Don't Blame New York's Bail Reforms for Quick Release of Congressman's Attacker
One of the candidate’s own supporters is responsible for the defendant’s release. And it may have been the right decision.

On Thursday night, in a story that seemed absurdly on-the-nose, the law-and-order-focused Republican candidate for governor of New York was assaulted on stage during a speech by a man who was then subsequently released without bail. After the candidate, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R–Long Island), and the state's Republican Party used the incident to attack the state's bail reform, it turned out the truth was a lot more complicated, and one of the candidate's own supporters was partly responsible for the attacker's release.
Zeldin is challenging Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul for her seat. Part of his campaign is aimed at those who are worried about crime rates in the state. In 2020, New York implemented bail reforms so that those who are charged with nonviolent crimes would generally not be required to pay cash bail for their release. Zeldin is a critic of the reforms and cashless bail and wants judges to have more ability to evaluate defendants for "dangerousness" when deciding what to do with them.
On Thursday, while at a campaign stop in Perinton, 43-year-old David G. Jakubonis, of Fairport, ambled up on the raised platform where Zeldin was speaking. Video of the incident shows nobody apparently attempting to stop Jakubonis from confronting Zeldin while holding a keychain with two sharpened plastic tabs on it for self-defense. He grabbed Zeldin by the arm and muttered, "You're done." Zeldin pushed Jakubonis away, and he was taken down by the crowd and restrained. Zeldin was not injured.
Zeldin predicted that Jakubonis would quickly be released by New York's bail system, and he was correct. But that's where things get complicated. Jakubonis was released hours later after being charged with attempted assault in the second degree. This charge, under the 2020 bail reform, is not considered a violent felony. Therefore, prosecutors can't ask for cash bail. And so, sure enough, when Jakubonis was released, critics of bail reform blamed the system for letting loose a man who attacked a political candidate.
But that criticism ignores the amount of leeway that prosecutors have to decide what to charge defendants with. In this case, The New York Times notes, the Monroe County District Attorney's office could have charged Jakubonis with a violent felony that would have then allowed a judge to demand cash bail. But District Attorney Sandra Doorley did not, opting instead for a lesser charge. Her decision complicates this fight further because Doorley, it turns out, is a co-chair of Zeldin's campaign. Awkwardly, the reason that Jakubonis was freed so quickly after the attack is due to the actions of somebody on Zeldin's own team, not bail reforms. Doorley's office declined to comment to the Times on the bail issue and told them that Doorley would be recusing herself from the case.
As more facts about what happened that afternoon came out, it is arguable that Doorley's office made the right call. Despite the apparent outrageousness of a physical attack on a sitting congressman, perhaps Jakubonis doesn't need to be in a jail cell to protect the public. An FBI special agent report about the incident describes interviews with Jakubonis post-arrest. Jakubonis, an Iraq War veteran, told Monroe County sheriff's deputies on the scene that he had been drinking whiskey that day, didn't know who Zeldin was, and was somehow under the incorrect perception that Zeldin was "disrespecting veterans." Thus, he confronted the congressman and attempt to stop the speech. When he was shown a video of the confrontation, he said that he "must have checked out."
Assuming Jakubonis' statements are honest, this is not a case of somebody targeting Zeldin for his campaign positions or political affiliation or attempting some sort of act of domestic terrorism. If the purpose of bail is to make sure that people accused of crimes agree to behave and show up for court dates when they're released, the facts don't actually support demanding any cash bail out of Jakubonis. And even if a judge did have the ability to evaluate Jakubonis for "dangerousness," there doesn't seem to be any here. He perhaps needs a mental health intervention, which Joe Chenelley, a Republican candidate for New York State Assembly who was there and helped tackle Jakubonis, himself noted. That's an intervention that can take place outside of a prison cell.
