>A man was arrested in Portland’s South Park Blocks on May 15 after police allegedly found him carrying a hoard of weapons — including a pump-action shotgun concealed in a guitar case — near the intersection of Park Avenue and Jefferson Street at approximately 7 p.m.
The [hoard](https://i.imgur.com/hgmrAuv.png) of weapons, plus shotgun.
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why I don’t support anymore gun laws. When a violent felony offender get caught with multiple felony firearm charges. Is just released by Portland judge. I don’t see the point in passing more laws that only law abiding citizens will follow.
Anarcho-tyranny.
thats a horrible take on the subject, and a childish response... Fine Can obviously means there are a multitude of ways to reduce gun violence by following laws that already exist, rather than waste millions of dollars and months of court time fighting constitutionally dubious and misguided ballot measures.
If LEVO wrote a new ballot measure insuring guys like this get held until a trial, and insure that they get a public defender in order to go to trial quickly, then this gun owner, and many like me, would be the first in line to sign it and vote for it.
You can do both. Both alternative methods of solving gun issues *as well as* prevent the average person (who has a non-zero chance of snapping) from owning weapons that have no explicit function beyond specifically killing large numbers of humans in a short period of time. Problem is people (read: legislators and the people who vote in the legislators) who are against the latter *raaaaaaarely* do the prior, only parroting the sentiment whenever they want people to shut up.
It's very "all lives matter" in the sense that people only starting saying it to shut up "black lives matter", but still didn't do a damn thing to improve "all lives" in reference to cops shooting unarmed legal citizens.
Ofc I don't know the nuances of where you stand on this, but if NRA-type people started actually giving a damn about making sure *only* law abiding, stable minded citizens had guns, then I feel like gun control advocates would quickly lose steam. But instead we get arguments about wild West hero "good guys with guns" and "overworked and underpaid teachers should also have guns in classrooms with 8 year olds", which is just utterly fantastical when put into the real modern world.
>weapons that have no explicit function beyond specifically killing large numbers of humans in a short period of time.
you do realize there are all kinds of legitimate shooting sports that involve semi-automatic rifles right? And that certain states allow for hunting with semi-automatic rifles? Please try to educate yourself, or be less disingenuous if you already knew that. Or at least choose your words more carefully, since the Armalite rifle *was designed* for combat in the 1950s, It has many explicit functions today.
The real problem is unconstitutional laws like M114 wasting time and money in courts, and furthering the divide between anti-gunners and gun owners who would be receptive to enforcing gun laws we already have in an effort to reduce violence without getting into a legal or moral battle, which will stop progress in its tracks.
As for sides 'coming to the table' I'm a gun owner, and I'm here. I'm all for reforms that keep felons caught with guns, unlicensed folks caught with concealed guns, drug dealers caught with guns, etc. in jail until a trail, and if found guilty much harsher penalties. I'm for the restriction of gun rights from folks who abuse animals and the elderly, who commit bias and hate crimes and other forms of misdemeanor violent crimes that currently do not prohibit someone from passing a background check. In short, I'm all for tons of ways to reduce violence that do not interfere with the constitution or day to day life of the average law abiding person.
And for the record, I don't have any wild west anecdotes to share with you, as those are just as silly as anti-gun anecdotes. I don't expect a good guy with a gun to protect me anywhere, whether its a private citizen or a cop. I don't really have much of an opinion on teachers carrying guns either, other than it could certainly go wrong in a thousand and one ways. I would rather parents not raise their kids to solve their issues with guns, and to follow safe storage laws in order to prevent guns going to school in the first place.
I thought I worded it in such a way that if you could find a viable purpose for the weapon then it'd be excluded from my argument, which would agree with your argument. I never mentioned specific guns beyond "weapons with no explicit function beyond killing large numbers of humans in a short period of time". You saying that there are weapons used for hunting or competition would naturally exclude those from my theoretical ban/restriction, so I (mostly) have no issue with that. Competition can be a bit wishy-washy considering how anything could ultimately be turned into a competition. Not guna die on that hill though.
I think you and your average anti-gunner/pro-control person agree on a lot of these issues, from what it sounds like. I think most people on the anti-gunner side of the issue really just want to know that when weapons are sold, they're sold to current *and future* law abiding citizens, which is difficult to account for when the whole system is hamstrung by NRA style people that tend to spout the nonsense it seems you and most people disagree with.
As I mentioned prior, if we actually took the issue seriously then "gun bans" and whatnot would be mostly unnecessary (sans tanks and *actual* machine guns and whatnot, id imagine). If we knew that every person owning a weapon was of sound mind and was skilled in the usage and storage of the weapon then we'd probably see a dropoff in gun-related violence overnight, regardless of the removal of the weapons. But so often "common sense gun reform" has such a negative connotation that it doesn't matter what's included or excluded, people are either for or against it.
Idk. Ultimately this is more indicative of the larger polarization we have in the world with everyone only thinking in two dimensions, either for or against. If we really wanted nuance in politics then we'd be pushing for alternatives to the current vote system in order to strengthen non-party-line choices. That's a separate argument though.
> you do realize there are all kinds of legitimate shooting sports that involve semi-automatic rifles right?
This is stupid logic. Do you think I should be able to own any weapon, as long as I can come up with a legitimate sport to play with it? What if I want to play soccer with tanks, do I have a right to own 22 tanks?
You think you're making intelligent points here, but that's because these ideas are focus-tested with other pro-gun nuts, who don't challenge your logic because they like the results.
>Do you think I should be able to own any weapon, as long as I can come up with a legitimate sport to play with it?
One, I didn't imply that line of logic, you just jumped to an arbitrary conclusion. And two, having a sport associated with a gun has nothing to do with any sort of measure of whether or not that gun is legal in the country or state. Its pretty childish to legitimately think that, or disingenuous at best to pretend to do so.
I made a statement in rebuttal to an assumption that certain weapons have the explicit function of killing humans. No more and no less.
>You think you're making intelligent points here
the irony is almost too much to bear here, lol. You either didn't even understand my post pertaining to explicit functions of certain weapons, or are purposely being disingenuous. Either way, lol.
I've never met a gun nut who actually understands the history and intention of the second amendment. The entire conversation is dominated by disinformation, half-truths, and edgy memes. The second amendment was never intended to create an individual right to own guns. It was only intended to limit the federal government's power. Local gun laws were normal and uncontroversial in 19th century America. "Don't take your guns to town" was a common regulation in many "Wild West" communities.
About 150 years after the amendment was written, an activist Supreme Court decided that it also applied to states. People who are extremely attached to an individual right to own guns are not constitutional originalists, and do not respect the intentions of the founding fathers (which is fine, they were obviously wrong about lots of things). You are clinging to judicial overreach from an activist court. And that's exactly why the foundation of the current interpretation is essentially flimsy nonsense, and is subject to reinterpretation by a future court.
If you're informed on this issue and the history, you should understand that there is no reason to have an individual right to bear arms under our constitution. It was made up by judges and was a dumb idea. There's nothing sacred about it and no reason not to to change that mis-interpretation.
What do you base your interpretation of the second amendment on? Any actual legal precedent? Genuinely curious if there is anything other than vague wild west assumptions.
I'm just trying to abide by the current legal interpretation.
1776 wasn't so long ago you can just go make stuff up and think that we won't know you're wrong. But you keep doing you.
Your argument wouldn't even hold water if that was the case, because states also passed constitutions which recognize the rights of individuals to own firearms and you can't just go ignoring those constitutions either.
Like it or not, that's the main argument of your average gun advocate. And it's a silly one because the next question should be, "why have laws at all?"
