He was only released yesterday. And it’s not like the police are going to make an announcement about it. Which brings about the question, doesn’t anyone at the student paper work the police beat?
Probably nobody in the church knows that it’s happened already, including Carol.
Surely the church people know and also I don’t see why Carol would mention any of this to Joyce.
Screwball
Yeah, it’s not like Joyce tried to get Becky away from Toedad, or tried punching him or anything…
Um, OK, I just realized Joyce Mum probably wouldn’t want to tell Joyce, so she doesn’t get in the way/get Becky beyond Toedad’s loving arms…
Marsh Maryrose
They know they gave Blaine the money to do it and they expect it to happen soon.
But unless Blaine or Ross called them, they don’t know it has happened. I can’t imagine Blaine would have bothered, it’s not like he feels accountable to them or anyone else.
And Ross probably doesn’t even have a cell phone. Blaine has pretty clearly been trying to keep him incommunicado.
They probably should be telling Becky. You know, the person he’s accused (very credibly) of having kidnapped?
… but “should” isn’t the same thing as “will”.
Mackabre
They should tell her but that idea presumes they have her number and/or she would answer a call from them (joyce’s parents that is)
Ron again
We’re discussing Joyce’s parents as “them” but I believe they are very separate entities in this matter. Joyce’s mom was there at the bail-out get-together and Hank was not. I firmly believe Hank is telling Joyce without her mom knowing, which is why he couldn’t call 20 times a day and why he had to walk out casually talking and why, when he was out of earshot, he suddenly and drastically changed the seriousness of the conversation with Sarah
But didn’t Hank promise Becky to help get her set up with her own bank account and stuff? I distinctly remember her mentioning this to, I think, Dina, when she started working at Galasso’s, and that action would imply that she trusts him enough to pick up the phone for him.
Regalli
Becky only got a stable cell line of her own after the last time she saw Hank, so it’s possible he doesn’t have her number yet. (And if Hank is in the habit of leaving his cell where Carol can access it, it may not be safe to change that fact.)
Axel
I’m assuming this is why he didn’t text
Regalli
Agreed.
Reltzik
By “they” I meant the authorities that released Toedad. I should’ve been clearer.
I don’t think Hank is in the loop at all. Not only does he not know Ross is already out, he only “thinks” the church is working on it. He’s probably just heard some rumors.
Carol certainly knows more – that they’ve raised the money with a kind stranger’s help, but even she may not know he’s already out.
Or what Blaine’s demented ass brought him along to be a part of..I don’t think anyone else but Amber’s ‘Amazigirl’ split personality knows what happened to Mike…Blaine and Ross may be on the run as we speak with Mike’s body…
Pessimism, the mother of pragmatism and black humor. Whenever the voice of pessimism enter your brain, kick it where it hurts more and move on. In the case of clinical depression, visit a doctor.
He was screaming the name during the hunt though. There’s a possibility someone woke up and remembers being awake due to a screaming teen when the police asks for unusual things that night.
And it’ll only take us about a year real time to find out..
I feel like it says something that the police didn’t think it worthwhile to inform Becky and the other victims of his freedom. Either that or the news media to report on one of the rare gun wielding psychopaths in America captured alive out on bail.
I would have expected the former to be a matter of course in a case of attempted murder and murder and kidnapping though not the latter.
Someone tried to explain bail in the USA when they got him out but I still cannot grasp how someone caught in the act for this can get bail.
Simply put, it’s Indiana. The constitution of that state mandates bail to be set for any crime that’s not actual murder.
Bicycle Bill
Pretty sure that’s not just unique to Indiana.
However, I do know from experience (don’t ask; I ain’t telling) that if you are out on bond/bail, one of the conditions is that you do not commit any additional crimes. If you fail to toe the mark, however, and DO commit additional offenses and are re-apprehended, not only do you get charged for your new offenses, you are also liable to be charged with violating the conditions of your original bond. Which means that you have just forfeited your original bail and, by displaying your willingness/likelihood to re-offend, just made it a whole lot harder to get out on bond again. And if you ARE able to get assigned a bond a second time, it is most likely going to be set so high you’d better learn to like jail food anyway.
thejeff
How does the “forfeited your original bail” part work when you actually paid 10% of it to the bondsman? I mean, he’s out money and he’s mad at you, but then what?
