob doesn't want to go away.   That someone calls the police to get rid of the psychopath.

 

Cops write a ticket and that's it.       They won't arrest the creep and get him off the property.

 

Now we have a psychopath on the property with a ticket.

 

How does that make things better?

It doesn't.

 

But if one draws a gun and tells the creep to get lost,  THEN the cops will arrest YOU for trying to defend your property.

So, this SAFE-T Act has two aims.

 

1) To force people into violent confrontations with psychopaths (i.e. other democrats) and

2) to eliminate private property - which is an aim of communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 8:12 PM, BobPistol said:

 

OK, so someone has a psychopath on their property and the crazed nutjob doesn't want to go away.   That someone calls the police to get rid of the psychopath.

 

Cops write a ticket and that's it.       They won't arrest the creep and get him off the property.

 

Now we have a psychopath on the property with a ticket.

 

How does that make things better?

It doesn't.

 

But if one draws a gun and tells the creep to get lost,  THEN the cops will arrest YOU for trying to defend your property.

So, this SAFE-T Act has two aims.

 

1) To force people into violent confrontations with psychopaths (i.e. other democrats) and

2) to eliminate private property - which is an aim of communism.

Well said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 6:08 PM, Euler said:

 

Trespassing wasn't lowered to Class B by SAFE-T. It's been Class B for a while. All Class B and Class C misdemeanors are now unarrestable offenses. The idea is to keep people out of jail, because putting good people in jail, especially for small stuff, can still be harmful. One way to keep them out is never to put them in.

 

Okay. What about the people who aren't "good?"


So, I’m confused…

 

SAFE-T Act

One of the most discussed and debated laws to change in 2023 is the SAFE-T Act, specifically the provision to end cash bail, which advocates of the bill said keeps the poor in jail, even on minor offenses due to an inability to make bail while those with money can pay to be released from jail, even with more serious charges.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed amendments to the bill earlier this month, expanding the list of detainable offenses, including some non-violent offenses. Several controversial elements of the bill were clarified, including that police do have the ability to arrest someone for trespassing and judges can issue warrants when someone misses court. 
 

 

Cheers,

Tim

Edited by soundguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 10:01 PM, soundguy said:

So, I’m confused…

...

Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed amendments to the bill earlier this month, expanding the list of detainable offenses, including some non-violent offenses. Several controversial elements of the bill were clarified, including that police do have the ability to arrest someone for trespassing and judges can issue warrants when someone misses court.

...

 

The act as originally passed. On page 326 of a 764 page bill ...

Public Act 101-652 said:

725 ILCS 5/109-1. Person arrested; release from law enforcement custody and court appearance; geographical constraints prevent in-person appearances.

...

(a-1) Law enforcement shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest, upon proper identification, for those accused of traffic and Class B and C criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person, or who have no obvious medical or mental health issues that pose a risk to their own safety. Those released on citation shall be scheduled into court within 21 days.

...

 

... and then ILGA passes on December 1, 2022, and the governor signs on December 6, 2022, an amendment that goes into effect January 1, 2023. On page 146 of a 316 page bill ...

Public Act 102-1104 said:

725 ILCS 5/109-1. Person arrested; release from law enforcement custody and court appearance; geographical constraints prevent in-person appearances.

...

(a-1) Law enforcement shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest, upon proper identification, for those accused of any offense that is not a felony or Class A misdemeanor unless (i) a law enforcement officer reasonably believes the accused poses a threat to the community or any person, (ii) a custodial arrest is necessary because the criminal activity persists after the issuance of a citation, or (iii) the accused has an obvious medical or mental health issue that poses a risk to the accused's own safety. Nothing in this Section requires arrest in the case of Class A misdemeanor and felony offenses, or otherwise limits existing law enforcement discretion to decline to effect a custodial arrest.

...

 

The senate democrat pdf document that was posted elsewhere does list the bill. Check out the fanfare.

Illinois Senate Democrats said:
...  
HB 00836 ...
HB 01095 Modifications to the Pretrial Fairness Act.
HB 01321 ...
...  

 

Don't oversell it, baby.

 

At least it appears someone partially woke up, but it took a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

CHICAGO — A Venezuelan migrant who allegedly had a stolen firearm in a vehicle during a traffic stop in downtown Chicago failed to appear for his first court date this week, records show.

Judge Robert Kuzas released Jose Aponte Garcia on September 28, the day after police arrested the 24-year-old near Millennium Park, and told him to return for a hearing on Wednesday, according to court clerk files. But Garcia didn’t show up, so Kuzas put out a warrant for his arrest.

The felony weapons charge stems from a traffic stop in the 200 block of North Lower Columbus Drive around 12:50 p.m. on September 27.