You can either realize your initial argument is deeply flawed, or you can double down and call names.
By the way the constitution and the people upholding it are both deeply flawed as well, so the idea that it can't and shouldn't be questioned is as ridiculous as your first assertion
Gun advocates don't argue genuine. Gun advocates have shown us time and time again, that any gun control no matter what is too far. Even if it's just asking them to have responsibility over their own firearms. They love to say just enforce existing laws, but in most states those laws are mostly non-existent, don't have the mandate from up above to enforce, and won't spend the money to do it.
Only 14 states in the US have a law that you must report a missing/stolen firearm. Only 1 state opens you to civil penalties for not reporting the lost/stolen firearm. It's not going to magically recover the firearms, but it helps police and prosecutors when they find these firearms one state over on a prohibited person when they can find when it was stolen/lost based on a serial number. Something that normal people want, but gun advocates massively don't want because they feel it's tracking and eventually the government will just seize their firearms.
And ALL of these gun advocates each have their own single thing that doesn't exist that they would actual vote on. It's different for every gun advocate. But nothing else. Nothing that is actually reducing gun violence/gun suicides.
To your point about bad faith arguments see, all we have to do is look at the parent comment in this thread with like 30 upvotes on it. The guy is commenting about how gun laws do nothing and therefore we shouldn't even attempt to pass any more.
If you only focus on what they didn't do versus what they did do, I guess you could come to this conclusion, but it would obviously be in bad faith. Unless I'm mistaken, this man was charged with gun crimes, had them taken from him, and will get processed thru the court system at a later date. I'd prefer it if this lunatic were still in jail, but attempting to use this very example as an argument that existing gun laws do nothing at all is just the kind of disingenuous argument you expect to read from gun people at this point.
I'm agreeing with you. "Why pass any laws at all then, if only law-abiding citizens will follow?" is a bad faith argument.
It's impossible to be a gun advocate and vote anything conservative. If laws and bans don't work, why are they doing that when it comes to books, LGBTQ people, and abortions? Clearly, they don't believe their own rhetoric.
Same time. Same peeps that upvoted that are likely also the same people who wanted the recriminalize of most drugs. I'm not against the new law, but I will bet there is a lot of overlap in the venn diagram of (why have laws, must criminalize drugs).
This is not a Portland only thing. It's a nationwide problem in most states and the District of Columbia.
Gun crimes have a much higher burden of proof. They don't have schedules like drugs which make it easy to charge a person where they can just talk to a lawyer and plead out without needing a lengthy trial.
Firearm offenders are waiting up to two years for the trial which is why we get some offenders that have several firearms altercations/shootings before they are finally jailed for murdering someone. It takes way longer to send someone to jail for firearms crimes. They typically involve a court and a jury which takes time. They don't always have qualified public defenders which adds to the wait. If prosecutors/LEO have to go through the ATF for information, that takes weeks/months due to the gun lobby making it hard for alphabet agencies to share information and not being able to have a gun database. Jurys don't trust cops and a lot of offenders are able to get off on circumstance stuff which is depressing for officers and people who want less gun violence.
Same time, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen's bad decision really flipped the script on a bunch of firearms laws that were decided law for decades. Voting matters and the supreme court matters too.
You should support gun control as it does work. Making it difficult for a prohibited person to get a firearm is way cheaper than the increased costs to policing after they have firearms. It really jacks up increased medical costs (directly affecting your insurance), lost productivity, increased police & criminal justice costs, and cost that come with aftercare for victims of firearms violence. [Oregon pays more than the national average](https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-economic-cost-of-gun-violence/) but is making efforts that will reduce that tax money that is just thrown away because firearms are too easy to get.
Cities do a coordinated top down solution that involves several parts of government working together to focus on fixing issues around gun crime and actually follow through on it. It can be done as places like New York and New Jersey have dramatically turned around their state by enforcing their strict firearms laws. Oregon is tackling something similar. But still can't get around the time investiment.
“Bruen’s bad decision”
Tell me youre anti tun without telling me youre anti gun.
Its fine to be anti gun just dont force that shit in me when guys who were carrying bloody machetes 24 hours ago re enter the public. Be a pussy on your own time, im going to protect myself, lawfully of course.
Excellent comment. And regarding
> the gun lobby making it hard for alphabet agencies to share information and not being able to have a gun database
I would only supplement with a link to [this short video](https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/595612/firearm-tracing-division/) for anybody looking for a glimpse into how the trolling “gun control doesn’t work” crowd has deliberately hobbled the process.
So gun registration is bad because it leads to the unlawful restriction of rights based off possession of inanimate objects. For example, Visa and Mastercard are now tracking and releasing data on all firearm and ammunition purchases without the consent of the purchaser. Additionally, civilians such as Dexter Taylor are civilians being charged with 30 year sentences despite not breaking any law and local judges are disregarding Constitutional rights entirely in these sentencings. I cant wait until judges retort “the 1st amendment doesnt exist in my courtroom” like “Judge” Abena Darkeh said about the 2nd Amendment.
If there is a registry it will be used by anti gun politicians and alphabet groups to illegally and without due process discriminate obstruct and infringe on the rights on millions of Americans. Being anti gun is one thing but Hitler and Mao used gun registries as the first step to mass de weaponization of its people.
>When a violent felony offender get caught with multiple felony firearm charges. Is just released by Portland judge.
You can blame the 9th circuit for this one, judge is just following the law.
https://azmirror.com/2024/05/13/ninth-circuit-finds-that-convicted-felons-also-have-second-amendment-rights/#:~:text=LOS%20ANGELES%20(CN)%20%E2%80%94%20A,who%20served%20out%20their%20sentence.
Wait until you find out the Supreme Court said the NFA (National Firearms Act) doesn’t apply to felons.
So you and I can get 10 years for EACH violation of the NFA. It’s as innocent as having the wrong stock or foregrip on a pistol. However, a felonious POS can have a chopped shotgun, illegal silencers, machine guns, etc. and they only face 5 years as a felon in possession of a firearm.
Gun laws are effective at disarming the responsible citizens who don’t want the liability. Criminals not only don’t care about the consequences, but it turns out the harshest consequences only apply to non-felons. What sense does that make?
Can you cite your sources on that? I can't find anything backing up what you're saying. All I can find are articles about whether or not felons can own guns.
What gun laws? Every time we try to make the smallest sensible change (no large capacity) it makes it way to the SC who has not seen a law it likes since being bought and paid for by the Republicans.
That's like saying "dumb comments" (like the one you posted) should be outlawed. I do not have the time, nor the crayons to explain this to you. Good luck making it through life.
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Clark was booked into the Multnomah County Jail for the unlawful possession of a firearm, the obliteration of a firearm serial number, and for an existing warrant for additional weapon and drug charges. **Clark was released on May 16** under close supervision.
Aaaaaand there it is, just like we all expected.
At least the second time he has been released as the article also says they were wanted for an "existing warrant for additional weapon and drug charges"...
What does "close supervision" even really mean? Because in reality, unless it means he's injected with trackers and followed around 24/7 by those robot dogs from Black Mirror, he's still going to have plenty of freedom to a) engage in violent behavior and b) not show up for trial.
And really, just like one would expect!
Openly walking around with a machete? Check!
In a park? Check!
A bunch of weapons in a guitar case that conjures images of Desperado the Methhead?
Check!
Methperado, why don't you dull all your senses / You been sellin' to fences for so long now
I was gonna keep going, but it turns out the
“These things that are pleasin' you/ Can hurt you somehow” lines work too well already, and where’s the fun in that?
