He's got a long record, his crime was egregious, and white supremacists are abandoning him. Nick Fuentes came startlingly close to defending black people by saying that "Chud's" behavior was responsible for the violence.
Don't be fooled though. Chud's sin with white supremacists is making them look bad.
I’m not siding with this guy, but he had bail set and if the money can’t be used to pay bail then he is being denied bail. Just don’t let him post bail at all.
This is like, oh you’ll never get a million bucks, oh wait I mean a million of the right kind of money.
It can't be both and justifying the breach of law when it applies to people you don't agree with; it's funny how quick liberals are to abandon their principles when its liberalism dysfunctioning on someone they don't like.
None that I'm aware of. Reread my comment and don't assume you are under attack. The judge is wrong here and givesomefucks is being inconsistent with their idealogical position.
Reread, and yes. You’re right. This criminal is a bad bad man, but if bail is set, it’s set.
I just don’t understand why the judge didn’t deny him bail. He’s a violent offender, and it really would not take much to justify that decision. I’m sure there is plenty of precedence of denying bail for far lesser crimes.
Here are the facts: Tennessee explicitly authorizes courts to conduct bond source hearings to prevent defendants from using the proceeds of illegal activity to secure their release. These hearings are required by state law for any bond set at $75,000 or higher — Eatherly’s $1 million bond clears that threshold by a significant margin, making this procedure entirely standard and not specific to his case. The burden lies completely on the party seeking to post the bond. Whoever is paying must prove that the money is derived from legitimate sources rather than illegal activities. Defense attorneys generally have to present bank statements, pay stubs, tax returns, or other financial records to satisfy the judge. If the judge is not satisfied with the legitimacy of the funds, the defendant will not be allowed to post bond and will remain in custody, regardless of whether they have the physical cash on hand.
But it’s not illegal. If it was the money would be seized.
Still, this is giving a judge the right to say “this money is good whereas this money is bad” arbitrarily, and without a chance to appeal the motion in a higher court.
This guy needs to be in jail without bail.
BAIL is a system that was created to prevent poor people from leaving the jail. BAIL needs to be abolished. You either release them until trial or you don’t.
The standard isn’t ‘proven illegal’, it’s ‘proven legitimate’ — those aren’t the same bar. The court doesn’t need to prove the money is dirty to block it, the defense needs to prove it’s legitimate. Unverified anonymous internet donations fail that test not because they’re criminal but because they’re unverifiable. Seizure is a separate legal action with a completely different evidentiary standard.
The procedure is codified in state law with defined standards, not made up on the spot. Bond rulings in Tennessee can be challenged through higher courts, so the ‘no appeal’ claim doesn’t hold up either.
And if you think bail is an unjust wealth-based system, the crowdfunding situation illustrates that perfectly: his supporters are collectively buying his freedom, which is exactly what bail abolitionists object to. That’s an argument for the judge’s skepticism, not against it.
It is quite hilarious that you are so smug and judgemental about someone you claim is "just wholesale making shit up"
When you claim:
The issue is this "fundraiser" existed prior to the shooting and is not for legal defenses.
The op's article clearly states that only funds received AFTER the shooting are not to be used according to the judge. Funds for bail do not need to be acquired specifically for legal defense, in fact him receiving funds from his fans after the shooting most likely for his legal defense is expressly WHY the judge is saying they can't be used.
I guess I shouldn't have given you all this valuable information unless you "asked nicely" first. Silly me.
But bail is supposed to be set relative to the amount of money the defendant has and the crime committed. Kinda defeats the purpose if the dude just got piles of magic Internet money to post bail.
Bail is a system to oppress poor people. Bail should not exist. He should either be released until trial or held until trial (I side with holding him).
Gov says, “here is an amount we know you don’t have!”
Then they somehow raise that money from the community.
Now Gov says you can’t use that money because we never were gonna let you out.
Let's back up a step. In common law, bail is the set of conditions imposed on someone in exchange for their not being held in custody until trial. In the US, that primarily includes being required to post a bond or some other surety, but it can also include conditions such as not approaching trial witnesses, not leaving town, etc.
And it's entirely reasonable that, if you're posting a surety, it has to be something of your that's at risk. Otherwise, you've got no skin in the game, which defeats the purpose of the surety, which is to ensure you don't skip down before the trial.
Based on that, bail's a good thing in general. The thing that's fucked up in the US is the over-reliance on posting a bond and the excessive size of bonds that are required, and that's what disproportionately hurts poorer people.
I have. If a person can crowdfund money, it’s money. I don’t care. Even scumbags like this.
Should they have been allowed to crowdfund in the first place? That’s a good question.
I donated to Luigi. And, he wasn’t allowed bail at all.
When a government gets to decide that you can’t use the money you can raise to fund your legal fees (which includes bail), they are deciding how people should be prosecuted on a case by case basis, which is not equal for all.
I was able to finally find an article explaining why the funds couldn't be used, unlike the op article.
One major issue appears to be how the fundraiser was originally described. Critics have pointed out that early campaign messaging focused on supporting Eatherly and his family rather than explicitly stating that funds would be used for legal defence or bail.
He'll join the White Aryan Brotherhood or some other violent, racist prison gang and get worse. US citizens have a fetish for violence and retribution and seem shocked when they get that on the streets. When we demand rehabilitation and re-education, it may take a generation, but it will become better.
I wonder why Derek Chauvin doesn’t have a gang of protectors. He became a colander in prison. 😂
Maybe I’m optimistic, but I don’t see the WAB accepting this douchebag. He clearly just wants to get a rise out of people, he doesn’t care about his white pride.
all 50 comments