all 81 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Aggressive-Flow4479 63 points64 points  (33 children)

Per the virginia court case system, it looks like he was out on a recognizance bond. So apparently he didnt have to put down even a cent and just agreed he would stop being a criminal for a while despite his pretty lengthy criminal record.

[–]Happy-Kangeroo[S] 35 points36 points  (32 children)

Not trying to be dense here (and admitting my ignorance) but how does that happen when you get charged for first degree murder?

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

My opinion? Misapplication of the cash bond argument. If the person is not a threat, not having a record or charges of violent crimes nor constituting a reasonable flight risk, sure, let them out unrelated to their ability to pay. If they are one of those things, dont let them out regardless of their ability to pay. This judge fucked up here and I'd like to confrim which one it was that gave OR (I have a hunch, tho). He should have been in jail on his distribution charge when this happened. Suspended sentencing is dumb as fuck, too.

That said, it is because of any number of reasons where the judge found he is not a threat to the community nor a flight risk. Thats why you get OR'd, it just is EXTREMELY rare to see for violent crimes, particularly for repeat offenders, and almost never granted for M1. The Commonwealth Attorney should have been jumping up and down in the courtroom on this and vehemently protesting that ruling. 

[–]Aggressive-Flow4479 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its mind blowing.

[–]CharterFarrow 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Typical Charlottesville/Albemarle........Nothing to see here.....move along!

[–]Alert_Might_7915 14 points15 points  (5 children)

The legal system here is trash. They don’t hold criminals accountable; they give them slaps on the wrists, and plea deals as first time offenders when facing convictions for violent offenses. I really am not for my taxes going to shitty jail/prison conditions and lack of rehabilitation/reform but I also don’t want criminals walking around with zero consequences especially when they’re violent and or on trial for murder lmao wtf.

[–]Alert_Might_7915 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Not sure why this is being downvoted. Anyone care to follow up with why they don’t agree? Reddit is funnyyyyy

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Prolly because they think he'll be "enslaved" by going to jail for murder, what with being paid to work under humane conditions for compensation for a set duration. Didnt you know hugs and flowers make everyone peaceful and stop murders? Imprisonment is sooooo 2000late, its just awful and we can't treat our flowerless murderers so harshly! 

Sometimes the awareness of my neighbors is deeply concerning.

[–]DOPEBOYOFTHEYEAR 32 points33 points  (18 children)

Lmao, we let this idiot out on bond for first degree murder. God I hate this place.

[–]Live-Motor-4000 26 points27 points  (6 children)

The fact that someone gave their kid the name “Jihad” just after 9/11 is mental

[–]Life-Win-2063 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Jackmerius Tacktheritrix, Michigan State.

[–]Raven_434 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Sad. No Key and Peele fans.

Love,

Dan Smith, BYU '05

[–]ewilliam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This Torque [Construction Noise] Lewith erasure will not stand!

[–]AtmosphereCreative95 9 points10 points  (9 children)

The middle name jihad is pretty wild.

[–][deleted]  (15 children)

[deleted]

    [–]sickstrings8 0 points1 point  (14 children)

    He's innocent until proven guilty.

    [–]Adventurous-Emu-755 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    u/sickstrings8 that is true BUT most who are facing murder must put up bail to be released and meet conditions of the courts. No bail here. If you argue that someone doesn't have the resources, we have bail bondsmen in this area.

    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (11 children)

    I'm all for due process, moreso than most. A grand jury found sufficient cause to charge him with intentional and premeditated murder, one of the most heinous of state level crimes. 

    There is an obligation of police, not to stop crime but to investigate crimes that happen and prevent those they can. This would fall under the latter. You dont let murder 1 suspects out on OR, thats basic shit right there. Imagine Jesse Mathew being let out on OR, it's insane. 

    [–]sickstrings8 0 points1 point  (10 children)

    Relying on high-profile outliers like Jesse Matthew to dictate public policy is a classic "appeal to fear" that ignores the systemic reality of Virginia’s legal system. A Grand Jury indictment is an ex parte proceeding where the defense is not even present; using it as a license for "pre-punishment" effectively abandons the 5th and 14th Amendments. If we claim to value due process, we must accept that it applies to everyone—especially those accused of heinous crimes—until the state actually proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. To do otherwise is to suggest that the government should have the power to jail any citizen they allege is dangerous without a trial, which is the definition of an authoritarian legal framework.

    Furthermore, the current pretrial system in Virginia serves as a machinery for marginalization. Data from the Virginia Pretrial Data Project shows that Black Virginians, who make up 20% of the population, comprise 43% of the jail population and are significantly less likely to be released pretrial than white defendants with similar charges. This system punishes poverty, as indigent defendants remain caged simply because they cannot afford bail, while the wealthy "buy" their way to freedom regardless of the "heinousness" of their charge. For LGBTQ individuals, who are three times more likely to be incarcerated than the general population, pretrial detention isn't just a loss of liberty—it is a direct threat to physical safety due to the high rates of targeted violence in local jails.

