Left’s Plan: Protect Criminals; Constrain the Police & Leave the Public Defenseless

Part One

Handcuffs Arrest Resistance
The Presumption Of Innocence Platitude Does Not Apply To An Arrest, Arraignment, Or Pre-Trial Detention.

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The radical Left’s call for massive bail reform may be a boon to criminals, but it is a threat to the public.

In the summer of 2015, The Left-wing New York Times, ever the friend and close confidante of seditious Deep State Government Bureaucrats and of smug, fabulously wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, and abjectly ruthless Radical Left establishment “elites,” ran a feature in its Magazine, titled “The Bail Trap.” The Times ran the story as a purported exposé of an unfair criminal justice system.

The Times’ reporter, Nick Pinto, laying out the theme of the feature story, wrote: “thousands of innocent people are sent to jail only because they can’t afford to post bail, putting them at risk of losing their jobs, custody of their children — even their lives.”

Typical of “feature” stories at the NY Times’ newspaper, the writer of this feature, “The Bail Trap,” attempted to garner public sympathy for the plight of seemingly innocent people by drawing the reader’s attention to one cherry-picked anecdote.

The NY Times writer, Pinto, mentioned a New Yorker, Tyrone Tomlin, who, having been arrested for carrying a controlled substance, was faced with one of two unpleasant choices resulting from that arrest: one, Tomlin could either plead guilty to a misdemeanor, serve thirty days on Rikers Island, and then walk free; or, two, he could plead not guilty and then await trial. The Court set Tomlin’s bond at $1,500.00 if Tomlin refused the plea deal and wished to remain free while awaiting trial. Tomlin did refuse the plea deal, pleaded not guilty, but, unable to post bond, had to remain in jail until his trial date. The NY Times thought this patently unfair: namely the bail, not the circumstances leading to Tomlin’s arrest the latter of which Tomlin bears sole responsibility for as there was no doubt about Tomlin carrying a controlled substance.

The Times’ reporter, alluding, as he apparently thought, to the immorality of arresting a person for simply carrying, and not selling a controlled substance, did acknowledge that Tomlin had a lengthy criminal history, and that history included multiple felony convictions. Still, unperturbed by and dismissive of the fact of multiple felony convictions, the reporter argued that requiring bail of individuals like Tomlin, who, apparently, can ill afford bail, is patently unfair. The gist of Pinto’s argument became the germ for radical bail reform measures Leftist governments would institute several years later.

The article demonstrates how closely tied a seditious activist Press is to Radical Leftists in Congress and to Leftist State Governments—constantly feeding ideas to each other for the purpose of dismantling our Constitution, undermining our fundamental, immutable, natural rights, and destroying a free Republic.

The New York Times feature writer, Pinto, sanctimoniously and deceitfully remarks:

“Of the 2.2 million people currently locked up in this country, fewer than one in ten is being held in a federal prison. Far more are serving time in state prisons, and nearly three-quarters of a million aren’t in prison at all but in local city and county jails. Of those in jails, 60 percent haven’t been convicted of anything. They’re innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases. Some of these inmates are being held because they’re considered dangerous or unlikely to return to court for their hearings. But many of them simply cannot afford to pay the bail that has been set.”

“. . . innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases”? The Times’ feature writer is evidently referring to the oft-used mainstream media phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ a well-known platitude.

The idea conveyed is that the accused is presumed innocent until or unless guilt is proved in a Court of law. Often bandied about as self-evident true, this notion, as with so many others—some concocted out of whole cloth, like the idea that semiautomatic weapons that may happen to look like military weapons are to be classified as ‘assault weapons’ and are therefore to be banned from the civilian citizenry as ‘weapons of war’—is facially false. Yet the false idea, taken as true and absolute, becomes the basis for instituting a plethora of unconstitutional and bizarre governmental policy measures.

That is the case with the presumption of innocence platitude. The false idea behind the platitude becomes the rallying cry of Leftists calling for extreme criminal reform measures—measures that are both unnecessary and that, once implemented, are dangerous to the safety and well-being of the polity.

“Whoa, there you may cry, we all believe you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law!” Ok, but here is the thing…

The Presumption Of Innocence Platitude Does Not Apply To An Arrest, Arraignment, Or Pre-Trial Detention

Radical Leftist activists of all stripes—Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and Leftist anarchist groups—misapprehend, misconstrue the legal significance of the concept of ‘presumption of innocence’ that they flippantly and frivolously toss around in their baseless attack against the criminal justice system.

The phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ is nothing more than an informal and inaccurate banality. It is not an affirmation of innocence. Yet, Leftist activists, such as our NY Times Reporter, ever evincing concern, real or imagined, over the seeming plight of criminals awaiting trial, lose sight of this fact. They attach more import and purport to the platitude than the platitude merits, and fail to appreciate, or otherwise ignore, what it does apply to. We expand on this concept more in our next article, tune in tomorrow.

Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Deplorable Bill

Does the name and occupation of Goebbels ring a bell? One of the left’s goals is to make everyone a victim — of something. The police are picking on you because of your color or your race or your clothing or your hygiene? While this does happen, the vast majority of time this is not the case. Before anybody get their teets caught in a ringer, in all of my life I have found exactly two enforcement personnel who are righteous. The rest of them I trust about as far as I can throw an elephant. Then there is; Yes,… Read more »


Excuse my confusion; but, could you explain what you were saying when you wrote this: “If you haven’t noticed, the government is going out of it’s way to do what most any Christian Church does. In this way the government makes people DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT.”


Never mind, DB, I just realized you were talking about taking care of the less fortunate.

Ryben Flynn

“thousands of innocent people are sent to jail ”
Uhmm, if they were arrested and sent to jail, they may not be innocent. There had to be a reason they were arrested.


Only democrats claim “thousands of innocent people are sent to jail ”.
Just as they stopped capital punishment because their welfare males were being put to death and could no longer breed more democrat slaves.

jack mac

Ryben: Come on now, “had to be a reason”. Have we not discussed before unconstitutional, even anti-constitutional laws that people are being arrested for. Has not the unnecessary actions of the enforcement officers of our public servants been presented. Do we not have psychopathic DAs and despotic judges. There are justified reasons for arrest, but there are becoming more pretenses.


@RF – Not to be a leftist, as I’m not… BUT – define “innocent”. As conservatives who favor smaller government, should we support imprisoning people for simple failure to understand the law or for victimless crimes or for any legal transgressions involving laws enforcing specific moral behavior? Many legal transgressions are relatively harmless behavior involving poor judgement. I say let Darwin sort them out. If one wants to engage in self destructive behavior, harming no-one else, let them – just don’t pay to rehabilitate them unless as an investment for expected future economic contributions that individual will be expected to… Read more »


I read this yesterday. More of a solution to the homeless problem than rehabs IMO. https://realclearpolitics.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=61572bb8acf7b8704903af7b8&id=f7e1836d24&e=40caaeb108

Will Flatt

There’s an easier answer to all this, and that’s physically remove all these leftists from our country. Their treason & sedition demands it! Toss em over The Wall, or toss em from a helicopter.


THAT would require Americans to grow some balls.
THAT would require Americans to do their Constitutional Duty.
THAT would require Patriots.

Everyone wants to be a Patriot, until it is time to do patriot things, unfortunately.

Will Flatt

There are enough real patriots.


Cool! Then let’s get busy. We got lots of work to do.

jack mac

The US has the largest incarcerated on the planet, by far. Our courts every day subjugates likely thousands of free citizen into the prohibited underclass. Do not let the leftist rhetoric on reform of the criminal processing system distract form the fact that the system is a sham. Very few have the expendable resources to attempt obtaining justice or even fair treatment in the system. Resource if available are rapidity exhausted and not likely regained. This will become painfully noted by many subjected to the red flag laws. Our courts are dominated by despotic public servants who feed on the… Read more »


jack mac, I have an idea which will go a long way towards keeping people out of jail/prison if they will only follow it. That idea is, DON’T COMMIT CRIMES WHICH WILL GET YOU PUT INTO JAIL/PRISON! And, if you do choose to commit some of those crimes, be smart about it and don’t make it a regular thing. It is pretty easy to stay out from under the thumb of the legal system actually.


@RoyD – I think Mac’s point is that too many things are criminalized for no logical reason. It is far too easy to become a felon for doing things that none of us even think twice about. We denigrate despotic regimes who micromanage their subjects – yet ignore the fact that the US imprisons a far larger percentage of our ‘citizens’, mostly for engaging in victimless crimes. If we want to prevent violent crime and also ‘lesser’ crimes against other people – we need to focus on crimes which cause harm to other individuals rather than to the “collective good”.… Read more »


Finnky, what are some of those felonious crimes we don’t think about? How about the trend to raise amount required to be felony theft. When you harm the “collective” you harm those who make up the collective. Take for instance the people who got into a fight in Penn Square Mall in OKC last evening which resulted in one shooting another. There was a massive police presence for hours pulling Officers from their regular areas, there was the lost of revenue to the merchants. And the person shot will have his bill picked up by the public. And yet, according… Read more »


Typically the one thing that keeps most people out of the system is the separation of you and your money, let alone going to jail. This is the gamble for those who are willing to risk incarceration for illicit monetary gain. I believe they have nothing to lose and everything to reap providing they don’t get caught. Is it any wonder they don’t possess the bail money but yet the left would paint these poor people as victims? Let’s face it crime pays, but not for the slobs that get caught. It’s the GOVT system that processes these people that… Read more »

Divino Vocamen

The “presumption of Innocence ” is about what has to be proved at the trial of the defendant . The defendant is not required to put on evidence ( to prove innocence ) nor to testify ( the Fifth Amendment ) …The “burden ” in Court at Trial is totally on the State . At every criminal trial .the State must put on “evidence ” first and then at every trial …the Defense will at the conclusion of the “State’s Case ” make a “Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prove the required matter . The standard at Trial is… Read more »