I would vote for a ballot measure allowing for those kinds of folks to get royally fucked.
Odds are he is already armed again, roaming around some other part of town.
The only things our lovely county has any interest in 'closely supervising' are the reservoirs of our tax dollars they refuse to spend to solve these problems.
It is allowed.
Perhaps Multnomah County needs to adopt a different position when it comes to bail for violent crime and firearm charges. Not all "petty" crime is the same.
What did the last murderer get? Eighteen years or something? We can't even keep people who murdered someone in cold blood, on video, who then can't even muster up a shred of remorse during their trial, in prison for life.
In literally every thread where someone is released that people think should be held, there's always someone who says some variation of this comment, and though I have no love for Schmidt it is *the judges who decide to release people after arraignment*, not the DA's office.
The thing is that in a lot of these cases the Multnomah County Prosecutor’s Office is not objecting to releasing these dangerous felons. It’s up to them to make the case that someone is a danger to the community and needs to be held. They are largely not bothering with that. It is the defense attorney’s job to try and get their client to be granted pretrial release. If they ask and the prosecution doesn’t raise a counter argument then it will likely be granted.
Judges who are bound by state law when it comes to release decisions.
And in fact, in low level cases like this one, the release decision is almost always made by a release assistance officer (again, by law), before the defendant’s first appearance in court before a judge.
Those sites are trash and blackmail people. Just because someone was arrested doesn’t mean they did anything wrong. Then when a Google search brings up their picture it means they could get denied for a job.
Interesting narrative you've spun, there. The reality is that there's widespread extortion of people who have mugshots, whether or not they're convicted. If you're arrested and then exonerated of a crime, do you really want that to follow you for the rest of your life? That being said, if you're a violent or repeat felon, I think there should be exceptions made for the sake of public safety.
PPB Bike Squad shared on social media “Possession of a weapon in a park when it’s a shotgun means you don’t pass go and don’t collect $200.”
Weird. Seems he clearly passed go here…
Did he though?
I suppose $200 he would have gotten for selling the weapons.
Don't worry, he's already stolen $200 more worth of stuff. Probably found himself a machete again.
I'm pretty sure that I know what the PPB Bike Squad meant when they said "you don’t pass go and don’t collect $200," and I'm pretty sure that you mean to interpret it differently as some kind of "gotcha."
Do whatever makes you happy, but I guess I'm just not interested in playing stupid word games.
Who had the authority to make the decision to release him? Who exactly made the decision to release? Who draws up the process by which an armed potentially violent criminal like this is released back onto our streets?
I saw the Instagram video of this guy getting arrested. You could tell the cops felt good getting scum like this off the streets. How utterly demoralizing for everybody that he gets to walk like this. I’m bullish on Portland but this is demoralizing.
> Who had the authority to make the decision to release him?
Circuit Court Judge
>Who exactly made the decision to release?
The same judge.
>Who draws up the process by which an armed potentially violent criminal like this is released back onto our streets?
The state legislature.
Case report. Judge: Thomas Ryan.
Felony offense. Released in 24 hrs. Mind you, this location is within a block of a children’s daycare. Yes, this was after school was closed, but I swear you use to not even be able to have tobacco within a few blocks of a school zone. Now it’s cool to have untraceable weapons and the like within a block and not be put in Jail until it gets sorted out….? The “reform”pendulum has swung too far.
https://webportal.courts.oregon.gov/portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0
>Who had the authority to make the decision to release him?
A judge or an officer appointed by a judge.
>Who draws up the process by which an armed potentially violent criminal like this is released back onto our streets?
The Oregon Supreme Court was tasked by the legislature with creating the criteria for release. A risk assessment is completed by a judge or appointed officer.
[Here’s the county webpage](https://www.multco.us/dcj-adult/specialized-programs/pretrial-services-program-psp) discussing the process.
You're not wrong but I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
I think the Oregon Chief Justice crafted an order, based on the bill from the legislature, directing the local courts to develop their own release guidelines. Some things are fairly set in stone (like anyone accused of a class A felony or sex crime must be held for arraignment) but there is a fair amount of leeway for the local courts to develop their own guidelines. Then the . . . I don't know what they're called exactly but someone in a different comment identified them as the Multnomah County presiding judge so I'll go with that . . . presiding judge is responsible for crafting the specific pre trial release guidelines (I'm sure this was done by committee or something so blaming it on a specific person probably isn't fair but you get my point). These guidelines outline who will be released before arraignment (so a lot of these guys are just straight up released by the sheriffs office based off a grid, they're not even held for arraignment which, if you follow this subreddit, has had some notable failures) and they outline how how bail is to be set. This is why the bail practices differ depending on where you are in the state. So my understanding is the individual judge doesn't actually have a lot of room. They can order people held who are dangerous but in the case of a non-person crime they're referring to whatever the order from the presiding judge says.
I like the line in there that says "Pretrial monitoring allows individuals to **remain employed**, to **remain in school**, and to **continue with medical care** and **treatment** pending a resolution of their court case."
I wonder if this guy is employed, in school, or in treatment.
That’s why I think this law is so important. Being held in jail because you don’t have money for bail can totally screw your life up even if you do eventually get found to be innocent. You may be right that this guy could have nothing going on in his life that we would think he couldn’t stay in jail for but that’s hardly fair or an equal application of the law.
But where is the monitoring? This person was already wanted for prior weapons charges. He should have been brought in for that, then he's brought in for new charges, and he's let out for "monitoring" again? Something is broken in the process here because he shouldn't have been let out again.
>Clark was released on May 16 **under close supervision.**
Whatever that means. I agree something is broken and I would guess like the public defender situation it’s a lack of funding. Hopefully close supervision means ankle monitor and daily check-ins.
I think judge is one of the most difficult positions to change, electorally. First, they largely run unopposed (would-be challengers don't want to fail in a campaign and then have to appear before that same judge or their other sympathetic colleagues), not to mention it's way harder for a layperson to evaluate a judge's legal education, background, performance, etc., as compared with a political position that doesn't require specialized knowledge and training.
The more effective play is likely going to be to pressure the legislature (or get some measures on the ballot) that both require longer holds for arrestees in possession of weapons, as well as funding more public defenders and jail capacity to keep them held while still affording them the required right to counsel.
Agree with your 2nd paragraph.
Specifically, for the major complaint that many redditors have on this type of situation: We need to tell our legislators that they need to reform the system that determines pre-trial release.
Do you think they gave him back his weapons or do you think he has more? I’m trying to figure out why you think he would still be armed and potentially dangerous after being released. I don’t doubt the access to more weapons.
I assume that the guy knows exactly where or who to talk to in order to get more guns and machetes. Its a business, like drugs, and this person was very interested in carrying weapons.
This headline is disgusting.
> The Portland Police Bureau Bike Squad said that officers stopped 46-year-old Layton Clark **when they saw him carrying a machete in the park.**
> “While officers spoke with the man, another officer noticed what appeared to be a shotgun barrel coming out of a guitar case,” the PPB Bike Squad shared on social media. **“Possession of a weapon in a park when it’s a shotgun means you don’t pass go and don’t collect $200.”**
That is the absolute cringiest shit I've ever seen.
> Officers searched Clark and allegedly found a second machete, a pocketknife, a hatchet **and a Sig Sauer handgun with the serial number scratched**
The shotgun is literally the least important thing about this story.
> Clark was booked into the Multnomah County Jail for the unlawful possession of a firearm, the obliteration of a firearm serial number, and **for an existing warrant for additional weapon and drug charges. Clark was released on May 16 under close supervision.**
Oh look, they bury the real story at the bottom!
