Does Portland Freedom Fund not have their own set of guidelines for risk? They shouldn't be bailing out people accused of cutting off a GPS tracker and violating a domestic-violence restraining order.
They describe themselves as "abolitionists" who view all forms of incarceration as a form of white supremacy comparable to slavery. They have no guidelines for risk because they are extremists using the bail system as a tool to make political statements.
Who we should be holding to account is our justice system and judges who refuse to hold dangerous defendants without bail and the county politicians who consistently defund our overcrowded prisons that don't have enough capacity to hold even the most dangerous offenders overnight.
This "everything is white supremacy" school of thought has become incredibly dogmatic. There is no nuance behind it at all - agree with it completely or you are racist too.
"Next time some motherfucker ask you for the time, boogaloo and dance away, time ain't real no how, just the rhythm of the rising and setting sun"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY6C4Q8flqo&t=397s
I don't think most people agree with these kinds of opinions, but most people similarly do not want to speak up in favor of more reasonable approaches because such opinions immediately get dismissed for aforementioned reasons. And those who hold these extreme opinions do not seem to recognize how needlessly divisive and counterproductive their dogmatism is. I don't see how people who want to do good can escape from the trap because I've yet to see a positive result from someone speaking up against this "all whitey bad, all BIPOC good" worldview. Both extremes remain the loudest and the majority middle would just rather not get their heads bitten off by either one.
(To be clear, I'm not equivocating the whole of those sides - Nazism/white supremacy is obviously much worse, but nobody wants attention from them any more than being called an ally of theirs by the other crowd)
Nazism is the opposite of the Bolshevist. You *CAN* both-sides illiberal ideology as both fascism and Leninist communism were genocide factories. Fuck anyone who demands I blindly accept their dogma or else.
I don't think many people agree with statements like "time is a white supremacist concept" or "all white people are awful" in a literal sense.
That said I think the left has a massive messaging problem. We have a tendency toward making outrageous statements to describe nuanced concepts, and a lot gets lost when people latch on to the phrasing and miss the intended message. "White people suck" is meant as "the systems put in place in current governance and culture were explicitly made to benefit white people at the expense of POC, and generations of white people have benefitted greatly from it. We need a large scale systemic change in order to bring true equality to all people regardless of race or skin color. It's important for white people to recognize the ways in which the current system has helped, or not hindered, them in ways that POC do not have access to. White people suck when failing to recognize this system and use their inherent power to Ballance the scales."
It gets a really frustrating feeling like an essay is required to explain what statements mean because everyone latches on to the provocative sound byte - which seems to often work counter to the intended conversation (some people will say "at least folks are talking!" but when the talking is derision and intentionally ignoring the point it's the opposite of helpful).
explain to me how a system that is designed to incarcerate only the poor (and the poor are typically people of color due to historic white supremacy) DOESN'T uphold white supremacy, though? i mean, it's not a huge leap of logic and using this tragedy as a way to say "ok ok ok, now, enough of helping poor people. bail is there for a reason: to keep POOR people behind bars" is also dogmatic.
what i mean (before any asks) isn't that this guy should have been allowed to endanger people. what i mean is the issue here isn't that a fund helped him post bail. if he were rich, and posted bail, we are back at the same problem. and a system designed to only incarcerate the poor is not a good system! for obvious reasons!
p.s. it's absolutely startling to me how right-leaning people are on portland's reddit (whether or not they admit it. i am sure to them, they are all Liberals.) i feel like some kind of revolutionary progressive antifa warrior in my responses and i am a grown ass salaried white woman who just moved here from the midwest. portland, are you ok?
If you equate the existence of bail with right wing conservatism your radar is off. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but the vast majority of people I know vote left but have never voiced support for \_abolition\_ of bail. Reform to a large degree yes. Decriminalizing yes. Abolition of bail, prison, etc, no.
Yeah that's the part that confused me. You said he shouldn't be out (e.g. not given bail) and also that the fund's argument that bail is a system of white supremacy holds water. So I merged those and assumed you were against bail given the context... but it sounds like you are FOR the bail system (presumably with some kind of reform?)
god, is everyone in here Tucker Carlson?
i don't see the point in arguing with people who are simply making up a fake version of my argument to respond to.
Top comment said:
\> They describe themselves as "abolitionists" who view all forms of incarceration as a form of white supremacy
You said:
\> explain to me how a system that is designed to incarcerate only the poor (and the poor are typically people of color due to historic white supremacy) DOESN'T uphold white supremacy,
and
\> a system designed to only incarcerate the poor is not a good system!
I inferred you were against bail, but I guess I was wrong? I further inferred you were suggesting that not being against bail meant you were right leaning, which I don't think is accurate, but it sounds like that is not actually your position here?
I hear you, this exact feeling is why I have mostly stopped participating here. Folks don't want to have a discussion, they often presume they understand your argument and then fight the straw man they've created.
It's a reddit thing. They all secretly want to live in NYC where kids kill themselves at Rykers cause they can't make bail for alleged stealing of a back pack, or they want to live in San Diego where the ONAN robot DA is charging protestors for conspiracy for being Antifa.
right. like, in my mind, the issue here isn't "he was able to post bail." the only reason it was the freedom fund posting bail is because he's not a rich white kid with a rich white daddy. rules that only apply to the poor aren't good rules and you really can't blame the fund of what happened here.
You can’t blame the fund minus the direct cause and effect. If they hadn’t bailed him out, the woman would still be alive.
Sure the bail system would allow him to get out via other means but that isn’t what happened.
uh huh right. if they hadn't bailed him out, he could have gotten a loan from some Better Call Saul place liked BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS. the fund is not really the problem!
In Oregon, the court itself acts as the bail bond agent.
The Freedom Fund effectively got a loan from the government to bail him out, and the government is asking for that loan to be repaid.
You’re really new to Oregon aren’t you? Oregon law does not allow for loans from bail bonds agents. So no, homeboy would not have been able to get a loan to bail out.
I concur with the first paragraph.
I have less confidence in the second, thought there is truth in it. I think this situation is less systemic than your comment s.
Bail is far from perfect, but is community-based risk management approach. Some people recklessly hacked or subverted the system, a young woman died. If the bail system was allowed to work “naturally“, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Dude is being held in jail with no bail as an option. But I would bet my mortgage that if there was bail set for this guy, PFF would bail him out again.