Ultimately, this attack on Zeldin illustrates the complexity of the bail reform issue. Simplistic solutions, no matter how satisfying they might sound when giving campaign speeches about high crime rates, are wrong. Demanding that Jakubonis pay cash bail wouldn't make Zeldin or the community any safer given the alleged circumstances. Cash bail might have resulted in Jakubonis being stuck behind bars not because he is dangerous but because he didn't have the money to post. This is the outcome that bail reformers have been trying to prevent. And even though the judge didn't have some sort of authority to evaluate Jakubonis for dangerousness, it turns out that prosecutors can leverage the law in the determination of what to charge.
In any event, the Department of Justice subsequently arrested Jakubonis because assaulting a congressman is also a federal crime. He's now being held in federal detention and will appear before a federal judge on Wednesday. It's possible, yet again, that he'll be released from pretrial detention without having to put forth any sort of collateral. (The federal pretrial system doesn't have the same type of cash bail rules as many states, but can and does require a bond put forth by a third party or family member.) This perfectly normal operation of the federal court system probably won't prompt the same outraged headlines that were published when Monroe County released him.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
LOL so it wasn't the bail reforms, it was the person who's job it is to charge people, taking into account the bail reforms?
Okay.
This sure is a change from when 'the system' failed in Uvalde and all over the rest of the country.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (bdu-05) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> https://smartpays11.pages.dev/
I think that's a little bit strawmanish. I believe the accusation is that the State charged the Defendant with a crime it knew wouldn't qualify as a "violent" offense under the bail reform law when the actual facts/allegations supported a charge for a crime that would qualify as "violent" and thus support cash bail being set; presumably (at best) because of the political connection between the chief DA/prosecutor and the victim. Not that I defend or support that argument based upon the scant and speculative information provided in this article, but I see no reason to re-define it in an even weaker strain. It is plenty subject to criticism, as is. No proof of improper influence of political connection on charging decision, just pure speculation. Nothing to flesh out what more serious "violent" offense would have been supported by the facts/allegations. Just a real loose, tenuous piece of speculative drivel, even when giving it more benefit of the doubt than your summary.
Reason agrees with the current charges though. So is it valid for them to blame the DA's office for only leveling the charges that they themselves are arguing were appropriate? It seems like an attempt to eat their cake and have it too.
I made $30k in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
Reading this article:>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com
As others have said lower in the thread…
“Assault” is when you put someone in fear of an attack.
“Aggravated Assault” is when you put them in fear of an attack with a weapon.
Battery is when you make contact.
Aggravated Battery is making contact with a weapon.
This is clearly a completed aggravated assault and an attempted aggravated battery.
Both violent felonies.
Prosecutor discretion is being misused to under charge and allow no bail
It’s about sending a message to a nut job who might be on the fence about attacking someone.
Mayor London Breed and the DS Boudin in SF have both sent a message to shop-lifters strong enough to cause Union Square to be boarded up:
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/See-the-boarded-up-designer-storefronts-in-Union-15169997.php
But I'm sure Shackford would find the clever shop-lifters (rather than those telling them it's OK) at fault.
So Reason's position is that violent attackers with mental health problems don’t have "dangerousness"?
It all hinges on whether or not serious analysis of the attack might reflect poorly on the Democrats.
This is exactly how I expected Reason to spin this story.
Well, it apparently hinges on how the prosecutor feels that day. I'm guessing Reason wouldn't be so keen on "prosecutor leeway" if we were facing down a real 'hammer down, law and order, lock them all up' prosecutor. I'm guessing that 'leeway' would be frowned upon. And probably rightly so.
I mean they argued for the release of all the non violent j6 protestors.... oh wait.
Yeah, the voice of liberty was really strident on all of that locking up people for over a year without bail and without trial for what in many cases was an arguably bogus trespass charge.
It was a "deadly attack"... DEADLY! WHAT PART OF DEADLY ARE YOU FAILING TO GRASP!
And the suicide count of trespassers has now surpassed the number killed on site...
Then Reason is just being stupid and short-sighted.
The fastest way to get "hammer down, law and order, lock them all up" guys in charge is to let criminals out to commit crimes. Voters notice more crimes. Voters vote for safety for themselves and their families and elect the "hammer down" guy. (Reason writers are very surprised because Reason empathy is only for criminals and aliens, not ordinary Americans trying to live life.)
