Massachusetts Mayor Discovers The Problem With Catch and Release Law Enforcement

Springfield Mayor Dominic Sarno Donte King Bail

courtesy Boston Herald

“Donte King was just arrested on stolen and loaded gun charges on July 3rd and promptly let go by our court system. Oh, I know some judges and defense attorneys will say, ‘Mr. Mayor, you don’t understand the bail system, it’s only supposed to be to make sure a violent repeat offender comes back to court’ – well, Mr. King did, but now it’s to do with a fatal shooting – ‘what the hell does it take to hold and keep these repeat violent offenders off our streets and out of our neighborhoods!'” – Springfield, Massachusetts Mayor Dominic Sarno in Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno on release of multiple-arrest gun suspect: ‘What the hell!’ [via masslive.com]

comments

  1. avatar m. says:

    protecting those d-rat/criminal voters @ all costs, following the chi-congo lead

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      I doubt the criminal here or any of his friends votes. Others do it for them.

      1. avatar Omer says:

        http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

        The last number I heard was over half a million gang members in Chicago. That’s a lot of votes, not taking into account the cemetery crowd.

        1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Thank you, I had a vague memory that such things had happened in places like Chicago but this reminds me. Still it is not very strong evidence they are reliable voters especially in places like Springfield, MA. Unfortunately, for both of us, my guess is as good as yours.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          The great thing about the demtard party is they will take care of the actual voting for their serfs. No need to actually GO to the polls. Or even fill out a form.

      2. avatar N64456 says:

        Yeah, maybe he didnt vote; but he was most certainly raised with “Democrat Values”…. Hence the results…

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        That’s thing: others do it for them. These people don’t actually have to vote. It’s preferable if they don’t. All the Dems need is for these people to be on the voting rolls. That gives the Dems a deep pool of uncast ballots from which to draw when they manufacture votes for their buddies. This is why the Dems fought so hard for the so-called federal “Motor Voter” bill, which Clinton signed into law in 1993, so that you can register to vote when you apply for or renew your driver’s license.

        It was never about expanding enfranchisement or making it easier for people to vote. Even back then you could pick up a voter registration card at virtually any government building. They have them in the libraries, post offices, courthouses, etc. I’ve seen them at grocery stores. I’ve seen them be mailed out to households on welfare, as a courtesy of the government, doncha know? For crying out loud, I’ve even seen them at the Department of Public Safety office where you get your license.

        Registering to vote back in those dark days was ohhhhh sooooo hard, what with having to walk ten steps and fill out a postcard size form and drop in prepaid postage in the mail all of another ten steps away. So they made it all automatic and electronic at the time of license renewal. Anyone so lazy to that the prior method of registering was burdensome, is someone unlikely to schlep down on election day and actually vote.

        That’s OK, though, because now that they’re on the official voter rolls, the Dems have someone who will vote for you.

        1. avatar beefeater says:

          Wow, it’s not even lunch time and I’ve already read the dumbest thing I’ll read today. You may want to loosen that tinfoil get, it’s cutting off circulation to your brain. There is no evidence that even remotely suggests that Democrats are “manufacturing” votes from gang members.

        2. avatar CC says:

          @ beefeater the Democrats insist we cant do what every single developed democracy does and simply require strong ID for voting. so please, it is not “tinfoil” to understand they greatly benefit. Enough elections turn on 1% to .5% of cast votes, which is 0.4% to 0.2% of eligible voters to understand why the Democrats are so insistent on enabling voter fraud.

        3. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          ” There is no evidence that even remotely suggests that Democrats are “manufacturing” votes from gang members.”

          Bullshit.

          Do you care to explain how some inner-city voter precincts somehow have more voters show up to vote than they have on the registered voter rolls?

          Just how does that happen, ‘beefeater’?

  2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Sorry mayor, but the 8th Amendment forbids holding the accused on excessive bail.

    1. avatar Random NYer says:

      Thank you. Someone here needed to say it.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      What constitutes excessive bail is for the judge to decide, however. Moreover, there are several exceptions to granting bail. One of which is that the defendant poses a credible and substantial threat to the public.

      Look at what he was charged, but released on bail, prior to committing the criminal homicide. He was carrying a loaded firearm without a license, carrying a loaded firearm in a public way, receiving stolen property, and possession of a firearm with THREE prior VIOLENT drug convictions.

      People can argue about the constitutionality of licenses and the wisdom of the war on drugs, but the fact remains that that’s the law of the land in Massachusetts. He didn’t go to Colorado to smoke his dope. He didn’t go to any one of the dozen U.S. states with constitutional carry, if he had a problem with licensing. He chose to violate Massachusetts law, repeatedly and violently.

