Slashdot Mirror
Google Will Ban Bail-Bond Ads (arstechnica.com)
First Google banned ads from payday lenders in 2016, now it will no longer allow ads from bail-bond companies. Ars Technica reports: In a blog post, the company suggested that such ads constitute a "deceptive or harmful product," citing a 2016 study concluding that minority and low-income communities are typically most affected by such services. "For-profit bail-bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years," Google wrote. Also in 2016, another study found that "there are 646,000 people locked up in more than 3,000 local jails throughout the U.S.," simply for their inability to pay a bond, which is what drives many people to the services of a bondsman. The change will take effect in July 2018.
There will be a number of GOP that are about to be indicted. They will need bail bonding at that time.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Poor people should not be allowed out of jail.
...if google used their influence to increase bail bond competition and demand clear and fair terms as a condition of being listed on google. Google could become the go-to place for fair and affordable bail bonds!
It's just a means of extracting profit from the masses, not a method of justice. Sure, it seems like a good idea, don't want to hold people in jail before trial, give them the chance to go about their lives, but like all things, some private individuals with more greed than any other sentiment, quickly perverted it, and because they're simply dismissed as criminals, the victims are often ignored.
So instead, just force them to hold you, no matter how trivial the charge. Don't cooperate. Don't yield. Don't plead. Just tell your court-appointed lawyer that you're comfortable with a trial.
The problem isn't the bail bondsmen. The problem are American courts that set excessive bail and keep people in jail for relatively minor crimes (often victimless crimes like drug possession) in the hope that they agree to a plea bargain.
Granted, it might be a symbiotic relationship of corruption in some cases. But we should be going after the courts themselves, not the bondsmen. Google would do well donating to organizations like the ACLU and SPLC, which are starting to sue on Constitutional grounds (prohibition of excessive bail, speedy trial rule) as well as working on legislative reform in some states.
Moves towards bail reform in CA and NJ are a good start, hope this spreads to other states. Same with drug law liberalization.
The song was so catchy!
While I agree with the intent, and even the assessment of Bail Bond providers, Google should not be the entity deciding and enforcing what is correct speech!
That is entirely the purview of government, and once we let private companies start using their judgment we're in for a whole world of hurt.
For example, a legal proceeding (judgment and enforcement by government) usually has well-defined definitions that have been tested in court, refined by previous cases, and there's a clear-cut path for disagreement and appeal.
We're starting to feel the pinch of ambiguous rules and selective enforcement right now, as more people get pissed off because their previously acceptable videos get taken down, stored documents get locked away, accounts get locked and shadow-banned, and E-mails get scanned. (And caused at least one person to snap and go shoot up a bunch of Google employees.)
Instead of suppressing the ads, why doesn't Google suggest and throw its weight behind legislation? They seem to have no problem encouraging legislation in other areas.
There's a lot of smart people at Google. You would think that they could write simple legislation that could be submitted for debate that would make everyone's life better. Such as, for example, legislation about net neutrality.
Instead of forcing everyone into prim and proper behaviour.
This makes no sense.
People use a bail bondsman because THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR BAIL
If given the choice between a shitty loan or staying in jail I think I would take the loan.
And bail bondsmen deal with people who are probably mostly on the wrong side of the digital divide. Even the summary cites a study indicating that bail bonds are most frequently used by low income communities and people of color. Under these circumstances it's unlikely that many bail bondsmen were advertising heavily on Google AdWords anyway. The sticker next to the pay phone at the county jail or the store front bail bond business, which incidentally can usually make you a payday loan too for a one stop shopping experience, is probably the way that they get most of their business. Anyone who's driven through these low income communities has surely seen the sorts of retail outlets that predominate. You have pawn brokers, payday lenders, bail bondsmen, rent-to-own, liquor and dollar stores interspersed with fast food outlets and the occasional gas station, you know the one with the cashier booth protected by ballistic glass and a turn table for passing cash and lotto tickets through the window. So how much business is Google really giving up here? My bet is not very much and they get a nice PR hit and a chance to plug Google AdWords with some good press.
