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.
...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!
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.
Problem is that some of the more fucked-up courts will jail people for YEARS without trial. See also, Kalief Browder (may every single person involved in driving him to suicide get cancer and rot in hell).
They can still Google for a bondsman. They just won't see ads. It is a commodity service, and the only thing that matters is the fee. The ads just run up the costs.
Last time I was in jail there was a list of bail bond companies, in alphabetical order, posted on the wall next to the phone.
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.
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
Frankly, if we still had a decent human like Holder as Attorney General,...
Did he do anything about this during the 6 years that he was the Attorney General?
If the answer is "no,", then why do you think it would be different now? Besides wishful thinking?
Even better. Refuse to run ads from "law and order" and "drug warrior" elected judge and prosecutors campaigning for re-election. Or allow them, but de-prioritize them compared to their more liberal opponents. Also ban cop and jailer unions from advertising.
> > 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.
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.
> > 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.
Fake news from "anonymous sources"?
Opposition research. I would note that you didn't care when the DNC did it, and *then used it to falsely claim it was intelligence and get a FISA warrant.
It is certainly not treason, nor a violation of the Logan act, to look for mud about an opponent.
It certainly IS black-letter law violation of the Logan act for a private citizen to negotiate with a foreign government in contradiction the elected government. That is literally and precisely, and uncontested truth, that this is what Kerry was doing with the Iranians the other day.
It is certainly treason to provide aid and comfort and negotiate with an enemy currently at war (declared or not) with the United States. Kerry did that with the North Vietnamese, and he does not dispute that it happened.
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.
Don't Americans have a right to a speedy trial?
Here in Canada the Supreme Court recently ruled that keeping people waiting for years for trial is unconstitutional and all kinds of people have had their charges stayed with the idea that the government will hire more Judges to stop accused murderers from walking.
I believe the soft limits are 18 months to 3 years depending on seriousness of charges.
We also seldom force the accused to put up bail or put them in remand, at least relative to America and time in remand is considered time and a half I believe (might be double time)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That is legal. He is president. What is treasonous is when you ask another nation to help you get elected president, or you interfere with a sitting presidents work with another nation, esp when they are the enemy. The real problem here is that America's and several European nations intelligence world caught trump's ppl , possibly trump himself, working with Putin.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Don't know about the Dems. If they also really committed treason, then yes, arrest and try the fuckers. However, America's AND several European intelligence agency caught trump and his ppl working with russian gov to get trump elected, that is treason and those fuckers need to go to prison, or better swing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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) --
Falsehoods, top to bottom.
Holder "stopped" a program that allowed the Federal Government to request civil forfeiture. However, as long as the state/local police requested that the Federal Government bring the charges, everything was fine. Notice that civil forfeiture rates didn't drop during Holder's "stoppage".
He told US attorneys not to overcharge crimes - against black drug dealers only. Non-drug crimes? Hispanics? Throw the book at 'em!
Fast and Furious was NOT started under Bush. This is a constant lie told by his defenders, but it simply is not true. The Bush Administration tried a program called 'Wide Receiver'. In that program, the ATF sold disabled guns with tracking devices to criminals, and cooperated with the Mexican police to track the guns into Mexico to launch raids targeting a specific drug kingpin. Unfortunately, even with planes following the criminals, the criminals kept getting away. So the program was cancelled, with a mere 400 guns sold over two years.
Holder's Fast and Furious did not disable the guns, did not attempt to track them, did not follow the criminals, did not coordinate with Mexican law enforcement, and did not have a target. Instead, from the investigation performed after the ATF's illegal guns were used to kill a US Border Patrol agent, we discovered that Holder wanted to use the program to drum up support for gun control laws in the United States.
Holder is lying racist scum that had no problem giving violent drug cartels working weapons, so that they would murder people with them, so he could use the propaganda to violate US citizen's rights. Beyond the wiretapping journalists and all that, I mean.
OMG - it's almost like the propaganda organs on BOTH sides of the bogus left/right divide pump out fake news all day and all night long. Good thing THAT's not true.
I've been to Bali. It's a nice place once you get away from the Australian tourist hot-spots.
Could it be a bipartisan action? It would be the first sensible one in a long time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Quick, you better give Robert Mueller the evidence you have that he doesn't! lol
You're a fool. Impeachment of a sitting president isn't legal insomuch as it's political. The *entire* point of this investigation is twofold - opposition research for the DNC going into the next ejection cycles and to drive Trumps poll numbers down. The only reason Clinton didn't get thrown out was that his approval numbers were still high; the public didn't care his dick was getting sucked off while the economy was good.
no they didnt. there is NO proof of any of that happening. The russian thing has been a smoke screan to go after trumps people for other things. no one has been locked up for collusion
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
if there was proof of that, someone would be in jail for it by now. yet no one is
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
lol holder and decent in the same sentence? never thought I would read that
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
someone mod this post up
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
Don't cooperate. Don't yield. Don't plead.
Wow, how idealistic (how brave, even... to take such a stand anonymously). Just kidding; you're a fucking moron.
You were an art major, weren't you?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Flynn - Plead guilty to lying to the fbi about his russian contacts
Pinedo - Plead guilty to opening up false bank accounts and selling them to russia
Zwaan - Plead guilty to lying about work for a Ukranian political party
I don't know what you think "collusion" looks like, but this is it. If you are trying to convince me that "Trumps People" are being indicted for "Other things", you have a hard case to argue. Collusion isn't a crime, but all of the illegal things you do while you collude with a foreign power are. The only question that remains is if they can prove conspiracy, and if Trump can be named in it.
Why would the intelligence world shut down Trump, pence and the rest of his initial admin? They have even said that they have proof. Problem is, that they can not give it out, without also giving up information about our spying on Russian and Chinese spies. As such, Mueller is having to put a case together slowly. However, there are multiple charges that are waiting if any of the previous ppl refuse to testify as to what they know in a future court room.
So no, ppl should not be in prison. Not yet. After all, look at what happened with Nixon, reagan, and Clinton. Nobody went to prison for the initial parts. It was only towards the end that it happened.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Pinedo did his thing prior to 2014, so no trump involvment. there https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16...
Flynn lied about a discussion with the russians AFTER trump was already elected (but before sworn in)
and Ukraine isnt russia
so once again. there is no proof of collusion, there is no proof of conspiracy, and this entire thing is a witch hunt
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
Performing an end-run around the duly elected government to negotigate with a foreign power is treason.
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...
actually the Israeli military & intelligence establishment want to keep the deal (as do the US intelligence etc), but the Netnyahu government and political allies don't. For right wing domestic political reasons.
Yes, there are now indications that Likudnik billionaires like Adelson financed the hiring of Black Box. This is going to be a big story going forward.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He changed the rules such that you could only do a civil asset forfeiture if the feds were involved, which sounds a lot more like beak wetting than anything principled. And the scandal with Fast and Furious was that the feds lost the guns they were supposed to be using as bait, something that never happened under Bush. One of those guns was later used to kill a US Border Patrol agent.
The problem with this idea is jail really, really sucks. People who've never been there don't know the rules, are terrified, and will do anything to get out when court opens in the morning.
Why not? Puritanical, warmongering filth have been in control of this country for too long, bleeding it dry. Time someone blocks them from corrupting the voting public further. Do it, Google. DO IT!
If you have actual evidence that that's the case, somebody's committed a felony. Alternatively, it's a lie.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd care if that actually happened. Based on the public evidence I have, it didn't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Because Republicans just get away with sexual harassment?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.