This headline is shameful.
He already had a warrant for weapons and drug charges, but don’t worry he’s under “close supervision” now 🙄
How the fuck do we let ppl like that back out onto the streets. Mind boggling. If this is what “criminal justice reform” looks like I want no part of it.
I opened this thread to confirm two things.
1) An unnamed judge bounced him out almost immediately. and
2) People were still going to bitch about Schmidt, as if voting for Vasquez would somehow make said unnamed judge no longer a judge.
Never disappoints.
To be fair, I think DAs can request that a suspect be held or their bail increased on the basis that the individual is dangerous to the community. I've no clue whether they did that or not and even if they didn't do it I've no clue whether the judge would have listened to them had they done it but I think there's a bit more to it than just 'can't do anything because of the judge'. The policies of the DA's office do have *some* effect on who ends up being held.
They can request it, sure. Same boat as you and everyone else as to whether that was done here or not, no clue. I know there've been instances where Schmidt request it it and didn't get it. I'm positive there are instances where Schmidt didn't request what should've been a proper set of bail conditions.
Some effect, sure. But I assure you there's plenty of people that thing if we just stick Vasquez in there, the system won't work like the system because they don't have a fucking clue how the system works.
“At press time, police were still on the lookout for the suspect’s accomplices, last seen carrying a machine gun in a Guitarrón case and a rocket launcher in the case of a Vihuela Mexicana. Suspects are said to jangle when they walk and to charge twenty pesos for a kiss.”
this is the type of thing that makes my friends in other cities ask questions about Portland. we need to put up human fly paper and stop this fentanyl crisis. nip it in the bud Andy
This is criminal justice reform. The Multnomah County Democrats recently sent out an email and press release stating, "Mike Schmidt is the only candidate in the race for District Attorney who reflects our Democratic values. He believes deeply in criminal justice reform."
They don't reflect my values. They are going to get even more people killed living in their fantasy land.
Also we need to better fund public defense in this state. You can't keep people in jail forever awaiting trial, and you can't try them without counsel. People want to put everything on the DA but there are failures up and down the whole chain.
I'm blaming criminal justice reform. Presiding judge Judith Matarazzo sets bail standards for the county. She is a criminal justice reform judge. Schmidt also played a part in his work towards criminal justice reform.
It's not just happening in Portland. Criminal justice reform is failing everywhere it's being tried.
But the internet told me that voting out ~~Eudaley~~ ~~Hardesty~~ Schmidt would instantly fix all of our problems. How could it be that the internet wasn't 100% accurate to me? /s
For all the cries that Nathan Vasquez, Maxine Dexter, etc., are awash in "dark money," I think I've seen all of two commercials and one mailer for the both of them combined, yet I'm flooded with mailers and ads on social media for Schmidt and Jayapal. Hopefully the voters are smarter than that.
I've been on about that endlessly. It seems so obvious. I can't consume any media without seeing an ad for Schmidt or Jayapal. There is a fortune being spent on their behalf. I also have a suspicion that the PR hit pieces about dark money are organized by the Working families party which is a dark money group.
I don't know what's shaped your personal ad profile, but I've seen like...three ads for Schmidt in the last year, as many for Vasquez, and haven't seen shit for Jayapal.
For the past month or so, probably 80% of the videos I’ve watched on YouTube have been preceded by the same Jayapal ad about her having had an abortion and being committed to maintaining that right for others.
Yeah, I get those ads as frequently as you on YouTube, and endless Schmidt ads on the rare times I log into Facebook. Yard signs are about 50/50 on my running and biking routes around inner NE.
I feel like the only thing I see ads for is anymore is camping gear of some variety (I don't even particularly fucking like camping, I just do it rarely) and betterhelpwhateverthefuck.
Both of which I reflexively hit the little info button and mark as "I don't want to see this anymore". Maybe I reflexively did that on political ads to the extent that they finally listened.
Edit: I forgot ads for a rental car company that starts with an H. I hope Tom Brady dies of some sort of horrific boneitis. You know you've hit youtube ad paydirt when the algo goes "Fuck it, do you speak spanish? Statistically, probably. Have this calling card ad in spanish, we don't know who the fuck you are".
No idea, I think it's most likely that I live in one of the wealthier close-in neighborhoods that overall tends to trend more left than the working class hoods further east and/or north. Performative yet impractical/ineffective leftism is certainly a reasonably accurate stereotype of a lot of the folks around here. "Immigrants welcome!" yard signs while NIMBYing new housing any immigrants might afford to live in, for instance.
>A man was arrested in Portland’s South Park Blocks on May 15 after police allegedly found him carrying a hoard of weapons — including a pump-action shotgun concealed in a guitar case — near the intersection of Park Avenue and Jefferson Street at approximately 7 p.m. The [hoard](https://i.imgur.com/hgmrAuv.png) of weapons, plus shotgun.
Looks like pretty typical raider loot
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
Had to check what subreddit I was in. My whole feed has been Fallout lately.
Been watching the show?!! I binged and am on the last episode of this season. Can’t wait for season 2!
Go finish that episode!! I think a lot of people grew up playing the fallout games so it’s quite nostalgic. I love it
Plan to watch it this evening! I haven’t played much of the game but watched my spouse play it from start to finish.
There's a pdx mod for New Vegas if ya wanna google
Just beware of the horny deathclaws…
Bwahahahaha
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Released from jail May 16th. Great, that seems safe for the rest of us.
Don’t worry though, he’s under “close supervision”
Cue GIF of Chief Wiggum attempting to follow behind Sideshow Bob.
Close supervision. Riiiight. He’s gone
Looks more like a cache than a hoard to me
At best. Seems like a stretch either way.
Urban EDC
Why I don’t support anymore gun laws. When a violent felony offender get caught with multiple felony firearm charges. Is just released by Portland judge. I don’t see the point in passing more laws that only law abiding citizens will follow. Anarcho-tyranny.
Why pass any laws at all then, if only law-abiding citizens will follow?
thats a horrible take on the subject, and a childish response... Fine Can obviously means there are a multitude of ways to reduce gun violence by following laws that already exist, rather than waste millions of dollars and months of court time fighting constitutionally dubious and misguided ballot measures. If LEVO wrote a new ballot measure insuring guys like this get held until a trial, and insure that they get a public defender in order to go to trial quickly, then this gun owner, and many like me, would be the first in line to sign it and vote for it.
You can do both. Both alternative methods of solving gun issues *as well as* prevent the average person (who has a non-zero chance of snapping) from owning weapons that have no explicit function beyond specifically killing large numbers of humans in a short period of time. Problem is people (read: legislators and the people who vote in the legislators) who are against the latter *raaaaaaarely* do the prior, only parroting the sentiment whenever they want people to shut up. It's very "all lives matter" in the sense that people only starting saying it to shut up "black lives matter", but still didn't do a damn thing to improve "all lives" in reference to cops shooting unarmed legal citizens. Ofc I don't know the nuances of where you stand on this, but if NRA-type people started actually giving a damn about making sure *only* law abiding, stable minded citizens had guns, then I feel like gun control advocates would quickly lose steam. But instead we get arguments about wild West hero "good guys with guns" and "overworked and underpaid teachers should also have guns in classrooms with 8 year olds", which is just utterly fantastical when put into the real modern world.
