Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a problem with liberal judges. We had a case in the Spring where a loser with 130 priors for things like assault, drugs, illegal guns and anger issues where he liked to beat up people, serious crimes, was let off again and again because his lawyer knew what judges to pick to have a bench trial every time this loser got into trouble. In the Spring a group of cops were serving yet another warrant on this guy and he shot one of them in the head killing him.
We had another loser with many priors shoot 2 cops but they will survive.
Time and again we have seen these liberal judges be lenient on hard core career criminals. WHY? is it that the jails are full and they are told by to cut these losers free? They don't seem to care that they are letting dangerous people back out on the streets.
What I don't understand is how a loser terrorist that tried to take down the world trade center building in 93 is not in prison and still allowed to live in the USA ?
The tolerance and charity displayed here is insane and look at the results.
If this loser had his way we would have been once again looking at a school shooting where innocent children were slaughtered and people would be wondering why it happens.
but read "loves2read" post above, it makes perfect sense....
This is not only an insult to our nation, but an even bigger insult to those who lost family members in the twin towers, I thought we were going to clamp down big time on terrorist groups...what the heck is Homeland Security getting paid for?
And this little piddly excuse for a judge, who is paying him?
PS--I posted this before I saw that reply you posted--
Didn't want to delete and have it wasted--
But I am really angry at the media who is creating this animosity toward the Judge's decision because the media wants that outrage to pull readership
These stories exacerbate two things--our distrust of the legal system and (eventually) our distrust of MEDIA--
They are their own worst enemies at times...and anyone who has read my posts know I don't usually say that...
1--the judge is female
2-she is paid by the state
She is a district court judge for state of AZ--not a Federal level judge
3--I read the only charges they face are child abuse
That is a much lower threshold of a charge than terrorism or murder
4--I too was upset at how she managed the hearing BUT
5-the burden of proof is on THE PROSECUTION/LEOS to show these people ARE a threat
6--they were not CHARGED as threats to the nation--
They were charged as threats to those kids who are now in custody and out of harm (we hope)
7--if the law enforcement side that caught them and charged them can't come up with THEIR side's obligation to show intent/threat--then the judge has no choice but to set bail as appropriate to the charges
8--IF THE JUDGE decided on HER authority to set a much higher bail they could not meet or to have them bound over in custody w/o bail, their attorneys would have appealed that decision to a higher court and likely won the same type of bail conditions that the judge set
9--IF WE ALL THINK THEY ARE DANGEROUS, then it is the LEOs who have to provide PROOF that they are--
At least enough proof (not magical thinking) that there is justifiable reason to bind them over
10--the IRONY of all our outrage is that
a) we likely didn't pay attention to the charging documents because that was not easily found in the newspapers--they just went for the outrage factor to catch readers' attention,
And b) giving them a harsher bail or jail before trial would have been the same violation of the law that conservatives accuse Mueller and the FBI of doing--prosecuting Trump w/o legitimate evidence...
PS--I posted this before I saw that reply you posted--
Didn't want to delete and have it wasted--
But I am really angry at the media who is creating this animosity toward the Judge's decision because the media wants that outrage to pull readership
These stories exacerbate two things--our distrust of the legal system and (eventually) our distrust of MEDIA--
They are their own worst enemies at times...and anyone who has read my posts know I don't usually say that...
1--the judge is female
2-she is paid by the state
She is a district court judge for state of AZ--not a Federal level judge
3--I read the only charges they face are child abuse
That is a much lower threshold of a charge than terrorism or murder
4--I too was upset at how she managed the hearing BUT
5-the burden of proof is on THE PROSECUTION/LEOS to show these people ARE a threat
6--they were not CHARGED as threats to the nation--
They were charged as threats to those kids who are now in custody and out of harm (we hope)
7--if the law enforcement side that caught them and charged them can't come up with THEIR side's obligation to show intent/threat--then the judge has no choice but to set bail as appropriate to the charges
8--IF THE JUDGE decided on HER authority to set a much higher bail they could not meet or to have them bound over in custody w/o bail, their attorneys would have appealed that decision to a higher court and likely won the same type of bail conditions that the judge set
9--IF WE ALL THINK THEY ARE DANGEROUS, then it is the LEOs who have to provide PROOF that they are--
At least enough proof (not magical thinking) that there is justifiable reason to bind them over
10--the IRONY of all our outrage is that
a) we likely didn't pay attention to the charging documents because that was not easily found in the newspapers--they just went for the outrage factor to catch readers' attention,
And b) giving them a harsher bail or jail before trial would have been the same violation of the law that conservatives accuse Mueller and the FBI of doing--prosecuting Trump w/o legitimate evidence...