Bicycle Bill
You either pay him back or you find you’ve got a civil suit on your hands as well.
“So, you actually did take you legally adult daughter by force against her will – that’s kidnapping, after walking around the university grounds while wielding a loaded rifle – which you did fire once – terrifying everyone in the vicinity, then caused an motor vehicle accident by – going off witness statements – hanging out the driver’s side window trying to shoot the vigilante on the roof who was attempting to rescue your daughter FROM YOU?!?! …………… I’m sure we can trust you, just pay $###### and you’re good to go…”
King Daniel
Yep. I believe Willis actually posted a news story in the comments back from when this whole bail storyline started about a guy who shot a school bus driver actually succeeding in posting bail.
Needfuldoer
Doesn’t Indiana require bail to be set for all crimes short of murder? I thought someone talked about that in the comments a while back.
Needfuldoer
This is what happens when you read the comments from the bottom up.
In theory, the purpose of bail isn’t to punish or even incapacitate. It’s simply to provide a (literal) guarantee that the accused will show up to trial. An aggressive prosecutor might argue that the accused is a menace if left at large, in which case bail will be denied entirely rather than just set very high. But otherwise, the only purpose for bail is supposed to be ensuring the guy doesn’t flee the jurisdiction. That means weighing primarily the person’s means (which doesn’t happen nearly often enough, IMO) and how much likely sentence is to hurt them, and setting a figure so that skipping out on bail will hurt them more.
Arguably, setting bail higher on the grounds of ongoing risk is a violation of several constitutional rights of the accused, including the presumption of ignorance and the bar on excessive bail.
In other words, “caught in the act” shouldn’t impact where bail is set. That’s a question of establishing guilt, which is something a bail hearing isn’t supposed to consider. The severity of the charge (kidnapping, plus probably some firearms offenses and a few other things) does have an impact on bail, in that one presumes someone’s more likely to flee if the crime carries a heavy sentence and so bail is set higher. But it’s also not a basis for denying bail.
In this case, the DA was clearly not aggressive. At the very least, someone should have contacted Becky. Given his declaration that he was willing to die “for” Becky, a strong case could have been made for denying bail on the grounds that he was a threat, and barring that Ross should have at least gotten an ankle monitor. (Which raises a whole host of economic injustices, but is definitely called for in this case.)
Reltzik
…. or maybe it’s required in Indiana, like Daniel said. Huh.
… okay, a bit more research suggests that armed kidnapping is a level 3 felony (level 1 is the most severe, level 6 the least before it gets downgraded to misdemeanor). Sentence ranges from 3-16 years. Monroe County (where Bloomington is) has guidelines saying bail for a level 3 felony should be placed $500 cash plus $15,000 surety (basically insurance that pays out to the court if you don’t show up). But these are just guidelines and the judge has a lot of discretion.
Getting surety bond usually costs 10% of the bond value, plus a few dozen extra dollars administrative fees, so if the guidelines were followed bail would have cost Ross and his fellow godly Christians somewhere between $2000 and $2100.
CJ
What else is a Level 3 felony? Embezzling?
I understand a right for bail for low-level or non-violent crime, but I do not understand how anyone who did premeditated violence can ever get out on bail. In case of caught-in-the-act with several witnesses who are not the arresting officers, the point of the trial is not to determine, if he has done it, but how to legally weight the act.
Showing up with a gun on campus determines premeditation.
thejeff
That’s not how “presumption of innocence” works.
“You’ve been accused of a bad crime, so you’re going to jail for a year or so before we even hold a trial.” The system as it is, is already horrific enough, particularly for poor minorities accused of relatively mild but violent crimes.
That said, cash bail is a bad way of handling it. Paying to stay out of jail isn’t exactly a great equalizer. Some states are experimenting with doing away with it entirely, giving judges more discretion to release offenders who aren’t flight risks or likely to reoffend.
There is however an entire entrenched industry of bail bondsmen trying to keep the system in place.