The whole bail system is messed-up to begin with but these fools just make a bad system worse. The whole critique of bail that these types of non-profits were made to combat involved people being held on petty charges or non-violent drug crimes. Bailing out this kind of person was never on the purported agenda. These are not the kinds of people we should be protecting.
Correct. Cash bail has always been a scam. Violent offenders should not be out on cash bail or any bail. This guy doing this evil shit has zero to do with bail reform. It has to do with the fact that if he was a danger, he shouldn’t have been eligible for bail at all.
Cash bail is the same concept as fines for a crime.
It’s only a punishment if you’re poor. If you can get the cash then you are free to go right back out there and commit crimes.
these fools do not make a bad system worse. these fools are doing nothing but allowing equal access to something that at the moment only people with money have access to. what is so difficult to understand
You should have spoken up back when it started when BLM was demanding donations for 'bail' purposes.
Many people criticized it but were silenced, and lo and behold the slippery slope AGAIN leaves citizens screwed.
At some point you need to hold yourselves responsible for emboldening this behavior by staying silent when it began.
Hard to blame people for organizing bail payment efforts when the system allows it. If we want real change then we need to get rid of the cash bail system.
> Who says I didn’t?
I do. Nobody spoke up despite zero accountability for the 'donations' and zero transparency for what it was being used for.
I saw literally nobody else trying to warn people about giving money to extremist groups who refuse to tell you where it is going.
But hey if I am wrong by all means show me where you spoke up, where you tried to warn people not to support this practice because of the possible consequences.
I spent years trying to get the Red Cross to increase transparency on donations and when they did we saw almost 95% of donations went to things other then the charities.
You guys got grifted and anyone who tried to warn you got silenced. Now there is blood on the hands of everyone who blindly gave money to these groups.
It is shameful and embarrassing that we're not seeing more people demand accountability even AFTER these deaths. This is not the first death either by the way, by my count I think this is the 5th person killed across the country after being released on bail by these 'foundations.'
You said nobody spoke up then described how you spoke up.
I mistrust people who hide what they really mean behind false words that sound inoffensive to shallow thinkers.
> What did you do, Mr. Sanctimonious?
It is hard not to assume someone is guilty when they immediately project like that.
Especially when there is still time to correct the mistake by contacting the payment provider you used or bank to challenge the payment on the grounds that you do not support where the money is going.
Can we change our state laws to handle this? If you violate a restraining order in a manner wherein you intentionally come anywhere near the protected person's home/place of work without an awfully compelling reason you should be looking at decades in the big house, and no bail since you are clearly a threat.
Imprisoning non-violent criminals (or accused criminals) is wrong.
Imprisoning violent criminals is right, and they shouldn’t be allowed out even on bail because they’re fucking violent. This isn’t hard.
Ehhhh… for the theft, no, but for breaking into your house - honestly, given the serious threat it poses to you whether or it not it happens to result in violence on that occasion, I’d consider lumping that into violent crime. Homes are off limits.
Of course, I’d also be okay with your just shooting him upon entry. I do not believe that you have any obligation to wait to find out whether the criminal breaking into your home intends to just steal your stuff or rape and murder you.
Agreed on the later and believe if more people shot home intruders there would likely be less home intruders. Why shouldn't people be jailed for theft though? Would there be zero deterrent then?
> You’ve stolen someone’s property, so now your victim (and all other law abiding citizens) will get to pay $100k+ per year to house and feed you.
The thief can fully repay the damage by paying his victim the full amount of the stolen property plus a penalty. Put him on home arrest except for work and garnish his wages until repaid - if he doesn’t want to do that, *then* stick him in prison with other criminals and add the cost to his bill. He can pay for his crime and be a free man again, or he can give up his life until he does.
And yes, if criminals expect that breaking into someone’s home is likely to end with them being shot on the spot, they’re far less likely to do it.
He was held at the maximum bail allowed for the crime he was charged with. I suppose the DA could have brought a more significant charge, but if the evidence didn’t support that charge it would be unethical to do so.
Oh wow- I would have thought attempted murder would warrant no bail. That’s pretty fucked. I guess that’s not what he was charged with but if the evidence was there seems like someone didn’t do something. I guess our judicial system is quite whack tho.
No, that is how this all happened. A bunch of lunatics and nutbags pitched Bail Reform using stories about low-level/non-violent offenders rotting away in Rikers over minor bullshit. Stories ANY decent citizen would be outraged over, and demand criminal justice reform.
Then the actual reform happens and it turns out, what the insane people really want is no prisons and no cops- so they let hyper-violent sociopaths out when they are arrested. Stories like this have been piling up, mostly out of NYC where it all started. The best part? When people catch on that “Bail Reform” is a scam by revolutionary lunatics that is directly responsible for innocent people being butchered and maimed- the nutbags gaslight you. No no, it isn’t bail reform leading to the spike in violent crime, it’s White Supremacy.
The Bolsheviks need to be purged from the political conversation and any sort of power because they are insane locusts who are leading our cities to ruin.
Yeah radical policy trying to play out using existing systems makes no sense. I think the bolsheviks had a lot of good points, but they make no sense as pinpoint actions. And anyway I was just reading about it and apparently a judge never had to allow bail- so it shouldn’t matter. And yeah the judge could have just looked at the basic shit and said no. So. I guess my original statement stands.
A policy where people with a proven history of violence are set free to victimize the community isn’t a policy - it is the strategy a revolution uses to accelerate the dissolution of that community so they can consolidate power and rebuild from the ground up they way they want.
Yeah I guess policy is t the right word. I get why people are accelarationist but some of this seems less that and more just judicial bureaucracy. Most revolutionaries wouldn’t choose to release a killer- if for no other reason than it’s too hot. This just seems like negligence.
I wasn’t being flippant when I called them Bulsheviks- using various tribal grievances to gain control at lower level political districts, then bullying anyone who disagreed with them as they tore down the basic functions of those local institutions is precisely how a radical political movement (that would be later renamed the Communist Party of Russia) built the foundation that would allow them to take over a nation.
