Another fellow pointed out that no guns are registered

But if you killed everyone who killed anyone, you’d have to be killed for killing THEM and your killer would have to be killed for killing you and his killer would have to be killed for killing him and ……

David considering a minor problem with that solution

Our government’s just silly that way. Trial first then punishment if found guilty. Lynchings are no longer favored.

You’re thinking, “BUT SHE CONFESSED! She admitted she shot and that the shot killed.” She could have lied about it. I doubt she did but people DO confess to crimes they didn’t commit. Further, sometimes people foolishly kill while trying to frighten others or when playing with weapons (or when driving while texting or when they feel threatened). The people are just as dead, but most look on the killings differently from what is charged as first degree murder or even second degree.

For example, she is charged with manslaughter. This means the prosecution doesn’t consider harsher charges justifiable or reasonable. I don’t know their reasoning but am certain they know way more about the case than I ever intend to know. I shall assume they are reasonable people (like you and me).

AND
“you came to the same conclusion in your own words, “Bond is not to be given if the accused is believed to be a flight risk or a danger to others.” “

That’s not a conclusion, it’s a statement of fact.
High bail means high flight risk but not dangerous.
Low bail means low flight risk and not dangerous.
No bail means dangerous and/or extremely high flight risk.

David still considering
the system of justice
the founding fathers chose

Really?! The $300k bond was set by someone and I’d bet it was approved by a judge more than once since her arrest. The first would have been during her initial appearance, which should have taken place within 48 hours of the arrest (8/5). Secondly, it has been more than 21 days since Rendell was arrested (8/4) and she should have had an arraignment (8/18 w/ Judge Boles) which afforded her yet another opportunity to seek a reduced bond in front of a judge; however, the bond remained set at the present level. Hmm, a judge must have decided that the amount of bond was reasonable at the time (and in my opinion, it still is).

As for the coming full circle comment, you came to the same conclusion in your own words, “Bond is not to be given if the accused is believed to be a flight risk or a danger to others.”

As for passing judgment on her… She has confessed and the evidence is in concurrence, so why waist any additional time or effort going through a trial; she should plead guilty and let the sentence be passed. This case isn’t like Casey Anthony’s which was filled with innuendo and speculation. The hard facts are known; she shot and killed her step-sister and the rest is elementary my dear David.

I’m sure that phrase makes sense to you, so please expound so it will make sense to me. What circle?

An amount of bond has been set so this means — rightly or wrongly — nobody has convinced the judge the child is a danger to others. Therefore, the only question at the bond hearing would be the proper amount to demand to see to it she shows up for trial.

I suspect you’ve already tried her and found her guilty, but the court hasn’t done so.

David for clarity
and doing things decently and in order

David comes full circle and restates what has already been posted in his last last four words, “…a danger to others.”

Oversight for protecting the layman community lawyer from himself.

The purpose of bond is to ensure the accused will come in for trial but to not lock up a person who has not been found guilty of a crime yet. This allows the accused to work on a defense of the charges.

Bond is not to be given if the accused is believed to be a flight risk or a danger to others. Our Constitution REQUIRES no unreasonable bond be required. The judges have to figure out what is reasonable and what isn’t.

Two side benefits of bonding are that it earns a living to bondsmen who often put up the bond in exchange for ten percent non-refundable and it saves the state the cost of caring for the accused while awaiting trial. If you were sure the accused would show up for trial and if you were sure the accused would be no danger to the community, release on recognizance would be reasonable.

David considering the mechanics
of our justice system