Massachusetts: Accused Rapist Bailed Out of Jail by Liberal Bail Fund Group Charged With Raping Again
Also, Alleged VA Rapist Released Due To COVID Charged With Killing Accuser.
A pro-bail reform group in Massachusetts posted bail for a twice-convicted rapist who has now been charged with yet another rape. The group called “Massachusetts Bail Fund” has as its slogan, “Free Them All.”
The Boston Globe reports (archive link):
Three weeks after being freed from the jail where he was being held on rape charges, Level 3 sex offender Shawn McClinton faced new allegations Thursday that he kidnapped, beat, and raped a woman he met walking along a Quincy street.
The new charges against McClinton, 39, sparked immediate criticism of the Massachusetts Bail Fund, the group that posted the $15,000 bail to set him free.
Boston Police Commissioner William Gross said he was “absolutely appalled” that someone with McClinton’s history would be freed. “We’re getting to a point in society where we’re giving more credence to criminals than victims. We’re talking about violent offenders. Why would you bail someone who committed rapes?”
McClinton, who was convicted of rape in 1994 and 2007 and has a pending rape case in Suffolk Superior Court, was ordered held without bail Thursday by Judge Lisa Grant of Dorchester District Court.
The Globe goes on to provide some details about the Bail Fund group.
Officials at the Bail Fund, who oppose the bail system on philosophical grounds, did not respond to requests for comment. The fund, whose slogan is “Free Them All,” argues that requiring cash bail for defendants to get out of jail before trial is unfair to the poor and ineffective at preventing crime.
If a prosecutor believes a defendant is too dangerous to release, the fund and its supporters contend, the prosecutor should ask a judge to declare him or her dangerous enough to be held indefinitely.
The group has existed for years, but the COVID-19 pandemic and the killing of George Floyd by police in Minnesota have spurred a massive infusion of donations to bail funds nationally. As recently as January, it was posting bails of up to only $500, but in recent weeks the group has paid as much as $85,000 to free a defendant who was accused of shooting someone in broad daylight. This week, it bailed out 30 defendants in Boston, a court official said.
But as the Bail Fund has paid increasingly higher bail amounts, law enforcement officials have raised concerns that the group is putting dangerous people back on the streets of Massachusetts.
Even Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins, who has argued for freeing many prisoners, said releasing McClinton is going too far.
The Bail Fund, she said, often posts bail for low level offenders, who remain behind bars unfairly mainly because they’re poor.
“However, aggravated rape, kidnapping for the purpose of sexual assault, strangulation and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon are not low-level misdemeanors. They are violent felonies,” Rollins said. “And the person they bailed out is a sexual predator that hurts and rapes women and children. The Bail Fund posted $15,000 and set McClinton loose on our community … They have no responsibility to or compassion for the victims and survivors of his crimes, or the families that he has destroyed. I do. “
In Alexandria, Va, a man who was being held on rape charges was released from jail over Wuhan coronavirus concerns. He allegedly then went and killed the woman who had testified against him in his rape hearing.
Police in Virginia say that a rape suspect released from jail in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic went on to kill the woman who had accused him.
The Washington Post reports that Ibrahm E. Bouaichi was tracked down by authorities on Wednesday. But he shot himself and was in grave condition on Thursday.
Bouaichi was indicted last year on charges that included rape, strangulation and abduction. He was jailed without bond in Alexandria.
The woman testified against him in Alexandria District Court in December.
When the pandemic hit, Bouaichi’s lawyers argued that he should be freed awaiting trial because the virus endangered both inmates and their attorneys. He was released on $25,000 bond over the objections of a prosecutor.
Circuit Court Judge Nolan Dawkins released Bouaichi on the condition that he only leave his Maryland home to meet with his lawyers or pretrial services officials.
Alexandria police say that Bouaichi, 33, fatally shot the woman in late July.
Violent criminals unleashed on the public in the name of bail reform or Wuhan coronavirus is a bad idea.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Liberal Playbook: Never think past the knee jerk.
They are thinking quite a bit beyond the knee-jerk. This is an intentional campaign to create anarchy and crime to help them break the system (Cloward-Pivens?).