how about the children, "attempted murder". I realize in order to get humans to do what you want them to do is to keep them hungry, which is what they did to these kids. And where did the kids come from, did they abduct them? Were the kids their kids?
How long were they living like that?
and early on, didn't they find a dead child buried some where close by?
I do not know what is wrong with our judges? They are way too easy on criminals.....do you know or have any idea, how much of our tax dollars are wasted, b/c our judges keep setting free so many criminals?
My son tells me, it's absolutely despicable how many times one criminal has been arrested?
And this judge is beyond despicable, how could he/she do such a thing...to me, it's aiding criminals....not to mention, encouraging criminal behavior?
Judge Backus, who has had a history of issuing low bail amounts to violent offenders, is a former San Francisco public defender. This is inexcusable; child abuse is one thing, but any individual(s) who train and encourage children to commit acts of terrorism don't belong in this country, and they should be held without bail.
I wouldn't doubt that judge Backus stands up for the rights on such individuals and ignores the rights of us decent American citizens, and if God forbid a school shooting were to occur, people like her would blame us law-abiding gun owners and pro-gun groups like the NRA.
how about the children, "attempted murder". I realize in order to get humans to do what you want them to do is to keep them hungry, which is what they did to these kids. And where did the kids come from, did they abduct them? Were the kids their kids?
How long were they living like that?
This is why the terrorists are winning, 9-11 was the beginning, its amazing to me how they have managed to change public sentiment so drastically in such a short time!
Ditch the monitors and just run
They managed to fly under the radar for so long anyway
They can likely do it again
Where did their bail come from?
Who paid their attorneys???
ISIS among us--and I am not normally that pre-judging of people thought to be terrorists
I know nothing about the difficulty/ ease in which a monitor can be ditched.
They were not required to post bail.
I assume they have a public defender. Sounds like their defenders did a better job of persuading the judge that their clients posed no public risk than the prosecution did.
It’s reasonable to assume there is a lot more to this than media/ public know.
Who is the source of the allegation the older children were being trained to execute mass school shootings? The school- aged children did not attend school.
While this judge might be cast as a "liberal"
Consider what charges these people are facing--
I think it is just "child abuse"
The prosecutor's office didn't charge them with murder of the body of the child found on the site--
Likely because there is not enough evidence initially to show murder is the cause of death--
Have to do forensic autopsy/investigation to have enough to bring those charges
And they weren't charged with anything approaching terrorist charges---
Even if EVERYONE might think that is what they were planning--even the judge
The Judge has to follow the bail policies based on how they are CHARGED
If that means w/no prior history of being charged or convicted of child abuse or other felonies they are technically "clean" first-time offenders--
Then SHE cannot do much else but release them like she did
It is the burden/responsibility of LEOs involved--the local sheriff's office, the FBI, any state police in cooperation with the local prosecutor's office--to bring charges that mean stronger detention and bail policies If you really want to blame the responsible parties--then blame them
You can't blame the judge (even if you want to) if the JUDGE followed the law...
You want a judge who does that if you come to court--
We all should want a judge who does that for the safety/benefit of the judicial system at large...
This is the bottom line.
The judge can only look at the charges in front of him/her and the current charges didn't warrant anything other than was ruled on.
Sure, the police can muse all day long about what these people may have been planning as can the public.
But at this point, all it is is conjecture.
Not a chargeable offense.
Because a judge does something you disagree with that means there is something wrong with our judges? What about the other 2000 judges that placed bail on a defendant on that day?
Put a thread on each one of them and we will decide on the merits.
The judge in this thread is an idiot that loves his criminals more than the other citizens in the community.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is inexcusable; child abuse is one thing, but any individual(s) who train and encourage children to commit acts of terrorism don't belong in this country, and they should be held without bail. 