SJWs! Need I say more?
Google banned payday loan ads last year because they're considered predatory on the poor. And its true if you search for "payday loans", there won't be any ads for those loan services. However, put in "same day loans" and, viola! there's an ad for a payday loan.
So much virtue signalling, Google really went to shit with all that SJW bullshit...
I learned a bit about the bail system and I think this is a pretty silly move on Google's part. As for who uses bondsmen - people in jail, that's who.
The choices are:
1. Pay the bail in cash.
2. Use a bondsman.
3. Sit in jail.
People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up. They're not going to bail themselves out in most cases, though they do have that option.
It's typically family members who feel somewhat obligated to bail someone out of jail. Their choice is pay the bail in cash, which might be about $2,000, or pay 10%, $200, to a bondsman. Since people who end up in jail are typically not the most reliable people, putting up $2,000 cash and hoping to get it back a year later if your drunk brother shows up to all his court appearances doesn't seem like a good idea.
I HAVE $2,000 in savings, I could *afford* to put $2,000 to bail someone out, but I'd rather just pay the bondsman $200 and not have to worry about it. The bondsman will have him call in a few times per week, and try to make sure he doesn't "forget" his court appearance. I don't want to do all that, hoping to eventually get my cash back from court. I'd rather let a professional handle that.
The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit. If they were, more people would go into that line of business. The bondsman loses money on anyone who doesn't show up to court. If they use a recovery agent (bounty hunter) and successfully recover the fugitive, the bondman only loses a little bit of money. If they don't recover the fugitive, they lose a lot of money.
I can understand reasons people might point to problems with the bail SYSTEM, but bail is much older than bail bondsman. Bondsmen didn't create the bail system. Bondsmen make it possible for people who aren't rich to get out on bail.
The bail system itself has advantages and disadvantages. It allows people freedom while they await trial. That's good. It protects society in general by giving an incentive for professionals to make sure people charged with a crime actually show up to court, including tracking down fugitives who run. On the other hand, like everything else, money doesn't buy happiness, but it does make things easier. We'd like to have a criminal justice system in which nobody has any advantage, but the fact is there are advantages to having resources. Bail isn't perfect. On balance, weighing the positives and negatives, I think the bail system has more advantages than disadvantages.
Why google does not ban the fake pdf sites that shows on the results of "filetype=PDF" ?
Google is deciding which businesses are valid and which are not? Wow. Queue evil overlord music already?
You know I could almost say "Sure why not." but then I remembered this is the same company probably serving malware over their networks because they're not vetting very well.
Then I noticed a post in this same discussion about the target market for bondsmen services isn't likely using the internet regularly, if at all. So, Google takes a moral stance on bullshit when it doesn't even matter cuz bondsmen don't advertise on Google? Why?
Is this some ploy to win 'feel good' points? Cuz for me, it's just the opposite, all I feel is creeped out.
Googles business re-enforces the very stereotypes they'll tell us we shouldn't have. It's profiling its users based on race and social status and showing them ads for pay day loans and bail bonds. How un SJW of them.
"Today, weâ(TM)re announcing a new policy to prohibit ads that promote bail bond services from our platforms. Studies show that for-profit bail bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years."
You do understand that bail bondsmen actually provide a critical service, essentially allowing people to afford bail that otherwise couldn't (for those who aren't intending to flee), and would have to stay in jail for their inability to pay?
And the reason people of color and low income people are "most victimized"(?) by this service is BECAUSE THEY COMMIT MOST OF THE CRIME, far out of proportion to their demographic representation.
"According to Gina Clayton, executive director of the Essie Justice Group, "This is the largest step any corporation has taken on behalf of the millions of women who have loved ones in jails across this country. Google's new policy is a call to action for all those in the private sector who profit off of mass incarceration. It is time to say âno more.â(TM)"
So this is only for women? Isn't that astonishingly heteronormative and sexist?
How is preventing people from getting out on bond HELPING ANYONE?