And of course, the mere existence of the bail bondsman system means bail as we commonly think of it doesn’t work. The concept is that you give the court a large sum of money to ensure you show up. Essentially a deposit that you get back if you don’t. But that doesn’t happen – instead you pay the bondsman a fraction of it and they put up the rest and you’re out the part you pay the bondsman no matter what. Now the only penalty if you don’t show is that the bondsman will try to track you down and get the money from you, but that means if you get away, you’re not out anything. Why not just have the state track down people who don’t show and impose more penalties on them? It’s the same thing in practice.
SuperZero
Except the trial is definitely to determine guilt.
They already know the answer in this caswe, sure, but that’s still what a trial is for. It’s a very important step to not be in a police state.
Otherwise, y’know… Well, we already know that CJ is actively trying to murder several people right now, so no need to legally prove it.
CJ
Sorry, where do you get that now? As long as several people have seen an easily identifiable person commit an act of violence, what you need to to in trial is to make sure that all the witnesses have not cooperated to frame your likely criminal. Witness statements from several persons who are not the arresting officers should be enough of a likelihood of having the right person, that in cases of obviously planned violence the public has the right to have the person who has been seen and clearly identified as the person to have done the violence (I would suspect that Toedad even never bothered to deny what he did because god given right), the intended victims have the right to be safe.
So there are several points that distinguish my view from a police state:
1) an act of violence was committed and there are several witnesses that can without any doubt identify the perp (this is not very often the case as people who are less crazy than Toedad will try to disguise themselves and not use their own car, therefore making identification difficult)
2) the act of violence was planned and, as it didn’t reach its intended goal, is likely to be repeated
3) the witnesses are not the arresting officers as it’s been proven time and again that some arresting officers will tell tall tales to justify arrest on a whim.
In those kind of cases, bail should be denied by default, though, as not to be a police state, you must see to it that the accused has access to a lawyer and they can try to prove that there is reasonable doubt concerning 1 or 2.
Making sure the victim is not victimized again should be the main aim here.
At the actual trial, the proven guilty can be very fast as there is no reasonable doubt as who did it, though the accused has every right to fünf use the issue, and the really interesting thing is if the jury/judge will find mitigating circumstances (you could argue, that Toedad is not really able to understand what he is doing).
“Innocent until proven guilty” is there to make sure people aren’t framed or just arrested on a whim. Which clearly isn’t the case for Toedad.
It wouldn’t really help in cases of domestic violence as you very seldom have several witnesses.
194 thoughts on “B’bye”
Suet
And he IS out.
Guess who forgot to tell…
Axel
I was wondering if I missed a ‘one week ago’ or something
Hugo Bedward
yeah, for a sec I thought that Ross was already back in jail after the Mike incident.
Axel
My thought was that it was before Mike somehow
Marsh Maryrose
He was only released yesterday. And it’s not like the police are going to make an announcement about it. Which brings about the question, doesn’t anyone at the student paper work the police beat?
Probably nobody in the church knows that it’s happened already, including Carol.
Matthew E Davis
Maybe that’s Billie? I mean, she was working the Amazigirl angle for a while
sirconanad
Wasn’t the Amazigirl reporter job given to Dorothy a while back?
Tacos
Surely the church people know and also I don’t see why Carol would mention any of this to Joyce.
Screwball
Yeah, it’s not like Joyce tried to get Becky away from Toedad, or tried punching him or anything…
Um, OK, I just realized Joyce Mum probably wouldn’t want to tell Joyce, so she doesn’t get in the way/get Becky beyond Toedad’s loving arms…
Marsh Maryrose
They know they gave Blaine the money to do it and they expect it to happen soon.
But unless Blaine or Ross called them, they don’t know it has happened. I can’t imagine Blaine would have bothered, it’s not like he feels accountable to them or anyone else.
And Ross probably doesn’t even have a cell phone. Blaine has pretty clearly been trying to keep him incommunicado.
Screwball
Daniel here. The church group SHOULD know Toedad is out, or at least know the gears are turning that way, since Amber’s sperm donor showed up playing “Knight with Shining dollars”. Mind you, while Joyce’s Mum was there, her Dad most likely wasn’t there… https://www.dumbingofage.com/2019/comic/book-9-comic/03-sometimes-the-sky-was-so-far-away/bond/
Reltzik
They probably should be telling Becky. You know, the person he’s accused (very credibly) of having kidnapped?
… but “should” isn’t the same thing as “will”.
