Violent criminals getting out on bond is ridiculous.

Recommended Videos

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
Long story short, a few animals (with long criminal histories) did a home invasion robbery on a home where a brother, sister, and a friend lived. The police later found and arrested them. But then, some fucking how, these violent career criminals get to pay to be out on bond with "home confinement" but guess what? Turns out criminals don't follow the rules. I know, big surprise. The criminals go BACK to that same house a day before the vitims were to testify against them and dragged them out of their beds, lined them up side by side, and shot them each in the head execution style then went back home. Miraculously, the brother and sister survived the shots and played dead until the killers left and went next door for help.


It's shameful and disgusting that violent criminals with a long history of lawlessness (and used a gun in a home invasion) can pay money and go live comfortably at home while their victims are left traumatized and afraid in their home.


Oh, also in the news a child molester suspect simply cut off his GPS tracker and fled. Because, apparentlyit makes sense that someone like that shouldn't be in jail until his trial if he can pay money. And the tracking company didn't bother to call the police for hours.


What the fuck is wrong with people?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204985/Alex-Zaldivar-death-Three-friends-lined-shot-head-execution-home-day-theywere-testify-suspects-May-invasion.html

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-17/news/os-witness-killed-alex-zaldivar-20120917_1_home-invasion-pine-hills-home-shot-multiple-times

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/man-accused-of-sexually-abusing-children-missing/-/1637132/21752804/-/11ix8d8z/-/index.html

EDIT: BTW I had never seen Daily Mail before today, and as a result was unaware of their dubious reputaiton. I live in same county where all these occurred and the websites here are based on local new sites and are videos more than written articles which I didn't think people would actually watch. So I just did some Google searches and found the articles written elsewhere, checked for consistent facts and posted a few links.

Regardless, the facts are accurate and this happened as it's all over the news.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Firstly, I second not calling them animals.

Secondly, until they've had their trial, they aren't guilty of anything.

An interesting case in Australia a few years ago, where a person accused of murdering his parents wanted to use the money he'd inherit from them to get an expensive lawyer, which is wrong if he was guilty, but not if he was not. So, basically someone had to determine whether or not he was guilty before they could determine whether or not he was guilty.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
If you decide to go brutally murder people in cold blood, you're no longer worthy of being called a person. You are an animal. If you make a living by harming and robbing other people, you are an animal. I bet your tune would change if it was your children that were dragged out and shot in the head by career criminals. 19 year old Alex Zaldivar is dead because violent gun using criminals were trusted to not violate their home curfew and to not seek to harm those they know will testify against them in the previous violent home invasion.

The victims identified them as them as attackers and as the killer of their friend, and as the same who invaded their home previously. They are guilty it's just a matter of time. Beside that's not the point of this post. But that it's insane that people that are known to be violent and are a danger to society can pay some money and go live back in society. Insane.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
BoogieManFL said:
If you decide to go brutally murder people in cold blood, you're no longer worthy of being called a person. You are an animal. I bet your tune would change if it was your children that were dragged out and shot in the head by career criminals.
You've missed the point.

Saying that murderers aren't animals isn't out of sympathy with murderers, to defend them. I can sympathise with calling them that, but it's a dangerous mindset to have. If someone who commits a terrible crime isn't human, they are a monster or an animal, then by that logic, anyone who isn't a monster or an animal can't commit a terrible crime.

That is, friends, family, colleagues and neighbours...they are always innocent of whatever they are accused of. This sort of thinking leads to people rallying behind the guilty, because they don't fit their idea of what guilty people are like. For that matter, a lot of criminals don't see themselves as such because they have some weird idea of what criminals are that they've constructed to not fit them and theirs. And that happens to fit various other people whether they are guilty or not.

Also, there's a problem in that the assumption becomes that the crime was inevitable, because some people are just monsters. Now, I can't say that that's never true, but for the majority of times, that's not the case. Too late to help the victims of this crime, of course, but it might lead to new policies or legislature that prevent a later one.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
thaluikhain said:
BoogieManFL said:
If you decide to go brutally murder people in cold blood, you're no longer worthy of being called a person. You are an animal. I bet your tune would change if it was your children that were dragged out and shot in the head by career criminals.
You've missed the point.

