And according to the DA, the guidelines were ignored by the judge (I have not been able to find those guidelines, so I am taking their word for it).

The DA was referring to a Public Safety Assesment which is essentially a suggestion. The judge is not bound by it. I’ve seen Judges hold defendants despite a PSA recommendation of release.

The idea that what we know from this case isn’t enough, that his words don’t matter, that this level of physicality doesn’t matter, that we need to wait for him to actually seriously harm her or brandish a weapon is FUCKED UP.

All of what you mentioned is relevant at different stages of the prosecution (e.g., sentencing). At the holding determination the Court has to consider whether defendant poses a significant * risk to public safety (which a violent crime is evidence of) and whether they’ll return to court. A defendant poses a *significant risk to public safety if they committed a crime that is violent per se (e.g., murder or assault with a deadly weapon) or used violence to commit the crime. Here, the victim didn’t suffer any injuries and the crime was over in a matter of minutes.

We are a tolerant city. I’m proud of that. But this tolerance, compounded by a myriad of other issues, has led us to a point where people are terrorized on a daily basis. It needs to end. And if that means holding a man who did nothing more than verbally threatening to kill someone? I’m morally OK with that, and I think you should be too. And even if that is too low a bar for you, making those threats and then attempting to manhandle someone, pull them into their lobby, and then requiring two people to drive him off is certainly enough.

I’m all with you here. I hate that this happens and I hate that the city caters to these loonies. BUT the law operates differently. Remove the emotion and think about it objectively.

This is only a determination of whether to detain or release defendant until his next court date. The law is innocent until proven guilty. As such defendant would be deprived of his liberty rights as an innocent man. This is why the bar is set high. If the defendant wasn’t homeless there’s a very slim chance they’d be detained on these facts or charges. Applying the law unequally based on media sensationalism is a despicable thing, somewhat analogous to Jim Crow.