Rape suspect who was freed due to coronavirus kills his accuser in Virginia, police say

[SheltieLover]

https://www.localmemphis.com/mobile/article/news/crime/rape-suspect-washington-post-alexandria-crime/65-13310ff6-43bf-444d-acc3-e229d7699b6b

Ibrahim E. Bouiachi was indicted on rape charges last year. After being released due to the pandemic, police say he shot and killed his accuser.

Credit: Alexandria PD
Ibrahim E. Bouaichi
Author: Associated Press
Published: 12:14 PM CDT August 7, 2020
Updated: 1:32 PM CDT August 7, 2020

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — 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 Ibrahim E. Bouaichi was tracked down by authorities on Wednesday. But he shot himself and was in grave condition on Thursday.

Who in their right mind would release such a prisoner??? 🤬

I personally do not believe violent offenders should ever be released under such circumstances! Look at the result! 🤬

[Under The Radar]

1. That should be Trump's Willie Horton Ad

[lpbk2713]

13. Absolutely right.

The pandemic is out of control in the US because Trump wouldn't do anything
about it. He actually fired people who could do something about it.

[Sancho]

2. People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[stopdiggin]

4. if we could achieve evem SOME of the things you list .... Alas ...

In some other country -- sure. In the USA -- this is a radical shopping list.

[fescuerescue]

8. don't need a license to operate a boat

in the vast majority of the US.

Although some states require a boating safety certificate for younger drivers.

[Sancho]

22. you do in Florida now...

https://www.boat-ed.com/florida/?campaignid=229386259&adgroupid=22442624059&keyword=florida%20boat%20license&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2pqkiJOK6wIVQ77ACh3TVQsMEAAYASAAEgLXO_D_BwE

Do I need a license? In order to operate a motorboat of ten (10) horsepower or greater, Florida law requires anyone who was born on or after Jan. 1, 1988 to successfully complete an approved boating safety course and obtain a Boating Safety Education Identification Card issued by the FWC.

[fescuerescue]

49. We are getting pendantic but that's not a license requirement

boating safety course requirements are common for the younger set (usually around 1988 or 1990).

However, it can't be revoked or restricted like a license can. Nor is there a skills test.

I guess that makes sense because it's about education and safety rather than skills.

(FWIW, I would be in favor of a boating license and skills test. The number of bad boaters is larger than the number of good boaters on the water. Most don't even know the standard right of way rules)

[Sancho]

50. I believe that I said I don't care if it's called a license, certificate, permit, or anything else..

...the point (and the legal history) is that anything, including guns, can be regulated.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/1476747458/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=the+2nd+amendment+a+biography&qid=1596908758&sr=8-2

Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldman’s book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

[JI7]

3. They shouldn't be releasing Violent scum like this.

[SheltieLover]

6. I concur!

[obamanut2012]

5. This country hates women

And, the system hates female rape victims even more.

[SheltieLover]

7. Yup

This is the ultimate in patriarchal revictimization! 🤬

[ansible]

40. Careful, you don't want to criticize certain religions that way

[Hortensis]

16. Democrats do NOT hate women as a party,

nor do most left leaning indies. Seriously, isn't it past time to figure out who's for equality and justice, for doing right by everyone, and who's for doing wrong for all but themselves? For the life of me, I can't see how it could be any LESS difficult to figure out.

For god's sake, Biden's considering a long line of women for VP, and most discussion is about what skin color she should have, not what genitalia. Just a TINY clue...

[obamanut2012]

36. lighten up, francis

good grief

[Hortensis]

41. Really? I'm a woman and a Democrat, and

both false equalization of women and decent Democrats with those who'd callously put a rapist back on the streets and denial that we even exist (!) are NOT okay.

[dalton99a]

9. This is fucked up.

[SheltieLover]

12. Yes, it is!

I wonder if his now deceased victim was even forewarned of his release?

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Did They Release 100% Of...

...shoplifters, burglars, drug possession folks, car thrives,..
If they didn't why the hell would they release a violent criminal?
If the jail he was in isn't EMPTY, a busload of people need to be fired, RFN!

[SheltieLover]

11. Well stated, as always, Professor!

Of course, I agree 100% and, even if his previous jail is empty, he should have been transferred somewhere else to live in a cage!

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Good Add!

I should have thought of that.
I live in an area that's within 40 miles of 9 major correctional centers. (That excludes Chicago, because we're farther than 40 miles from the city.)
I guarantee that all those facilities are not empty.
I know the lock master of the big state prison, a teacher who works at the golf course in summer has a husband that works at one, and I know a handful from my credit union days, because correctional employees were select employment members.
All these people are going to work, just like normal.
Must be inmates. Otherwise, these folks would have been furloughed.
The jails aren't empty.

[SheltieLover]

15. Of course they are not empty, despite Trumputin's best efforts to sow chaos

Can we just fast forward to Joe's inauguration?

[ProfessorGAC]

17. You, Me, & My Wife Surely Wish It Were So! (nt)

[SheltieLover]

19. Likely most folks here, too!

[Dr. Strange]

37. The problem was he hadn't had his trial.

He's been waiting for trial, but it kept getting put off.

[Ms. Toad]

44. Correct. He had not been convicted of the crime -

so legally he is innocent.

[smirkymonkey]

18. They should have let the evil bastard rot and die in prison.

All violent sex offenders should spend the rest of their lives in prison. Women and children should not have to live in fear in order to honor the "rights" of savage men like this. They never change.

I just read another story in our local Boston paper today where they realeased a rapist just recently and he went back out and violently raped another woman again. These people should never be allowed to live amongst decent society ever again.