-Styopa
They would rather that profiteering low-life scum weren't part of the criminal justice system, but given that decriminalising non-violent offences, instituting community policing, eliminating elected prosecutors and judges, abolishing the grand jury, outlawing plea bargaining, and rebuilding broken communities aren't an option in the United States... well, not letting profiteering low-life scum on the platform is at least a first step.
What is the percentage of bail jumpers? Instead of screwing over people, set a fair price that guarrenties a solid rate of return. There must be a demand for such a service, no?
This sounds like a pretty idiotic move. Sure many bail bond agencies need to be held to a higher standard, but a lack of them in our current legal climate basically means that instead of being in debt you're in jail watching any semblance of your un-incarcerated life crumble (lost job, house foreclosure/eviction, loss of property, etc) sometimes for years while waiting trial. A better move might be to partner with a good trade or civil rights group and single out the good bond companies and give them preferential treatment in the ad pipeline. Or to actually fix the problem and demand that bonds be set at levels actually in line with their constitutional intent (enough money to reasonably ensure the suspect returns to court or serve as punishment for their crime should they not return), not used as a weapon against suspects to hold them until they plead out. Of course that last one is less Googles problem and more a problem for the public.
> > People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up.
> Then bail is obviously too high.
So you're thinking that because my brother was too irresponsible to save up $20 while he was committing his daily crimes such as shoplifting and domestic abuse, he should be set free and not have to face trial? Or are you thinking that his bond should be $5, because certainly he'll show up to court to get his $5 back?
> It sounds like you're accepting that people who go to jail should have family that pay out large sums of money so people can keep committing crimes?
I said that would NOT (and did not) pay the $2,000. What I did was facilitate having a professional, a bondsman, see to it that he got out of jail and showed up to court.
> it shouldn't take anything close to a year to get your money back because it shouldn't take a year to resolve a criminal dispute.
Are you under the impression that bail bondsmen set the courts' schedules?
>> Bail bondsmen aren't making huge profits.
> Uh, no. They make plenty
You might want to read at least the title and subtitle of the story you linked. The subtitle will give you a good idea of what the article is about.
> And any sane petty criminal that was in a system that was fair--time served and a speedy trial--wouldn't bail out.
Where exactly do you find a justice system that is both fast and fair? North Korea's is pretty fast. They don't spend the time needed to be fair. The United States spends a lot of time trying to fair, but doesn't do an amazing job of it.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your "any sane" assertion as well. Through a series of unfortunate events and me not being very careful, I ended up arrested for driving with an invalid license. Had I stayed in jail for a few days, I would have been MIA from the company I was running and from the family I lead. That would have been far more costly than the couple hundred bucks bond I paid to get out within a couple hours. Bond was absolutely the sane choice - even just looking only at the cash results, bail was cheaper than the losses of spending a few days in jail. Not to mention the fact that being in jail really sucks - even for a few days.
I'm also curious where you find these "petty criminals" who are in the habit of making well-reasoned decisions in the first place. It seems to me that being a petty criminal is a series of daily bad decisions. One could argue that it might be reasonable to figure you have a 90% chance of getting away with a crime, so stealing $10 million, one time, is worth the risk. But being a petty criminal, betting that you can get away with it every single time, in order to steal $100 here and $25 there seems like the definitive example of stupid decisions in life.
Anyone in need of a bail bond does not have access to use google to find one.
At best, they will have an old, out-dated physical local yellow-pages phone book on a chain next to a phone whose handset has a 6" cord.
At worst, they will have a list of approved bail-bond company phone numbers posted to the wall, again next to a phone with a 6" handset cord.
That's true, you can still search.
A bail bondsman is of course someone you call when you need a bandsman; it's not an impulse buy at all. Since people are only going to call a bandsman when they need one, it seems to me it only makes sense for bondsmen to advertise on Google to those searching for bondsmen. So it should make very little difference. Search for bondsmen, get listings for them. Whether or not some of the listings are paid listings doesn't change much that I can see. Other than perhaps opening up an opportunity for ads that skirt the rules - bond information hotlines and such (which are bail bond companies in disguise).
