This didn't make national news but I'm absolutely disgusted by the
shooting of two police officers, one dead, the other seriously wounded.
They were shot at a hospital by the man they took into custody. He'd committed a robbery but took a bundle of cash with a tracker in it so
police were able to find him.
Authorities are, of course, emphasizing the out-of-state gun purchaae by
a straw buyer because the perpetrator had a long rap sheet. The
purchaser is being prosecuted under federal law.
Kind of missing the point. He had been taken into custody, so why
exactly did he still have a gun on his person? He had been taken to
hospital for a CT scan as he claimed to have swallowed drugs. He was on
a gurney, and I suspect he was naked except for the hospital gown. He
hid the gun under a blanket, grabbing it as soon as handcuffs were
removed for the scan.
That shooting should have never occurred.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/04/27/police-hospital-shooting-charges/ https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2026/04/27/suspect-charged-in-swedish-hospital-shooting-that-left-1-cop-dead-and-another-fighting-for-his-life-source
This didn't make national news but I'm absolutely disgusted by the
shooting of two police officers, one dead, the other seriously wounded.
They were shot at a hospital by the man they took into custody. He'd >committed a robbery but took a bundle of cash with a tracker in it so
police were able to find him.
Authorities are, of course, emphasizing the out-of-state gun purchaae by
a straw buyer because the perpetrator had a long rap sheet. The
purchaser is being prosecuted under federal law.
Kind of missing the point. He had been taken into custody, so why
exactly did he still have a gun on his person? He had been taken to
hospital for a CT scan as he claimed to have swallowed drugs. He was on
a gurney, and I suspect he was naked except for the hospital gown. He
hid the gun under a blanket, grabbing it as soon as handcuffs were
removed for the scan.
That shooting should have never occurred.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/04/27/police-hospital-shooting-charges/ >https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2026/04/27/suspect-charged-in-swedish-hospital-shooting-that-left-1-cop-dead-and-another-fighting-for-his-life-source
The morning in question, he committed robbery, got quickly picked up by
the two police officers who failed to find the weapon he had concealed,
took him to hospital as he claimed he swallowed drugs. On the hospital gurney, he pulled out a gun, killing one officer and seriously wounding
the second.
I keep making the same criticism. Somehow, no one is checking if the
arrestee is under bond conditions or on probation or parole
On May 2, 2026 at 10:31:16 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The morning in question, he committed robbery, got quickly picked up by
the two police officers who failed to find the weapon he had concealed, >>took him to hospital as he claimed he swallowed drugs. On the hospital >>gurney, he pulled out a gun, killing one officer and seriously wounding
the second.
I keep making the same criticism. Somehow, no one is checking if the >>arrestee is under bond conditions or on probation or parole
Or, apparently, checking to see if arrested suspects are carrying weapons.
Thoroughly searching people sucks. I hated it. Even with gloves on, having to >touch your typical criminal, especially in places where weapons can be >concealed is extremely off-putting, but as we see here, it can be the >difference between life and death.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
This didn't make national news but I'm absolutely disgusted by the
shooting of two police officers, one dead, the other seriously wounded.
They were shot at a hospital by the man they took into custody. He'd
committed a robbery but took a bundle of cash with a tracker in it so
police were able to find him.
Authorities are, of course, emphasizing the out-of-state gun purchaae by
a straw buyer because the perpetrator had a long rap sheet. The
purchaser is being prosecuted under federal law.
Kind of missing the point. He had been taken into custody, so why
exactly did he still have a gun on his person? He had been taken to
hospital for a CT scan as he claimed to have swallowed drugs. He was on
a gurney, and I suspect he was naked except for the hospital gown. He
hid the gun under a blanket, grabbing it as soon as handcuffs were
removed for the scan.
That shooting should have never occurred.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/04/27/police-hospital-shooting-charges/ >> https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2026/04/27/suspect-charged-in-swedish-hospital-shooting-that-left-1-cop-dead-and-another-fighting-for-his-life-source
New revelations are so much worse, I'm thinking of entering it into the periodic race to the bottom contest with BTR1701.