Mackabre
They should tell her but that idea presumes they have her number and/or she would answer a call from them (joyce’s parents that is)
Ron again
We’re discussing Joyce’s parents as “them” but I believe they are very separate entities in this matter. Joyce’s mom was there at the bail-out get-together and Hank was not. I firmly believe Hank is telling Joyce without her mom knowing, which is why he couldn’t call 20 times a day and why he had to walk out casually talking and why, when he was out of earshot, he suddenly and drastically changed the seriousness of the conversation with Sarah
Uly
Still doesn’t mean Becky would answer the phone.
sirconanad
But didn’t Hank promise Becky to help get her set up with her own bank account and stuff? I distinctly remember her mentioning this to, I think, Dina, when she started working at Galasso’s, and that action would imply that she trusts him enough to pick up the phone for him.
Regalli
Becky only got a stable cell line of her own after the last time she saw Hank, so it’s possible he doesn’t have her number yet. (And if Hank is in the habit of leaving his cell where Carol can access it, it may not be safe to change that fact.)
Axel
I’m assuming this is why he didn’t text
Regalli
Agreed.
Reltzik
By “they” I meant the authorities that released Toedad. I should’ve been clearer.
DarkoNeko
The sad thing is Carol probably spearheads the bail thing.
thejeff
I don’t think Hank is in the loop at all. Not only does he not know Ross is already out, he only “thinks” the church is working on it. He’s probably just heard some rumors.
Carol certainly knows more – that they’ve raised the money with a kind stranger’s help, but even she may not know he’s already out.
DudeMyDadOwnsaDealership
Or what Blaine’s demented ass brought him along to be a part of..I don’t think anyone else but Amber’s ‘Amazigirl’ split personality knows what happened to Mike…Blaine and Ross may be on the run as we speak with Mike’s body…
auroki
Can’t it be both?
clif
It’s a gif that keeps on giffing.
Laladoria
*el dorado both gif*
Screwball
*El Paso Taco Why not both + celebrations.gif*
Kyoulkoa
let the pessimism flow
abysswatcher1993
Pessimism, the mother of pragmatism and black humor. Whenever the voice of pessimism enter your brain, kick it where it hurts more and move on. In the case of clinical depression, visit a doctor.
jeffepp
Yeah, about that “want” part…
Jess
its-more-likely-than-you-think.jpeg
clif
what-part-of-pesimist-did-you-not-understand.not
fight-me.tiff
clif
How the @#$% did png become not?
Sunny
p and o are right next to each other on a keyboard, as are g and t. Your autocorrect probably takes such things into account.
Kyrik Michalowski
Well, she can at least warn Becky now. The one downside being that she won’t know that he is already out and has been stalking her.
But Mike will surely tell them, right?
Chronos
While he may not be dead, Mike may not be in a position physically to say anything at this time. Who knows how fucked up he got from the altercation.
Alanari
He was screaming the name during the hunt though. There’s a possibility someone woke up and remembers being awake due to a screaming teen when the police asks for unusual things that night.
And it’ll only take us about a year real time to find out..
clif
That would work. But one other person on campus knows as well. She’s just not here right now.
Kyrik Michalowski
Shame there isn’t a convenient switch attached to Amber/Amazigirl that could be flipped when needed.
Slartibeast Button, BIA
Quickly! To the Garbage Roof Signal!
Reltzik
Better call Sal.
…. oh, wait, that doesn’t work anymore.
AntJ
Mike doesn’t even know who Ross is. Amazi-Girl did, but she isn’t talking. (Neither is Mike, for that matter)
Vulcanodon
Mike could be badly injured and tied to a chair someplace
King Daniel
Amazi-Girl would be unlikely to have left until Mike was helped…or unless he was already beyond helping.
Cattleprod
Carol: “I’m not driving Joyce away from religion quickly enough, what would certainly do it?”
Needfuldoer
Her thought process on that subject is basically the meme of Principal Skinner asking “am I so out of touch?”
JBento
“No, it is the libs who are wrong.”
Chronos
I hope Joyce lets Becky know this, so she won’t be blindsided by it.
Joe Moose
The dad is apparently out of the loop…
Now I’m more curious what happened that night.