Saying that murderers aren't animals isn't out of sympathy with murderers, to defend them. I can sympathise with calling them that, but it's a dangerous mindset to have. If someone who commits a terrible crime isn't human, they are a monster or an animal, then by that logic, anyone who isn't a monster or an animal can't commit a terrible crime.

That is, friends, family, colleagues and neighbours...they are always innocent of whatever they are accused of. This sort of thinking leads to people rallying behind the guilty, because they don't fit their idea of what guilty people are like. For that matter, a lot of criminals don't see themselves as such because they have some weird idea of what criminals are that they've constructed to not fit them and theirs. And that happens to fit various other people whether they are guilty or not.

Also, there's a problem in that the assumption becomes that the crime was inevitable, because some people are just monsters. Now, I can't say that that's never true, but for the majority of times, that's not the case. Too late to help the victims of this crime, of course, but it might lead to new policies or legislature that prevent a later one.
I missed nothing. Your reasoning for not calling them animals is silly and only exists in one's mind and is not practical or plausible when you try to apply it to reality. They are people, yes. But they are the scum of society that kill without remorse, like an animal. It's not like someone is going to say oh they're just an animal they don't know any better. Like you're not going to get mad at them for killing a person like a cat would kill a mouse. Animals, monsters, sub-humans. Whatever. Garbage in human form. Pointless discussion anyway, that's not what this is about.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
BoogieManFL said:
I missed nothing. Your reasoning for not calling them animals is silly and only exists in one's mind and is not practical or plausible when applied to reality. They are people, yes. But they are the scum of society that kill without remorse, like an animal. It's not like someone is going to say oh they're just an animal they don't know any better.
Not just in my mind, this viewpoint is a big problem in our society.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Kaulen Fuhs said:
Calling them animals is pointless. It distances people from the destructive elements in out society, makes it impossible for people to see their next door neighbor as someone just as capable of inflicting horrors. These are human beings, no matter how much people want to see them as less to avoid any troubling cognitive dissonance.
thaluikhain said:
Firstly, I second not calling them animals.
To be fair, technically we are all animals, as much as we humans want to distance ourselves from the label.

Not that it justifies OP's use of the word, I just couldn't resist.

OT: Well, all I'm going to say is that I hope they get/got caught and, if it's the same people who did the home invasion, don't manage to buy their way out again. It's a tragedy, but however unlikely it might be there is always a chance it's not the same perpetrator.

I just noticed the first article is a year old, as well. Are there any updates on that particular story?
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Dear OP. both you and me are animals, no better or worse than people you talk about. we are differently thinking, yes.

Criminals buying out of jail is a bad idea and should not be available. the Molester with GPS though is the fault of the people who faield to report on GPS being cut. At least in my coutnry GPS automatically reprots directly to police force and this woudl be avoided. also thats one determined molester, as those braclets are hard to cut off.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
I find it odd how this devolved in to nitpicking over word usage and taxonomic nomenclature. Some peoples priorities are really screwed up. Probably the words of people who haven't been the victim or closely know a victim of a violent crime. If someone you care for were to get brutally murdered, I'd bet you wouldn't jibber on and nitpick word usage.

The victims held hands and were exchanging loving goodbyes as these ANIMALS kicked their hands apart before shooting them each in the head after again robbing them.

A drunken criminal killed my best friend's grandmother on the way home from church, and nearly killed my best friend. A burglar ran over my brother with a car after stealing the radio out of his car. I also have some friends who had their house robbed a few months ago. I don't care how much anyone likes my labeling them as animals. You're a monster if your way of living is based upon inflicting pain and misery upon others. It is as simple as that. You're not the same as other people. Other people wouldn't dream of doing that to someone else. Therefore, animalistic monster devoid of the inherent compassion and empathy that most humans have, not to mention self respect.