The SAFE-T Act and it no-cash-bail bonds provision is once agained
blamed for the perpetrator being out on the street, but in reality, this provision applies to offenders who don't have a long rap sheet, didn't
commit a violent crime, and don't have pending cases.
Instead, it's the trial court chief judge's order for electronic home monitoring, actually started before COVID but with massive numbers of
those facing charges in pre-trial home confinement during COVID. They
never ended the practice.
The sheriff protested immediately by the number facing violent felony
charges put in home confinement, not limited to nonviolent velonies.
After more than a decade of complaining he lacked the resources to
monitor so many potentially violent arrestees, he forced the chief judge
to take over monitoring. However, when they go off home confinement, the sheriff will still be notified to seek the fugitive.
This perpetrator, age 26, had seven felony convictions. No-cash bail
bond provision did not apply. Instead, he'd been arrested for a crime,
put on home monitoring, then arrested for a second crime. Now, he's
supposed to be taken before the first judge to decide if he violated
bond conditions to have the first bond revoked and then get held in
pre-trial detention. Committing additional crines while on bond is
always a violation of bond conditions. Instead, the second judge put him
on home confineent even though he was no longer eligible.
He went off his monitor. Now, after four hours, the judge is supposed to
be notified to issue a fugitive warrant. Instead, it was 48 hours before
the judge acted.
Then the sheriff wasn't notifed about the fugitve.
The morning in question, he committed robbery, got quickly picked up by
the two police officers who failed to find the weapon he had concealed,
took him to hospital as he claimed he swallowed drugs. On the hospital gurney, he pulled out a gun, killing one officer and seriously wounding
the second.
I keep making the same criticism. Somehow, no one is checking if the
arrestee is under bond conditions or on probation or parole, all of
which require taking him back to the judge or institution that imposed release conditions to see if he's in violation. The earlier release
needs to be revoked. Then he can be held in either pre-trial
confinement, or with probation or parole, sent to state prison while
awaiting trial.
For repeat offenders, no cash bail bonds have nothing to do with
anything but judges truly need to take their jobs seriously when
considering whom to put on home confinement.
On May 2, 2026 at 10:31:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The morning in question, he committed robbery, got quickly picked up by
the two police officers who failed to find the weapon he had concealed,
took him to hospital as he claimed he swallowed drugs. On the hospital
gurney, he pulled out a gun, killing one officer and seriously wounding
the second.
I keep making the same criticism. Somehow, no one is checking if the
arrestee is under bond conditions or on probation or parole
Or, apparently, checking to see if arrested suspects are carrying weapons.
Thoroughly searching people sucks. I hated it. Even with gloves on, having to touch your typical criminal, especially in places where weapons can be concealed is extremely off-putting, but as we see here, it can be the difference between life and death.
On 2026-05-02 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
This didn't make national news but I'm absolutely disgusted by the >>>shooting of two police officers, one dead, the other seriously wounded. >>>They were shot at a hospital by the man they took into custody. He'd >>>committed a robbery but took a bundle of cash with a tracker in it so >>>police were able to find him.
Authorities are, of course, emphasizing the out-of-state gun purchaae by >>>a straw buyer because the perpetrator had a long rap sheet. The
purchaser is being prosecuted under federal law.
Kind of missing the point. He had been taken into custody, so why
exactly did he still have a gun on his person? He had been taken to >>>hospital for a CT scan as he claimed to have swallowed drugs. He was on
a gurney, and I suspect he was naked except for the hospital gown. He
hid the gun under a blanket, grabbing it as soon as handcuffs were >>>removed for the scan.
That shooting should have never occurred.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/04/27/police-hospital-shooting-charges/ >>>https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2026/04/27/suspect-charged-in-swedish-hospital-shooting-that-left-1-cop-dead-and-another-fighting-for-his-life-source
New revelations are so much worse, I'm thinking of entering it into the >>periodic race to the bottom contest with BTR1701.