      You don’t need a crystal ball to predict that this guy is a clear and present and ongoing threat to the public. Mr. Magoo on a foggy night could’ve seen this coming. The judge was a fool to allow bail, let alone so low an amount. The prosecutor wanted $50,000 and the defense asked for just $5,000. The judge granted bail for just $10,000. That means that for a measly $1,000 bail bond fee, this monster gets to walk the streets he has repeatedly victimized.

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        Par for the course in Mass. We had a judge let one go and he came up here to Maine and killed a Sheriff’s deputy.

        https://www.odmp.org/officer/23664-corporal-eugene-cole

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        “People can argue about the constitutionality of licenses and the wisdom of the war on drugs, but the fact remains that that’s the law of the land in Massachusetts.”

        Nope.

        “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby”

    3. avatar Leighton says:

      Who decides what is too much? And sometimes bail is denied outright .

      1. avatar John in IN says:

        Yeah. Participating in the Trump campaign will get you solitary confinement while you wait for your hearing. That’s what’s happened to Paul Manafort. Different rules if you’re an obvious Republican.

    4. avatar CC says:

      Except a few hundred grand for violent criminals is not excessive.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Accused violent criminal.

        The 8th Amendment exists to protect the innocent as well as the guilty. Without the 8th Amendment the government could accuse anybody they want of a crime and hold them indefinitely without bail or an exorbitantly high bail. This would, for instance, completely negate your 1st Amendment right to free speech since speaking out against the government could get you thrown in jail for a trumped up crime (murder, rape, general mayhem) and there you’d rot because you couldn’t come up with the billion dollars ransom the government demands. Better just to keep your mouth shut.

        Sure, eliminating the 8th’s restrictions on bail would prevent a few crimes, but then eliminating the 2nd Amendment would eliminate a lot of ‘gun violence’, but I would think that everyone around here accepts the truth that the cure is far worse than the disease.

    5. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Judge doesn’t even have to grant bail and it’s totally constitutional. Keep in mind, our founding fathers probably would’ve hung dudes like this.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Denying bail is usually reserved for those who are an obvious flight risk and there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence of their guilt. But even then I can’t see how it would be constitutional.

        Yes they would. Our founding fathers would hang a violent criminal like this, AFTER he committed the crime and AFTER he was convicted of it. Drug possession however was not a crime, so this guy wouldn’t come to trial until he committed this crime – murder.

        1. avatar DrDKW says:

          Well, forget illegal drug or gun possession for now.
          The Founding Fathers might have hanged him for one or more of those three prior VIOLENT FELONIES, or at least kept him secured for a long time!

          DrDKW

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘…three prior violent drug crimes…’

          Not sure what constitutes a ‘violent drug crime’ but I’m guessing that he probably got busted three times with drugs and guns.

          At 32 if he had any serious violent felonies on his record he should have still been on parole and then there’s no need for bail, simply send him back to serve out his sentence. It’s not the bail, it’s the lenient sentencing for violent crimes.

  3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    Just because someone has been convicted of three prior violent crimes is hardly evidence that they are likely to commit another;-)

  4. avatar Baldwin says:

    Speaking from first hand experience, some jurisdictions have significant inmate housing shortages/deficiencies which lead to courts/magistrates/sheriffs agreeing to put many on the street. And this situation can easily go on for years. Inmate housing is always about the tax $$$. Jail and facilities not large enough or up to code? Guess who pays. Expensive walk-in medical issues with new inmates? Guess who pays. Persistent shortage of qualified deputies? Guess who will have to fund this. Communities get EXACTLY what they are willing to pay for. I would love to lay the early release problem at the feet of activist liberals…but it’s a bit more complicated than that. If you want to play hardball on incarceration you have to be willing to foot the bill.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Or shoot the mofo.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        Let’s have the government get into the habit of shooting people. What could possibly go wrong with that.

        1. avatar N64456 says:

          You gotta problem with murderers getting the same fate as their victims?

        2. avatar Binder says:

          Felony possession of a firearm IS NOT MURDER.

          And the idea of the goverment shooting people for possession of a firearm is not likely something most people who read TAG really want’s to become the norm.

        3. avatar Huntmaster says:

          We’re almost there now…

        4. avatar Marching for our Lies says:

          Shoot all violent felons. All others can be released.

        5. avatar Kendahl says:

          The mofo should have been shot in self defense by the victim (probably another mofo) he is accused of murdering.