I'm feeling safer everyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

CHICAGO — A Cook County judge rejected prosecutors’ requests to detain a trucker accused of shooting up another vehicle during a road rage incident on a suburban Chicago expressway this week.

Illinois State Police troopers responded to calls of shots fired on northbound Interstate 55 near 1st Avenue in southwest suburban Summit around 1:38 p.m. on Tuesday, the agency said on Facebook.

They located a driver who told them that a trucker shot at him during a road rage incident, according to state police. While the man was not injured, bullets did strike his vehicle.

The truck driver, identified by ISP as 39-year-old Jose Gonzalez of Chicago, was arrested at the scene. He is charged with aggravated discharge of a firearm.

During a detention hearing on Thursday, prosecutors asked Judge Linzey Jones to detain Gonzalez before trial as both a safety threat and a flight risk, according to clerk of court records.

“Defendant pointed a firearm at victim and shot at the victim and struck victim’s vehicle during a road rage incident,” an assistant state’s attorney wrote in a pretrial detention petition. “Weapon was recovered and gunshot is visible on victim’s vehicle.”

Jones rejected both requests, setting Gonzalez free with standard instructions to stay in the state, show up in court, and refrain from contacting the alleged victim.

ISP did not name Jones or reveal that prosecutors asked him to detain Gonzalez. Instead, the agency noted in its Facebook post that “Gonzalez was released pursuant to the provisions in the Pretrial Fairness Act.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2023 at 10:56 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

CHICAGO — A Cook County judge rejected prosecutors’ requests to detain a trucker accused of shooting up another vehicle during a road rage incident on a suburban Chicago expressway this week.

Illinois State Police troopers responded to calls of shots fired on northbound Interstate 55 near 1st Avenue in southwest suburban Summit around 1:38 p.m. on Tuesday, the agency said on Facebook.

They located a driver who told them that a trucker shot at him during a road rage incident, according to state police. While the man was not injured, bullets did strike his vehicle.

The truck driver, identified by ISP as 39-year-old Jose Gonzalez of Chicago, was arrested at the scene. He is charged with aggravated discharge of a firearm.

During a detention hearing on Thursday, prosecutors asked Judge Linzey Jones to detain Gonzalez before trial as both a safety threat and a flight risk, according to clerk of court records.

“Defendant pointed a firearm at victim and shot at the victim and struck victim’s vehicle during a road rage incident,” an assistant state’s attorney wrote in a pretrial detention petition. “Weapon was recovered and gunshot is visible on victim’s vehicle.”

Jones rejected both requests, setting Gonzalez free with standard instructions to stay in the state, show up in court, and refrain from contacting the alleged victim.

ISP did not name Jones or reveal that prosecutors asked him to detain Gonzalez. Instead, the agency noted in its Facebook post that “Gonzalez was released pursuant to the provisions in the Pretrial Fairness Act.”

You know who REALLY needs these articles to read... MDA and the politicians to supported this act, PICA, and the ANTI's. 
The GUV should get these as well and be called out to speak to it, and the politicians supporting it as well, lets hear what they have to say about it.

 

Keep the articles coming, and links to sources as well!

 

Edited by mab22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2023 at 2:10 PM, Jeffrey said:

Those groups would only support it. 

 

They'd say "if he didn't have a gun this never would have happened". It kinda makes me wonder what would happen if someone dropped off a crate full of firearms at an MDA meeting. Would only the most alpha chad super mom demanding action emerge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On October 23, 2023 at 03:18 PM, davel501 said:
... It kinda makes me wonder what would happen if someone dropped off a crate full of firearms at an MDA meeting. Would only the most alpha chad super mom demanding action emerge?

They usually assert that guns turn anger into murder. (Don't forget the ammo.) The mom with most severe anger issues should be the one victorious, until she's shot in turn by police.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

CWB Chicago

Judge rejects detention request for man accused of ‘brutal’ robbery at CTA bus stop

November 4, 2023 11:39 AM CWBChicago

 

CHICAGO — An 18-year-old Chicago man who joined two accomplices to beat a 59-year-old woman in the face and take her fanny pack at a CTA bus stop will be released on an ankle monitor after a Cook County judge rejected a prosecution request to have him detained as a safety threat.

 

Prosecutors called the 3-on-1 attack “brutal” in their detention petition, saying the assault was caught on camera and was witnessed by a motorist who followed Terell Creighton until Chicago police took him into custody.

 

The victim was waiting for her bus at Pulaski and Division when Creighton and two men who remain at large walked up to her shortly before noon Wednesday, officials said. Creighton demanded the woman’s fanny pack, which contained about $30, but she refused to cooperate, according to prosecutors.

