That is such an obvious non-sequitur, shoot-the-messenger attitude to security. The "danger to the community" stems from the officials at the airport who failed to make the airport safe and prevent this sort of situation from developing.
Since his bail was set at $1000 according to the article, it seems like the judge also didn’t believe this guy was really all that dangerous either.
It’s important not to confuse this finding purely for bail purposes from a preliminary exam with any actual finding of guilt or innocence.
[0] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1966&C...
Clearly this guy exploited a security problem that endangers the community, and clearly he didn't physically harm anyone during his time in the airport.
Well, it's not his fault the security problem endangers the community.
The US felony system is quite absurd. This guy is now marked for life for trespassing into a public space, based on the subjective opinion of a judge that despite him not harming anybody for 3 months, he is a danger to the community.
That is not quite what this is. He hasn’t been convicted of anything; the judge is determining the conditions on which he can be released before the trial happens and making that determination requires the judge to weigh the available evidence and apply a legal standard—albeit one where ‘danger’ doesn’t align with its everyday definition-to determine if some level of monetary bail is required.
I do agree that he may well be marked for life and in the sense that Google will remember this event forever, even if he is acquitted at trial.
If you want arbitrary label you want to assign arbitrarily why not call it ooglaboogla instead? At least you wouldn't be lying while using it.
This is why the Cash Bail system is regarded as punishment for the poor, and in part what makes the Legal system different for the "rich" vs the poor
Accused, not convicted.
If you use a Bail Bonds Company you only put up normally 10%, to the bail company who keeps that as a service fee.
So if you had a $1,000 Bail, you can pay $1,000 to courts and be refunded when you show up, or $100 to a bail bonds company who will keep the $100.
If you are a poor person most of the time you will end up paying the $100 and never see that money again
The person i was replying to stated that the court did not take the danger seriously because they only applied and $1,000 bail, my point is to a Poor person that $1,000 may as well be $1,000,000. Where as to a billionaire than $1,000 is literally nothing
That is with out getting into the fact that if the person is a danger they should be denied bail outright, as slapping down some money to the state does not eliminate danger.
Bail as it was conceived was suppose to ensure the person showed up in court for face their crimes and a jury of their peers, it was not suppose to be about profit, or public safety, or punishment however cash bail system today is used for all 3 of those things and very little for its intended purpose
"While this incident remains under investigation, we have been able to determine that this gentleman did not pose a security risk to the airport or to the travelling public."
But maybe this is just the airport trying to cover itself from litigation, not so much trying to make an honest statement.
I guess the point here is that the judge needs to argue that the person was a (potential) danger in order to persecute or indict the airport in court?
What is wrong with that judge, if it was the prosecute saying this ok, but the judge?!
This is why abolishing cash bail has been popular lately, although I don't know how it's working.
To ensure the defendant has intensives to come back for trial
3 months is a damning amount of time for the officials.
It is an another interesting example of social engineering and the ability for people to believe anyone with a badge.
Slightly related to this, who's judging the judges? I know about the whole theoretical discussion of the judiciary being independent and only from time to time being check-and-balanced by some mythical creature (the executive/the legislative/the press), my question is who's actually checking-and-balancing this county judge who obviously is blaming the victim?
I'm not a doctor or a lawyer but the fact that this has ended up in court rather help and support from medical professionals makes me think the whole system has failed this person.
For all the TSA shoe removal and bottled water prohibition, they couldn't prevent someone living undetected in a restricted area of an airport for 3 months. It's almost 20 years since 9/11 and there is still this ineffective security theatre.
I know this is somewhat naive, but I would have thought that evidence would be the primary reason in decisions of whether to prosecute. I also realise that there are cases where the public good is also considered.
I almost ended up in a cell. Until the boss came. I could see directly that he was my tribe. The hacker kind. I talked him through it, after which he gave the others a stern talking to, shook my hand and bought me lunch.
He said they were a bit shaky because apparently people were getting into the checked in area with the same technique. Up until very recently you got in to "secure places" by presenting any qr code that was in the valid format.
"Does this look valid? Well, yes. Let's not bother actually validating it".