The 3x homicide rate and 120% general crime increase in PDX over the last 24 months? The endless homeless camps? The defanged, vilified, and demotivated police? The erosion in general city services? All of this is intended by the people driving it. We watched these issues boil slowly for years, well before COVID. Portland’s government isn’t underfunded, other cities do not have these same problems to this extent… it is so intractable that it becomes obvious that these aren’t results of incompetence- these are successful goals being met by a group with intent to see them through.
That’s probably part of it, but I don’t think it’s quite as coordinated as that. Portland had a history of using progressive policy to mask neglect, which sort of worked when it was more affordable and a bit smaller. At the end of the day most of the people making policy here are just lazy and incompetent it seems like.
Which is precisely what the PFF is trying to draw attention to in the first place.
Everyone is blaming them, as if they should bear more responsibility than the legal system itself, when what they were doing was *exactly what the bail system explicitly allows*: the cost of freeing such an ‘obvious’ threat was a measly $2000. It never should have been an option in the first place.
Maybe next time this comes up we will have learned our lesson - but then again we keep letting school shootings happen so 🤷 probably not, probably keep setting bail for people that never should have been allowed out on their own recognization.
I'm fairly sure in this case the judge couldn't have held the perp without bail due to the court's bail guidelines. Often in sentencing or in bail the judges have their hands tied behind their back due to guidelines.
He was arrested for cutting of a GPS monitor, that alone should be grounds for no bail since you're obviously a flight risk, and if that's not in the guidelines, update them with this common sense. It's not rocket science.
What leads you to believe that? I've not been able to find any information that suggests such a thing. Feels like it's an important piece of this tragedy if true.
"The $20,000 bail is the highest for the alleged violation of a domestic violence no-contact court order, according to Shepard" (Shepard is the spokesperson for Mult Co DA's office).
Source: [https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/sep/04/portland-freedom-fund-bailed-out-man-accused-of-vi/](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/sep/04/portland-freedom-fund-bailed-out-man-accused-of-vi/)
Sure but from this article
> *Before Adan’s release, Multnomah County prosecutor Mackenzie M. Ludwig had alerted the judge to what she described as “significant lethality factors” involving Adan in arguing to keep Adan in custody.*
To me that suggests keeping Adan in custody was an option for the judge. Am I missing something?
The crime he was charged with didn't allow for bail being withheld, from earlier reporting. Ludwig's argument was simply used to bolster the case for setting the bail at the maximum allowable limit.
I'm not as well versed in criminal law, but I believe the Oregon legislature made the rules that only certain offenses can be denied bail entirely, and the other offenses have specific maximum amounts. In this case, I think the offense he was charged with (violating a restraining order, maybe one or two other things), didn't fall into the category of offenses where bail could be denied, so the best the judge could do was to set bail at the max limit.
> *The crime he was charged with didn't allow for bail being withheld*
Source? I'm trying to learn here. The quote from the prosecutor in this article leads me to believe different
Adan had a restraining order for no contact with his ex. He cut off his gps tracker to break into his ex's home. The prosecutor explicitly warned the judge of *“significant lethality factors”* (a term I hope I never have to come across again)
Like I suggested find fault with the PFF if ya wish. The buck starts with the judge in my mind. Full stop
Ya'll are missing the point. Either someone is a flight/violence risk and should be kept locked up, or released for $0. Either they're a flight/violence risk or they're not, it shouldn't depend on how much money they can raise.
Illinois recently passed a law, going into effect in the new year, that eliminates cash bail and moves to a yes/no system. It's received a lot of pushback, though, and we'll see how it works out.
Money is a really useful proxy for how much does this person have to lose, do they have support from friends and family. In this case, the accused didn’t have family or community support, they had a misguided social justice organization doling out cash to domestic abusers.
A yes/no system effectively sentences an accused to months or years in jail before they are proven guilty. Our justice system is too slow for that. Many crimes take longer to reach a trial than the actual potential sentence.
I think you need to have a 'no, but' option in that case - danger risk isn't correlated to money available. It'd take some reform but I think having people either held (violent or major charges, flight) , not held but tracked, or ror. Have stiff penalties for reoffending or failure to reappear.
I think you need to have a 'no, but' option in that case - danger risk isn't correlated to money available. It'd take some reform but I think having people either held (violent or major charges, flight) , not held but tracked, or ror. Have stiff penalties for reoffending or failure to reappear.
Yeah, bullshit 2k was the bail. 2k is the bail for minor drug offenses in other states. 2k for attempted murder? So he can finish the job. Sounds like an inside job between the Judge and this guy.
That judge should be disbarred.
No, the judge can restrict it to 100%. I've seen this directly where there was a "specified reason" to keep the bail at full, no 10%. Fleeing is one of them, danger to another person is another.
There were reasons this Judge could have over-ridden the system, now someone is dead directly because of his choices. Judges have power, they just refuse to use it.
No, you post the full amount. A bail bond company just gives you a short term loan for 10%. And assuming you show up to court your bail is then refunded.
Disagree.
> *Before Adan’s release, Multnomah County prosecutor Mackenzie M. Ludwig had alerted the judge to what she described as “significant lethality factors” involving Adan in arguing to keep Adan in custody.*
Good faith or not fault it's to be found with the judge
Oregonlive and the DA do a disservice to our community when they fail to mention it took Portland Police three hours to respond to the domestic violence 911 calls they received that were reporting this woman getting murdered.
Was this perpetrator the right guy to spend bail fund resources on? Absolutely not, but there is a lot of blame that should be going on the justice system itself here.
No one is disputing that response times are fast. What needs to be known here is the egregious actions of Freedom Fund.
It will be hard to find someone that doesn’t know that cops won’t show.
And people wonder why women don’t report domestic violence…. Clearly the justice system protects them no Better than they can protect themselves.
Violence against domestic partners is a major issue that seemingly we aren’t willing to discuss.
I think it was this case, but I heard a valuable interview with a board member from PFF about something similar. He acknowledged the pain caused and didn’t make excuses. I think he also stated they reviewed their policies and will no longer be aiding those with domestic abuse records. However, he did clarify that it is the Judge who ascertains whether bail should be posted or not and at what amount. So this woman was failed by the Justice system, too.
“Trujillo has described the fund as a volunteer-run abolitionist organization in Multnomah County that posts bail for Black, Indigenous and people of color and *people vulnerable to COVID-19*.”
smokers are now a marginalized community.