Didn't many of us call this correctly?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Spot on. Just like payday loans, bail bonds are predatory but they're also the last resort for people who are laughed out of banks and credit unions. If they no longer have access to this type of short term credit, where will those people go? No credit cards, no lines of credit, no valuables to pawn - what's left? Nothing legal.
The rich hypocrites who decides for the poor always bring up those shameful annual interest rates or those people who pay loans for years. What they fail to mention is that payday loans have a lower default rate than mortgages.
But let's not bother with facts, let's just accept the dogma cast upon us from the ivory towers of California. Once again Google acts as a vehicle for the shallow social agenda of political correctness of the Silicon Valley elite, sweeping problems under the rug of "someone else fix it". Fuck those arrogant bastards.
lucm, indeed.
You're answering your own question: if you don't think people will show up for court to face trial, they shouldn't be able to bail out. If you think the risk of losing $2000 is going to stop a person from skipping out to avoid a trial, that's pretty much only going to be true if the punishment is low enough. You're literally arguing that people responsible enough to save up for when they go to jail are more trustworthy. Yet you undercut it because the untrustworthy people can still get out of jail. That argues against bonds.
The problem is, if you think your brother is guilty, why are you bailing/bonding him out? You're literally paying $200 so he gets some freedom before going back to court, is found guilty, and then spends time in jail/prison. Either way, he'll be spending the same amount of time in jail, unless the judiciary system is broken. If it is broken, that's the problem that needs to be fixed: not creating a bond/bail system.
Non-sequitur. The problem is with the courts' schedules and bondsmen do nothing to fix the problem. Courts don't want people in jail waiting for trial because that's a cost to the county/city. So, indirectly bonding people out means they can effectively make more arrests which is part of how the court system is overbooked. The other part is how speedy trial requirements are frequently waved.
"While bail-bond services are often associated with the myriad small storefronts that can be found in poor communities across the country, many of them, the report finds, are actually run by large global insurance companies." But even when it's small time players, it's clearly a booming industry. $14 billion in bonds/year. That's not chump change.
So, the United States fails at both you say. Awesome. The point is precisely that America is supposed to strive for a justice system that is both fast and fair and when it fails to call it out for its failings and work to fix them. Introducing a whole other industry to try to paper over the problem isn't a fix.
So did you bail out or bond out? Did you search months in jail or pay a fine? Would the system work better if you just, you know, were allowed to leave on your own recognizance?
> > People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up.
> Then bail is obviously too high.
So you're thinking that because my brother was too irresponsible to save up $20 while he was committing his daily crimes such as shoplifting and domestic abuse, he should be set free and not have to face trial? Or are you thinking that his bond should be $5, because certainly he'll show up to court to get his $5 back?
If he's that irresponsible, he shouldn't get out on bail in the first place.
> it shouldn't take anything close to a year to get your money back because it shouldn't take a year to resolve a criminal dispute.
Are you under the impression that bail bondsmen set the courts' schedules?
In a manner of speaking, they do. More precisely, the existence of bail bondsmen facilitates the slowness of our system of justice.
You see, if the bondsmen didn't exist, then most of those people would be in jails, which means the jails would quickly fill up with people waiting to go to trial, and the flow of people into the system would be limited to no more than the flow of people out of the system. The net effect would be that either the prosecutors would have to exercise some prosecutorial restraint or the city/state/federal government would have to hire enough judges to clear the backlog.
With bail bondsmen, the number of people waiting for trial is essentially unbounded. They could have every man, woman, and child in the country out on bail. So as long as they don't flee or commit some other crime while waiting that causes the judge who set bail to lose an election, the justice system can move as glacially as it wants to.
Where exactly do you find a justice system that is both fast and fair? North Korea's is pretty fast. They don't spend the time needed to be fair. The United States spends a lot of time trying to fair, but doesn't do an amazing job of it.
The inadequate speed of the U.S. justice system is not because it takes too much time to get the decisions right; on average, most trials last less than a week. The problem is that it is massively underfunded, and thus takes months or years before cases even go to trial. This, in turn, is mostly because of a lack of prosecutorial restraint, which in large part is facilitated by the bond system.