It bears repeating, because so few people seem to know:
Evidence currently available to the public does not support the charge that George Floyd was “killed by police.”
Floyd was already suffering from a potentially-lethal fentanyl overdose when police arrived. One symptom of fentanyl overdose is shortness of breath. He complained that he couldn’t breathe long before he was put on the ground and restrained.
The official autopsy report found potentially lethal blood levels of fentanyl overdose and found no injury from police actions that might have caused Floyd’s death.
A “second autopsy” report with different results apparently does not exist, though the fake news media have used it as a talking point.
Other evidence might emerge, but the autopsy report and the police bodycam videos tend to exonerate the officers.
So if the evidence bears that out, what justifies the knee on the neck for so long?
If Floyd was in the midst of a potentially-lethal fentanyl overdose, how then could he be such a danger to the police that justifies that action?
That still doesn’t exonerate the police.
Perhaps not, but the murder charges are an outrage.
I agree. They should not be charged with murder.
But the police should have responded differently.
I am pro-police, but we need to admit when the police *do* make a mistake that results in someone getting hurt or dying.
To state that the police officer should not have had his knee on Floyd’s neck, especially for 7.5 minutes does not make Floyd a choir boy, but it does not mean that the officer followed the correct procedure.
Actually, the officer did follow the correct procedure. While using a knee to apply pressure to hold as person in a prescribed position to avoid asphyxiation is a good idea or not is irrelevant, as that caused Floyd no damage. The Hennipen ME’s autopsy clearly showed that Floyd died as a result of advanced heart disease and a cornucopia of illicit drugs in his system. It also clearly stated that there was no evidence of any manual strangulation nor any evidence of any trauma as the result of the actions of the police. Get it? The police did not cause the death of George Floyd in any manner. What the state did was the equivolent of charging you with homicide because a man dropped dead of heart failure after you placed your hand on his shoulder. This is all another SCAM.
People get invested in being right, even when the facts prove them wrong. They then refuse to accept the truth and continue to believe and perpetuate the lie. In this case the optics of the knee resting against the neck of George Floyd were horrible. Almost all media personalities and talking heads immediately claimed that it was the cause of Floyd’s death and condemned its use. I initially stated that the optics were terrible and that placing the knee on the side of the neck was a very risky maneuver. However, I also stated that we should wait for the results of the autopsy before coming to a conclusion. The autopsy verified the fact that Floyd did not die from strangulation or asphyxiation and that the actions of the police cause no physical damage to Floyd. Floyd’s existing physical condition and lifestyle caused his death. So, who was responsible? Yep George Floyd was responsible. Embrace the truth..
@mj76 Derek Chauvin should have realized that a video of a white cop with his knee on the neck of a black guy who is saying “I can’t breath” wasn’t going to play well on you tube. In the words of (fictional) Marine Corp Sargent John Stryker “Life is tough, but it’s tougher if you’re stupid.”
@Mac45 The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office classified George Floyd’s death as a homicide. They say Floyd’s heart attack was brought on by his restraint by law enforcement, although the ME’s report did list pre-existing medical conditions and recent drug use as contributing factors.
Dennis: Oops, you only read the summary of the autopsy, not the whole thing.
What the autopsy revealed was that Floyd had serious heart disease. It revealed that he was loaded with illicit drugs, the presence of which contributed strongly to his demise. It revealed that no action of the police caused any trauma to Floyd. It speculated that the stress of being LAWFULLY arrested may have contributed tp his death. Now, there is a large controversy as to whether Floyd’s death should have been classified as a homicide at all, under the circumstances. If a dig barks at a man with heart disease and he drops dead from a heart attack, this is usually classified as a death from natural causes. And, then there was the delay between the completion of the autopsy and its release with the attendant autopsy report, during which there were several meetings with the ME reference the report. In fact, the report is so damaging to the narrative that police action caused Floyd’s death that the attorney for the Floyd family commissioned a faux autopsy to rebut the official one.