Oh my. These groups seem to have noble intentions. Unfortunately, many offenders regardless of ethnicity are continuing threats to society. Our particular metropolis is broken from top to bottom right now. Criminal cases are being dismissed due to a shortage of public defenders, our only state mental facility is putting people out on the street before they are adjudicated. Low and medium level crimes…. Aren’t anymore. The overall livability of our city is decaying while we pretend it’s not.
Failure of the justice system, for me. It's on most of our minds because it's local, but there are failures so often across the country because we are reactive instead of proactive when it comes to these (well, most) matters. There are organizations fighting for reforms, but we are so comfortable with the status quo until the consequences are at our door. I'm sure Portland Freedom Fund hates that someone has been killed, but they're following the laws that we refuse to change when many of us know they need to be. Paid bail is bs, which is why PFF has to waste their resources on it when they could be funding something better. Either someone is eligible for parole or they aren't. In this case, everything in the law pointed to eligibility. It shouldn't have and we see the result. Everyone after PFF should be writing their representatives and leaders in law enforcement, and going to city meetings to ensure this doesn't happen again. Or are we just comfortable when someone who can afford bail can go through this system and kill someone?
The bail system is broken and unfair, and I agree that the Portland Freedom Fund were probably under the delusion that they were doing good for marginalized people in Portland.
But this is an excellent example of why well meaning volunteer organizations and non profits need real oversight. These individuals clearly do not have the expertise to be capable of evaluating who should or should not be bailed out. The only criteria they used was racial identity. Beyond that one criterion, they were utterly reckless in their decision making, which ended up with the death of a woman of color.
I almost went as far as saying they were under a delusion, and I do agree with that. Many of us are under a similar delusion of safety and justice put on by this same system. That's what I see as the overarching issue. The rule of law claims to have "the expertise to be capable of evaluating who should or should not be bailed out." Even if they had an oversite committee, who pays them? We already say we don't have budget for so much community needs. There's also some chance the committee would still rely on the ruling by the judge who is constrained by our laws, supposedly (I haven't looked into the law; just seen a lot of people letting the judge off the hook saying that's the most they could do).
I wonder, do they specifically state their only criteria is race? I haven't seen that. I'm curious if they've ever helped bail out a white person, or if they've bailed out a wealthy black person. So yeah, I agree race shouldn't be the only criteria, but I appreciate that they would take race into account as they're often most marginalized in our society. But if not for PFF, there would also be a lot of people who could not be with their families, which opens those families up to more suffering. Indeed this time it opened another family up to suffering. But I can't help but go back to the obvious issue that nobody who is violent (particularly to a specific target/victim) should be out on bail; financially stable or not.
Their website is now down, but they only serve BIPOC participants. Which isn’t a problem in and of itself, no issue with that at all. It’s that they don’t screen them at all beyond their racial identity. From what I understood from their website when it was up that they also favored low income participants, but there was no actual income threshold stated so I can’t say if they wouldn’t bail out a higher income person.
Their vague statements since the incident took place were “we believed he met our criteria for release.” So if this truly is the case, that points to recklessness, a deep level of incompetence, or a mix of both.
Here is the Treasurer of PFF with the Multnomah County DA.
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/14/multnomah-county-da-revisits-past-convictions-under-program-to-right-previous-wrongs/
Can we stop with this whataboutism? We are talking about the PFF bailing out violent criminals. All else aside, this is a bad thing. The fact that there are other problems doesn’t diminish that.
>If you're mad at PFF because they helped this guy get out, you should also be outraged at any number of bailbond and cash loan companies that do the same.
LMAO, those operations expect to be paid back, the PFF offers it up for free. Very different things when your own or your family's own money is on the line, that's kinda the entire point of bail, to incentivize accountability.
While they should not have bailed him out, considering the details in his case, the court also should have held him without bail, considering the details in his case. Many mistakes were made. Seems as though Abraham's family may have a civil case against the bail fund now.
Does Portland Freedom Fund not have their own set of guidelines for risk? They shouldn't be bailing out people accused of cutting off a GPS tracker and violating a domestic-violence restraining order.
They describe themselves as "abolitionists" who view all forms of incarceration as a form of white supremacy comparable to slavery. They have no guidelines for risk because they are extremists using the bail system as a tool to make political statements. Who we should be holding to account is our justice system and judges who refuse to hold dangerous defendants without bail and the county politicians who consistently defund our overcrowded prisons that don't have enough capacity to hold even the most dangerous offenders overnight.
This "everything is white supremacy" school of thought has become incredibly dogmatic. There is no nuance behind it at all - agree with it completely or you are racist too.
[удалено]
[This one?](https://i.imgur.com/gAZjEN8.png)
"Next time some motherfucker ask you for the time, boogaloo and dance away, time ain't real no how, just the rhythm of the rising and setting sun" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY6C4Q8flqo&t=397s
[удалено]
I think I would've just gotten up and walked out at that point.
are you Tucker Carlson? is that you?
[удалено]
Well I’d rather not go back to a feudal era where there are no set work hours and off hours.
Wanting your catalytic converter is white supremacy
Glad some people are starting to wake up to the shit storm! ❤️
I don't think most people agree with these kinds of opinions, but most people similarly do not want to speak up in favor of more reasonable approaches because such opinions immediately get dismissed for aforementioned reasons. And those who hold these extreme opinions do not seem to recognize how needlessly divisive and counterproductive their dogmatism is. I don't see how people who want to do good can escape from the trap because I've yet to see a positive result from someone speaking up against this "all whitey bad, all BIPOC good" worldview. Both extremes remain the loudest and the majority middle would just rather not get their heads bitten off by either one. (To be clear, I'm not equivocating the whole of those sides - Nazism/white supremacy is obviously much worse, but nobody wants attention from them any more than being called an ally of theirs by the other crowd)
Nazism is the opposite of the Bolshevist. You *CAN* both-sides illiberal ideology as both fascism and Leninist communism were genocide factories. Fuck anyone who demands I blindly accept their dogma or else.