[SheltieLover]

20. Surreal!

When a person chooses to commit a violent crime, they should not be let out again, imo.

They do that ll the time here in Memphis, and now they've gone to recog bonds -- releasing them on their signatures alone, following very violent attacks on elderly, for example!

[Blue_true]

29. You see the potential downside to criminal justice reform.

If the reformers don’t use their heads, dangerous people get put back on the streets.

Things like robberies without force, shoplifting, illegal drug use, parole violation for a non violent offense, yes, release those people on bond, they don’t have a history of physically hurting others.

Drug dealers and people accused of violent crimes should not be bonded out.

[SheltieLover]

30. Absolutely!

Neith should white collar criminals be released in my opinion. Antisocial personality disorders should be kept in cages when they cannot behave.

[Blue_true]

34. Yeah, I didn't think of them, but you are right. nt

[SheltieLover]

35. Thx

They harm so many people.

[yardwork]

21. I hope the judge who released him can live with himself.

Meanwhile millions of Americans are in jail because they had some marijuana.

[Blue_true]

24. Judge AND Prosecutor. Both failed and that should end their careers. nt

[yardwork]

25. The prosecutor objected to the release, I read.

[Blue_true]

23. Well, the career of that prosecutor is over.

People accused of rape, child molestation, murder or attempted murder, who don’t have rock solid evidence of potential innocence should be kept in jail until their case is settled.

[SheltieLover]

26. Absolutely!

No question!!!

[Blue_true]

32. A DU poster said the Prosecutor objected to the release, but the Judge released him anyway.

So I guess it is the Judge that is done.

Somehow, I see a Trump commercial coming out of this when Joe mentions criminal justice reform. Trump and any of the grieving family that fall for his con, starring while saying that Joe will release scarily dangerous people back onto the streets.

[SheltieLover]

33. Possibly so!

They will use, twist, & contort anything with their lies.

[Ms. Toad]

45. That is not the way the law works.

People are innocent until proven guilty. They are not obligated to prove their innocence - and pre-trial bail is primarly intended to ensure appearance at the trial (because they are - from a legal perspective - innocent).

[Blue_true]

51. Then the laws should be changed to allow Courts to consider the history of a person

up for bail, even as for the case being dealt with, the person is presumed innocent.

If there was any violent acts that led to arrest in the guy’s history or stalking incidents that led to arrest, even if he was not convicted of them, he should have been denied bail and been kept in jail. That won’t produce 100% certainty that a clean cut person with no record won’t go out and harm a victim, but I am confident that it would lessen the probability of a victim being harmed.

[Ms. Toad]

52. Hard cases make bad law.

That's why we have BORTAC in Portland, and quasi-military forces with such power and FISA courts. 9-11 was a hard case, even Democrats jumped on the bandwagon to allow more government intrusion with less supervision.

This is similar. What ultimately happened was horrific - so we want to fix it. But punishing people before they are convicted, adding ex post facto punishments for prior bad acts, and basing incarcration prior to jail is not the way.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin.

[Demovictory9]

27. Horrible!!!

[SheltieLover]

28. Sure is!

[Blue_true]

31. There comes a Trump commercial. The perp sounds like he is Black or middle eastern background.

Tee up a Trump commercial that scares White people about “liberal” Judges and Prosecutors releasing scary Black men or foreign (even is he was born here) men to terrorize peaceful White suburbs. Trump will use any of the grieving family that falls for his con for all they are worth, then forget them when they are of no more value to him.

[ripcord]

38. Another victim was failed by a system that is more concerned about the suspect

[SheltieLover]

39. You bet! 🤬

Southern "justice." I could write a book on these types of situations I've seen since moving here, but I won't. Sickening!

[keithbvadu2]

42. He could try the republican defense that it might not be a 'legitimate rape'.

He could try the republican defense that it might not be a 'legitimate rape'.

[Ms. Toad]

43. You have heard of innocent until proven guilty, right?

Ibrahim E. Bouiachi was indicted on rape charges last year. After being released due to the pandemic, police say he shot and killed his accuser.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — 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 Ibrahim E. Bouaichi was tracked down by authorities on Wednesday. But he shot himself and was in grave condition on Thursday.

This person was not convicted of a crime. They were indicted, and (until COVID 19) held in jail pending a trial.

The decision to keep someone in jail prior to conviction is primarily based on likelihood they will appear for trial.

[SheltieLover]

46. So do you think releasing him was correct?

[Ms. Toad]

47. I think the decision should not be made based on the crime of which he was accused.

The trial is the process by which we decide whether someone actually committed a crime - and even those are not foolproof. We have murdered innocent people - even after going through a trial and multiple rounds of appeals because of overly zealous police, mistaken identity, racism (a white victim and a racial minority offender is second only to the location of the crime in determining whether someone is executed for a crime).

If we can't even get it right when criminal defendants have the benefit of additional rights afforded those accused of and convicted of a capital crime, we certainly can't be certain that someone merely indicted for a lesser crime actually committed it.

Certainly, in hindsight, it looks bad. But what if he had been innocent - and kept in jail pending trial and died of COVID 19? Should being accused of a crime be a death sentence?

So yes, I think releasing him was correct. We cannot sentence legally innocent people to death by COVID merely because they have been accused of a horrific crime. While I would have opposed releasing people convicted of violent crimes becuase of COVID (even though some of them are actually innocent), we have no business keeping people who have not yet been convicted in a COVID hotspot merely because they cannot raise the money to get out on bail.

[bishops11]

48. Rape suspect

He was only a suspect at the time, so that complicates things.