There are really only two valid solutions to the problem: either prosecute fewer cases or hire enough judges so that trials aren't delayed ridiculously.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
How about you stop with those constant three minute long ads fo the church of Scientology? Maybe stop with thos obnoxious ads that go on for two minutes perpetuating the âoepink taxâ or âoewomen are paid less than menâ myths? How about you stop with thsyour e shitty facing lubricated condominium ads that talk abon it orgasms?
So your options are "sit in jail".
Feel empowered.
https://youtu.be/lb8fWUUXeKM?t...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I am white, work a $50K+ job in the US, have 2 kids.. and one night I got arrested. 13 years ago before my kids, for the record. One time deal. I would have done 2 months if it weren't for bail bondsman ads. It was the only thing we were allowed to read. If I was advertised to beforehand, I may have know who to call. I was horrified. Who the fuck is this protecting again? People wanting to get out of jail? You either like it on the inside or the outside. If you want to be on the outside, don't do the crime, or pay bail. STFU Google. Seriously, unless there is a picture of a guy doing meth in the ad, who the fuck cares? Can they go after people that vandalize and hack websites, please? I mean you control the goddamned browser for crying out loud. -Paid my 5K, got it back. (I went to court - how the fuck hard is that)
Maybe I just don't understand the bail system, not living in the US, but from I gather it is a simple system: If you can get released on bail, you pay the bail and are released. When you show up as you're supposed to, you get the bail back - in full.
If this is correct, a bail bondsman just lends you the bail money for a short time. It really can't be that expensive as there's legislation against obscene interest rates and a bail bondsman is usually a lawful business.
So why are they a harmful business? They provide a service to those not wealthy enough to come up with the money themselves.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
I've been to Bali. It's a nice place once you get away from the Australian tourist hot-spots.
You are aware that you have to pay that loan back somehow? My question would be: how? You're going to trial after a while where you might go to jail, not really earning any relevant amounts of money while that loan keeps piling up interest. Then you get out and have a mountain of debt in front of you that you might, if you're lucky, be able to at least pay the interest of, with no chance to ever actually repay it in your lifetime or that of your kids.
You really think it's a good idea?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
someone mod this post up
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Mother-in-law used to work for a lawyer. She said that courts will find ways to pad the court fees and take it out of the bail money if you don't use a bondsman.
RRK
ATF agents playing Keystone Kops and entrapping mentally-disabled people. And arresting people with rock-solid alibis (like being in federal prison at the time of their supposed offense). The IG issued a pretty scathing report: https://oig.justice.gov/report...
The report concluded that all the ATF’s storefront operations were characterized by “poor management, insufficient training and guidance to agents in the field, and a lax organizational culture that failed to place sufficient emphasis on risk management in these inherently sensitive operations.”
Agents lost track of a fully automatic assault rifle and lost $35,000 worth of store “merchandise” in a burglary. The ATF paid such high prices for guns that potential victims of the sting legally bought guns from gun stores and sold them to friendly Fearless Distributing. One entrepreneur stole three ATF guns from the store. The next day he returned and sold one of them back. One of the men agents charged with selling them drugs had an airtight alibi. He was already in prison. ATF agents said Jones sold them six grams of marijuana on March 7. Problem was, Jones reported to a federal prison in Pennsylvania to start a sentence on March 1, according to Chris Burke, spokesman for the federal Bureau of Prisons - on an ATF case. "He was definitely in our custody," Burke said. "He never left."
Google cares so much for the little guy that they'd rather let him sit in jail than have such déclassé advertisements on their network.
What that means is that Google disenfranchises minorities by denying them access to an essential service, a service that permits people who are too poor to afford bail themselves to get out of jail.
And that's typical of progressivism Google-style: they don't care about minorities, they care about ingratiating themselves to their political cronies, in this case Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom.
> If you think the risk of losing $2000 is going to stop a person from skipping out to avoid a trial, that's pretty much only going to be true if the punishment is low enough.
There are multiple parts to that.