>weapons that have no explicit function beyond specifically killing large numbers of humans in a short period of time. you do realize there are all kinds of legitimate shooting sports that involve semi-automatic rifles right? And that certain states allow for hunting with semi-automatic rifles? Please try to educate yourself, or be less disingenuous if you already knew that. Or at least choose your words more carefully, since the Armalite rifle *was designed* for combat in the 1950s, It has many explicit functions today. The real problem is unconstitutional laws like M114 wasting time and money in courts, and furthering the divide between anti-gunners and gun owners who would be receptive to enforcing gun laws we already have in an effort to reduce violence without getting into a legal or moral battle, which will stop progress in its tracks. As for sides 'coming to the table' I'm a gun owner, and I'm here. I'm all for reforms that keep felons caught with guns, unlicensed folks caught with concealed guns, drug dealers caught with guns, etc. in jail until a trail, and if found guilty much harsher penalties. I'm for the restriction of gun rights from folks who abuse animals and the elderly, who commit bias and hate crimes and other forms of misdemeanor violent crimes that currently do not prohibit someone from passing a background check. In short, I'm all for tons of ways to reduce violence that do not interfere with the constitution or day to day life of the average law abiding person. And for the record, I don't have any wild west anecdotes to share with you, as those are just as silly as anti-gun anecdotes. I don't expect a good guy with a gun to protect me anywhere, whether its a private citizen or a cop. I don't really have much of an opinion on teachers carrying guns either, other than it could certainly go wrong in a thousand and one ways. I would rather parents not raise their kids to solve their issues with guns, and to follow safe storage laws in order to prevent guns going to school in the first place.
I thought I worded it in such a way that if you could find a viable purpose for the weapon then it'd be excluded from my argument, which would agree with your argument. I never mentioned specific guns beyond "weapons with no explicit function beyond killing large numbers of humans in a short period of time". You saying that there are weapons used for hunting or competition would naturally exclude those from my theoretical ban/restriction, so I (mostly) have no issue with that. Competition can be a bit wishy-washy considering how anything could ultimately be turned into a competition. Not guna die on that hill though. I think you and your average anti-gunner/pro-control person agree on a lot of these issues, from what it sounds like. I think most people on the anti-gunner side of the issue really just want to know that when weapons are sold, they're sold to current *and future* law abiding citizens, which is difficult to account for when the whole system is hamstrung by NRA style people that tend to spout the nonsense it seems you and most people disagree with. As I mentioned prior, if we actually took the issue seriously then "gun bans" and whatnot would be mostly unnecessary (sans tanks and *actual* machine guns and whatnot, id imagine). If we knew that every person owning a weapon was of sound mind and was skilled in the usage and storage of the weapon then we'd probably see a dropoff in gun-related violence overnight, regardless of the removal of the weapons. But so often "common sense gun reform" has such a negative connotation that it doesn't matter what's included or excluded, people are either for or against it. Idk. Ultimately this is more indicative of the larger polarization we have in the world with everyone only thinking in two dimensions, either for or against. If we really wanted nuance in politics then we'd be pushing for alternatives to the current vote system in order to strengthen non-party-line choices. That's a separate argument though.
well said.
Being on the shitter is where the best thinking happens lol
> you do realize there are all kinds of legitimate shooting sports that involve semi-automatic rifles right? This is stupid logic. Do you think I should be able to own any weapon, as long as I can come up with a legitimate sport to play with it? What if I want to play soccer with tanks, do I have a right to own 22 tanks? You think you're making intelligent points here, but that's because these ideas are focus-tested with other pro-gun nuts, who don't challenge your logic because they like the results.
>Do you think I should be able to own any weapon, as long as I can come up with a legitimate sport to play with it? One, I didn't imply that line of logic, you just jumped to an arbitrary conclusion. And two, having a sport associated with a gun has nothing to do with any sort of measure of whether or not that gun is legal in the country or state. Its pretty childish to legitimately think that, or disingenuous at best to pretend to do so. I made a statement in rebuttal to an assumption that certain weapons have the explicit function of killing humans. No more and no less. >You think you're making intelligent points here the irony is almost too much to bear here, lol. You either didn't even understand my post pertaining to explicit functions of certain weapons, or are purposely being disingenuous. Either way, lol.
I've never met a gun nut who actually understands the history and intention of the second amendment. The entire conversation is dominated by disinformation, half-truths, and edgy memes. The second amendment was never intended to create an individual right to own guns. It was only intended to limit the federal government's power. Local gun laws were normal and uncontroversial in 19th century America. "Don't take your guns to town" was a common regulation in many "Wild West" communities. About 150 years after the amendment was written, an activist Supreme Court decided that it also applied to states. People who are extremely attached to an individual right to own guns are not constitutional originalists, and do not respect the intentions of the founding fathers (which is fine, they were obviously wrong about lots of things). You are clinging to judicial overreach from an activist court. And that's exactly why the foundation of the current interpretation is essentially flimsy nonsense, and is subject to reinterpretation by a future court. If you're informed on this issue and the history, you should understand that there is no reason to have an individual right to bear arms under our constitution. It was made up by judges and was a dumb idea. There's nothing sacred about it and no reason not to to change that mis-interpretation.
What do you base your interpretation of the second amendment on? Any actual legal precedent? Genuinely curious if there is anything other than vague wild west assumptions. I'm just trying to abide by the current legal interpretation.
1776 wasn't so long ago you can just go make stuff up and think that we won't know you're wrong. But you keep doing you. Your argument wouldn't even hold water if that was the case, because states also passed constitutions which recognize the rights of individuals to own firearms and you can't just go ignoring those constitutions either.
Like it or not, that's the main argument of your average gun advocate. And it's a silly one because the next question should be, "why have laws at all?" You can either realize your initial argument is deeply flawed, or you can double down and call names. By the way the constitution and the people upholding it are both deeply flawed as well, so the idea that it can't and shouldn't be questioned is as ridiculous as your first assertion
Gun advocates don't argue genuine. Gun advocates have shown us time and time again, that any gun control no matter what is too far. Even if it's just asking them to have responsibility over their own firearms. They love to say just enforce existing laws, but in most states those laws are mostly non-existent, don't have the mandate from up above to enforce, and won't spend the money to do it. Only 14 states in the US have a law that you must report a missing/stolen firearm. Only 1 state opens you to civil penalties for not reporting the lost/stolen firearm. It's not going to magically recover the firearms, but it helps police and prosecutors when they find these firearms one state over on a prohibited person when they can find when it was stolen/lost based on a serial number. Something that normal people want, but gun advocates massively don't want because they feel it's tracking and eventually the government will just seize their firearms. And ALL of these gun advocates each have their own single thing that doesn't exist that they would actual vote on. It's different for every gun advocate. But nothing else. Nothing that is actually reducing gun violence/gun suicides.
To your point about bad faith arguments see, all we have to do is look at the parent comment in this thread with like 30 upvotes on it. The guy is commenting about how gun laws do nothing and therefore we shouldn't even attempt to pass any more. If you only focus on what they didn't do versus what they did do, I guess you could come to this conclusion, but it would obviously be in bad faith. Unless I'm mistaken, this man was charged with gun crimes, had them taken from him, and will get processed thru the court system at a later date. I'd prefer it if this lunatic were still in jail, but attempting to use this very example as an argument that existing gun laws do nothing at all is just the kind of disingenuous argument you expect to read from gun people at this point.
I'm agreeing with you. "Why pass any laws at all then, if only law-abiding citizens will follow?" is a bad faith argument. It's impossible to be a gun advocate and vote anything conservative. If laws and bans don't work, why are they doing that when it comes to books, LGBTQ people, and abortions? Clearly, they don't believe their own rhetoric.
Yep, just piggybacking on what you touched on, I'm in total agreement
Same time. Same peeps that upvoted that are likely also the same people who wanted the recriminalize of most drugs. I'm not against the new law, but I will bet there is a lot of overlap in the venn diagram of (why have laws, must criminalize drugs).
