Pennsylvania Judge Hits Lancaster Rioters With $1 Million Bails

There has been a controversy over the refusal of some in the media to use the word “rioters,” but one judge clearly does not see anything nuanced in the actions of those arrested rioting in Lancaster, Pennsylvania last week. Magisterial District Judge Bruce A. Roth set bail for nine of the defendants at $1 million each.  I personally view that bail as excessive under controlling case law.

Ricardo Munoz, 27, had a history of violence and mental illness, including past knife attacks. He was shot when he charged officers with a knife.  Rioting later broke out in Lancaster.

WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO: Lancaster police fatally shoot knife-wielding man

Twelve adults were arrested – Jamal Shariff Newman, 24; Barry Jones, 30; Frank Gaston, 43; Yoshua Dwayne Montague, 23; Matthew Modderman, 31; Talia Gessner, 18; Kathryn Patterson, 20; Taylor Enterline, 20; T-Jay Fry, 28; Dylan Davis, 28; Lee Alexander Wise, 29; Jessica Marie Lopez, 32 – for crimes ranging from arson to rioting to institutional vandalism to criminal conspiracy. Montague was charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

Nine were hit with the $1 million bail.

The Eighth Amendment states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  The Court ruled in Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), the Court ruled that bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant’s appearance at trial. Chief Justice Vinson stated:

“It is not denied that bail for each petitioner has been fixed in a sum much higher than that usually imposed for offenses with like penalties and yet there has been no factual showing to justify such action in this case…Such conduct would inject into our own system of government the very principles of totalitarianism which Congress was seeking to guard against in passing the statute under which petitioners have been indicted.”

I doubt that this bail would be found reasonable for all nine defendants, if any, on appeal.  The court was clearly sending a message but bail in not an appropriate vehicle for such messages.

108 thoughts on “Pennsylvania Judge Hits Lancaster Rioters With $1 Million Bails”

  1. Ricardo Munoz chased after a cop wielding a knife. The cop retreated, but Munoz kept coming. The cop shot Munoz, who died.

    Anyone protesting, rioting, or looting in support of this violent, disturbed individual has lost their moral compass. It is my opinion that the alternative they would have preferred is the cop getting stabbed to death.

    Like the 2 cops ambushed and shot in the head in Compton, CA, the other day. Both cops were only on the job 14 months. The female cop, shot in the jaw and both arms, helped her partner to safety, applied a tourniquet, and radioed for help. He had also been shot in the head. She is being hailed as a hero, and calm under extraordinarily terrifying circumstances.

    Meanwhile, BLM “protestors” blocked the ER, shouting that they hoped both officers died. Cops had to provide 24/7 protection for the hospital because BLM was tiring to get inside to both police victims. I think this crosses the line from protestor to terrorist. They were trying to prevent these cops getting medical care, and were terrorizing all police officers with their chants that they hoped they died, and their threats.

    BLM has nothing to do with helping blacks be prosperous fellow Americans. They are pro-crime, anti-cop, racist against whites, against capitalist prosperity, pro socialism (ironic as it is a form of enslavement).

    The rioting, looting, and threats against the cops at the ER, in my mind, rise to the level of domestic terrorism. This wouldn’t be in question if the group was some sort of white supremacist organization. For some reason, since it has the name “black” in it, their behavior is either in question, or given the cover of social justice.

    I back the blue.

    These rioters, looters, and BLM racist activists do NOT represent the entirety of black culture.

    1. Karen says: “I back the blue.”

      I back justice, which isn’t to say that I’m anti-cop — because I’m not.


      1. Anonymous – I support cops in general. I also support the justice system for dealing with accusations of police misconduct.

        Terrible people can be doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, counselors, or cops. Of course it is critical to quickly identify wrongdoers in any profession and bring them to justice. But the facts show that police deadly use of force against unarmed blacks is infinitesimally rare. Most of those were resisting arrest and/or under the influence.

        All these riots, looting, burning, and activism is based upon a false premise. There is a chasm of difference between the existence of individual cops who engage in wrongdoing, and the prejudice against all cops as killers.