The SAFE-T Act and it no-cash-bail bonds provision is once agained
blamed for the perpetrator being out on the street, but in reality, this >>provision applies to offenders who don't have a long rap sheet, didn't >>commit a violent crime, and don't have pending cases.
Instead, it's the trial court chief judge's order for electronic home >>monitoring, actually started before COVID but with massive numbers of
those facing charges in pre-trial home confinement during COVID. They
never ended the practice.
The sheriff protested immediately by the number facing violent felony >>charges put in home confinement, not limited to nonviolent velonies.
After more than a decade of complaining he lacked the resources to
monitor so many potentially violent arrestees, he forced the chief judge
to take over monitoring. However, when they go off home confinement, the >>sheriff will still be notified to seek the fugitive.
This perpetrator, age 26, had seven felony convictions. No-cash bail
bond provision did not apply. Instead, he'd been arrested for a crime,
put on home monitoring, then arrested for a second crime. Now, he's >>supposed to be taken before the first judge to decide if he violated
bond conditions to have the first bond revoked and then get held in >>pre-trial detention. Committing additional crines while on bond is
always a violation of bond conditions. Instead, the second judge put him
on home confineent even though he was no longer eligible.
He went off his monitor. Now, after four hours, the judge is supposed to
be notified to issue a fugitive warrant. Instead, it was 48 hours before >>the judge acted.
Then the sheriff wasn't notifed about the fugitve.
The morning in question, he committed robbery, got quickly picked up by
the two police officers who failed to find the weapon he had concealed, >>took him to hospital as he claimed he swallowed drugs. On the hospital >>gurney, he pulled out a gun, killing one officer and seriously wounding
the second.
I keep making the same criticism. Somehow, no one is checking if the >>arrestee is under bond conditions or on probation or parole, all of
which require taking him back to the judge or institution that imposed >>release conditions to see if he's in violation. The earlier release
needs to be revoked. Then he can be held in either pre-trial
confinement, or with probation or parole, sent to state prison while >>awaiting trial.
For repeat offenders, no cash bail bonds have nothing to do with
anything but judges truly need to take their jobs seriously when >>considering whom to put on home confinement.
In this country, just about every news report of an arrest includes the >information that the person arrested was out on bail for a previous
offence - and usually MANY previous offences! - and that they are
awaiting a bail hearing in the next day or two to see what happens next.
We rarely hear what the judge decides but I can only assume that the >decision is to let him out on bail again because there are so many such >cases.
Early in (Justin) Trudeau's first term, the Liberals amended the
Criminal Code to say that bail should only be refused in very specific
cases and being a repeat offender was NOT one of them.
. . .
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:Thank you for your comment. It gives me a chance to speak in more
On 2026-05-02 1:31 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
This didn't make national news but I'm absolutely disgusted by the
shooting of two police officers, one dead, the other seriously wounded. >>>> They were shot at a hospital by the man they took into custody. He'd
committed a robbery but took a bundle of cash with a tracker in it so
police were able to find him.
Authorities are, of course, emphasizing the out-of-state gun purchaae by >>>> a straw buyer because the perpetrator had a long rap sheet. The
purchaser is being prosecuted under federal law.
Kind of missing the point. He had been taken into custody, so why
exactly did he still have a gun on his person? He had been taken to
hospital for a CT scan as he claimed to have swallowed drugs. He was on >>>> a gurney, and I suspect he was naked except for the hospital gown. He
hid the gun under a blanket, grabbing it as soon as handcuffs were
removed for the scan.
That shooting should have never occurred.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/04/27/police-hospital-shooting-charges/
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2026/04/27/suspect-charged-in-swedish-hospital-shooting-that-left-1-cop-dead-and-another-fighting-for-his-life-source
New revelations are so much worse, I'm thinking of entering it into the
periodic race to the bottom contest with BTR1701.