        6. avatar Andrew Lews says:

          @Binder
          The government shooting more of ‘us’ is perfectly acceptable if we get to shoot them too.

    2. avatar DrDKW says:

      Priorities!
      Maybe give more of the non-violent felons a break, and make an effort to keep the ones with multiple violent felony convictions, locked up until trial!

  5. avatar Bersa Bob says:

    If lib mayors and governors get it at all, it will be after a massive killing from a repeat in their state and then they will blame us good guys with a gun .

  6. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    I am all for building more prisons on tax money so long as the welfare bill is reduced by at least as much.

  7. avatar CZ Peasy says:

    Decriminalizing all drugs would free up a lot of resources.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      The preliminary evidence from Colorado and Washington says no it won’t. Seattle and Denver have become more dangerous places since legalization.

      Drug legalizers are like gun grabbers. Both think crime and violence will go away when you adopted their solutions.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        The problem with CO and WA is that they’ve become a Mecca for the most avid drug users from all over the country. I doubt very many locals who weren’t users in the first place decided to take it up because it became only federally illegal instead of federal and state. Legalizing nation wide would eliminate that problem.

        That said, you are right, drug dealers aren’t going to get a job at McDonald’s just because they lose their black market.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Think about what you just said — drug users commit crimes.

          The reason that weed legalization led to an increase in crime is that the judicial system lost an effective means of reducing the population of gangbangers on the streets.

          Actually, your average street dealer doesn’t make any more money than flipping burgers.

          Here a novel solution to reducing violent crime. Let MS-13 take over the criminal business. It will be bloody at first but after they drive out the competition things get quite. That is what happened in Northern Virginia around the turm of the Century. The police like to credit their anti-gang activities for driving out the DC gangs but it was the ascendency of MS-13 that was the driver. Like all monopolists, they don’t like competition.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          First off, we ALL commit crimes. One of Stalin’s enforcers used to say, ‘show me the man and I’ll show you the crime’. Our bureaucracy has grown to a similar situation – everyone is a criminal.

          I don’t smoke pot but if I did I’d rather give my money to some mom and pop outfit or even national chain rather than give my money to MS13. Where I differ from the more ardent libertarian types is my acceptance of the fact that violent criminals will always exist and if you eliminated all consentual crime, most would rather commit non-consentual crime than make an honest living. The libertarian faithful seem to think that these MS13 members will just grab a set of bongos and join in on the Kum-by-ya sing along if only they could smoke their pot without fear of the po-po harshing their buzz. But pot is in ‘common usage’ and the War on Drugs is far more pernicious IMHO than the drugs, so legalize it, legalize prostitution as long as it’s indoors and off the streets, legalize gambling, and carry a g un for those who venture into non-consentual crime.

      2. avatar Grace12 says:

        Sources

        1. avatar CC says:

          Colorado own crime stats. murder is up 24%,m car thefts up 40%

      3. avatar Texican says:

        It seems to me that there was much less violent crime and zero drug cartels before certain drugs were made illegal. Going back to that model would have its bumps along the way but violent crime would go down eventually because gangs wouldn’t have as much to fight over. Prohibition never works if people want what’s prohibited. Didn’t work for alcohol. Doesn’t work for drugs. And it definitely won’t work for guns if it ever comes to that. Another thought, once alcohol prohibition ended did violent crime go up or down?

      4. avatar 41mag says:

        TDIINVA – sorta like how Democrats can’t/don’t want to follow the law, then cry “The system is broken!!” and push to abolish/legalize said criminal behavior

      5. avatar drunkEODguy says:

        History says otherwise though. Once prohibition repeal dried up Mafia funds, they had a hard time keeping up their finances. They still got money from other illicit sources, prostitution, gambling, “protection” rackets, and others, but loosing the booze running money was a crippling blow. So yeah, the gangs aren’t going anywhere, but when you take their bread and butter they’re going to loose a lot of power and struggle to keep the lights on.

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      It isn’t about freeing up resources. It’s about grabbing as many resources as possible, to increase their power. That’s what virtually every human alive does, and whatever ‘authorities’ one puts in charge are no different. They just do it more obviously.

    3. avatar Kendahl says:

      A question worth asking: Are drug dealers criminals because they sell drugs or do they sell drugs because they are criminals? If the former, legalization (and regulation) of drugs will help. If the latter, the dealers will just move on to other crimes.

      1. avatar 41mag says:

        Criminals don’t like the straight-and-narrow way.

        1. avatar Andrew Lews says:

          A truly just society would make it easier, more convenient, more profitable etc to follow the law. Demanding that the acceptable path be straight and narrow is God’s jurisdiction, not ours.