The risk that they won't show up depends on many factors. Someone who drifts from town to town crashing on relatives' and friends' couches is likely to drift on and not show up. People accused of serious crimes have reason to not show up. On the other hand, someone who owns a house there probably isn't going to abandon their $200,000 investment to flee from a DWI charge.
Yes, the bail is supposed to be set appropriately so that people do tend to show up, and when the punishment is a fine, it's easy to set the bail to be a significant portion of the fine. If they don't show up, they've already paid at least part of the fine, so it's okay that they didn't show up. That's missing the point and historical practice of bail, though. Most defendants don't bail themselves out, and even allowing someone to pay their own bail is a relatively recent development.
The money bail historically was practiced, and still normally is, is that there are two people involved. There's someone like my brother, who had a drinking problem and regularly committed petty crimes, he's not reliable and shouldn't be trusted to show up on his own. Then there is someone like me. I have a house and a business in town, I've lived there many years, and I'm not likely to be going anywhere. I'm a reliable person. I essentially say to the court 'I'll make sure my brother shows up. He can stay with me until his hearing and I'll make sure he doesn't "forget" to show up, and won't let him be out all night partying and getting into more trouble in the meantime". Though I may be a reliable, dependable person, the court can't just take me at my word. I might help my brother leave the state. That's significantly less likely if *I* have a couple thousand dollars of my own money on the line. Essentially I'm telling the court "I'll make sure he shows up, and to prove I'm serious here's $2,000 you can hold until he does." The court has a reliable, dependable third party who has shown they are serious about making sure the defendant will show up, and they have some influence over the defendant, some ability to make that happen.
As more people started moving longer distances from friends and family, far from their home town, not everyone had a responsible relative in town any more. That's when professional bail sureties started. In lieu of personal relationships with the defendant, they have developed systems to help make sure people show up.
>> The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit.
> If that were the case you'll find it wouldn't be contentious.
Abortion doctors are contentious, so they must be making obscene profits?
People are generally having a bad day when they need to engage a bail bondsman. Many are happy to blame it on anyone and everyone involved in the process - the cops are scumbags, the jail guards are scumbags, bondmen are scumbags, the judge has it out for me, etc. It's ALL of those people's fault that I got busted for shoplifting, or selling crack, or whatever.
I think you'll find that the "contention" is that people who regularly get busted committing crimes think everything and everyone involved with dealing with their crimes are all horrible people, everyone is against them. Those who don't commit crimes regularly generally see the people involved in criminal justice as imperfect human beings like the rest of us, but generally their job.
Good to know.
a 2016 study concluding that minority and low-income communities are typically most affected by such services.
You mean high crime communities use bail bondsmen more often? How shocking. It is obviously a plot by The Man to take advantage of the poor and minorities.
And, when the poor and minorities can't get bailed out of jail, will you also cry discrimination? Yes, yes, you will.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So much for America's racist prison problem.. fixed by Google!
Right, then. Well done. Keep the filthy miscreants off the streets and safely locked away in gaol, then.
There's nothing elitist or racist about that, right?
Or are Google's sanctimonious SJW provocateurs just playing at "silly buggers" again?
What a steaming wet sack of hypocr-idiots they all are!
The fallacious logic I repeated is YOURS. *YOU* said "if they didn't make obscene profits it wouldn't be contentious".
Your proof that they must make obscene profits is that they are contentious. We can see from the example of abortion doctors and many, many other things that contention does not in any way prove or imply anything at all about profits.
You then imply that bail bonds "target the poor" which is factually false - bondsmen require proof that the purchaser can pay the insured amount. They prefer to work with people who have money, and if "the poor" want a bond the bondsman will normally require a co-signer, someone who isn't "poor".
Here's some suggested reading to help you with your problem.
Let us know how awesome it is when it's your dumb ass in the slammer due to the actions of corrupt cops or prosecutors.
According to your link, the guy was illegally carrying a gun, different illegal drugs on multiple occasions, starting fights in airports, violating his probation and over - certainly that's the bondman's fault, not his. I know every time I see a bondsman I'm compelled to immediately go illegally carry weapons.