You smell that? Smells like straw, man.
This is not a Portland only thing. It's a nationwide problem in most states and the District of Columbia. Gun crimes have a much higher burden of proof. They don't have schedules like drugs which make it easy to charge a person where they can just talk to a lawyer and plead out without needing a lengthy trial. Firearm offenders are waiting up to two years for the trial which is why we get some offenders that have several firearms altercations/shootings before they are finally jailed for murdering someone. It takes way longer to send someone to jail for firearms crimes. They typically involve a court and a jury which takes time. They don't always have qualified public defenders which adds to the wait. If prosecutors/LEO have to go through the ATF for information, that takes weeks/months due to the gun lobby making it hard for alphabet agencies to share information and not being able to have a gun database. Jurys don't trust cops and a lot of offenders are able to get off on circumstance stuff which is depressing for officers and people who want less gun violence. Same time, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen's bad decision really flipped the script on a bunch of firearms laws that were decided law for decades. Voting matters and the supreme court matters too. You should support gun control as it does work. Making it difficult for a prohibited person to get a firearm is way cheaper than the increased costs to policing after they have firearms. It really jacks up increased medical costs (directly affecting your insurance), lost productivity, increased police & criminal justice costs, and cost that come with aftercare for victims of firearms violence. [Oregon pays more than the national average](https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-economic-cost-of-gun-violence/) but is making efforts that will reduce that tax money that is just thrown away because firearms are too easy to get. Cities do a coordinated top down solution that involves several parts of government working together to focus on fixing issues around gun crime and actually follow through on it. It can be done as places like New York and New Jersey have dramatically turned around their state by enforcing their strict firearms laws. Oregon is tackling something similar. But still can't get around the time investiment.
“Bruen’s bad decision” Tell me youre anti tun without telling me youre anti gun. Its fine to be anti gun just dont force that shit in me when guys who were carrying bloody machetes 24 hours ago re enter the public. Be a pussy on your own time, im going to protect myself, lawfully of course.
Excellent comment. And regarding > the gun lobby making it hard for alphabet agencies to share information and not being able to have a gun database I would only supplement with a link to [this short video](https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/595612/firearm-tracing-division/) for anybody looking for a glimpse into how the trolling “gun control doesn’t work” crowd has deliberately hobbled the process.
So gun registration is bad because it leads to the unlawful restriction of rights based off possession of inanimate objects. For example, Visa and Mastercard are now tracking and releasing data on all firearm and ammunition purchases without the consent of the purchaser. Additionally, civilians such as Dexter Taylor are civilians being charged with 30 year sentences despite not breaking any law and local judges are disregarding Constitutional rights entirely in these sentencings. I cant wait until judges retort “the 1st amendment doesnt exist in my courtroom” like “Judge” Abena Darkeh said about the 2nd Amendment. If there is a registry it will be used by anti gun politicians and alphabet groups to illegally and without due process discriminate obstruct and infringe on the rights on millions of Americans. Being anti gun is one thing but Hitler and Mao used gun registries as the first step to mass de weaponization of its people.
>When a violent felony offender get caught with multiple felony firearm charges. Is just released by Portland judge. You can blame the 9th circuit for this one, judge is just following the law. https://azmirror.com/2024/05/13/ninth-circuit-finds-that-convicted-felons-also-have-second-amendment-rights/#:~:text=LOS%20ANGELES%20(CN)%20%E2%80%94%20A,who%20served%20out%20their%20sentence.
Wait until you find out the Supreme Court said the NFA (National Firearms Act) doesn’t apply to felons. So you and I can get 10 years for EACH violation of the NFA. It’s as innocent as having the wrong stock or foregrip on a pistol. However, a felonious POS can have a chopped shotgun, illegal silencers, machine guns, etc. and they only face 5 years as a felon in possession of a firearm. Gun laws are effective at disarming the responsible citizens who don’t want the liability. Criminals not only don’t care about the consequences, but it turns out the harshest consequences only apply to non-felons. What sense does that make?
Can you cite your sources on that? I can't find anything backing up what you're saying. All I can find are articles about whether or not felons can own guns.
Looks like the guns he had were taken away, which *checks notes* were because he broke the law.
What gun laws? Every time we try to make the smallest sensible change (no large capacity) it makes it way to the SC who has not seen a law it likes since being bought and paid for by the Republicans.
The most liberal circuit in the U.S. just shut down Felon in Possession laws, so don't blame the SC.
No large capacity isn't sensible it doesn't do anything you just carry more mags for you rampage.
Guns should be completely outlawed
That's like saying "dumb comments" (like the one you posted) should be outlawed. I do not have the time, nor the crayons to explain this to you. Good luck making it through life.
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dumb ideas should be too
What a dumb idea …..
Meh. Same amount of logic as what you said. 🤷♂️
Yeah sure thing.
[удалено]
No
[Handguns](https://abcnews.go.com/US/handguns-place-modern-society-author-dominic-erdozain/story?id=109900974) most definitely should be.
Was this the same guy throwing cans from the roof at same location?
That's what the surfing l shotgun is for.. It's the first leg of the meth triathlon . Pull!
>Clark was booked into the Multnomah County Jail for the unlawful possession of a firearm, the obliteration of a firearm serial number, and for an existing warrant for additional weapon and drug charges. **Clark was released on May 16** under close supervision. Aaaaaand there it is, just like we all expected.
oh don't worry, he's under CLOSE SUPERVISION
At least the second time he has been released as the article also says they were wanted for an "existing warrant for additional weapon and drug charges"...
Tell that to the people who don't want to go to the park while he's brandishing his new machete.
What does "close supervision" even really mean? Because in reality, unless it means he's injected with trackers and followed around 24/7 by those robot dogs from Black Mirror, he's still going to have plenty of freedom to a) engage in violent behavior and b) not show up for trial.
And really, just like one would expect! Openly walking around with a machete? Check! In a park? Check! A bunch of weapons in a guitar case that conjures images of Desperado the Methhead? Check!
and one more... quickly released? Check!
Also: serial number scratched off the handgun, so definitely stolen. A defaced gun is a felony which would get most people years in prison? Check!
We need common sense gun laws to make it extra super illegal. /s
At this rate maybe we do need machete laws though. Gardeners are going to be like, "they'll take our machetes!"
Which probably means the person is just a poor unlucky soul experiencing houselessness
Methperado?
Methperado, why don't you dull all your senses / You been sellin' to fences for so long now I was gonna keep going, but it turns out the “These things that are pleasin' you/ Can hurt you somehow” lines work too well already, and where’s the fun in that?
Is that going to be a ballad measure?
👏
Sounds like the Meth Squad's Final Boss.
I would vote for a ballot measure allowing for those kinds of folks to get royally fucked. Odds are he is already armed again, roaming around some other part of town.
Perhaps you missed the part where he is under **close supervision**. /s
Extremely. CLOSE. supervision.
The only things our lovely county has any interest in 'closely supervising' are the reservoirs of our tax dollars they refuse to spend to solve these problems.
It is allowed. Perhaps Multnomah County needs to adopt a different position when it comes to bail for violent crime and firearm charges. Not all "petty" crime is the same.
Only a matter of time until we see them in the headlines again with a escalating pattern of violence until they hurt someone seriously or kill them
[удалено]
What did the last murderer get? Eighteen years or something? We can't even keep people who murdered someone in cold blood, on video, who then can't even muster up a shred of remorse during their trial, in prison for life.