        I do not think BLM has anything to do with justice.

        By their fruits shall you know them.

          1. Anonymous – you know you didn’t say anything in your comment, right?

            If you don’t agree with the DOJ data, you could explain why. If you disagree with me, and think all cops are racist homicidal maniacs, you could explain why.

            Instead, you just made a personal comment about me. People do that who don’t have an argument.

              1. Dear Anon,

                I get out quite a lot and agree with Karen. As a civil rights and state/fed criminal defense lawyer, I have saved more black lives than I can count. [FWIW, if JT’s Comments section form would indeed allow me to include my website, I would so you can know I’m not trolling]. Karen is exactly right – the annual Bureau of Justice Statistics evidence the fact that blacks are – well, just more violent than every other demo. Full stop. I am not interested in your argument enough to do your work and cite all the links here. Perhaps you will heed your own dismissive advice and come back with data that challenge these observations.

                For the record, other data about black America suggests a rankly indifferent culture unresponsive to decades of efforts to do for it what it refuses to do for itself. Beyond the 600,000 American lives – 560,000 white – lost in the Civil War for AA liberty, American – again, mostly White – tax dollars have funded set asides, quotas, affirmative action, HBCU’s, hate crime laws, etc. all in the name of subsidizing a culture that is so incapable of supporting itself that it appears to be affirmatively resisting supporting itself. In return on these investments, America has gotten from black America disproportionate violent crime, disproportionate consumption of welfare, fantastically violent art, rejection of the American work ethic and unremitting denial of accountability. These are facts, not feelings, and the rights of the rest of Americans do not stop where black Americans’ feelings begin.

                I get out quite a lot. I defend black Americans weekly in criminal courts and I do it like they’re my own. This American moment, kept aloft by deniers of objective realities like yourself, is threatening to set back race relations in this country by decades. If this Marxist/Racist revolution fails, who will start a business in burned out Portland? Manhattan? Who will hire a black when there’s a legally cognizable way to avoid it? I tell you this: if it succeeds, this nation will experience violence on a level it has not seen since that same war that liberated black Americans 150 years ago. You think cops are bad? See what happens when they’re gone… Karen is right, you are wrong and your view threatens the existence of black America as we know it.

                1. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. It doesn’t mean that you’re correct.


                  “The parable of the blind men and an elephant originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant’s body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people’s limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.[1][2]”

                  As for ‘think[ing] cops are bad’? How in the world did you reach that conclusion?

                  Reading my comments to Karen, you would see this:

                  “I back justice, which isn’t to say that I’m anti-cop — because I’m not.”

                  And though a number of people post comments anonymously, I also posted the following — something you couldn’t know — but I’m repeating it now:


                  You said this:

                  “I defend black Americans weekly in criminal courts and I do it like they’re my own.”

                  If true, they’re lucky to have you, but I have to wonder: How do you deal with your obvious disdain, when working with them?

                  1. Dear Anon,

                    Your commitment to ideology is persistent if not admirable. Here, your elephant allegory appears to be offered to suggest no one (except perhaps yourself and others who contend that blacks are at the unremitting end of unfairness, whether in policing or otherwise) has a complete grasp on this question of black crime and its policing. This argument is common today, this post-modern rejection of objective truth.

                    It’s a Foucault-like stilt that in the end can only consign decision-making to those Ayn Rand called the Attillas and Witch Doctors: where reason and objectivity are spurned, those who peddle brute strength or mystery rule. I won’t join those people. I’m with the observable facts people.

                    So despite your rejection of the conclusions reasonably drawn from the facts and data I cited earlier – I gather you declined my invitation to remove your own blindfold and pull the data on crime by demographics yourself – there is ample evidence of the description of black America and its problems I offered earlier. I’m not blindfolded. I see the data. I see the administration of criminal justice daily. And – not for nothing – I sue bad cops when I find them.

                    F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.” A criminal defense lawyer needn’t support crime to believe in the Comstituion or the right of every citizen to its protections. Statisticians call it IID, the notion that any individual drawn from a sample can rest anywhere on the population’s distribution: any and every defendant enjoys the right of presumed innocence regardless of her demographic. It’s really not challenging to do this, Anon.