That's the story according to the article you linked, one which tries to spin it to support him. A more objective view probably looks even worse for him.
For-profit bail-bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years,
But if white people are getting ripped off by a service, then it's OK? PC people these days don't even realize how ridiculous they sound sometimes...
Yes,
Basically, if you show up to court, they give them their money back. So as long as you show up to trial, you would owe nothing.
Non-Profit Bail Bonds Ads still permitted?
The blog post only decries for-profit companies.
Are they blocked yet? They prey on the misfortune of others. No one wants to go to a pawn shop and get 30% of the value of their favorite collectible unless they have to. Pawn brokers know this and low ball them. If a person has time to put it on Ebay and wait 2 weeks, they will.
...then making it harder to find a bail bondsman is racist, right?
What's next, will Google ban malt liquor ads? Planned parenthood ads?
The fallacious logic I repeated is YOURS. *YOU* said "if they didn't make obscene profits it wouldn't be contentious".
No you didn't. You reversed my non-commutative argument which is the logical fallacy. My original one was just fine.
Your proof that they must make obscene profits is that they are contentious.
No that's not how the English language works. The statement I made makes absolutely no claims about the nature of profits at all.
We can see from the example of abortion doctors and many, many other things that contention does not in any way prove or imply anything at all about profits.
This I completely agree with, but it is also completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything we have said so far other than being an example of a logical fallacy against the topic we are discussing.
You then imply that bail bonds "target the poor" which is factually false - bondsmen require proof that the purchaser can pay the insured amount.
The ability for someone to repay a loan has nothing to do with how rich or poor they are.
You're on fire! This is another false cause fallacy.
They prefer to work with people who have money
If they did so they wouldn't be working in field that statistically is made up predominantly of poor people and minority groups. To claim that this is factually false, show me statistics where the PIC isn't entirely skewed towards poor and minority groups. Here's some bedtime reading: https://www.aclu.org/sites/def... Yes it's 64 pages but there's a lot of pictures.
The sole evidence of which came from the testimony from a corrupt-as-hell cop, who accused Meek of pointing a gun at him. Cop's own partner laughed that one out of the room:
And that is from behind the Blue Wall of Silence. Graham was a freakshow.
You mean an airpot employee started a fight when he wouldn't take "no" for an answer on getting a photo with meek.
For shit like (gasp!) not telling his probation officer when he was leaving the state. Which could happen any time Meek wanted to drive over to New Jersey to pick up his kids from school. But time to get out of this rabbit hole: his first arrest and jail sentence were based on complete bullshit, the testimony of a corrupt cop who would have shot him down if Meek had actually pointed a gun in his direction. Which means every other petty probation violation is also based on bullshit, full stop.
"Rich hypocrites" ? If you dislike it, open up your own payday company and charge lower interest.
I was referring to Google. Next time you have an unused quota of SJW accusations try to find a more relevant thread to spend it.
lucm, indeed.
You sometimes see people objecting to the presence of pawnshops, payday lenders, etc. in a municipality and try to ban or restrict them. They think it's a sign of decline, and that if they can keep the number down, that will help stop or even reverse the decline.
While their motives may possibly be admirable, their understanding of the cause of the situation and the consequences of their action are flawed.
Their customers still want those services, and for the same reasons as before the law. They will have to work harder to get those services, is all. And the existing businesses face less competition -- actual and potential -- with the usual consequences. The law makes life worse for people in the community.
At least Google is not using threats of force to hamper people getting services they might want, just making them harder to find. And there are competitors, such as duckduckgo.com. And yahoo.com and bing.com. (Those two are still around, aren't they?)
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
I read the article you had linked to. Which didn't say anything about a laughing partner or anything like that, as I recall. If you don't think that article spins it the way they should, I suppose don't use that link next time.
I spent about 10 minutes or so reading most of your latest link, and I still don't see any mention of a bail bondsman either.
You read what you want to read, and the rest falls by the wayside. Like the airport "fight" which was linked to in the first article, which says what it was about and that the airport employees also received a summons to court.