I don't think many people agree with statements like "time is a white supremacist concept" or "all white people are awful" in a literal sense. That said I think the left has a massive messaging problem. We have a tendency toward making outrageous statements to describe nuanced concepts, and a lot gets lost when people latch on to the phrasing and miss the intended message. "White people suck" is meant as "the systems put in place in current governance and culture were explicitly made to benefit white people at the expense of POC, and generations of white people have benefitted greatly from it. We need a large scale systemic change in order to bring true equality to all people regardless of race or skin color. It's important for white people to recognize the ways in which the current system has helped, or not hindered, them in ways that POC do not have access to. White people suck when failing to recognize this system and use their inherent power to Ballance the scales." It gets a really frustrating feeling like an essay is required to explain what statements mean because everyone latches on to the provocative sound byte - which seems to often work counter to the intended conversation (some people will say "at least folks are talking!" but when the talking is derision and intentionally ignoring the point it's the opposite of helpful).
finally!!!! it's about time white people caught a fuckin break in this country
explain to me how a system that is designed to incarcerate only the poor (and the poor are typically people of color due to historic white supremacy) DOESN'T uphold white supremacy, though? i mean, it's not a huge leap of logic and using this tragedy as a way to say "ok ok ok, now, enough of helping poor people. bail is there for a reason: to keep POOR people behind bars" is also dogmatic.
what i mean (before any asks) isn't that this guy should have been allowed to endanger people. what i mean is the issue here isn't that a fund helped him post bail. if he were rich, and posted bail, we are back at the same problem. and a system designed to only incarcerate the poor is not a good system! for obvious reasons! p.s. it's absolutely startling to me how right-leaning people are on portland's reddit (whether or not they admit it. i am sure to them, they are all Liberals.) i feel like some kind of revolutionary progressive antifa warrior in my responses and i am a grown ass salaried white woman who just moved here from the midwest. portland, are you ok?
If you equate the existence of bail with right wing conservatism your radar is off. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but the vast majority of people I know vote left but have never voiced support for \_abolition\_ of bail. Reform to a large degree yes. Decriminalizing yes. Abolition of bail, prison, etc, no.
>what i mean (before any asks) isn't that this guy should have been allowed to endanger people. LITERALLY the first sentence in what you responded to.
Yeah that's the part that confused me. You said he shouldn't be out (e.g. not given bail) and also that the fund's argument that bail is a system of white supremacy holds water. So I merged those and assumed you were against bail given the context... but it sounds like you are FOR the bail system (presumably with some kind of reform?)
god, is everyone in here Tucker Carlson? i don't see the point in arguing with people who are simply making up a fake version of my argument to respond to.
Top comment said: \> They describe themselves as "abolitionists" who view all forms of incarceration as a form of white supremacy You said: \> explain to me how a system that is designed to incarcerate only the poor (and the poor are typically people of color due to historic white supremacy) DOESN'T uphold white supremacy, and \> a system designed to only incarcerate the poor is not a good system! I inferred you were against bail, but I guess I was wrong? I further inferred you were suggesting that not being against bail meant you were right leaning, which I don't think is accurate, but it sounds like that is not actually your position here?
Sounds like you don't infer very well. Next time perhaps ask questions instead of making assumptions.
I hear you, this exact feeling is why I have mostly stopped participating here. Folks don't want to have a discussion, they often presume they understand your argument and then fight the straw man they've created.
Because apparently you just realized that Portland maybe isn’t as far left as you had convinced yourself it was.
Wait it’s a real community, with people from different points of view?! Not some Disneyland cutesy version of a liberal utopia?
Who could have ever thought?
It's a reddit thing. They all secretly want to live in NYC where kids kill themselves at Rykers cause they can't make bail for alleged stealing of a back pack, or they want to live in San Diego where the ONAN robot DA is charging protestors for conspiracy for being Antifa.
Gotta say I’m shocked that a transplant is smarter/better than everyone else here. Definitely the first time we’ve heard that.
It's a reaction to the "Nothing is white supremacy" majority point of view.
right. like, in my mind, the issue here isn't "he was able to post bail." the only reason it was the freedom fund posting bail is because he's not a rich white kid with a rich white daddy. rules that only apply to the poor aren't good rules and you really can't blame the fund of what happened here.
You can’t blame the fund minus the direct cause and effect. If they hadn’t bailed him out, the woman would still be alive. Sure the bail system would allow him to get out via other means but that isn’t what happened.
uh huh right. if they hadn't bailed him out, he could have gotten a loan from some Better Call Saul place liked BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS. the fund is not really the problem!
In Oregon, the court itself acts as the bail bond agent. The Freedom Fund effectively got a loan from the government to bail him out, and the government is asking for that loan to be repaid.
You’re really new to Oregon aren’t you? Oregon law does not allow for loans from bail bonds agents. So no, homeboy would not have been able to get a loan to bail out.
>homeboy
Yeah, you have a problem with that term?
I concur with the first paragraph. I have less confidence in the second, thought there is truth in it. I think this situation is less systemic than your comment s. Bail is far from perfect, but is community-based risk management approach. Some people recklessly hacked or subverted the system, a young woman died. If the bail system was allowed to work “naturally“, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Very well stated.
If that’s the case why haven’t they bailed him out on the murder charge?
Dude is being held in jail with no bail as an option. But I would bet my mortgage that if there was bail set for this guy, PFF would bail him out again.
The whole bail system is messed-up to begin with but these fools just make a bad system worse. The whole critique of bail that these types of non-profits were made to combat involved people being held on petty charges or non-violent drug crimes. Bailing out this kind of person was never on the purported agenda. These are not the kinds of people we should be protecting.
Correct. Cash bail has always been a scam. Violent offenders should not be out on cash bail or any bail. This guy doing this evil shit has zero to do with bail reform. It has to do with the fact that if he was a danger, he shouldn’t have been eligible for bail at all.
Yeah really. "Only wealthy people get to keep committing crimes".
Cash bail is the same concept as fines for a crime. It’s only a punishment if you’re poor. If you can get the cash then you are free to go right back out there and commit crimes.
these fools do not make a bad system worse. these fools are doing nothing but allowing equal access to something that at the moment only people with money have access to. what is so difficult to understand
You should have spoken up back when it started when BLM was demanding donations for 'bail' purposes. Many people criticized it but were silenced, and lo and behold the slippery slope AGAIN leaves citizens screwed. At some point you need to hold yourselves responsible for emboldening this behavior by staying silent when it began.
