I provided you with two reports providing details on who was charged with crimes in this incident. Those charges are a matter of public record. I gave you that information in response to your statement that anybody who was charged with a crime was a criminal, and to your claim that Jimenez had been tried on criminal charges.
Had you taken even a moment to read either of those stories, you would have realized that you’d misread the original article and that it was Monti who’d faced criminal charges in the incident, Jimenez. You might also have discovered the foolishness of your claim that anyone charged with a crime is a criminal since, in point of fact, Monti was found not guilty of all charges.
Your bias has lead you to misread the original story, summarily reject two other stories that set the record straight on who was charged and for what, and you’re now announcing that you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the reality. That’s fine, but it doesn’t change the fact, as stated in my original post, that the case doesn’t revolve around whether using “criminal” to describe an illegal alien is defamatory. That is, and remains, my point.
Second ‘graf’, that’s “NOT Jimenez”
Yes, I misread the original article. And yes, the fact that Monti was criminally charged would, at the time, make me think of him as a likely criminal. And if you think that 'innocent until proven guilty' is a proven notion outside a court of law (and sometimes even in a court of law), you are sadly mistaken. That doesn't mean bias toward illegals, aliens, Hispanic or otherwise.
But the fact remains, you used pro-illegal websites and information, and ignored the fact that Monti was found not guilty. You never brought that out; I did. You also never brought forth the fact that the charges against him were possibly politically motivated. So, with that in mind, who's not giving the benefit of the doubt? I'd say you were as biased toward him as I was toward the plaintiff, yet I at least held true to the final outcome.
The facts of the matter are: 1) There were altercations in 2006 between a group of people who were here illegally and a photographer (If they'd stayed in their own country, this wouldn't have happened...). 2) It wasn't until 2007 that charges were filed against the photographer, and only after he filed a suit against the SDPD. 3) He was found not guilty of those charges (which were possibly politically motivated by a pro-illegal defense group, and used by the DA for his own purposes). 4) Those filed charges against him also filed a civil suit against the photographer and Fox News, but those who were named plaintiffs in that case, to a man dropped that suit; only one of them continuing it against someone else who wasn't even involved in the original altercation, but was sued for 'defamation' because of an email he sent to law enforcement officials.
You can say what you want about me. I don't give a damn. But I'll say this about you, you have a real pro-illegal immigrant bent. And you've been free and loose with disseminating information here. You only post what you want to have seen; not the whole facts for sure. Something I'll keep in mind for the future.