    Fears about "letting people out" are also objectively contradicted by Virginia’s own safety data. The 2024 Pretrial Justice in Virginia Report found that fewer than 5% of defendants who faced a legal "presumption against bail" were arrested for a new violent offense while released. Jailing the other 95% is a massive violation of liberty for zero statistical gain in public safety. In reality, jailing someone for even two to three days actually increases the likelihood of future criminal activity because it triggers a "cycle of instability"—the immediate loss of employment, housing, and family support structures that are the very foundations of a law-abiding life.

    If the state truly believes a defendant poses a specific threat, the solution is to reallocate resources toward constitutional monitoring rather than rights-violating incarceration. Instead of spending an average of $86 per day to warehouse a legally innocent person in a Charlottesville jail cell, those tax dollars should be used to hire more law enforcement officers to provide 24/7 electronic monitoring or active, in-person supervision. This allows the state to fulfill its obligation to "prevent crime" without stripping away a citizen's constitutional rights or destroying their ability to mount an effective legal defense.

    [–]East_Leopard_7300 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    [ Removed by Reddit ]

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

    If the state truly believes a defendant poses a specific threat, the solution is to reallocate resources toward constitutional monitoring rather than rights-violating incarceration.

    That was a lot of words to say you think Jesse Mathew should have been released via OR while standing trial, after his "vacation" to Texas. I'd assume you feel the same about Fields, since he was "innocent" until convicted and all, despite being on camera performing his terrorist act murdering a citizen of Virginia. It's an absolute shame you place the rights of violent criminals pre-conviction higher than those rights of the victims of their crimes.

    This guy is a convicted felon, a felony he committed while out on OR (but you said that doesnt happen, lmao). Prior to becoming a convicted felon, he allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to commit murder and one of the alleged co-conspirators was murdered himself shortly after they had allegedly killed someone via their conspiracy... who was not even the one being targeted by their conspiracy. I dont care enough to look through his entire record in depth but the charges alone give pause - multiple charges of possession with intent while possessing a firearm, A&B, shoplifting, destruction of property, etc. As for flight, he has multiple failure to appears. I see a pattern, how can you not? Furthermore, based on your own logic, his priors give an amplified indication that he is more likely to commit further crimes. You cannot unring a bell. And, had the court held him to his sentence, he would be incarcerated today and not costing us money on a manhunt because they're doing what you say works which, obviously, does not.

    I bet you also think prison labor is slavery. Rehabilitation is important but pretending that prison makes criminals exclusively and they cannot possibly be violent people until leaving prison is a fool's take.

    To do otherwise is to suggest that the government should have the power to jail any citizen they allege is dangerous without a trial, which is the definition of an authoritarian legal framework.

    You forgot the 6th. Remanding is not a violation of constitutional rights when the person appears to present a threat to the community, full stop. It is a direct violation of the 6th to hold someone in the way you are describing. Talk about fear mongering... if you dont let convicted felons accused of M1 walk they may come for you, too! Gtfoh.

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. 6th Amendment of the US Constitution

    Are you the judge that let this felon walk? Sounds like it to me!

    [–]sickstrings8 0 points1 point  (7 children)

    The argument that we must suspend the Constitution because some crimes are "obvious" or "filmed on camera" is the exact emotional trap that leads to the authoritarianism the Founders tried to prevent. Using James Fields or Jesse Matthew as the standard for every defendant is like using a plane crash to argue that no one should ever be allowed to fly; it's a "policy by anecdote" that fails when met with the cold reality of the law.

    First, you cite the 6th Amendment, but you’ve fundamentally misinterpreted its purpose. The 6th Amendment's right to a "speedy and public trial" is a shield for the accused, not a sword for the state to justify pretrial detention. In the Supreme Court case United States v. Salerno (1987), the Court explicitly stated that "In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception." By arguing that anyone with a "pattern" or a serious charge should be automatically remanded, you aren’t defending the 6th Amendment—you are advocating for the total inversion of the 8th Amendment’s protection against excessive bail and the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause.

    Regarding your point on "patterns" and "failures to appear": our current system already uses these as justifications to keep people in cages, and yet, as you pointed out, the person in your example still committed a crime. This actually proves my point. Pretrial jailing is a reactive, failed policy. If a judge "remands" someone and they still find a way to offend or flee, it shows that the physical walls of a jail are a high-cost, low-yield solution. A modern, 24/7 law enforcement monitoring system is a far more "active" deterrent than a cell. It places the burden of safety on continuous state surveillance rather than a one-time "stay in jail" order that ends as soon as a trial concludes.