    4. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Negative. It’s a popular meme, but it’s not true. Decriminalizing drugs will not empty the prisons of peaceful pot smokers. Because the prisons are full of real criminals. Very, very few of them are in there for simple possession or trafficking charges. They all have a rap sheet a mile long that often includes assault, battery, GTA, burglary, armed robbery, and domestic violence. Decriminalizing drugs does have benefits, and may free up space in some jails, (jails, not prisons), and would free up state and federal LE personnel and money for more serious crimes, but, those same people who recently got 7 years on a trafficking charge is the same dude who will return to prison shortly for armed robbery. Crime is literally a way of life for these dudes.

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Well they’re about to “march against violence” on the Dan Ryan expressway in Chiraq. By being violent and intimidating. Lots of local buzz does NOT support fadda Pflegma and drones. Blaming the gun and never the thug…catch & release never works. Legalize everything-the dindu’s gotta’ make a buck “by any means necessary”…😩😖😡

  9. avatar Leighton says:

    And they want to get rid of the box on the application about arrest and conviction….go figure

  10. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    As a resident, I can tell you that the Eastern Bloc Socialist Police-State of the People’s Republic of M–assachusetts….Sucks….This is a state where the residents have no 2nd amendment rights and what “Privileges” that exist…Is heavily controlled by the anti-2@ local/state police *(STASI) Departments…Government and Police Corruption abound…Real Hardened criminals are treated with kid gloves by the Liberals….While the lawful general population is criminalized for one thing or the other…The State is over-run with DemoCommies, some RINOs, illegal aliens, and MS13 gang members….IF i had the money, I’d leave this state in a heartbeat….

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      As a fellow resident, I’d say that you understated the situation. MA is run by the Irish Mafia and will continue to sink into irrelevance as long as it holds sway.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    ‘what the hell does it take to hold and keep these repeat violent offenders off our streets and out of our neighborhoods!’

    The total destruction of the Democrat Party would be a good start.

  12. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    They usually learn more and better ways to break the law each time they are locked up…

  13. avatar MGD says:

    Does anyone besides me notice how these repeat offenders get the revolving door treatment, but a law abiding gun owner who’s caught with a “high cap” magazine he forgot he had will be made an example of? I remember the guy in DC who was caught with an EXPENDED shotgun shell and the morons arrested him.

  14. avatar Rick says:

    The bail system is based on the RULE OF LAW that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court tried by his or her peers. So being arrested is not found guilty. I’m an engineer and not a lawyer, but I suggest that once a person has been found guilty the first time of a felony, then we need to have a way to keep track of or hold that person the second time around. Maybe we change the laws to allow for detention of a felon for 3 months or so on the second arrest.

    1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      Supposed to the be a call on the part of the judge on bail cost, or to deny it if they are a significant flight or safety risk. The problem is if your local judge is a window licker.

    2. avatar DrDKW says:

      Well, some states have a ‘three-strikes’ policy, even including non-violent felonies. In this case, after THREE VIOLENT felony convictions, this creep should have been locked up for a long time after #3, thus preventing #4.

      DrDKW

  15. avatar Mort says:

    Democrat ‘catch and release’ is a fraud and yes, it does lead to more crime! Notice that you never hear a democrat express any interest keeping them in jail to protect the public! So why vote democrat?

  16. avatar Zebra dun says:

    Broken record, catch release they kill then catch again.

  17. avatar TheTruthBurns says:

    Kill All Violent Criminals, Antifa, Jihadis, Communists & Traitors to the US Constitution. All you will have left are Loud Mouth Progressive P. ussies.

  18. avatar Alan says:

    Being hard hearted and so forth, I wonder as to what sort of sad songs these oh so concerned do-gooders would be singing were it one of theirs who
    was now dead, a victim of one of these poor, down trodden, misunderstood, discriminated against, ILLEGALS

  19. avatar Alan says:

    Catch and Release may work well respecting fishing, however when dealing with violators of the law, the story becomes rather different.