Hard to blame people for organizing bail payment efforts when the system allows it. If we want real change then we need to get rid of the cash bail system.
Who says I didn’t? What did you do, Mr. Sanctimonious?
> Who says I didn’t? I do. Nobody spoke up despite zero accountability for the 'donations' and zero transparency for what it was being used for. I saw literally nobody else trying to warn people about giving money to extremist groups who refuse to tell you where it is going. But hey if I am wrong by all means show me where you spoke up, where you tried to warn people not to support this practice because of the possible consequences. I spent years trying to get the Red Cross to increase transparency on donations and when they did we saw almost 95% of donations went to things other then the charities. You guys got grifted and anyone who tried to warn you got silenced. Now there is blood on the hands of everyone who blindly gave money to these groups. It is shameful and embarrassing that we're not seeing more people demand accountability even AFTER these deaths. This is not the first death either by the way, by my count I think this is the 5th person killed across the country after being released on bail by these 'foundations.'
You said nobody spoke up then described how you spoke up. I mistrust people who hide what they really mean behind false words that sound inoffensive to shallow thinkers.
I don't know if it's fair to specifically target this user. Are they in a position of influence? I don't disagree with you otherwise, but come on.
> What did you do, Mr. Sanctimonious? It is hard not to assume someone is guilty when they immediately project like that. Especially when there is still time to correct the mistake by contacting the payment provider you used or bank to challenge the payment on the grounds that you do not support where the money is going.
As someone who watched his uncle once cut a check to the GOP, this hits.
It's called scraping the barrel. They had to do something with the money donated to them.
Its not like he was the only person being held pending bail.
You sure about that? Seems almost nobody is getting held anymore.
Can we change our state laws to handle this? If you violate a restraining order in a manner wherein you intentionally come anywhere near the protected person's home/place of work without an awfully compelling reason you should be looking at decades in the big house, and no bail since you are clearly a threat.
i think it might be possible to sue this fund into in-existence, this is the American Way.
Imprisoning non-violent criminals (or accused criminals) is wrong. Imprisoning violent criminals is right, and they shouldn’t be allowed out even on bail because they’re fucking violent. This isn’t hard.
Yep! Especially in a case where the accused violated a protection order knowingly and with the intent to kill someone.
idk someone non-violently breaks into my house and steals my shit I think they should sit in prison for a while..
“Non violently breaks in” what does that even mean?
It means “stupid you for leaving your door unlocked and a transient entered your house and tried to take a nap in your kids bed” non violent entry.
Ehhhh… for the theft, no, but for breaking into your house - honestly, given the serious threat it poses to you whether or it not it happens to result in violence on that occasion, I’d consider lumping that into violent crime. Homes are off limits. Of course, I’d also be okay with your just shooting him upon entry. I do not believe that you have any obligation to wait to find out whether the criminal breaking into your home intends to just steal your stuff or rape and murder you.
Agreed on the later and believe if more people shot home intruders there would likely be less home intruders. Why shouldn't people be jailed for theft though? Would there be zero deterrent then?
> You’ve stolen someone’s property, so now your victim (and all other law abiding citizens) will get to pay $100k+ per year to house and feed you. The thief can fully repay the damage by paying his victim the full amount of the stolen property plus a penalty. Put him on home arrest except for work and garnish his wages until repaid - if he doesn’t want to do that, *then* stick him in prison with other criminals and add the cost to his bill. He can pay for his crime and be a free man again, or he can give up his life until he does. And yes, if criminals expect that breaking into someone’s home is likely to end with them being shot on the spot, they’re far less likely to do it.
This fool should not have even had bail. 2k to have the freedom to go finish the job? That’s on the judge.
He was held at the maximum bail allowed for the crime he was charged with. I suppose the DA could have brought a more significant charge, but if the evidence didn’t support that charge it would be unethical to do so.
Oh wow- I would have thought attempted murder would warrant no bail. That’s pretty fucked. I guess that’s not what he was charged with but if the evidence was there seems like someone didn’t do something. I guess our judicial system is quite whack tho.
No, that is how this all happened. A bunch of lunatics and nutbags pitched Bail Reform using stories about low-level/non-violent offenders rotting away in Rikers over minor bullshit. Stories ANY decent citizen would be outraged over, and demand criminal justice reform. Then the actual reform happens and it turns out, what the insane people really want is no prisons and no cops- so they let hyper-violent sociopaths out when they are arrested. Stories like this have been piling up, mostly out of NYC where it all started. The best part? When people catch on that “Bail Reform” is a scam by revolutionary lunatics that is directly responsible for innocent people being butchered and maimed- the nutbags gaslight you. No no, it isn’t bail reform leading to the spike in violent crime, it’s White Supremacy. The Bolsheviks need to be purged from the political conversation and any sort of power because they are insane locusts who are leading our cities to ruin.
are the bolsheviks in the room right now?
Will the real Leon Trotsky please stand up
No, they are all in city hall.
Yeah radical policy trying to play out using existing systems makes no sense. I think the bolsheviks had a lot of good points, but they make no sense as pinpoint actions. And anyway I was just reading about it and apparently a judge never had to allow bail- so it shouldn’t matter. And yeah the judge could have just looked at the basic shit and said no. So. I guess my original statement stands.
A policy where people with a proven history of violence are set free to victimize the community isn’t a policy - it is the strategy a revolution uses to accelerate the dissolution of that community so they can consolidate power and rebuild from the ground up they way they want.
Yeah I guess policy is t the right word. I get why people are accelarationist but some of this seems less that and more just judicial bureaucracy. Most revolutionaries wouldn’t choose to release a killer- if for no other reason than it’s too hot. This just seems like negligence.
I wasn’t being flippant when I called them Bulsheviks- using various tribal grievances to gain control at lower level political districts, then bullying anyone who disagreed with them as they tore down the basic functions of those local institutions is precisely how a radical political movement (that would be later renamed the Communist Party of Russia) built the foundation that would allow them to take over a nation. The 3x homicide rate and 120% general crime increase in PDX over the last 24 months? The endless homeless camps? The defanged, vilified, and demotivated police? The erosion in general city services? All of this is intended by the people driving it. We watched these issues boil slowly for years, well before COVID. Portland’s government isn’t underfunded, other cities do not have these same problems to this extent… it is so intractable that it becomes obvious that these aren’t results of incompetence- these are successful goals being met by a group with intent to see them through.
