Naked Gunman Kills 4 at Waffle House

Then why was the order almost immediately rescinded after public outcry? Doesn't that suggest the original decision was faulty?

Has the prosecutor indicated an intent to seek the death penalty? According to the link you provided, such a decision would be the sort of change that would compel revocation of bail/bond. I haven't seen any reference to such a decision.

 

Shaw v. State, 164 Tenn. 192 (Tenn. 1932)

The General Assembly has not deemed it necessary to prescribe formal rules to be followed in determining the right of an indicted defendant to be released from custody on bail, nor do we think the reasonable discretion of the judges of circuit and criminal courts should be circumscribed by arbitrary rule of judicial origin. The reported opinions of this court disclose no previous controversy with respect to such procedure. The right to bail in a proper case, being a constitutional right, should be, and is, guarded scrupulously by the trial judges of the State. In a capital case the existence of "evident proof" or "great presumption" of guilt is not often capable of ascertainment with mathematical certainty on a preliminary hearing for bail, and the trial courts are not likely to be influenced in their judgments upon the weight of evidence by technical rules respecting burden of proof. But the order granting or denying bail should be made advisedly, and we think it a reasonable requirement that the applicant offer the witnesses upon whose testimony the grand jury found the indictment.

 

I am not sure a post has ever been set up on a tee better than tapinto arguing with Dick over some lawyer stuff.

 

I don't know a whole lot about @tapinto, though it seems he's been here a while. My impression is that he's a version of RickStain a couple months before the "Flowers for Algernon" procedure peaked, but a couple weeks after it was initially provided.

 

The best is still the guy -- can't remember who it was -- who questioned Three Bags Full on something military related, having no idea tbf was active duty.

Wish I could remember the details later. Hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about.

 

I have no problem with it. My long-time consistent position has been that people's statements should be evaluated on their merits. I would not expect any deference on legal discussions because I practice law. If I'm right, it's because I'm right, not because I'm a lawyer.

 

That's fine, but are you not more likely to be right because you're a lawyer? I mean, I would hope you would be.

The best was a certain unaware someone here telling Charlie Pierce that he was "no Charlie Pierce."

 

Yes.

Gary Kasparov and my 8-year-old son both suggest my next move in chess. My life hangs in the balance. There is no time to evaluate their suggestions, independent of their credentials. I'm going with Kasparov.

But maybe my 8-year-old wants to explain why he thinks his move would have been better. The response isn't, "He's Kasparov and you're not." The response is, "Something, something, something chess."

You have written a screenplay. I have not. Nine times out of 10, probably, in a debate about screen writing, you will be right and I will be wrong.

But I think that I will turn out to be right about Kylo Ren, in a discussion from the "Star Wars" thread a few months ago, for the reasons I stated then.

 

I will never understand why you think someone who is capable of killing his father isn't also capable of deceit. You're thinking plot. I'm thinking character.

 

No, I'm thinking character. It would be cheating. Otherwise, villains could just do anything bad you wanted them to do. They need to be characters, too, not just ciphers. And the way you establish that is by establishing concrete traits.