Reason wants "hammer down, law and order, lock them all up" types, they just want them to be 100% political creatures who only apply law to the left's enemies
Depends on context. If Zeldin had been an abortionist, ENB would (correctly) be demanding life in prison for the psychopathic anti-choice terrorist.
#AbortionAboveAll
“Assuming Jakubonis’ statements are honest….” You can justify anything if you make the right assumptions. And who wouldn’t believe someone that just attacked with a weapon?
This is the second time I’ve read about this, and the second time the dudes sharpened keychain thing was described as “for self defense”. WTF is that? Is the media this guys attorney?
They might as well just come out and say that he was doing this to feed his starving family.
Reason's position is Republicans confronted with violent attacks should stop attacking themselves.
Hate the game, not the player. Got it.
Wow.
"He was so drunk and confused he didn't even know who he was trying to murder." is one of the worst defenses I've heard. I think that actually makes it probably more important to keep him under observation for a while longer.
That's what I was thinking. How him admitting to getting drunk and attacking strangers a defense in any sane person's book?
Rereading the article, it's a defense of bail reform. I actually missed that the first time through. So, I guess it makes more sense but it turns into a weird defense of what the guy did at parts.
It also doesn't really answer the question I've had about getting rid of cash bail, which is that it turns a spectrum of possibility from a judge (charge X amount because of Y circumstances) to a binary (You have X crime and it requires either jail/no jail before trial). I'm not sure that actually helps in the way people want it to help.
It wasn't Domestic Terrorism! He just heard someone was making a speech he didn't like and he assaulted him in order to get him to stop speaking!
Attempted assault in the second degree does not describe attacking a politician with a knife, no matter the context. In fact, most bar fights are given far more serious charges.
This sends a clear statement that it's open season on Republicans. It's okay to attack them. They don't have standard protection from the law as people.
If the man had died, would he have gotten a charge of poaching?
Indeed, this guy should pay a $10 fine at most. It's not like he did something truly serious, such as make one of our allies like AOC uncomfortable.
#FreeTheCriminals
#EmptyThePrisons
" . . . while holding a keychain with two sharpened plastic tabs on it for self-defense."
Perhaps you would have more credibility if you explained how the knife with two blades is "for self defense".
And a bit more detail of how raising the "keychain" towards an exposed throat is "holding".
What I saw in the video was an attacker literally going for the throat with a weapon capable of severing the jugular.
And it meets my definition of violent.
I tried (for way too long) to come up with any possible interpretation of "for self-defense" as anything other than oozingly biased, unsupported, speculative, and ill-chosen. I came up empty.
Ahh, so Reason was intentionally obscufating what happened. I really shouldn't be surprised.
What I saw in the video was an attacker literally going for the throat with a weapon capable of severing the jugular.
From what I saw in the video, Jakubonis is pretty clearly reaching for the microphone. His hand with the keychain is open and he reaches across in front of Zeldin. He certainly wasn't driving a punch-knife at Zeldin's throat, or Zeldin could not have grabbed his arm the way he did.
That being said, this kind of action is by no means 'non-violent' and should have been charged as assault. The fact that he was wearing the keychain on his hand can be used to argue that he expected resistance, mitigated in that the device is intended to cause pain, not serious injury. It is a plastic keychain. If it was sharp, it would be a continuous danger to the owner.
He yelled "youre done" which i guess could mean no more talking. But it looked worse than ending a speech from when I viewed it.
Ehhh, I carry a baterang as a key chain. It's purely decorative official branded Keychain, and I regularly use it in the place of a knife for cutting tape. It won't cut my hand while handling it, but if I stabbed you in the throat with it, you're probably going to die.
Yes, you can kill someone by jabbing any sufficiently stiff object into the soft tissue in the throat. Good thing he didn't punch for the throat, instead extending his open hand to grab the microphone.
It's a product designed and marketed as a self defense weapon
I can believe he owned it for self defense, because this is fucking New York and they won't let you own a gun. But you don't need to add "for self defense" in a scenario where he was wielding while assaulting someone. He wasn't defending himself. I wouldn't say a gun used in a murder was "for self defense" even if that's why the home-owner originally purchased it.