The SAFE-T Act and it no-cash-bail bonds provision is once agained
blamed for the perpetrator being out on the street, but in reality, this >>> provision applies to offenders who don't have a long rap sheet, didn't
commit a violent crime, and don't have pending cases.
Instead, it's the trial court chief judge's order for electronic home
monitoring, actually started before COVID but with massive numbers of
those facing charges in pre-trial home confinement during COVID. They
never ended the practice.
The sheriff protested immediately by the number facing violent felony
charges put in home confinement, not limited to nonviolent velonies.
After more than a decade of complaining he lacked the resources to
monitor so many potentially violent arrestees, he forced the chief judge >>> to take over monitoring. However, when they go off home confinement, the >>> sheriff will still be notified to seek the fugitive.
This perpetrator, age 26, had seven felony convictions. No-cash bail
bond provision did not apply. Instead, he'd been arrested for a crime,
put on home monitoring, then arrested for a second crime. Now, he's
supposed to be taken before the first judge to decide if he violated
bond conditions to have the first bond revoked and then get held in
pre-trial detention. Committing additional crines while on bond is
always a violation of bond conditions. Instead, the second judge put him >>> on home confineent even though he was no longer eligible.
He went off his monitor. Now, after four hours, the judge is supposed to >>> be notified to issue a fugitive warrant. Instead, it was 48 hours before >>> the judge acted.
Then the sheriff wasn't notifed about the fugitve.
The morning in question, he committed robbery, got quickly picked up by
the two police officers who failed to find the weapon he had concealed,
took him to hospital as he claimed he swallowed drugs. On the hospital
gurney, he pulled out a gun, killing one officer and seriously wounding
the second.
I keep making the same criticism. Somehow, no one is checking if the
arrestee is under bond conditions or on probation or parole, all of
which require taking him back to the judge or institution that imposed
release conditions to see if he's in violation. The earlier release
needs to be revoked. Then he can be held in either pre-trial
confinement, or with probation or parole, sent to state prison while
awaiting trial.
For repeat offenders, no cash bail bonds have nothing to do with
anything but judges truly need to take their jobs seriously when
considering whom to put on home confinement.
In this country, just about every news report of an arrest includes the
information that the person arrested was out on bail for a previous
offence - and usually MANY previous offences! - and that they are
awaiting a bail hearing in the next day or two to see what happens next.
We rarely hear what the judge decides but I can only assume that the
decision is to let him out on bail again because there are so many such
cases.
Early in (Justin) Trudeau's first term, the Liberals amended the
Criminal Code to say that bail should only be refused in very specific
cases and being a repeat offender was NOT one of them.
Without reading your law on bond, it may be that automatic refusal of pre-trial release cannot be based on repeat offender status. The
prosecution is supposed to make the argument that the defendant is a
flight risk and dangerous to the public and should therefore be held in pre-trial confinement. The defense may argue that the defendant ALWAYS
showed up on time for court, and any other evidence he's not a flight risk.
But "repeat offender" status, based on past sentences, is one aspect.
The main problem is the extent to which the entire justice syste,
police, prosecutors, and judges, are ignoring whether a convicted felon remains under sentence due to probation or parole, or an arrestee is
under bond conditions or had violated home confinement or electronic monitoring conditions and was a fugitive when picked up for the most
recent crime.
It shouldn't matter if the most recent arrest, taken in isolation, would result in no-cash-bail bond and pre-trial release. The issue is, If he violated conditions of past bonds, why isn't he taken back to the judge
who imposed those conditions? Nearly any judge who learns that his order
was violated would revoke bond. If he's under sentence, then he should
have a hearing considering whether he violated terms of probation or
parole. THAT'S what must be addressed, and then there's no need to be concerned about whether there is too much laxity in the law on bond.
In the case of Cook County and a pre-COVID pre-George Floyd policy of
trying to keep the nighttime jail population as low as possible, the
serious problem is judges putting those charged with violent crimes on
home nonitoring, ignoring that they shouldn't be eligible, and ignoring
past vioations of electronic detention. This isn't based on state law
but orders of the chief judge.