  20. avatar Fred Bagley says:

    The bottom line for me is this…We have to either strengthen the penalties for violent crimes committed with a gun & felony crimes committed while in possession of a gun! If the penalties are strengthened & that includes mandatory no bail rules for repeat offenders then the judge’s would have choice but to rule that they be bound over untill trial. These changes must also include mandatory sentencing that include progressive sentence minimum for each repeat offence. To me that seems like the common sense way to keep violaters off our streets an crimes like the one that is the topic of this conversation from being “allowed” to commit this awfull crime that never should have happened!!! As a parent that has lost a child ( not by a violent crime he was lost to us at the age of 18, he was a passenger in a car accident) I know what that family is going thru! It’s just not natural for a child to be taken before the parent. But that’s something that nobody ponders when discussing a topic like this because everyone puts that thought off by thinking, Oh that will never happen to me! Well Im I’m one of those people, I thought the same exact thing because as a parent it’s only natural to want to believe that, that would never be me! But it did happen & will tell you this what my family went thru was awfully but even as a parent that has lost a child I’m telling you this, I cannot imagine how MUCH WORSE it has to be for the parents & family this has to be knowing that they lost their lives one to an asshole scumbag that should have been behind bars!!! I just can’t imagine that families frustration!!! I know what our loss did to us & if our loss had been like theirs I’m not sure that I could have withstood that kind of loss. For Me it would have been so much more frustrating that I’m not sure that I wouldn’t put a Bullitt thru my brain!!! You see some of the comments above want to deflect the reality of the topic at by using this thing or that thing like turning into a voter topic or a right of law topic or whatever else they can come up with to change the point of the conversation by the use of delection. Because if they don’t & if everyone stayed on topic & stick to the reality of what should really be done then they can’t turn it into a political football !!! When for those of us who have suffered a lose we look thru the smoke screen & understand that it should be about the fact that people who make the CHOICE to commit a crime with a gun should not have the privilege to walk among us for a long time & should be held in jail untill the have their day in court & the ones that make the CHOICE to use that gun while committing a crime should not be allowed to see the light of day for even longer if somone kills another person while committing their crime well for me life in prison is to good for them!!! They should be executed immediately!!! An I don’t care one bit about how it’s done! I don’t care that there are those who scream at the top of their lungs that it shouldn’t be done or that it should be Dona as humanely as possible, did that criminal think that his crime was being done in a humane manner!!! I DON’T THINK SO!!! Infact if you want my honest opinion on what would be the best deterrent to stop all crime committed with a a gun that results in a family losing a loved one is this ( I know I’m going to get alot of crap for my solution to this problem) I think it should be left up to the family to decide what should be done & how it’s done! Here’s a couple of example & you tell me it would not be the best deterrent for the type of case that is the subject of this conversation. Example 1 for a crime of as we are discussing here! The family gets to choose the manor of execution & when that execution is carried out it is required by law that it be televised on every network no matter their choice in how the sentence is carried out! Example 2 I’m putting this one here because in my humble opinion this is one of the most disgusting crimes ever committed…Any sexual crime committed against a child should be dealt with in a equally an severe a manner as this type of act deserves!!! Again it should be required that it be televised on every channel as well!!! I think the Mother of that child should be the one ( if she chooses) that she gets see that monster tied to a post on the courthouse steps as she gets to break every bone in his body untill he or she dies or she thinks letting him suffer his injuries in prison for the rest of his life!!! Her chouce!!! What choice did he or she give her child!!! Now you tell me if you do not believe that this would be huge deterrents to the heinous violent & TRAGIC acts for the families that have a loved one taken from them or a mother that has had such a horrible thing done to her child!!! Like I said I know I’m going to here alot of crap from some of you but I can GUARANTEE we would see the crime rates of this type of crimes to drop a stone dropped from a bridge!!! Can you just for a moment put yourself in the position of someone that might commit this type of crime or is involved in activity where a crime like this might occur that seeing this type of punishment right there on the TV they watch everyday would not make them think about what they are doing & the brutal consequences of what would happen to them! That would not make them think twice about what they are involved in or just guit all together then I don’t think you are being honest with yourself or that putting a stop to such things just doesn’t fit in with your agenda or you just think it’s inhumane or to brutal of away for a “civilized” society to deal with such acts well let me ask you one question? Has anything we have done so far worked? If you have any other answer than a big fat NO then your out if your mind & there’s nothing anyone can say or any solution that will work for you !!! And I would say you are beyond help or incapable of putting yourself in the place of someone that has lost a child!!! You just can’t be helped!!!…PS…This would also stop people from blaming the gun & there would be no need to take the gins away from law abiding citizens!!!

  21. avatar Fred Bagley says:

    Ok I know my comments above have some punctuation issue’s & my wording is a little off in a few spots! But I think you can understand the point I’m trying to make! I apologize for not proof reading it before I posted it! But I was taking a break in digging a new flower bed for my wife & she had me rushing to finish it!!! I love her to death but man she can be Slave driver sometimes!!! And she was crackin that whip for me to get back to work!!! So you see I have a good excuse!!!…LOL!!!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email