I agree. In fact I'd say attempted assault in the second degree is the wrong charge, because that trained killer (Iraq veteran) was obviously going for the Congressman's jugular at his throat.
Further Shackelford's description of the "keychain with two sharpened plastic tabs on it" is misleading. It fails to note the description of that keychain includes "Durable: Made of unbreakable lightweight ABS plastic. This plastic is as strong as metal." One quick jab to the throat would kill if it cuts the jugular which should be very easy with this weapon.
Im not too upset about the bail issues if the charge fit the crime. But how does lunging at someone's throat with a sharp object qualify as a "non violent" crime?
Prosecutorial leeway. There's LEEWAY!
I haven't looked at the actual statute, but I know that generally inchoate (incomplete) crimes (like attempt or conspiracy) sometimes aren't included within such statutes that include enhancements due to the "violent" nature of the crime. It would seem that this fella could have been charged with something more than an attempt crime, but I certainly haven't reviewed the facts and applicable potential crimes to truly analyze that. Author seems to be implying that he only wasn't charged with such a crime because of the connection between the victim and the D.A., and the victim's desire to capitalize politically on the bail reform law (though author advances zero proof of same).
He was stopped before completion, so charging him only with the attempt seems appropriate. Reason appears to be arguing that the DA should have over charged the accused, for the sole purpose of getting around the bail reform that Reason advocates. Which makes one immediately question why the bail reform is a good thing, if it's advocates have to argue that prosecuters should intentionally overcharge people to get around its results.
If your assault is stopped by physical contact by the victim, it's not attempted. Additionally, if I remember correctly, assault is the threat, battery is the contact.
Now, it is justifiably attempted murder or attempted battery, but it was a completed aggravated assault.
lunging at someone's throat with a sharp object
Alternatively, 'reaching for the microphone with an open hand while sporting a plastic keychain shaped like a kitty'.
Well, yes.
In that wonderful land where looting and burning is mostly peaceful, men can become women, and there are eleventy-seven genders.
If he was punching at Zeldin's throat, his hand would be closed. You can clearly see in the video, he grabs for the microphone, is thwarted by Zeldin grabbing his forearm, and only then does he clench his fist.
I am not arguing that it was not a violent assault. But characterizing it as an assassination attempt is ludicrous upon reviewing the video.
According to our fine objective analyst, the prosecutor in question is our victim's campaign manager.
Now, I have questions... but let's set that aside.
Taken as a given, that puts the prosecutor in a box. Overcharge and the press wails and complains that you are biased and probably racist, maybe even misogynist. Undercharge and libertarians write that nobody can complain about the no bail thing because it isn't a violent felony.
But that analysis hinges on the campaign chair making the call on charges. I don't buy that. That would be a clear conflict of interest. Surely he handed the case off to a subordinate. I really can't believe a prosecutor at that level wouldn't CYA on a conflict of interest like that.
But that would blow about 4/5 of this article out of the water.
But that criticism ignores the amount of leeway that prosecutors have to decide what to charge defendants with. In this case, The New York Times notes, the Monroe County District Attorney's office could have charged Jakubonis with a violent felony that would have then allowed a judge to demand cash bail. But District Attorney Sandra Doorley did not, opting instead for a lesser charge. Her decision complicates this fight further because Doorley, it turns out, is a co-chair of Zeldin's campaign. Awkwardly, the reason that Jakubonis was freed so quickly after the attack is due to the actions of somebody on Zeldin's own team, not bail reforms. Doorley's office declined to comment to the Times on the bail issue and told them that Doorley would be recusing herself from the case.
I need help identified the editorial bent here at Reason. Is giving prosecutors "a lot of leeway" a good thing or a bad thing?
I seem to remember some prosecutorial leeway in a recent case against a bodega employee who viciously murdered an innocent bystander just trying to buy some food for his family.