 

 

At that point, the three men pulled the woman’s winter cap over her head and punched her in the face with their fists “multiple times,” according to the allegations. Creighton ripped the woman’s fanny pack away and fled the scene.

 

A driver witnessed the attack and called 911 while following Creighton in their car until cops took him into custody in the 1300 block of North Kostner, prosecutors said. Investigators also determined that a Chicago police surveillance camera recorded the robbery.

 

 

Creighton, who turned 18 on October 15, was charged as a juvenile last summer with criminal trespass to a vehicle and resisting or obstructing police, the state’s detention petition said.

 

After hearing the state’s allegations, Judge Ortiz rejected the detention petition, saying that the state failed to meet its burden, according to court records. Instead, she determined that public safety could be assured by putting Creighton on house arrest while he awaits trial on one count of robbery.

 

 

He is due in court again on Wednesday.

 

I'm sure he be right on time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hatchet said:

This has riled up the local town. See how the bond hearing goes. Hope it goes the way it should, but if it doesn't I'm hoping for a large amount of outrage and hopefully people will start pushing back.

 

May be an image of text

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suburban-single-mom-shot-dead-chicago-area-chase-bank?dicbo=v2-UqRAvRP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7-time felon accused of stealing ATM from West Loop restaurant is released to await trial

https://cwbchicago.com/2023/11/chicago-west-loop-restaurant-atm-burglary-suspect-released.html

 

Chicago man already released *twice* under cashless bail is now accused of armed robbery

https://cwbchicago.com/2023/11/chicago-west-loop-restaurant-atm-burglary-suspect-released.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things that worries me is that all of this "lawlessness" will end up making the anti's "wet dreams" of "blood in the streets" or "wild west" come true.

After all, when enough people realize that the cops and courts are abject failures, they will take the "law" into their own hands to put an end to these depredations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Chicago man arrested for felonies 3 times in 10 days

 

A Chicago man managed to get arrested and charged with felonies three times in just ten days this month, thanks to Illinois’ new cashless bail system.

Damien Velez, 23, is currently in Cook County jail, but court records show he is eligible for release as soon as electronic monitoring arrangements are made.

....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2023 at 7:29 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Chicago man arrested for felonies 3 times in 10 days

 

A Chicago man managed to get arrested and charged with felonies three times in just ten days this month, thanks to Illinois’ new cashless bail system.

Damien Velez, 23, is currently in Cook County jail, but court records show he is eligible for release as soon as electronic monitoring arrangements are made.

....

 

This is awesome ELECTION STUFF, guy is selling Heroin and Crack, busted 3 times in the same week/10 days and the judges keep letting him out. 
Who am I kidding, the criminals are applauded by the Democrats so they can vote for them multiple times. 
The Republicans don’t seem to have a messaging campaign to give the Chicagoans an alternative voting option. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2023 at 8:39 AM, mab22 said:

This is awesome ELECTION STUFF, guy is selling Heroin and Crack, busted 3 times in the same week/10 days and the judges keep letting him out. 
Who am I kidding, the criminals are applauded by the Democrats so they can vote for them multiple times. 
The Republicans don’t seem to have a messaging campaign to give the Chicagoans an alternative voting option. 
 

What Republicans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man with gun, $60K worth of drugs arrested
Incident occurred near contentious West Loop homeless encampment
By Jake Sheridan Chicago Tribune
Police arrested a man with a gun and an estimated $60,000 worth of drugs near a West Loop homeless encampment where safety concerns sparked political debate between the mayor and an alderman.
Officers arrested 19-year-old Tailon Dshawn Appleton at 514 W. Lake St. on Thursday afternoon after an undercover officer made a drug transaction with him, according to court records.
In Appleton’s backpack, police found what they suspect were 141 ziplock bags of heroin, 230 knotted crack cocaine baggies, $1,188 in cash, one bottle of liquid codeine and one loaded Glock 19 handgun, according to an arrest report.
Cook County prosecutors charged Appleton with five felonies for drug and gun possession during a court appearance Friday.
While prosecutors requested he be detained, Judge Maryam Ahmad determined he should be released on electronic monitoring with a curfew, court records show. His next court appearance is scheduled for Dec. 19.

The Lake Street address of Appleton’s arrest is one of several locations under downtown viaducts at which tents where people sleep have lined sidewalks.
When Ald. Bill Conway, 34th, sought the support of Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration to remove tents in the area in early October, top Johnson adviser Jason Lee tied an offer to help to Conway’s votes on two pillars of the mayor’s progressive agenda, Conway told the Tribune in mid-November.

---------------------

article has been truncated by moderator.
reason: reproducing the entire article is a violation of fair use and exposes Illinois Carry to liability.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...