Those particular articles are old, but it is still on the news as of today. Somehow, I don't know the specifics, some more bullshit jury fact witholding nonsense is going on and they may not hear written testimony by the kid they murdered about the previous home invasion. As if it never happened. The whole system is really screwed up.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
19,347
4,013
118
BoogieManFL said:
If you decide to go brutally murder people in cold blood, you're no longer worthy of being called a person. You are an animal. If you make a living by harming and robbing other people, you are an animal. I bet your tune would change if it was your children that were dragged out and shot in the head by career criminals. 19 year old Alex Zaldivar is dead because violent gun using criminals were trusted to not violate their home curfew and to not seek to harm those they know will testify against them in the previous violent home invasion.

The victims identified them as them as attackers and as the killer of their friend, and as the same who invaded their home previously. They are guilty it's just a matter of time. Beside that's not the point of this post. But that it's insane that people that are known to be violent and are a danger to society can pay some money and go live back in society. Insane.
Calling them animals is an act of denial of human evil. Animals aren't capable of evil, we are.
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
First thing I noticed is how the dailymail's URL seems to contain as many shocking words as they could fit in.

Also, what about people? If anything, this is a failure of US courts, which isn't much news in some areas.
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
BoogieManFL said:
Because, apparently it makes sense that someone like that shouldn't be in jail until his trial if he can pay money.
Yes it makes sense. Innocent until proven guilty remember? You even used the word suspect instead of perpetrator.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
BoogieManFL said:
If you decide to go brutally murder people in cold blood, you're no longer worthy of being called a person. You are an animal. If you make a living by harming and robbing other people, you are an animal. I bet your tune would change if it was your children that were dragged out and shot in the head by career criminals.
I think this is more than a matter of terminology and actually does have some unfortunate effects on society. It's important to remember that, similar to the way that people tend to want to shift blame from themselves to other people or even inanimate objects, when they see someone do something horrific, they don't want to think that they're capable of the same thing. As comfortable as that would be, the Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments prove that the vast majority of people are absolutely capable of committing atrocities. In order to defend against this tendency, it is important to remember that.

I think that calling people monsters or animals is a way of hiding from this reality. If you believe there's something fundamental that separates you from them, that somehow makes you incapable of doing something just as bad, then I think you are making yourself vulnerable to the same kind of manipulation that caused the subjects of the experiments--ordinary people, mind you--to be okay with committing abuse, torture, and manslaughter. I think the devil and equivalent mythological entities have often been used the same way.

I know it doesn't seem fun to think that you and they are just as human as the other, but mature and healthy methods of thinking about and dealing with the world are not always fun. That's why they're mature; they have to be learned, despite our first impulse being to reject them so that we can perceive ourselves in a better light.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,170
143
68
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
Putting aside the word debate for a moment, I don't see any problem with people accused of crimes being allowed out on bond most of the time, it seems ridiculous to me to effectively punish people by holding them in jail before they have been convicted of any crimes. Cases can take months to come to trial and so people should only be held in custody when there is very strong reason to suspect they pose a risk to the public. The cases linked in the OP are unfortunate but couldn't have been foreseen, locking up everyone accused of those crimes pre-emptively would be the only possible solution and would be complete overkill.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
This isn't some philosophical debate people, stop steering it off topic. It's about the disgusting failings of the legal system.

The molester had multiple people speak out against him, and the murderers were positively identified by the victims. Both after the initial home invasion and after the execution. Yet, people who are known to be violent, have over 17 criminal offenses can pay money to stay out of jail is just freaking stupid beyond all belief.

And yes people are all capable of doing terrible things, but for the majority of people it would take horrible situations that are likely to never occur.

And the US is far from the only country with poorly designed bail out options. It's shameful that money is potentially worth lives and other harm from known dangers to society.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
JoJo said:
Putting aside the word debate for a moment, I don't see any problem with people accused of crimes being allowed out on bond most of the time, it seems ridiculous to me to effectively punish people by holding them in jail before they have been convicted of any crimes. Cases can take months to come to trial and so people should only be held in custody when there is very strong reason to suspect they pose a risk to the public. The cases linked in the OP are unfortunate but couldn't have been foreseen, locking up everyone accused of those crimes pre-emptively would be the only possible solution and would be complete overkill.