Seems to me, the prosecutorial discretion is being used for political purposes, and has corrupted the government law enforcement institution. They don't arrest people trespassing and threating homeowners on their own property, they arrest the homeowners for having guns and showing them in defense of themselves and their property. They're letting (certainly supporting and possibly paying) criminals engage in crime against the public, for the purpose of advancing their political power, in a "Whippings will continue until morale [support for Democrats and their policies] improves"
Reminds me of a sentence in Wikipedia: "In retrospect, Hitler's rise to power was aided in part by his willingness to use violence in advancing his political objectives and to recruit party members willing to do the same." Godwin's law strikes again.
It's a good thing in Reasons mind because at the moment the me leeway is likely to result in less people spending time in jail. Which is Reason's only metric for a good/bad system.
They've embraced the ends justify the means with no understanding of how that can fuck them.
Except in cases of insurrection.
No, they're 100% on board with end justifying the means there.
Now, if it were mostly peaceful protests...
This is shallow, outcome based libertarianism with no underlying principle except to get the right principals in charge.
The editorial bent here is 'bent'.
Why wasn’t this considered an insurrection that threatened the very existence of American democracy?
And it may have been the right decision.
AYFKM??? This is just delusional.
Welcome to Reason.
Shackford would probably refer to this as a minor accident.
Are you actually serious with this?
We live in a world where people who merely walked with the crowd on Jan 6 were held without bail for over a year...
A world where the left has been using mass political violence with explicit cover from above.
A world where people who run over women at a gas station in a racially motivated attack, are released pending trial and then run down dozens of people at a parade in another racially motivated attack.. . Only to be quickly erased from the public consciousness when it is discovered which way thar racism ran...
A world where our attorney General has said political violence is the greatest threat our nation faces....
In that world, we have actual, in your face political violence directed against an actual politician who holds elected office.....
And your number one concern is to explain how the guy who got attacked should not have anything to say about being violently attacked because of his politics? And definitely he shouldn't have any comment on a system designed to quickly release this guy with no bail?
That is the important take-home from this?
What the hell do we have a libertarian magazine for if it is only going to be a DNC spin machine? I mean, we have NBC for that. We have ABC for that. We have CNN. CBS, NPR, PRI, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, Atlantic, Slate. .... dozens, maybe hundreds of outlets that could do the "akshually, it is totally the Republicans who are to blame here" version.
We only get one libertarian outlet. One! For crying out loud, can we have a libertarian voice at our libertarian magazine? I get that we are all for bail reform... but the story here isn't "Republicans pounce".
A world where our attorney General has said political violence is the greatest threat our nation faces....
He clearly "misspoke"; global climate warming change is the only threat anyone faces.
The most useful part of this website is the comments section.
The story here is that Demcorats and the far left hijacked bail reform and instead of it being reform made it bail elimination and have caused chaos in cities all over the country.
Reason can't tell that story because it is critical of the left. And criticizing the left in unequivical terms is not something reason does. Reason does unequivocal criticism of Republicans, "Republicans Pounce" and "Pox on both houses".
That is a subset of the true story that should be uniting the greens, the libertarians and the NAACP types. It isn't just bail reform... and it isn't just now.
Every single time policing reform moves forward, the DNC and surrogates move hard to divert the conversation to be all about race, deflecting any chance of meaningful progress.
Back when Radley Balko was doing the best reporting on criminal justice issues in at least a half a century, progress was at our fingertips. His "rise of the warrior cop" had a national conversation underway. So of course DNC operatives (including Obama) had to divert everything. So we got Hands Up, Don't Shoot! Along with Zimmerman, that story killed any chance of reform and initiated the first steps of a return to a racist society. Everything Balko and an army of activists managed to accomplish over many, many years was completely undone with a couple of racist lies. And as a bonus, we get to keep BLM.
This has been their SOP for a couple of decades. Any time we are in danger of solving these issues, they divert and stoke racism. Not by accident. Not because of a bias they hold. But because that is their plan.
Should you doubt this repeating pattern is an intentional strategy, I need only point you toward the story of the Gentle Giant with his hands up, pleading "don't shoot!".