                    Each of us is indeed entitled to his own opinion, as you so magnanimously observe. But none of us is entitled to his own facts. Black America suffers from a violent culture and this results in disproportionate police encounters. If the annual BOJ data weren’t adequate to inform your opinion on this issue then perhaps you’re better suited to form your opinion on, say, black popular music lyrics. Give that a whirl. The rest of America has suffered for decades from this black culture. This American moment may be that moment after which the rest of America has finally collected enough evidence to say – enough.

                2. Wherever that African nut case Mugabe ruled: they killed and expelled all the whites farm owners who fed the blacks, who now starve. Now they apparently consider welcoming the whites back to their former farms.

                  There’s an attractive middle aged middle class black woman in Canada who is either from African and/or has many contacts there. In Africa black citizens cry out for a new white colonialism to save them from death, abuse and torture by their black overlords.

                  Which of the dumb arse progressives here is stupid enough to claim that African blacks were not among the first to round up and sell their black family and friends to both white and black slave traders? Who here denies that whites have been enslaved?

                  To JT and especially to white progressives: per Kaiser Medical Assoc. 40% of US abortions are by black mothers. Is that ratio the “right” ratio, or would it be better if that ratio was smaller or higher? How the hell is that NOT genocide?

                3. “[FWIW, if JT’s Comments section form would indeed allow me to include my website, I would so you can know I’m not trolling]”

                  You can post your the web address on this blog. You have to limit the number of addresses to 2 in each comment.

                4. It is good to hear from one who protects the rights of minorities based on equality under the law and at the same time recognizes the statistical details of that minority that makes discussion so difficult. It appears that those on the left believe that the rights of that group can only be protected by taking the rights away from another group. Thank you for all your comments.

    2. I don’t know chite about law enforcement, and I only want that shooter boiled in low density acid, dropped in slowly, not giving him a break.

      But like Sleepy Joe Biden say, “C’MON man!” If you’re two LEOs parked in a car, do you park parallel with a building like that, or back in to the building, with a firm agreement that each LEO constantly (I mean constantly unless you just can’t) scans a 90 degree area from straight ahead to down the building line through your partner’s window. If/when LEO1 sees Suspect1 approaching, LEO1 immediately orders LEO2 to lower their head below the vehicle belt line, then LEO1 aims his weapon at Susp1, orders him to stop, and if he keeps going, start shooting at first view of the weapon. (All this time, LEO2 keeps scanning their own 90 degree area searching for Susp2, if LEO2 can do this while keeping their body safe and clear of LEO1’s shots. LEO2 just let’s LEO1 do his job, while still searching for other threats. Hard to do mentally, esp. with bullets flying, but can be done with proper training, and is the only safe practice IMO in that situation.)

      Damn, parking like they were parked and ignoring that guy was semi-suicide.

      1. Correction: LEO1 on L side of vehicle scans 90 degrees from center to R while LEO2 on the R scans the L quarter. LEO1 views a potential target on the L and says “transfer Target1 to you: right 70 degrees, black male age unknown, 6 ft, black hoodie,” LEO2 locates Target1 and replies, “Target1 accepted.” Then LEO1 starts quickly and aggressively scanning the entire 180 degree area looking for subsequent targets, knowing that LEO2 has accepted full and sole responsibility for Target1. Even if bullets fly LEO1 continues his search, his or her life being in the hands of LEO2 till LEO2 neutralizes Target1 if needs be.

        Nothing in the world would be as likely to result in two dead LEOs as a calculated, well prepared ambush with 2 perps. The moment Target1 has the full attention of both cops, Target2 easily takes both LEOs down. If the LEO’s are prepared as per above, their odds increase dramatically.