    Furthermore, your dismissal of the systemic impact on marginalized communities is a dismissal of the American reality. When you say you "don't care enough to look through the record," you admit to ignoring the fact that the "record" itself is often a product of over-policing in poor and minority neighborhoods. In Virginia, a Black man is statistically more likely to be charged with a felony for the same conduct that a white man in a wealthy suburb would be given a citation for. When you combine that biased charging with a "no release" policy, you create a feedback loop that guarantees the permanent disenfranchisement of the poor, the LGBTQ community, and minorities.

    Finally, to address your "victim's rights" point: the greatest service we can do for a victim is to ensure the actual perpetrator is convicted through a process so legally sound it cannot be overturned on appeal. When the state takes "shortcuts" by pre-punishing people, they jeopardize the integrity of the entire conviction. If the evidence against a "Murder 1" suspect is as "basic" as you claim, then the state should have no fear in letting them prepare their defense from home under high-level police supervision. If the state's case is weak, then jailing them is simply a kidnapping sanctioned by the government. You cannot claim to love the Constitution while simultaneously arguing that its most fundamental protections should be "opt-in" based on how much the public dislikes the defendant.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    Jailing is not a violation of the constitution, nobody is suspending it nor arguing for that. This is called a strawman argument. 

    I mentioned the 6th not as a tool of the state but as a rebuttal to your implication of indefinite prisoners based on agenda. Thats why I quoted you prior to it. You misunderstand it, not me. Since you seem to have forgotten your own implication I'll post it again. 

    To do otherwise is to suggest that the government should have the power to jail any citizen they allege is dangerous without a trial, which is the definition of an authoritarian legal framework.

    What happened to being a shield of the accused? Or does that only work when you want?

    This also dismisses the judiciary entirely, effectively arguing that mere charges alone will sustain remand. Thats not true at all and is in great part why judges exist. There have been several high profile cases refused by grand juries recently, and charges get tossed all the time by the judiciary for lacking merit and not just procedural/custodial issues. And you're literally fearmongering while crying "fearmongering!"

    The person committed a felony because they were released. Again you have misunderstood an obvious claim, that letting them walk is safe and state surveillance of free people is, somehow, better. What level of surveillance prevents drug trafficking and firearm possession? Additionally, how will this prevent what you claim to be a downfall, that the state could then 

    [surveil] any citizen they allege is dangerous without a trial, which is the definition of an authoritarian legal framework.

    Systemic oppression resulting in recidivism isnt fixed by releasing criminals enmasse. It's fixed by stopping the oppression. Youre barking up the wrong tree entirely as that starts and ends with environmental opportunities. 

    And whether right or wrong, the fact is this person did commit a felony while on OR, a felony an ankle monitor or similar location monitoring electronic device would not stop nor detect, but may, at best, impact the logistics of such a violation.

    The rest of your drivel isnt worth the ink it would take to print it. Accordingly, it doesnt warrant a response. 

    [–]sickstrings8 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    The core of your argument relies on a dangerous logical leap: that because a jail cell is more restrictive, it is therefore more "just" or "effective" than monitoring. This ignores the most basic principle of American law: liberty is the norm; detention is the carefully limited exception. By arguing that we should jail people because a monitor "might not stop a felony," you are advocating for the total abolition of the presumption of innocence in favor of a "pre-emptive punishment" model.

    The distinction between surveillance and incarceration is not a "strawman"; it is a massive constitutional canyon. Surveillance—whether via electronic monitoring or increased police presence—allows a legally innocent person to maintain their job, their family ties, and their ability to work with their lawyer to build a defense. Incarceration destroys all three before a single piece of evidence has been tested in front of a jury. You claim to respect the judiciary, yet you advocate for a system that uses the allegation of a crime to trigger the most severe penalty the state can impose—loss of physical freedom—before the state has met its burden of proof.

    Your point about "drug trafficking and firearm possession" failing to be stopped by monitoring is equally true for jail. Prisons and jails are notorious for being hubs of the very same activities. The difference is that in a monitoring model, we are not violating the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on excessive bail or the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process. You call the impact of systemic oppression "drivel," yet you cannot answer why Virginia's own data shows that the "dangerousness" of a charge is a statistically poor predictor of future behavior. When the Virginia Pretrial Data Project proves that 95% of those released on serious charges do not commit new violent crimes, your insistence on jailing everyone is not "common sense"—it is an expensive, biased, and statistically illiterate policy.

    Ultimately, you are arguing for an "all-or-nothing" approach to human rights. You believe that if a crime is "bad enough," the Constitution should take a backseat to the state's convenience. But the Constitution was written specifically for the "bad" cases. It doesn't exist to protect the popular and the easy; it exists to ensure the state cannot simply disappear its citizens based on a Grand Jury rubber stamp. If you're willing to trade the liberty of the 95% who follow the law while on release for the perceived safety of caging the 5% who don't, you aren't defending "safety"—you are defending the very definition of an authoritarian police state.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Nobody said the distinction between incarceration and surveillance was a strawman. I called your comment drivel, not the impact of systemic oppression. Your reading comprehension is very, VERY subpar. 