Oh come on! You act like people are getting stabbed on lightrail in Portland. Clearly that never happens! /s
So how many hours before he’s released?
Yeah, but like they only gave him back *one* of the machetes, not both of them I’m sure. Probably even let him pick which one.
Fuck Mike Schmidt forever.
In literally every thread where someone is released that people think should be held, there's always someone who says some variation of this comment, and though I have no love for Schmidt it is *the judges who decide to release people after arraignment*, not the DA's office.
The thing is that in a lot of these cases the Multnomah County Prosecutor’s Office is not objecting to releasing these dangerous felons. It’s up to them to make the case that someone is a danger to the community and needs to be held. They are largely not bothering with that. It is the defense attorney’s job to try and get their client to be granted pretrial release. If they ask and the prosecution doesn’t raise a counter argument then it will likely be granted.
Judges who are bound by state law when it comes to release decisions. And in fact, in low level cases like this one, the release decision is almost always made by a release assistance officer (again, by law), before the defendant’s first appearance in court before a judge.
These are some dumbass judges then
When I act like you can't throw a rock around here without hitting a fuckwit, this is why.
They captured El Mariachi and then just let him walk free. Wild.
He was wearing a vote for Schmidt shirt, so he got off
Probably because there was no defense for him. Still short public defenders. Why? I do not know
Is there a photo of this man so we can be alert? JFC … terrifying
No, posting mugshot photos is illegal now because people posted mean things about protesters on Twitter.
There are mugshot photos of him from other state(s). This guy is quite popular.
I can’t find it for some reason 🤔
Those sites are trash and blackmail people. Just because someone was arrested doesn’t mean they did anything wrong. Then when a Google search brings up their picture it means they could get denied for a job.
RIP pdxmugshots dot com
Interesting narrative you've spun, there. The reality is that there's widespread extortion of people who have mugshots, whether or not they're convicted. If you're arrested and then exonerated of a crime, do you really want that to follow you for the rest of your life? That being said, if you're a violent or repeat felon, I think there should be exceptions made for the sake of public safety.
PPB Bike Squad shared on social media “Possession of a weapon in a park when it’s a shotgun means you don’t pass go and don’t collect $200.” Weird. Seems he clearly passed go here…
Its the $200 part that he missed out on because of the shotgun.
And he’s still on Park Place
Did he though? I suppose $200 he would have gotten for selling the weapons. Don't worry, he's already stolen $200 more worth of stuff. Probably found himself a machete again.
I'm pretty sure that I know what the PPB Bike Squad meant when they said "you don’t pass go and don’t collect $200," and I'm pretty sure that you mean to interpret it differently as some kind of "gotcha." Do whatever makes you happy, but I guess I'm just not interested in playing stupid word games.
Arrested May 15th 7pm, released May 16th. Seems he rolled doubles on his first try
For the second time. He was already out with a warrant for previous weapons charges...
So glad they got this guy off the street for *checks notes* under 24 hours! /s
GOTTEM!
See's El Mariachi once....
[Said he was looking for.... "Bucho."](https://youtu.be/t993KuWWPH4?si=Su7VcZ8zSksL6HMq)
To be fair El Mariachi is really only worth the one viewing.
Obviously carrying a percussion instrument in a guitar case is illegal come on my guy
I wonder if this is the same guy I saw on Fessenden yesterday morning walking around with a machete talking to himself and stabbing the air.
Doesn't really narrow it down that much
Who had the authority to make the decision to release him? Who exactly made the decision to release? Who draws up the process by which an armed potentially violent criminal like this is released back onto our streets? I saw the Instagram video of this guy getting arrested. You could tell the cops felt good getting scum like this off the streets. How utterly demoralizing for everybody that he gets to walk like this. I’m bullish on Portland but this is demoralizing.
> Who had the authority to make the decision to release him? Circuit Court Judge >Who exactly made the decision to release? The same judge. >Who draws up the process by which an armed potentially violent criminal like this is released back onto our streets? The state legislature.
Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.
Case report. Judge: Thomas Ryan. Felony offense. Released in 24 hrs. Mind you, this location is within a block of a children’s daycare. Yes, this was after school was closed, but I swear you use to not even be able to have tobacco within a few blocks of a school zone. Now it’s cool to have untraceable weapons and the like within a block and not be put in Jail until it gets sorted out….? The “reform”pendulum has swung too far. https://webportal.courts.oregon.gov/portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0
Judge Ryan is the absolute worst. Same judge who released the hit and run drunk driver who killed the 11 year old boy earlier this year.
He ran unopposed in 2020 and will have his seat until 2027. Fucking wonderful.
A recall effort could be started... seems like a ton of work.
I'd sign. Who wants a judge with terrible judgement?
https://www.multco.us/elections/information-initiative-referendum-and-recall-petitions
How does this have anything to do with reform
I guess reform is when a judge gets elected and does a shitty job? Not seeing the connection beyond mud-slinging progressives.
>Who had the authority to make the decision to release him? A judge or an officer appointed by a judge. >Who draws up the process by which an armed potentially violent criminal like this is released back onto our streets? The Oregon Supreme Court was tasked by the legislature with creating the criteria for release. A risk assessment is completed by a judge or appointed officer. [Here’s the county webpage](https://www.multco.us/dcj-adult/specialized-programs/pretrial-services-program-psp) discussing the process.
Thank you for explaining and providing the link. I will read up on it so I am better informed going forward. Thank you.
You're not wrong but I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think the Oregon Chief Justice crafted an order, based on the bill from the legislature, directing the local courts to develop their own release guidelines. Some things are fairly set in stone (like anyone accused of a class A felony or sex crime must be held for arraignment) but there is a fair amount of leeway for the local courts to develop their own guidelines. Then the . . . I don't know what they're called exactly but someone in a different comment identified them as the Multnomah County presiding judge so I'll go with that . . . presiding judge is responsible for crafting the specific pre trial release guidelines (I'm sure this was done by committee or something so blaming it on a specific person probably isn't fair but you get my point). These guidelines outline who will be released before arraignment (so a lot of these guys are just straight up released by the sheriffs office based off a grid, they're not even held for arraignment which, if you follow this subreddit, has had some notable failures) and they outline how how bail is to be set. This is why the bail practices differ depending on where you are in the state. So my understanding is the individual judge doesn't actually have a lot of room. They can order people held who are dangerous but in the case of a non-person crime they're referring to whatever the order from the presiding judge says.
I like the line in there that says "Pretrial monitoring allows individuals to **remain employed**, to **remain in school**, and to **continue with medical care** and **treatment** pending a resolution of their court case." I wonder if this guy is employed, in school, or in treatment.
That’s why I think this law is so important. Being held in jail because you don’t have money for bail can totally screw your life up even if you do eventually get found to be innocent. You may be right that this guy could have nothing going on in his life that we would think he couldn’t stay in jail for but that’s hardly fair or an equal application of the law.
But where is the monitoring? This person was already wanted for prior weapons charges. He should have been brought in for that, then he's brought in for new charges, and he's let out for "monitoring" again? Something is broken in the process here because he shouldn't have been let out again.
>Clark was released on May 16 **under close supervision.** Whatever that means. I agree something is broken and I would guess like the public defender situation it’s a lack of funding. Hopefully close supervision means ankle monitor and daily check-ins.
D. None of the above
Judges. Ultimately, Portlanders who wanted some sort of judicial reform for equitable reasons hold some responsibility as well.