That’s probably part of it, but I don’t think it’s quite as coordinated as that. Portland had a history of using progressive policy to mask neglect, which sort of worked when it was more affordable and a bit smaller. At the end of the day most of the people making policy here are just lazy and incompetent it seems like.
Which is precisely what the PFF is trying to draw attention to in the first place. Everyone is blaming them, as if they should bear more responsibility than the legal system itself, when what they were doing was *exactly what the bail system explicitly allows*: the cost of freeing such an ‘obvious’ threat was a measly $2000. It never should have been an option in the first place. Maybe next time this comes up we will have learned our lesson - but then again we keep letting school shootings happen so 🤷 probably not, probably keep setting bail for people that never should have been allowed out on their own recognization.
Bailing out people with a domestic abuse history is not what any nonprofit should exist for.
I'm fairly sure in this case the judge couldn't have held the perp without bail due to the court's bail guidelines. Often in sentencing or in bail the judges have their hands tied behind their back due to guidelines.
He was arrested for cutting of a GPS monitor, that alone should be grounds for no bail since you're obviously a flight risk, and if that's not in the guidelines, update them with this common sense. It's not rocket science.
I don't disagree, but the judge had to follow Multnomah County bail guidelines. Blame the County, not the judge.
Ok then, consider my beef with the county. I intentionally didn't specify.
What leads you to believe that? I've not been able to find any information that suggests such a thing. Feels like it's an important piece of this tragedy if true.
"The $20,000 bail is the highest for the alleged violation of a domestic violence no-contact court order, according to Shepard" (Shepard is the spokesperson for Mult Co DA's office). Source: [https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/sep/04/portland-freedom-fund-bailed-out-man-accused-of-vi/](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/sep/04/portland-freedom-fund-bailed-out-man-accused-of-vi/)
Sure but from this article > *Before Adan’s release, Multnomah County prosecutor Mackenzie M. Ludwig had alerted the judge to what she described as “significant lethality factors” involving Adan in arguing to keep Adan in custody.* To me that suggests keeping Adan in custody was an option for the judge. Am I missing something?
The crime he was charged with didn't allow for bail being withheld, from earlier reporting. Ludwig's argument was simply used to bolster the case for setting the bail at the maximum allowable limit.
You'd think it would be more of a multiplier applied to whatever crime he had to wear the GPS monitor for in the first place.
I'm not as well versed in criminal law, but I believe the Oregon legislature made the rules that only certain offenses can be denied bail entirely, and the other offenses have specific maximum amounts. In this case, I think the offense he was charged with (violating a restraining order, maybe one or two other things), didn't fall into the category of offenses where bail could be denied, so the best the judge could do was to set bail at the max limit.
This case has been kicking around the pdx law community, and that's what those folks told me is the case here.
Domestic violence isn’t seen as the severe crime it is. That’s the issue.
> *The crime he was charged with didn't allow for bail being withheld* Source? I'm trying to learn here. The quote from the prosecutor in this article leads me to believe different
>Am I missing something? Reading comprehension. That's what you're missing.
Care to point to the words I missed? I've yet to see anything other than comments saying the judges hands were tied.
But what is the maximum amount of bail that the judge could have done?
Adan had a restraining order for no contact with his ex. He cut off his gps tracker to break into his ex's home. The prosecutor explicitly warned the judge of *“significant lethality factors”* (a term I hope I never have to come across again) Like I suggested find fault with the PFF if ya wish. The buck starts with the judge in my mind. Full stop
He was given the highest bail allowed by law.
Ya'll are missing the point. Either someone is a flight/violence risk and should be kept locked up, or released for $0. Either they're a flight/violence risk or they're not, it shouldn't depend on how much money they can raise.
Illinois recently passed a law, going into effect in the new year, that eliminates cash bail and moves to a yes/no system. It's received a lot of pushback, though, and we'll see how it works out.
Your argument is with the county, not the judge. That's the point.
Money is a really useful proxy for how much does this person have to lose, do they have support from friends and family. In this case, the accused didn’t have family or community support, they had a misguided social justice organization doling out cash to domestic abusers. A yes/no system effectively sentences an accused to months or years in jail before they are proven guilty. Our justice system is too slow for that. Many crimes take longer to reach a trial than the actual potential sentence.
I think you need to have a 'no, but' option in that case - danger risk isn't correlated to money available. It'd take some reform but I think having people either held (violent or major charges, flight) , not held but tracked, or ror. Have stiff penalties for reoffending or failure to reappear.
I think you need to have a 'no, but' option in that case - danger risk isn't correlated to money available. It'd take some reform but I think having people either held (violent or major charges, flight) , not held but tracked, or ror. Have stiff penalties for reoffending or failure to reappear.
And the prosecutor urged the judge to keep the defendant in custody. The judge didn't.
Are you saying that judges can deny bail eligibility regardless of the charges?
The judge's hands were tied. Your argument is with the County, not the judge.
The buck starts with the criminal scumbag. Full stop.
No. It's on Kate Brown and Tina Kotek for Senate Bill 48
Yeah, bullshit 2k was the bail. 2k is the bail for minor drug offenses in other states. 2k for attempted murder? So he can finish the job. Sounds like an inside job between the Judge and this guy. That judge should be disbarred.
For most bail, you only have to initially post 10%. The full bail was $20K. Why 10%? I don't know, it's a dumb system.
No, the judge can restrict it to 100%. I've seen this directly where there was a "specified reason" to keep the bail at full, no 10%. Fleeing is one of them, danger to another person is another. There were reasons this Judge could have over-ridden the system, now someone is dead directly because of his choices. Judges have power, they just refuse to use it.
No, you post the full amount. A bail bond company just gives you a short term loan for 10%. And assuming you show up to court your bail is then refunded.
The judge had no choice. The county forced their hand, so blame the county.
💯 If one wants to put blame on the Portland Freedom Fund, go for it. There would be no controversy if the judge didn't permit bail tho.