. . .
. . .
But when the same individual is arrested again and again for new crimes
or breaches of bail conditions while still awaiting trial on the first >charge, it is increasingly difficult to believe that he or she is
innocent of all of these charges: they look very much like a career
criminal that is continuing to indulge in their profession thanks to the >bail they keep getting.
It might be comforting to assume that when
they've been brought up on yet another charge while still awaiting trial
on the first charge the judge will eventually decide that enough is
enough and hold this person in jail until the trial but the evidence >suggests it would be foolish to rely on this.
https://news.uoguelph.ca/2025/11/5-ways-to-strengthen-canadas-bail-system-opinion/
Look at those numbers: >=======================================================================
A review of bail decisions for 2022-23 by the BC Prosecution Service in >British Columbia revealed that detention rates were slightly higher than >average when there was a violent offence involved (between 10 to 13 per >cent) and notably higher where there was a violent offence and breach of >conditions (between 17 and 24 per cent).
According to a report from the Toronto Police Service, seven out of the
of 44 gun-related homicides in 2022 (16 per cent) were allegedly
committed by people on bail. >=======================================================================
Seven people who died in Toronto that year were killed by people out on >bail. The BC numbers show that even committing a violent offence AND >breaching bail conditions when you're out on bail only increases the >likelihood of being remanded in custody to 24%.
How many people are literally dying because the judges are letting
people charged with serious crimes out on bail while they await trial?
The balance between giving the benefit of the doubt and the exploitation
of the system by career criminals appears to have been struck in the
wrong place.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
But when the same individual is arrested again and again for new crimes
or breaches of bail conditions while still awaiting trial on the first
charge, it is increasingly difficult to believe that he or she is
innocent of all of these charges: they look very much like a career
criminal that is continuing to indulge in their profession thanks to the
bail they keep getting.
The evidentiary standard is much lower for arraignment and deciding
whether the defendant should be in pre-trial confinement. Actual
innocence simply is not a consideration, and the defendant isn't even
allowed to make any such claim.
The point is that holding those in pre-trial confinement who need to be
held isn't impossible and shouldn't even be difficult. It's just that
the entire justice system is failing to follow the law.
It might be comforting to assume that when
they've been brought up on yet another charge while still awaiting trial
on the first charge the judge will eventually decide that enough is
enough and hold this person in jail until the trial but the evidence
suggests it would be foolish to rely on this.
The bigger issue is not with the judge setting bond conditions if in pre-trial release but with the failure to bring the defendant back to
the previous judge for a hearing on whether existing bond conditions
were violated. If they were, bond gets revoked on the earlier charge and
the defendant is then held in pre-trial confinement.
That's where the huge failure to enforce the law is, confronting the
earlier judge with the violation of bond conditions and giving that
judge the opportunity to revoke bond.
https://news.uoguelph.ca/2025/11/5-ways-to-strengthen-canadas-bail-system-opinion/
Look at those numbers:
=======================================================================
A review of bail decisions for 2022-23 by the BC Prosecution Service in
British Columbia revealed that detention rates were slightly higher than
average when there was a violent offence involved (between 10 to 13 per
cent) and notably higher where there was a violent offence and breach of
conditions (between 17 and 24 per cent).
That goes to my point! Breach of bond conditions? 100% of such bonds
must be revoked. They aren't following the law.
According to a report from the Toronto Police Service, seven out of the
of 44 gun-related homicides in 2022 (16 per cent) were allegedly
committed by people on bail.
=======================================================================
Seven people who died in Toronto that year were killed by people out on
bail. The BC numbers show that even committing a violent offence AND
breaching bail conditions when you're out on bail only increases the
likelihood of being remanded in custody to 24%.
How many people are literally dying because the judges are letting
people charged with serious crimes out on bail while they await trial?
The balance between giving the benefit of the doubt and the exploitation
of the system by career criminals appears to have been struck in the
wrong place.