Sorry, Floyd caused his own death by living a lifestyle which made him the poster child for coronary disease, pumping himself up with illicit drugs, committing a crime and then resisting arrest. The stress of HIS choices caused his death, not the actions of the police. His death was NOT a homicide, it was natural causes. You can’t charge a person for causing a death that is NOT classified as a homicide. Hence the faulty classification.
Well yes, I expect that’s what the defense will argue. I’m no expert but it strikes me as unlikely that restraint by law enforcement can be established as the thing that caused Floyd to have a heart attack with sufficient certainty to sustain a murder conviction. Also, suppose the stuff the cops did was what killed Floyd, could they have reasonably been expected to anticipate the consequences of their actions? They didn’t know about his heart condition or that he’d used fentanyl. If they had, I expect getting an ambulance to the seen would have been their first priority.
You are missing the point. Whether the fact that the police restraint was of any relevancy is if the restraint caused any damage AND was not legal. In this case, there is absolutely NO evidence that the restraint of George Floyd caused any damage to George and has been shown to have been legal. Also, as you point out, the arresting officers had no knowledge that Floyd had any medical condition. And, we have not seen any information on when medical care was requested or how long it took for it to arrive.
Look, all of the evidence clearly showed that nothing which the police did directly caused the death of George Floyd. In fact, the evidence shows, strongly, that Floyd’s own actions directly led to his death. And, this was all known prior to any charges being filed. So Chauvin was the victim of a classic false arrest and prosecutorial misconducted. He will be acquitted. He will sue the City of Milwaukee and win big time. So will the other officers involved. Then the lies concerning the death of George Floyd will be revived and the unrest will start up again.
Why does it need justification? He needed to be restrained — everyone agrees on that — and this was a standard method of restraint. In Chavin’s estimation there didn’t seem to be any reason to change it.
And they want to take guns away? Thank God for the NRA.
Might want to join SAF too. Wayne may have been a bit extravagant in certain financial areas that have angered some gun people.
I’m a life member but I’m not happy with Wayne and his shenanigans that I’ve read about.
Amen. There’s been far too much corruption and mismanagement in the NRA for years, and too much sucking-up to the political establishment. The present legal action against NRA by New York would be a good opportunity to disband the existing organization, and re-constitute it in another state with new management and rules that give more power to members.
This is Massachusetts, boyo. They have already taken guns away.
My give-a-f* jar for Massachusetts ran out of f*s long ago. Way before I left there.
Now they are welcome to freeze to death with their hands in each other’s pockets.
“Free Them All.”
In the natural order of things rape comes first.
1. Rape them all.
2.Lock up all.
3 Free them all.
Sounds like a good platform many feminists might support. Simple as 1,2,3.
Will law-pig Maura Healey be defending the rapist?
Healey is far too busy suing the President, almost on a daily basis.
Yeah, but she’s got a pretty good outside jump shot.
They are evil for bailing that guy. That said, they do have a point about dangerous people. If somebody is judged to be dangerous, then why is bail available to them?
Why did an apparent serial rapist have his bail set at $15K?
Why did he receive such short sentences for rape, especially the second one?
A 3 strikes and you’re going to be legally shot dead law would do wonders for the rape rate I’d think.
So… can we sue this bail group into oblivion?
For what? They haven’t done anything wrong. The judge set a lawful bail and they paid it. The subsequent crime is the criminal’s responsibility not theirs.
Leftists will never learn, and the public will pay for it.
So leftist Absolute Moral Truth has suddenly shifted. Again.
Old and cold: Believe All Women! Fight Rape Culture!
New and bold: Rape All Women! Fight Racism!
Somehow I don’t think feminazis are going to enjoy Soviet Amerika as much as they thought they would.
That’s liberals for you. Never ever think of the downside of any of their policies. Only tout the (delusion based) good and ignore the devastation that follows.
Because it’s the way it makes them feel that counts. Nothing else exists.
“But… but I had good intentions!“
Bail is supposed to be a guarantee that you’ll return for trial. When bail is posted by a group with the slogan “free them all” and without any connection to the bailee, what is the bailee’s incentive to return to court?
There is a war going on in this country. Various groups are actively attacking our society. Sooner or later the people being victimized by these attackers are going to have to wake up, say enough is enough and eliminate the threat. The question is, will they do it in time to save our nation?