        I could be wrong but that seems like the best safest practice, with one LEO always scanning for a subsequent threat while the other LEO is responsible for the current known threat first viewed on LEO2s side of the vehicle. If LEO2 verbalizes “Target2” then of course LEO1 accepts sole responsibility for Target2 till that threat is neutralized. After threats are neutralized, LEOs agree which LEO performs cursory medical checks on the Targets while the other LEO remains in scan/search mode till the cavalry arrive.

        Thanks to the Dems, it’s a dam war zone for LEOs now, and if they aren’t prepared for it they need to quit and start a new career. If LEO’s don’t target practice with blanks being shot in their general direction, they should do so.

        A German Shepard will always run full speed 200 feet down a fence line or through the house to intercept a perceived threat1, leaving the owner alone to face threat2. Conversely, a Cane Corso (Roman Guard dog) is always found within a 20′ circle around its owner, happily waiting for the threat to enter the circle and engage. One or more of each breed is a great option if you can afford. And no, I don’t know if those 2 breeds get along.

  2. Indeed, and there are others who are hesitant to say “criminally liable” and “manslaughter suspect” when discussing the President’s “response” to the Covid virus. I think JT fits that category though in all fairness, he never discusses that minor issue.

    1. BTB:

      One of my biggest issues is with the CDC. Responding to a pandemic was not only supposed to be in their wheelhouse; it’s their raison d’existence. Yet the CDC released a field assay that flagged distilled water as positive for Covid-19. It could not create a high throughput, fast turnaround field assay.

      Trump closed the border to travel to China and Europe, and was called a Xenophobe. While I disagree with his guns ho attitude towards reopening, the fact remains that economies globally have been destroyed by the pandemic. All world leaders who shut down commerce within their countries have faced fierce, desperate, pleading pressure for reopening. I have asthma, and am as careful as possible. Yet as a business owner myself, I am very sympathetic towards other businesses desperate to go to work.

      In my personal experience, the biggest threat to containing the pandemic is the action of individuals. I have seen, with my own eyes, people I know to be Democrat, Republican, Independent, young, AND old, all refuse to abide by the recommendations on how to avoid contagion. I have seen all of these congregate, party, and otherwise flout social distancing. It is unbelievably frustrating. Some of my own friends and relatives, across the political spectrum, have flouted every recommendation. They just think it won’t affect them if they get it, and they truly believe that the vulnerable are safe if they wear a mask. One friend’s friend got quite ill, and her son was hospitalized. She was quite shocked. Sure, she flew on a plane, and stayed in multiple hotels. But they wore a mask and the rooms were clean. She really did not understand the risk.

      I don’t think the general public understands what a mask can do. They think it filters out viral particles. SARS-CoV2 is around 70 nm, while a mask has a pore size of 20,000 nm, more if the fabric is a looser weave. Viral particles wave happily as they sail right through. All a mask is able to do is help contain one’s own droplets and moisture to oneself. It’s definitely better than nothing, but no panacea.

      The public thinks a mask filters out the virus itself. They think if they wear a mask, they can crowd together safely. They think that if the vulnerable wear a mask, while the rest do not, they will be safe. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      The best way to avoid the disease is to remain 6 feet apart. Outside is far lower risk than inside.

      But. People. Will. Not. Comply. I have no idea what the president could do about that. I took issue with his describing it as like a bad flu, but I don’t think anyone could have stopped Covid from burning up the country. Not with a porous border, and a sad excuse for the CDC. I DO, however, think that a non biased task force of industry leaders, scientists, and epidemiologists, should study this pandemic, and come up with best practices and lessons learned for next time around. And there will be a next time. There are increasing cases across the world. The entire planet is learning the hard way how to deal with a global pandemic in the era of air travel. It’s not like we can keep all ships anchored off our coast until the disease runs its course onboard, like Yellow Fever.

      There are arguments to be made on what the government has the right to do, such as making contact tracing apps mandatory, as is done in some countries. But what should be universally acknowledged is everyone’s civic duty to lessen contagion. The less pervasive the virus, the more people AND businesses survive.

      People should think of limiting the spread of Covid-19 like their individual, honor bound duty, just like people felt a sense of personal duty at home, and on the front, during WWII.