Screwball
Daniel here. It looks like Mum was there, but Dad currently has plausible deniability…
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2019/comic/book-9-comic/03-sometimes-the-sky-was-so-far-away/bond/
C.T Phipps
I feel like it says something that the police didn’t think it worthwhile to inform Becky and the other victims of his freedom. Either that or the news media to report on one of the rare gun wielding psychopaths in America captured alive out on bail.
Cyrus
What victims? Nobody died or even got seriously injured. He’s practically harmless!
(Extremely /s in case that’s not clear.)
C.T Phipps
Kidnapping and attempted murder have victims unless you’re arguing from the point of Sideshow Bob.
He Who Abides
I submit that Sideshow Bob is the victim any time he attempts kidnapping and/or murder.
CJ
I would have expected the former to be a matter of course in a case of attempted murder and murder and kidnapping though not the latter.
Someone tried to explain bail in the USA when they got him out but I still cannot grasp how someone caught in the act for this can get bail.
King Daniel
Simply put, it’s Indiana. The constitution of that state mandates bail to be set for any crime that’s not actual murder.
Bicycle Bill
Pretty sure that’s not just unique to Indiana.
However, I do know from experience (don’t ask; I ain’t telling) that if you are out on bond/bail, one of the conditions is that you do not commit any additional crimes. If you fail to toe the mark, however, and DO commit additional offenses and are re-apprehended, not only do you get charged for your new offenses, you are also liable to be charged with violating the conditions of your original bond. Which means that you have just forfeited your original bail and, by displaying your willingness/likelihood to re-offend, just made it a whole lot harder to get out on bond again. And if you ARE able to get assigned a bond a second time, it is most likely going to be set so high you’d better learn to like jail food anyway.
thejeff
How does the “forfeited your original bail” part work when you actually paid 10% of it to the bondsman? I mean, he’s out money and he’s mad at you, but then what?
Bicycle Bill
You either pay him back or you find you’ve got a civil suit on your hands as well.
C.T Phipps
Maybe Becky has gotten numerous messages via the DeSanto administration but she never checks her phone for anything but emojiis.
Needfuldoer
If the message has less than seventeen emojis, Robin didn’t actually write it.
Screwball
“So, you actually did take you legally adult daughter by force against her will – that’s kidnapping, after walking around the university grounds while wielding a loaded rifle – which you did fire once – terrifying everyone in the vicinity, then caused an motor vehicle accident by – going off witness statements – hanging out the driver’s side window trying to shoot the vigilante on the roof who was attempting to rescue your daughter FROM YOU?!?! …………… I’m sure we can trust you, just pay $###### and you’re good to go…”
King Daniel
Yep. I believe Willis actually posted a news story in the comments back from when this whole bail storyline started about a guy who shot a school bus driver actually succeeding in posting bail.
Needfuldoer
Doesn’t Indiana require bail to be set for all crimes short of murder? I thought someone talked about that in the comments a while back.
Needfuldoer
This is what happens when you read the comments from the bottom up.
Reltzik
In theory, the purpose of bail isn’t to punish or even incapacitate. It’s simply to provide a (literal) guarantee that the accused will show up to trial. An aggressive prosecutor might argue that the accused is a menace if left at large, in which case bail will be denied entirely rather than just set very high. But otherwise, the only purpose for bail is supposed to be ensuring the guy doesn’t flee the jurisdiction. That means weighing primarily the person’s means (which doesn’t happen nearly often enough, IMO) and how much likely sentence is to hurt them, and setting a figure so that skipping out on bail will hurt them more.
Arguably, setting bail higher on the grounds of ongoing risk is a violation of several constitutional rights of the accused, including the presumption of ignorance and the bar on excessive bail.
In other words, “caught in the act” shouldn’t impact where bail is set. That’s a question of establishing guilt, which is something a bail hearing isn’t supposed to consider. The severity of the charge (kidnapping, plus probably some firearms offenses and a few other things) does have an impact on bail, in that one presumes someone’s more likely to flee if the crime carries a heavy sentence and so bail is set higher. But it’s also not a basis for denying bail.
In this case, the DA was clearly not aggressive. At the very least, someone should have contacted Becky. Given his declaration that he was willing to die “for” Becky, a strong case could have been made for denying bail on the grounds that he was a threat, and barring that Ross should have at least gotten an ankle monitor. (Which raises a whole host of economic injustices, but is definitely called for in this case.)