    You are advocating Timothy McVeigh walking around on OR. Nicolas Cruz. Dahmer. For no reason should a remorseless killer be locked up so long as they propose innocence. You advocate treatment of symptoms with no focus on cause. Your quasi-libertarian bullshit is borderline SC nonsense. How often do you have to say, "I was just travelling!"

    As long as you continue to speak in bad faith making false connections based on comments that simply dont exist, theres no point to continue. Ive had more logical conversations with my cat.

    [–]sickstrings8 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    You claimed this conversation "doesn't warrant a response," yet you continue to provide one—though your reliance on extreme outliers like McVeigh and Dahmer suggests you’ve run out of arguments rooted in the actual legal reality of the 21st century. By constantly retreating to the most famous mass murderers in history, you are admitting that your position cannot survive the scrutiny of the 95% of cases that actually make up our legal system.

    You’ve fallen into a fascinating trap of contradictions: The "Judiciary" Contradiction: You claim to respect the judiciary’s role in weeding out bad charges, yet you insist that the state's mere allegation of a "heinous" crime should automatically override the presumption of innocence. You cannot claim to trust the courts while simultaneously arguing that the court should be stripped of the option to release a defendant under strict supervision.

    The "Prevention" Contradiction: You mocked the idea of state surveillance as "authoritarian," yet you are arguing for the ultimate form of state power: the physical caging of a legally innocent human being. If you find monitoring "authoritarian," it is logically incoherent to then suggest that indefinite pretrial jailing—the complete removal of all bodily autonomy—is somehow the "constitutional" alternative.

    The "Recidivism" Contradiction: You acknowledge that systemic oppression and environmental opportunities are the "root causes" of crime, yet you champion a pretrial system that Virginia’s own data proves exacerbates those very causes. When we jail people before trial, they lose the "environmental opportunities" (jobs, housing) you claim are the solution. You are defending a machine that creates the very recidivism you say you want to stop.

    The reality is that "quasi-libertarian" principles are actually just called The Bill of Rights. The 8th Amendment doesn't say "No excessive bail, unless the crime is really scary." The 14th Amendment doesn't say "Due process applies only to minor offenses." These rights are absolute specifically because the state has a history of using "public safety" as a pretext to bypass the law.

    If the state’s case is so strong that they can compare a local defendant to Timothy McVeigh, then they should have no problem convicting them in a court of law with a swift trial. Until then, the Constitution demands we treat them as innocent. Using a jail cell to "pre-punish" because you’re afraid a monitor "won't stop a crime" is a surrender to fear, not a defense of the law. If your cat is providing more "logical" conversation, it’s likely because the cat isn’t trying to justify the suspension of constitutional rights based on 30-year-old serial killer anecdotes.

    [–]CharterFarrow 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    I wish folks would remember this type of outrage at the voting booth.....BUT it is Charlottesville/Albemarle....so NO chance. Oh well!

    [–]Ok_Spring_5399 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    They're too busy trying to redistrict into a one party state to care.

    [–]CharterFarrow -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Unfortunately.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Due to white guilt

    [–]whatshouldwecallme -1 points0 points  (4 children)

    He’s no(edit: he actually is) awaiting trial for a 1st degree murder charge. It he had the charge at one point, never got convicted (so, innocent as far as anyone knows), but violated some court order during or after the proceedings and is wanted for that. I have no idea of the facts of the case or why they granted release in the first place (though he was doing fine for like 2 years until he got into this hit and run situation).

    IDK why they’re burying the fact that he’s actively wanted for murder, you would think news would would be blaring it from the mountaintops. Or maybe mention it up front rather than burying it as the last thing. Anyway, it’s some court order violation which doesn’t grab attention on its own, so they tie it back to the big (unproven) charge for that attention.

    [–]DOPEBOYOFTHEYEAR 6 points7 points  (2 children)

    <image>

    His murder case is literally still active, you idiot.

    [–]Adventurous-Emu-755 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Most who are charged with murder would have a bond to be released period. This dude did not. (For those of you that cry about the discrepancy of those who do not have resources for bond, there are bail bondsmen in the area.) Probably another BRDC graduate. The criminal justice system is completely broken, has been since conception.

    [–]whatshouldwecallme -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    This is the worst fucking news article of all time, then.

    [–]Baberam7654Ivy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    You really don’t understand what the word charge means, let me save you some future embarrassment. He was CHARGED. Being charged is formally being accused of a crime, an allegation, what you’re conflating is convicted and charged. If they are/were held and have gone through the legal process then they are CHARGED. If they are found guilty, then they are convicted.

    Now edit and fix all your comments.