      1. Yes Karen, Trump closed most travel from China in January and that was the end of his responsibilities, other than to lie so we wouldn’t all panic. I think FDR closed travel from Japan after Dec 7 1941 and let the governors take it from there. Of course just like Trump he said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” and recommended that all Americans had to do was just keep shopping.

        1. PS Karen, you must be joking when you ask what else Trump could do about people not complying with mask and social distancing recommendations. Are you f..king drunk.

        2. Remarkable the myopia of TDS. POTUS went well beyond the China ban. The military medical ships to both coasts that CA and NY governors screamed for – and then turned up unused. The ventilators en masse to the whole country that CA and NY governors screamed for – and then turned up unused. Then, of course, there’s his provision of PPE to the nation despite Obama’s neglect of the stockpile. The Left has resisted common sense throughout [let’s just ignore Cuomo and the nursing home debacle here] as might an oppositionally defiant child, while ignoring the experiences of other populations like Sweden and Africa involving so much less intervention. It’s a truly Kafkaesque moment.

    2. “response” to the Covid virus” (DNC talking point)

      “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”

      – CDC

      So approximately 10,000 deaths in the US are directly attributable to the Covid19 virus alone.

      Then you have to factor in the CDC’s criteria for counting deaths associated with Covid19, that include thousands of deaths where no testing was ever done to determine whether or not the deceased was even infected with the virus.

      You’re pissing up yet another rope, Book.

      You, Natacha, and Commit, are the poster children for this:

      “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

      – Martin Luther King Jr

      IOW’s, “Stupid is, as stupid does”.

      As to the $1 million bail. The Judge was sending a message to the well financed Antifa/BLM leaders who immediately post bail for violent sociopaths and psychopaths in order to get them back on the street ASAP.

      Meanwhile, your Party and its nominee are going to lose in November thanks to all of the purposefully orchestrated Antifa/BLM riots combined with the incredibly ignorant Defund the Police meme.

      Defunding the Police is far more frightening to law abiding American citizens of all colors, than a virus that originated in China, (not the guy sitting in the Oval Office inside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who was called a “racist” for stopping flights from China back in January while your Party was putting on a sh*t show in the House over the Ukraine).

      Most Americans are decent people. If you got out more, you would know that.

      1. Rhodes, I’ve taken apart your CDC is exaggerating deaths BS before. I’m not going to do it every other day. Suffice it to say, they rely on the reporting to them of thousands of doctors and hospitals across the country for those numbers and assessments. If there is a conspiracy, the entire medical community is in on it. Quit repeating conspiratorial BS

        Also, no one in the national Democratic Prty, including Bidenand Harris are calling for defunding the police. In fact Biden wants more federal money for COPS programs which the mid 90s crime bill he was a big part of also promoted successfully.

        If you have to lie to make your case, you’ve lost already.

  3. OK, Professor, what level of bail do YOU propose to be “reasonably likely to ensure the defendant’s appearance at trial”? I personally don’t think any amount of bail would do that for Antifa scum.

  4. The professor is clueless about context. Rand Paul in his hotel room in Washington discovered to his horror that the Antifa types who just attacked him had rooms on the same floor, paid for by ….

    The trouble with a madman is not that he is illogical, but that he is only logical.

  5. Let’s let ’em all go so they can riot again tonight. Like that arsonist in Oregon who promptly left jail after bonding out and then went out and set 6 new fires. Preventing re-offending is also a legitimate role of bail as well as protecting the community. I get the judge’s message and his loyalty should be to the “order” part as well as the “law” part.

    1. “Preventing re-offending is also a legitimate role of bail as well as protecting the community.”

      Mespo, this was my first thought though if they left the country for good I wouldn’t be unhappy unless they deserved a significant penalty. Nowhere did Professor Turley mention protecting the community. What good is it to provide bail where the criminal now takes another human life? We are seeing “terrorist” acts where the community must be protected and we have seen that released persons have killed or injured innocent people. At the present time I see good reason for the high bail if only to stop this type of “terrorist” activity. States do have rights and I wonder if this prohibition mentioned by Turley has been incorporated?