Reltzik
…. or maybe it’s required in Indiana, like Daniel said. Huh.
… okay, a bit more research suggests that armed kidnapping is a level 3 felony (level 1 is the most severe, level 6 the least before it gets downgraded to misdemeanor). Sentence ranges from 3-16 years. Monroe County (where Bloomington is) has guidelines saying bail for a level 3 felony should be placed $500 cash plus $15,000 surety (basically insurance that pays out to the court if you don’t show up). But these are just guidelines and the judge has a lot of discretion.
Getting surety bond usually costs 10% of the bond value, plus a few dozen extra dollars administrative fees, so if the guidelines were followed bail would have cost Ross and his fellow godly Christians somewhere between $2000 and $2100.
CJ
What else is a Level 3 felony? Embezzling?
I understand a right for bail for low-level or non-violent crime, but I do not understand how anyone who did premeditated violence can ever get out on bail. In case of caught-in-the-act with several witnesses who are not the arresting officers, the point of the trial is not to determine, if he has done it, but how to legally weight the act.
Showing up with a gun on campus determines premeditation.
thejeff
That’s not how “presumption of innocence” works.
“You’ve been accused of a bad crime, so you’re going to jail for a year or so before we even hold a trial.” The system as it is, is already horrific enough, particularly for poor minorities accused of relatively mild but violent crimes.
That said, cash bail is a bad way of handling it. Paying to stay out of jail isn’t exactly a great equalizer. Some states are experimenting with doing away with it entirely, giving judges more discretion to release offenders who aren’t flight risks or likely to reoffend.
There is however an entire entrenched industry of bail bondsmen trying to keep the system in place.
And of course, the mere existence of the bail bondsman system means bail as we commonly think of it doesn’t work. The concept is that you give the court a large sum of money to ensure you show up. Essentially a deposit that you get back if you don’t. But that doesn’t happen – instead you pay the bondsman a fraction of it and they put up the rest and you’re out the part you pay the bondsman no matter what. Now the only penalty if you don’t show is that the bondsman will try to track you down and get the money from you, but that means if you get away, you’re not out anything. Why not just have the state track down people who don’t show and impose more penalties on them? It’s the same thing in practice.
SuperZero
Except the trial is definitely to determine guilt.
They already know the answer in this caswe, sure, but that’s still what a trial is for. It’s a very important step to not be in a police state.
Otherwise, y’know… Well, we already know that CJ is actively trying to murder several people right now, so no need to legally prove it.
CJ
Sorry, where do you get that now? As long as several people have seen an easily identifiable person commit an act of violence, what you need to to in trial is to make sure that all the witnesses have not cooperated to frame your likely criminal. Witness statements from several persons who are not the arresting officers should be enough of a likelihood of having the right person, that in cases of obviously planned violence the public has the right to have the person who has been seen and clearly identified as the person to have done the violence (I would suspect that Toedad even never bothered to deny what he did because god given right), the intended victims have the right to be safe.
So there are several points that distinguish my view from a police state:
1) an act of violence was committed and there are several witnesses that can without any doubt identify the perp (this is not very often the case as people who are less crazy than Toedad will try to disguise themselves and not use their own car, therefore making identification difficult)
2) the act of violence was planned and, as it didn’t reach its intended goal, is likely to be repeated
3) the witnesses are not the arresting officers as it’s been proven time and again that some arresting officers will tell tall tales to justify arrest on a whim.
In those kind of cases, bail should be denied by default, though, as not to be a police state, you must see to it that the accused has access to a lawyer and they can try to prove that there is reasonable doubt concerning 1 or 2.
Making sure the victim is not victimized again should be the main aim here.
At the actual trial, the proven guilty can be very fast as there is no reasonable doubt as who did it, though the accused has every right to fünf use the issue, and the really interesting thing is if the jury/judge will find mitigating circumstances (you could argue, that Toedad is not really able to understand what he is doing).
“Innocent until proven guilty” is there to make sure people aren’t framed or just arrested on a whim. Which clearly isn’t the case for Toedad.
It wouldn’t really help in cases of domestic violence as you very seldom have several witnesses.