To be fair, it depends upon the nature of the charge. The issue is if
someone just taken into custody is in breach of bond conditions already
in place. If those defendents go into pre-trial confinement at that
point, I'll bet the that statistic would be zeroed out.
On 2026-04-28 12:43 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
This didn't make national news but I'm absolutely disgusted by the
shooting of two police officers, one dead, the other seriously wounded.
They were shot at a hospital by the man they took into custody. He'd
committed a robbery but took a bundle of cash with a tracker in it so
police were able to find him.
Authorities are, of course, emphasizing the out-of-state gun purchaae by
a straw buyer because the perpetrator had a long rap sheet. The
purchaser is being prosecuted under federal law.
Kind of missing the point. He had been taken into custody, so why
exactly did he still have a gun on his person? He had been taken to
hospital for a CT scan as he claimed to have swallowed drugs. He was on
a gurney, and I suspect he was naked except for the hospital gown. He
hid the gun under a blanket, grabbing it as soon as handcuffs were
removed for the scan.
That shooting should have never occurred.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/04/27/police-hospital-shooting-charges/ >> https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2026/04/27/suspect-charged-in-swedish-hospital-shooting-that-left-1-cop-dead-and-another-fighting-for-his-life-source
There was actually a somewhat similar incident in Toronto maybe two or
three years ago. A man was taken into custody by police, handcuffed, and
put in the back of a police car to be transported to the lockup. During
the trip, he somehow contorted himself and was in the process of digging
out a gun that must have been secreted on his person. I don't remember
if he managed to get a shot off but I believe he had gotten the gun out >before the officer driving the car managed to overcome him. In any case,
the officer was not shot but it was a very near thing. I never heard
about any inquiry into this but I have to assume the suspect was either
not patted down or was not patted down thoroughly. I have to imagine
this incident scared the bejesus out of the officer driving the car and
led to some serious review of procedures at the next few roll calls.
If I were writing the laws, I'd say that someone who had no previous >convictions should get the benefit of the doubt and be allowed out on
bail pending trial UNLESS they'd done something really heinous and there
was already considerable reliable evidence to support the charge, in
which case they should be remanded in custody to await trial.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:58:14 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-04-28 12:43 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
This didn't make national news but I'm absolutely disgusted by the
shooting of two police officers, one dead, the other seriously wounded.
They were shot at a hospital by the man they took into custody. He'd
committed a robbery but took a bundle of cash with a tracker in it so
police were able to find him.
Authorities are, of course, emphasizing the out-of-state gun purchaae by >>> a straw buyer because the perpetrator had a long rap sheet. The
purchaser is being prosecuted under federal law.
Kind of missing the point. He had been taken into custody, so why
exactly did he still have a gun on his person? He had been taken to
hospital for a CT scan as he claimed to have swallowed drugs. He was on
a gurney, and I suspect he was naked except for the hospital gown. He
hid the gun under a blanket, grabbing it as soon as handcuffs were
removed for the scan.
That shooting should have never occurred.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/04/27/police-hospital-shooting-charges/ >>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2026/04/27/suspect-charged-in-swedish-hospital-shooting-that-left-1-cop-dead-and-another-fighting-for-his-life-source
There was actually a somewhat similar incident in Toronto maybe two or
three years ago. A man was taken into custody by police, handcuffed, and
put in the back of a police car to be transported to the lockup. During
the trip, he somehow contorted himself and was in the process of digging
out a gun that must have been secreted on his person. I don't remember
if he managed to get a shot off but I believe he had gotten the gun out
before the officer driving the car managed to overcome him. In any case,
the officer was not shot but it was a very near thing. I never heard
about any inquiry into this but I have to assume the suspect was either
not patted down or was not patted down thoroughly. I have to imagine
this incident scared the bejesus out of the officer driving the car and
led to some serious review of procedures at the next few roll calls.
I'd love to see a web link on the Toronto incident
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 162:08:16 |
| Calls: | 216 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 82,576 |