      I don’t understand the processes involved and the time it takes for a reduction of bail but in this case I wonder if all these additional factors have any effect to at least lengthen the time before release on bail.

      I wish the Professor had provided a more balanced position of the law even if he wished to dispute the alternate arguments. Instead he said, “The court was clearly sending a message but bail in not an appropriate vehicle for such messages.” What, I ask, is the appropriate vehicle to stop release of persons that are working in tandem with others when all these actions together are a known threat to people, communities and the nation.

  6. Given the circumstances, people getting released on bail for vandalism, arson, etc. and then going back to get arrested again, no bail might even be appropriate in some cases. Slapping million dollar bails on people to make a point is not appropriate. The vast majority, almost all, of the protesters are peaceable and are making points that have to be made. Racial profiling and police brutality is out of control. The facts are there. It is not for a judge to ‘make a point’. There are enough right wing extremists, on this blog, to make that point.
    Someone who torches a store or a car, no bail. Someone who loots a store after breaking and entering, no bail.
    On another note, should Trump get bail when he gets his fat #** thrown in the slammer? I think not.

    1. “The vast majority, almost all, of the protesters are peaceable and are making points that have to be made. Racial profiling and police brutality is out of control. The facts are there. ”
      Well, if you mean in your liberal imagination, then yeah the “facts” are there. Nowhere else. Oh and the vast majority of John Wilkes Booth’s evenings were filled with merriment and good cheer except for that unpleasantness on Tax Day, 1865.

    2. “Racial profiling and police brutality is out of control.”

      Are you nuts or are you lacking the facts like you were with the Canadian case on “inhumane” healthcare in Quebec Province? The case I sited was Chaoulli v Quebec. I never heard back from you Issac.

        1. That the health care system of the entire province of Quebec is so bad that it is declared unconstitutional is a pretty big cherry to pick.

        2. Issac, you can believe whatever you want but your knowledge base isn’t big enough to draw conclusions. You didn’t know about Chaoulli v Quebec, why not? That is an important case. I am not denigrating Canadian care. It is near the top in the world. From memory Concord studied cancer survival of common cancers over 5 continents. Canada did quite well in the comparisons and was up at the top of this large group. However, in this well recognized study in Lancet the US was ALWAYS higher than Canada. One country occupied #1 the most, the US. When it wasn’t #1 it was #2 (Cuba excluded as it isn’t credible). Other top countries like Canada, France, Austrailia and Japan were mostly near the top but varied somewhat and sometimes fell to a lower tier.

          You are too touchy. I have no gripe against Canandian healthcare for it is Canadian. Their system is different than ours in more than the method of payment. That other difference has good features and bad features. I have gripes against American healthcare despite how good the US looks in the CONCORD study because it could be better. You can hold whatever beliefs you wish. The only thing I know for sure is that what pulls American healthcare in the wrong direction is too much government involvement.

          Canadians and Americans are two different populations and have different needs and attitudes. It does not surprise me that two different countries might take different policy positions though it seems to surprise you. Draw your conclusions after looking at the data. This business of focusing in as if we were choosing sides of a blall team is rather crazy.


    3. .@issac…

      “Racial profiling and police brutality is out of control. ”

      At least some of those who regularly post comments to this blog have very limited experience with the realities of which you speak, in all likelihood. For the most part, they’re isolated and insulated from what’s taking place all across this country. They don’t get it, because they can’t — they simply lack the capacity to understand something to which they’ve never been exposed.

      “Someone who torches a store or a car, no bail. Someone who loots a store after breaking and entering, no bail.”


  7. It would seem the bail is excessive but then again someone may be backing them and paying them to cause mayhem in our nation so let their backers come up with bail. The good thing finally someone in a position to deal with these people see the harm they are doing to our country.

  8. Its been reported in other rioter actions across the US that there bail is being paid by outside groups. If an outside wealthy group is paying the bail, could it be argued a higher amount is required to get the chargee to appear in court. Who ever is funding the bail may care if they lose 8 millon dollars for not showing up. But then again with today’s billionaire backers, they may not care a whit and will not hire a bail bond agent to bring them to court. I wish you would have addressed this perspective.