I can see people accused of lesser, non violent crimes being allowed bail. But when the people seeking bail are accused of a violent crimes, or has an extensive criminal background it's just stupid. Especially those with multiple eye witnesses speaking out against them.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
BoogieManFL said:
I find it odd how this devolved in to nitpicking over word usage and taxonomic nomenclature. Some peoples priorities are really screwed up.
It's possible that this is because you're not realizing what a problem it is. It's a more pervasive problem than the isolated case of the story you linked to.

BoogieManFL said:
If someone you care for were to get brutally murdered, I'd bet you wouldn't jibber on and nitpick word usage.
Maybe so, but the reason for that is that we would be experiencing grief and anger, which are well-known to impair judgment. Your appeals of "If you had just..." or "Maybe you'd feel differently if..." all depend on having us in a state where our judgment has been compromised by these emotions.

In fact, I suspect from your language that most of your motivation for posting this thread and ignoring what we've said so far is because you imagine the same thing happening to you, and you are afraid of that. While I can sympathize (believe me, I've lost quite a few years of my life to fearing things that might happen to me), I have to say that this is no state in which to make judgements, and won't really do you any favors either. I wish I knew how to assure you that I'm saying this in the kindest possible terms, but I don't, so I'm just going to go with this: I think that you should calm down and consider what's being said by myself and others here.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
McMullen said:
BoogieManFL said:
I find it odd how this devolved in to nitpicking over word usage and taxonomic nomenclature. Some peoples priorities are really screwed up.
It's possible that this is because you're not realizing what a problem it is. It's a more pervasive problem than the isolated case of the story you linked to.

BoogieManFL said:
If someone you care for were to get brutally murdered, I'd bet you wouldn't jibber on and nitpick word usage.
Maybe so, but the reason for that is that we would be experiencing grief and anger, which are well-known to impair judgment. Your appeals of "If you had just..." or "Maybe you'd feel differently if..." all depend on having us in a state where our judgment has been compromised by these emotions.

In fact, I suspect from your language that most of your motivation for posting this thread and ignoring what we've said so far is because you imagine the same thing happening to you, and you are afraid of that. While I can sympathize (believe me, I've lost quite a few years of my life to fearing things that might happen to me), I have to say that this is no state in which to make judgements, and won't really do you any favors either. I wish I knew how to assure you that I'm saying this in the kindest possible terms, but I don't, so I'm just going to go with this: I think that you should calm down and consider what's being said by myself and others here.
Again, off topic. This isn't a philosophical debate and you people keep forcing it down that road. It's about the failings of the justice system and how I think the bonding out system is seriously flawed.

It's not about fear of these things happening to me. It that they happen to anyone and it could have been avoided by having judges and a legal system that doesn't let violent criminals pay money to freely rejoin public, when it's already known from years of behavior that they are dangerous.

If anything, it's born of disgust at how stupid other people can be. Just about anyone can get a job at McDonalds or some other labor based low education job. Welfare is easy to get on. How someone can decide killing other people and stealing from others is the way they want to live there lives is bad enough without those in charge of protecting people failing them time and time again.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
BoogieManFL said:
This isn't a philosophical debate
I agree. There are many, myself included, who believe this contributes to, just to name one example, the number of school shootings we have. We don't view it as philosophical; we view it as a highly relevant social and psychological issue that drives current events.

As for whether it's on-topic, well, isn't that where a large part of the discussion value is? It's pretty clear that the shootings should not have been allowed to occur. I already don't like the fact that people can attempt murder and then get out after a few years and try again, or actually succeed in their crimes and have short enough sentences to indulge in whatever grudges they may have against witnesses or those who testified against them. I agree that bail or bonds should not be allowed for violent criminals; I have a distant relative in jail for murder, and was gratified to hear that his bail was set quite a bit higher than the family can manage. So yeah, I agree with you on all that, and I don't see much room for disagreement, except for the obligatory criticism of the Daily Mail as a source.

Really, the only thing that seems worth discussing here was what we've been trying to talk about.