Chaos, fear and desperation is the desired result.
Why don’t we call people in government enabling this exactly what they are: traitors. There are laws about dealing with traitors.
Far Left LA Councilman Who Voted to Defund Police Called Police 8 Times to His Home Since April:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/far-left-la-councilman-voted-defund-police-called-police-8-times-home-since-april/
Does the rape victim have a cause of action against the deep-pocketed bail fund?
It seems like it’s easily foreseeable that releasing a serial rapist could result in further rapes…
She has no more case against the bail fund than she does against the judge who set the bail. Less of a case, in fact. The judge decided to set bail; all they did is pay it, which is their right. It was not their responsibility to second-guess the judge on whether bail should have been set in the first place.
Proof example 2,345, liberalism is a true mental disorder routed in denial of the real world.
You need to add several zeros to that number.
They’ve got a good point. If this person was so dangerous, why was it OK for the judge to say that he can go free if he posts $15,000? If he’d been rich he’d have posted the money himself and been free to rape again, with the prosecution’s and judge’s full approval; so why should he have stayed in jail just because he was poor?
This is a classic example of a situation being used for political purposes, nothing more.
If the defendant were thought to be a dire threat to the community, then the prosecution could have requested a much higher bail be set [the constitutionality of which dubious, though the practice is common] or requested no bail, as a public menace. The prosecution decided not to do this. So, along comes this organization which is busy making a political statement and posts the set bail bond on behalf of the defendant. The defendant, being criminal scum, goes out and commits the same crime again.
Now, people are blaming the organization which posted bond. However, the whole point of requiring a bail bond be posted is to ensure that the defendant will return to court, as instructed, if released from jail. It is not supposed to be used to keep a person incarcerated for any other reason. And, as Milhouse notes, simply being poor should not determine whether a person has access to release on bail. So, the only way to ensure that a criminal defendant is not in a position to commit crimes against society, while awaiting trial, is to do away with bail entirely. Simply keep every criminal defendant incarcerated until his case has been disposed of. The problem with that is that it impacts every single criminal defendant. And, we still have the quaint notion that a person is innocent until adjudicated guilty.
There is no need to keep every defendant in jail. It’s a judge’s job to determine whether each defendant is entitled to bail. If he determines that releasing the defendant would impose too high a risk on the community then he can and should deny bail altogether — not deliberately set a bail that is too high for the defendant to afford, which as you say is unconstitutional although far too common.
If the judge sets bail he is making a determination that, for enough money, the defendant is entitled to go free until trial, i.e. that the harm to the defendant from being denied bail outweighs the risk to the community from granting it. And if that is so then there is no reason the defendant should remain in jail simply because he can’t afford to pay. The community is at no more risk from a poor defendant than from a rich one.
That is how the new NY system is supposed to work, and in principle it is correct. That in practice it has been a disaster is partly the fault of judges, and partly the fault of those who drafted the new law.
Bail has nothing to do with the danger which a defendant may represent to a community. Its only purpose is to give a defendant sufficient financial incentive to show up for court hearings and not to flee to avoid prosecution. In fact, the most common reason given in a petition to deny bond, on a bondable offense, is that the defendant is a flight risk, even with a high bond. The danger to the community, due to the release of a defendant, is a separate matter and must be dealt with based upon the likelihood of continued criminal behavior by the defendant, if released from incarceration, as well as the type and seriousness of the potential criminal behavior. A person being held for a serious, violent crime should have to meet a higher threshold of expectation that he will not commit a similar violent crime if granted release pending trial, before being granted bail. The past criminal record of the defendant should also be taken into account, as an indicator of the likelihood of continued criminal behavior.
In the case of a person charged with 1st or 2nd degree homicide or attempted homicide, bail should be, and often is, withheld for safety concerns. However, a person with an extensive arrest record may also be a candidate for no bond, for similar safety concerns.
The problem that exists today is that judges apply criteria to setting bonds which have nothing to do with guaranteeing a defendant’s future appearance in court or his potential threat to the community. They apply financial, racial, gender and class conditions which have no bearing upon the reasons for setting a bond in the first place.