  9. No attorney here, but as I read the headline to this piece I thought to myself, alright, somebody with some balls finally….I also had the immediate feeling that the Professor would throw cold water on it…. and he did. What the heck happens to people who have had serious damage done to personal property, the loss of peoples livelihood, degradation of police services… on and on. During this year of rioting and looting etc, it appears to me the common good and common sense had been discarded in most places. Lastly, I spent many years of my working life in Singapore, known worldwide for its strict law enforcement and laws….I never had any worries there as long as you conducted yourself within common sense boundaries and I for one miss that. Being fron OR, I also, at the time, 60 years ago, went to high school in Portland. I haven’t lived there in over 50 years, and sad to say, I’m glad I haven’t.

    1. JT, you know I love you, but, I just have to say this ….F controlling case authority and all that goes with it. This judges actions are to be lauded and his attempt to restore civility should be supported by every law abiding citizen of our great nation.

  10. Judicial discretion. The judge is clearly saying, ‘enough is enough’. The feckless and craven response to rioting and mayhem by so many in leadership of our cities requires a stern response to preclude further unrest. Congratulations to the judge…he seemingly went overboard and abused his authority, but he deserves praise and thanks in his attempt for civil decorum.

  11. I agree that bail money is being paid by the DNC and the precedent should be set to make the bail as high as possible.

  12. This mob can thank their political supporters in the Democratic party for the excessive bail. Judge Roth simply did what the Democrats have been doing for years; force an issue into judicial review to stall justice.

  13. Takes time to appeal and get a ruling.

    In the meantime, the defendants sit in jail.

    Once released, their recourse is limited.

    So the judge got them jail time without having to try them or hear a defense.

    Defendants are probably guilty, but the judge undermined the constitution; in the long run, who did more damage to our system?

    1. FWIW, likelihood of guilt is an expressly recognized factor in the consideration of bail in bail law jurisprudence. There’s a laundry list in the fed cases, actually, including criminal history, likelihood of reoffending, contacts in the community. [State bail laws can be less restrictive.] Applying these rules to these facts, I can foresee these imported, traveling, bought-and-paid for rioters having a problem with bail reductions b/c the “contacts in the community” factor is missing. If they’ve ever skipped bail – problem. If they’re already out on bail or even if they have other pending cases in which they were released on no-bond terms – as we’ve seen so often in Portland, e.g. – this PA judge is going to have a lot to work with in keeping bail high. And if they’ve posted online commitments to reoffend, problem. Frankly, by the time motions to reduce bond are held, I expect the prosecutors will have had time to collect information like this they didn’t have when they charged these feckless rioters.

      JT knows all this to be true. His OP is understandably superficial but I do hope he weighs in further soon. As the feds collect more evidence about BLM/antifa militant histories [and news reports indicate there is a vast digital network of video surveillance analysis etc. being conducted by the feds now], higher bail is likely to become more routine and an issue worth developing.

  14. Good for the Judge. Make Bail very high, not like NY, Chicago, Portland, Philly and etc. run by Soros/Liberal Prosecutors, who let felons,rioters and etc. out at little if any bail. What we need to do is crack down and be firm. When they brought the National Guard in in Minneapolis it quickly shut down the rioters, looters, and etc. Same in Kenosha. So be firm and make Bail as high as you can.

  15. But if they are backed/defended by the BLM movement and other organizations that received millions of dollars — that gives context to the $$ amount to require/ensure that they would show up for the hearing rather than fleeing. Putting these organizations on the hook for bail sounds right IMO. They can claim their $$ resources are or are not ONLY from their own means.

  16. For starting potentially escalating riots based on hearsay deserves at least that bail if not more to act as a statement about the seriousness of this epidemic criminality plaguing our nation. Good for that judge, it is time to stand up for the underlying rule of law.

    1. Does their conduct demonstrate disrespect for the law? If so, does this make the defendant less likely to appear in court? If so, a high bail is justified.

Leave a Reply