Immediately after that happened, national organizers were on the ground coordinating riots. And Obamas AG Eric Holder was in town warning local police to keep silent about the investigation, under threat that he would take over the department.
Now, within hours of the shooting, police knew that hands up don't shoot didn't happen, and they knew that there was physical proof that our gentle giant had in fact committed a strong arm rovers shortly before this encounter and that he reached in the officers car and attempted to take his gun, getting shot in the hand inside the car for his trouble.
So within hours of arriving, Eric Holder could have put a stop to all of the riots a d protests. All he had to do was state what he already knew.
But then BLM would not exist. A crisis would go to waste. No political gain could be had.
So Obama and Holder sat in it for a month, allowing violent protests and riots around the country.... over a lie. A lie that they knew was a lie, probably within hours, definitely within 2 days.
This is how we know this diversion to "racism" every time police reform comes up is an intentional strategy. And one must assume that the outcome is also intentional.
On the one hand Shackford claims that you can 't blame bail reform because the DA charged an obviously violent offense in a way that made it ineligible for cash bail as a violent offense. That would be okay except that Shackford then turns around and claims the guy not getting bail was okay because the offense really wasn't violent and he really isn't a danger. Which is it?
Shackford is normally dishonest but this is even bad for him. What does Shackford have monkey pox and is just not thinking straight or something?
"If the purpose of bail is to make sure that people accused of crimes agree to behave and show up for court dates when they're released, the facts don't actually support demanding any cash bail out of Jakubonis."
Uh, a defendant who by his own account gets drunk, confused and violent? What if he gets drunk and confused and forgets he's supposed to show up in court?
"You honor, my client, who is accused of trying to murder someone with a knife, is only violent when he is drunk." might be the worst argument for granting easy bail terms in history. And yet, Shackford makes the argument with a straight face.
Is Shackford that stupid or just that much of a shameless DNC hack?
Those concepts are not mutually exclusive.
"Assuming Jakubonis' statements are honest, this is not a case of somebody targeting Zeldin for his campaign positions or political affiliation or attempting some sort of act of domestic terrorism. "
Wait... so if his statements are honest it's no big deal? Therefore the decision to not hold him is jail was the correct one? What if Jakubonis is not being honest?
This is not even high school level journalism.
did you insert the "for self-defense" part of the kitty-toy to downplay the potential offensive severity of its use?
In fairness, I think Scotty boy meant that the sharpened plastic tabs had originally been put on the keychain for self-defense purposes. Not that the attacker needed to “defend” himself from the person he was attacking.
It's a stupid insert there because it's trying to make excuses for the perpetrator when it's not relevant. You could make that point later in the article to soften it, but it's clearly bullshit the place he puts it in an attempt to frame the attack at less threatening than it was. It's an obvious distraction tactic and it kind of pisses me off.
^
Now that we have seen the video we know what "attempted assault" in NY looks like. I like the definition "intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact" much better, but then I am not in NY.
If I remember correctly your second statement is actually the definition of assault in a legal sense. Battery is when they actually go through with the threat and implication.
New York is weird in that they use "assault" where every other state would use the word "battery." So he's actually charged with battery, which is what he did when he placed his hands on Zeldin.
Actually wait, it was "Attempted assault," which is inaccurate. There is an actual battery there when he contacts another person in a threatening manner without their consent.
Yes. That's the problem. This was a completed assault. Since he made contact and the congressman had to actively defend himself, then it's a completed battery. I can understand being nice and not calling it attempted murder, but attacking someone with a knife is the quintessential example of felony aggravated assault.
Dear God, the fucking insane spin in this story:
Video of the incident shows nobody apparently attempting to stop Jakubonis from confronting Zeldin while holding a keychain with two sharpened plastic tabs on it for self-defense.
Why add the "for self-defense" at the end of that? I own a handgun for self-defense, but if I wandered up on stage waving a gun at a political rally while approaching a candidate, nobody would say I was carrying the gun for self-defense. Jesus fuck. It's a weapon, and weapons CAN be used for self-defense, but this guy was not using it that way.