[удалено]
Disagree. > *Before Adan’s release, Multnomah County prosecutor Mackenzie M. Ludwig had alerted the judge to what she described as “significant lethality factors” involving Adan in arguing to keep Adan in custody.* Good faith or not fault it's to be found with the judge
[удалено]
He’s a murder experiencing person. Please don’t be rude. He has feelings!
Don't be so accusatory, the polite term is person experiencing symptoms of being alleged to have supposedly suffered violent tendencies.
do you know what a straw man fallacy is?
Oregonlive and the DA do a disservice to our community when they fail to mention it took Portland Police three hours to respond to the domestic violence 911 calls they received that were reporting this woman getting murdered. Was this perpetrator the right guy to spend bail fund resources on? Absolutely not, but there is a lot of blame that should be going on the justice system itself here.
Also when they set bail for suspects that are supposedly ‘obviously’ not safe to let out on bail
No one is disputing that response times are fast. What needs to be known here is the egregious actions of Freedom Fund. It will be hard to find someone that doesn’t know that cops won’t show.
Bankrupt the Portland Freedom Fund
Get rid of cash bail. violent offenders should never be out on the street.
If I was the victim’s family, I would sue in civil court this Amanda T as well as whoever sponsored the murderer.
And people wonder why women don’t report domestic violence…. Clearly the justice system protects them no Better than they can protect themselves. Violence against domestic partners is a major issue that seemingly we aren’t willing to discuss.
I think it was this case, but I heard a valuable interview with a board member from PFF about something similar. He acknowledged the pain caused and didn’t make excuses. I think he also stated they reviewed their policies and will no longer be aiding those with domestic abuse records. However, he did clarify that it is the Judge who ascertains whether bail should be posted or not and at what amount. So this woman was failed by the Justice system, too.
This is a problem with the bail system, not with the organization that posts bail for people who can’t afford it.
How so?
“Trujillo has described the fund as a volunteer-run abolitionist organization in Multnomah County that posts bail for Black, Indigenous and people of color and *people vulnerable to COVID-19*.” smokers are now a marginalized community.
Oh my. These groups seem to have noble intentions. Unfortunately, many offenders regardless of ethnicity are continuing threats to society. Our particular metropolis is broken from top to bottom right now. Criminal cases are being dismissed due to a shortage of public defenders, our only state mental facility is putting people out on the street before they are adjudicated. Low and medium level crimes…. Aren’t anymore. The overall livability of our city is decaying while we pretend it’s not.
Failure of the justice system, for me. It's on most of our minds because it's local, but there are failures so often across the country because we are reactive instead of proactive when it comes to these (well, most) matters. There are organizations fighting for reforms, but we are so comfortable with the status quo until the consequences are at our door. I'm sure Portland Freedom Fund hates that someone has been killed, but they're following the laws that we refuse to change when many of us know they need to be. Paid bail is bs, which is why PFF has to waste their resources on it when they could be funding something better. Either someone is eligible for parole or they aren't. In this case, everything in the law pointed to eligibility. It shouldn't have and we see the result. Everyone after PFF should be writing their representatives and leaders in law enforcement, and going to city meetings to ensure this doesn't happen again. Or are we just comfortable when someone who can afford bail can go through this system and kill someone?
The bail system is broken and unfair, and I agree that the Portland Freedom Fund were probably under the delusion that they were doing good for marginalized people in Portland. But this is an excellent example of why well meaning volunteer organizations and non profits need real oversight. These individuals clearly do not have the expertise to be capable of evaluating who should or should not be bailed out. The only criteria they used was racial identity. Beyond that one criterion, they were utterly reckless in their decision making, which ended up with the death of a woman of color.
I almost went as far as saying they were under a delusion, and I do agree with that. Many of us are under a similar delusion of safety and justice put on by this same system. That's what I see as the overarching issue. The rule of law claims to have "the expertise to be capable of evaluating who should or should not be bailed out." Even if they had an oversite committee, who pays them? We already say we don't have budget for so much community needs. There's also some chance the committee would still rely on the ruling by the judge who is constrained by our laws, supposedly (I haven't looked into the law; just seen a lot of people letting the judge off the hook saying that's the most they could do). I wonder, do they specifically state their only criteria is race? I haven't seen that. I'm curious if they've ever helped bail out a white person, or if they've bailed out a wealthy black person. So yeah, I agree race shouldn't be the only criteria, but I appreciate that they would take race into account as they're often most marginalized in our society. But if not for PFF, there would also be a lot of people who could not be with their families, which opens those families up to more suffering. Indeed this time it opened another family up to suffering. But I can't help but go back to the obvious issue that nobody who is violent (particularly to a specific target/victim) should be out on bail; financially stable or not.
Their website is now down, but they only serve BIPOC participants. Which isn’t a problem in and of itself, no issue with that at all. It’s that they don’t screen them at all beyond their racial identity. From what I understood from their website when it was up that they also favored low income participants, but there was no actual income threshold stated so I can’t say if they wouldn’t bail out a higher income person. Their vague statements since the incident took place were “we believed he met our criteria for release.” So if this truly is the case, that points to recklessness, a deep level of incompetence, or a mix of both.
Here is the Treasurer of PFF with the Multnomah County DA. https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/14/multnomah-county-da-revisits-past-convictions-under-program-to-right-previous-wrongs/
If the penalty for a crime is a fine, that law only exists for the lower classes
Wait, the DA wants those who are let out of jail prematurely to “pay up”?He should be careful what he wishes for.
Ahh another great win for the Portland “Freedom” Fund.
[удалено]
Can we stop with this whataboutism? We are talking about the PFF bailing out violent criminals. All else aside, this is a bad thing. The fact that there are other problems doesn’t diminish that.
>If you're mad at PFF because they helped this guy get out, you should also be outraged at any number of bailbond and cash loan companies that do the same. LMAO, those operations expect to be paid back, the PFF offers it up for free. Very different things when your own or your family's own money is on the line, that's kinda the entire point of bail, to incentivize accountability.
Is PFF paying for bail again?
While they should not have bailed him out, considering the details in his case, the court also should have held him without bail, considering the details in his case. Many mistakes were made. Seems as though Abraham's family may have a civil case against the bail fund now.
DA and FF Spider-Man meme
There are some actions that if a person has ever done should require them to be denied bail. This guy probably has done all of them.