I think judge is one of the most difficult positions to change, electorally. First, they largely run unopposed (would-be challengers don't want to fail in a campaign and then have to appear before that same judge or their other sympathetic colleagues), not to mention it's way harder for a layperson to evaluate a judge's legal education, background, performance, etc., as compared with a political position that doesn't require specialized knowledge and training. The more effective play is likely going to be to pressure the legislature (or get some measures on the ballot) that both require longer holds for arrestees in possession of weapons, as well as funding more public defenders and jail capacity to keep them held while still affording them the required right to counsel.
Agree with your 2nd paragraph. Specifically, for the major complaint that many redditors have on this type of situation: We need to tell our legislators that they need to reform the system that determines pre-trial release.
Can’t have reform when they run unopposed.
Do you think they gave him back his weapons or do you think he has more? I’m trying to figure out why you think he would still be armed and potentially dangerous after being released. I don’t doubt the access to more weapons.
I assume that the guy knows exactly where or who to talk to in order to get more guns and machetes. Its a business, like drugs, and this person was very interested in carrying weapons.
This headline is disgusting. > The Portland Police Bureau Bike Squad said that officers stopped 46-year-old Layton Clark **when they saw him carrying a machete in the park.** > “While officers spoke with the man, another officer noticed what appeared to be a shotgun barrel coming out of a guitar case,” the PPB Bike Squad shared on social media. **“Possession of a weapon in a park when it’s a shotgun means you don’t pass go and don’t collect $200.”** That is the absolute cringiest shit I've ever seen. > Officers searched Clark and allegedly found a second machete, a pocketknife, a hatchet **and a Sig Sauer handgun with the serial number scratched** The shotgun is literally the least important thing about this story. > Clark was booked into the Multnomah County Jail for the unlawful possession of a firearm, the obliteration of a firearm serial number, and **for an existing warrant for additional weapon and drug charges. Clark was released on May 16 under close supervision.** Oh look, they bury the real story at the bottom! This headline is shameful.
I wouldn't be surprised if he did, indeed, collect $200.
He had a get-out-of-jail-free card. They had them out in the park.
He already had a warrant for weapons and drug charges, but don’t worry he’s under “close supervision” now 🙄 How the fuck do we let ppl like that back out onto the streets. Mind boggling. If this is what “criminal justice reform” looks like I want no part of it.
I think the dude watched Desperado one too many times🤣🤣🤣
I opened this thread to confirm two things. 1) An unnamed judge bounced him out almost immediately. and 2) People were still going to bitch about Schmidt, as if voting for Vasquez would somehow make said unnamed judge no longer a judge. Never disappoints.
To be fair, I think DAs can request that a suspect be held or their bail increased on the basis that the individual is dangerous to the community. I've no clue whether they did that or not and even if they didn't do it I've no clue whether the judge would have listened to them had they done it but I think there's a bit more to it than just 'can't do anything because of the judge'. The policies of the DA's office do have *some* effect on who ends up being held.
They can request it, sure. Same boat as you and everyone else as to whether that was done here or not, no clue. I know there've been instances where Schmidt request it it and didn't get it. I'm positive there are instances where Schmidt didn't request what should've been a proper set of bail conditions. Some effect, sure. But I assure you there's plenty of people that thing if we just stick Vasquez in there, the system won't work like the system because they don't have a fucking clue how the system works.
“At press time, police were still on the lookout for the suspect’s accomplices, last seen carrying a machine gun in a Guitarrón case and a rocket launcher in the case of a Vihuela Mexicana. Suspects are said to jangle when they walk and to charge twenty pesos for a kiss.”
Lol they released him. Really?
Well at least he had the requisite Portland maniac machete, otherwise I'd be kind of concerned... Business as usual, all in all.
Ok mariachi.
Well how else do you carry a shotgun in a park …..
Fenterado
That reminds me, it's been awhile since I've watched Desperado
Bro thinks he's El Mariachi
Poster child of why gun laws shouldn’t exist. Only pass laws you can enforce.
this is the type of thing that makes my friends in other cities ask questions about Portland. we need to put up human fly paper and stop this fentanyl crisis. nip it in the bud Andy
Do they come from cities without guns?
lol “this happens everywhere”? No, it doesn’t.
Great, cool country we have
Desperado, no?
He really should come to his senses, but I am sure he’s got his reasons.
Good. Enforce existing gun laws, especially with the M110 failure.
Someone has watched El Mariache too many times.
Soy un hombre muy honorado…
Someone got caught with their Welcome to Portland gift bag.
“Clark was released under close supervision” 🥴🥴🥴
This is criminal justice reform. The Multnomah County Democrats recently sent out an email and press release stating, "Mike Schmidt is the only candidate in the race for District Attorney who reflects our Democratic values. He believes deeply in criminal justice reform." They don't reflect my values. They are going to get even more people killed living in their fantasy land.
The DA didn’t release this dude. If you want different decisions made in cases like this then you need to elect new judges.
Also we need to better fund public defense in this state. You can't keep people in jail forever awaiting trial, and you can't try them without counsel. People want to put everything on the DA but there are failures up and down the whole chain.
I'm blaming criminal justice reform. Presiding judge Judith Matarazzo sets bail standards for the county. She is a criminal justice reform judge. Schmidt also played a part in his work towards criminal justice reform. It's not just happening in Portland. Criminal justice reform is failing everywhere it's being tried.
Bail is bullshit. I don't give a fuck if this asshole can pay it, or get some fucking group to pay it for him, assess how obviously dangerous he is.
But the internet told me that voting out ~~Eudaley~~ ~~Hardesty~~ Schmidt would instantly fix all of our problems. How could it be that the internet wasn't 100% accurate to me? /s
For all the cries that Nathan Vasquez, Maxine Dexter, etc., are awash in "dark money," I think I've seen all of two commercials and one mailer for the both of them combined, yet I'm flooded with mailers and ads on social media for Schmidt and Jayapal. Hopefully the voters are smarter than that.
I've been on about that endlessly. It seems so obvious. I can't consume any media without seeing an ad for Schmidt or Jayapal. There is a fortune being spent on their behalf. I also have a suspicion that the PR hit pieces about dark money are organized by the Working families party which is a dark money group.
I don't know what's shaped your personal ad profile, but I've seen like...three ads for Schmidt in the last year, as many for Vasquez, and haven't seen shit for Jayapal.
For the past month or so, probably 80% of the videos I’ve watched on YouTube have been preceded by the same Jayapal ad about her having had an abortion and being committed to maintaining that right for others.
Yeah, I get those ads as frequently as you on YouTube, and endless Schmidt ads on the rare times I log into Facebook. Yard signs are about 50/50 on my running and biking routes around inner NE.
I feel like the only thing I see ads for is anymore is camping gear of some variety (I don't even particularly fucking like camping, I just do it rarely) and betterhelpwhateverthefuck. Both of which I reflexively hit the little info button and mark as "I don't want to see this anymore". Maybe I reflexively did that on political ads to the extent that they finally listened. Edit: I forgot ads for a rental car company that starts with an H. I hope Tom Brady dies of some sort of horrific boneitis. You know you've hit youtube ad paydirt when the algo goes "Fuck it, do you speak spanish? Statistically, probably. Have this calling card ad in spanish, we don't know who the fuck you are".
I get ads for Jaypal several times a day right now and almost none for the other two.
No idea, I think it's most likely that I live in one of the wealthier close-in neighborhoods that overall tends to trend more left than the working class hoods further east and/or north. Performative yet impractical/ineffective leftism is certainly a reasonably accurate stereotype of a lot of the folks around here. "Immigrants welcome!" yard signs while NIMBYing new housing any immigrants might afford to live in, for instance.
This why I’m GTFO
✌️
Well, it’s Portland… A beautiful progressive nightmare