Jakubonis, an Iraq War veteran, told Monroe County sheriff's deputies on the scene that he had been drinking whiskey that day, didn't know who Zeldin was, and was somehow under the incorrect perception that Zeldin was "disrespecting veterans." Thus, he confronted the congressman and attempt to stop the speech. When he was shown a video of the confrontation, he said that he "must have checked out."
Let's be at least minimally skeptical of what he said to minimize his own crimes at the scene, shall we? I mean there's a big rally, there's signs all around showing who's running and for what office. He may never have heard of him before if he's not really political but it's not hard to figure out, when approaching a political rally, who the person on stage is.
And even if he's being 100% truthful, how is any of that okay? He just "heard" that someone was disrespecting veterans, was quite drunk, and hopped on stage with a brandished weapon to get a guy to stop speaking? That's absolutely not okay, and someone who might just do that probably IS an active danger to the community. When you brazenly assault someone in front of a massive crowd, you're clearly unconcerned about the consequences, and even if it's alcohol-induced, that just means you're unpredictably violent.
Assuming Jakubonis' statements are honest, this is not a case of somebody targeting Zeldin for his campaign positions or political affiliation or attempting some sort of act of domestic terrorism.
If you assume his statements are honest, he wanted to shut down a speaker who was saying things he didn't like. But according to you, that's NOT Domestic terrorism? Come the fuck on.
Demanding that Jakubonis pay cash bail wouldn't make Zeldin or the community any safer given the alleged circumstances.
It would have gotten someone who just thinks they can grab random strangers in public while wielding a sharp object off the street for at least a couple of days. Maybe you don't think that makes the streets any safer.
If you were trying to objective in the slightest, Scott, you missed the mark. I know you probably pushed for the bail reform laws he's railing against, but that doesn't mean you need to swallow a load of bullshit just to defend them.
If you assume his statements are honest, he wanted to shut down a speaker who was saying things he didn't like. But according to you, that's NOT Domestic terrorism? Come the fuck on.
By this standard, every one of the Jan. 6 rioters is a domestic terrorist.
Some people deserve to be locked up without bail, some deserve to be turned loose with just a pinky-swear that they'll show up for trial.
If you deny this, you're a racist.
You really are mentally ill.
I mean. I get that you shill for the DNC. But comparing someone who physically assaults an elected official while he is speaking to a grandma who is walking with the crowd and seriously expecting anyone to agree with you is insane. Like, koo-koo for cocoa puffs insane.
You got maybe a dozen guys from Jan 6 that could arguably be in the same bucket with this guy.... Yet none actually touched a politician, elected or otherwise. Almost 900 people have been charged in the Jan 6 case. Many were held for the better part of a year without bail. Many for even longer. Way less then 10% of that number committed any kind of assault.
Yet this guy gets a whole writeup from reason as to why it is totally responsible that he is released on his own recognizance. He either just wanted to shut an elected official up using force, or possibly had intent to do serious physical harm.
It really makes me wonder if some of the reason staff isn't working for the same assholes as these sock puppets.
I’d even say it’s in the 20s who deserve serious charges, assaulting police and pushing over barricades. And a few hundred trespassers. But they’re charging people for simply showing up.
We're the rioters trying to "shut down" Congress from doing its job, or not? According to Thinking Mind, that is domestic terrorism.
I mean, you could just say that the Jan 6 rioters weren't domestic terrorists and neither was this drunk guy.
And all the times the left marched and shot down congress was not a big deal.
But you think interrupting congress for a few hours is 20 years in jail. Because you're an authoritarian.
When have I ever said the rioters at the capitol shouldn’t be charged? I’m only making a distinction between them and the yahoos who showed up and were guilty of nothing but trespassing and never laid a hand on anyone.
"being charged" and "domestic terrorist" are two different things
You wrote
"he wanted to shut down a speaker who was saying things he didn't like."
How does this not describe all the Jan 6 rioters?
Die, Stalinist pedophile
It adequately describes any rioters who committed battery, of which there were several. As did this guy when got on stage brandishing a weapon and grabbed someone, whether or not he recognized the speaker.
You're trying to catch me in some kind of gotcha by pretending I'm holding positions I've never held.
I'm trying to show you that your definition of 'domestic terrorist' is too vague and too broad and covers a lot of people who aren't terrorists by any reasonable standard.
I also think your definition of 'domestic terrorist ' is strongly motivated by partisanship.
I suspect that under the mean old bigoted right-wing oppressive bail law which existed before 2020, the judge would have been able to require bail, and might even have done so.
How horrible!
I feel like I'm the only one who read the article.
Scott's point, at least as far as I can see, is that "bail reform" is not the reason Jakubonis is out of jail, it is because the DA decided not to charge him with a violent felony. She could have done so, and the fact that she is Zeldin's campaign co-chair demonstrates (most likely) that she chose not to do so not because she hates Zeldin or because she's some whackadoodle progressive.
And frankly after watching the video, I am inclined to believe that he was drunk.
Well, suppose the judge were operating under the pre-2020 bail law, would you think that sterling citizen would have been required to post maybe just a little bail?
Holy crap, you are dumb.
The reform law is what means the charge does not warrent bail.
And what you and our theoretically libertarian writer are arguing is that the new, reformed law does is push prosecutors who want to require bail to overcharge?
And in your twisted minds, the lack of overcharging means exactly what? If he didn't overcharge, he wouldn't be asking for bail in any event?
Damn, that is dumb.
The final dumb nail in a spectacular coffin of stupid.
Why would it be "overcharging" to charge him with a violent felony?
Just read the comments here. It was an attempted assassination right? He proved he was a dangerous drunk who was a danger to everyone. Isn't that what a violent felony does? So maybe the real problem here was the UNDERcharging.
Sure, but under the ancient (pre-2020) law, wouldn't even this "minor" charge have justified at least *some* bail?
You often feel abd say stupid things.
For context, this occurred at the Fairport VFW Post (outside in front of an M60 Tank and Huey Chopper donated by the US military)..my Dad was a member there for 50 years (WW2 vet). What I am surprised is no investigation within minutes of the perps social media feeds, rumors from neighbors and so on. This Post has had some "interesting" events. About 14 years ago a kid dressed in a gorilla costume and his buddy filming crashed the weekly Bingo night...it was not the smartest thing as a bunch of WW2/Korea/Vietnam vets beat the crap out of him...this guy was lucky he didn't get beat up...
Right-wingers are always pouncing on incidents like these.
Sarc, I hope.
Does anyone speak of pouncing non-sarcastically?
Customize Your Own Leather Suit. Get a leather race suit made that is totally unique with your choice of design, leather, protection, style, color & fit. https://raceleather.co.uk/
I believe he was arraigned in the Town of Perinton....so not sure Monroe County DA had anything to do with it.
The whole bail-reform fiasco is a "solution" to the bloated criminal code and the corruption of the plea-bargaining process.
Have a social problem you want solved, criminalize a batch of people and make yourself feel that you've done something good.
So the government ends up playing gotcha with people who get caught with outdated cartridges or have a couple of doobies in their glove compartment.
Then your hit with a couple of felonies and a couple of misdemeanors, and as the Supreme Court has decided that a speedy trial is anything under a year, they graciously allow you to plead to a single misdemeanor and get out. Frankly, with or without bail reform, you're likely to take it.
Heaven forbid we should de-bloat the bloated criminal code. Government never takes away. It only adds. Heaven forbid we should do anything about the ever increasing boundaries of the plea bargain and return them to reasonable parameters.
So the solution to the injustice is bail reform. (And they go too far with it, applying it to things that actually should be crimes.)
It is a "solution" to neither and an effort to deny both problems.
>while holding a keychain with two sharpened plastic tabs on it for self-defense
Riiiight. Zeldin attacked *him*. Those evil Republicans, doncha know, not allowing themselves to be assaulted.
>perhaps Jakubonis doesn't need to be in a jail cell to protect the public
Riiiight, the public doesn't need to be protected against drunks who randomly attack people for no reason. Plus Jakubonis might be a sex worker, doncha know.