Posted on 09/07/2015 2:37:39 PM PDT by Elderberry
Who is holding you responsible? Therefore, one who supports a criminal gang despite the meaning and intent of the statute, does support criminal outlaws, UNLESS he also decries the unconstitutionality of the Statute — not merely its application in this case.
For clarity please define "supports a criminal gang."
“No, it’s something much more powerful: vote by jury box.”
Which does not make law, and so it has no relevance to any other case. Sorry, but dem’s the breaks.
“Just so you know your generic statement was bogus.”
It wasn’t a generic statement, it was a statement in reference to a very specific incident and the events surrounding it.
“So try and be more specific when you make these foolish claims of yours in the future.”
Try to pay attention to the context of the discussions you decide to jump into the middle of?
You said you were listening..."to the Led Zeppelin."
I think you got caught once again..and scrambled...to come up with a "story".
Because that's your rep here...........
I just think...I will pull up your other bald faced lie.
Yeah, mistaking Pink Floyd for Led Zeppelin is bad. Not as bad as mistaking outlaw biker gangs for law abiding citizens, but still bad :)
Of course it’s an assumption, I am not a fortune teller. Great observation Sherlock.
The defendant IS entitled to clear charges and evidence supporting them.
Good. I have retracted when I crossed a line I should not have. I have found it painless and liberating.
“The entire article was posted to refute “conspiracy theories” and this is how they sum it up? That’s pretty much what many posters have been saying in these threads.”
Well, with the exception that the article rightly names those theories, at this point, speculation. If more of the conspiracy theorists around here would be honest enough to admit that what they post is pure speculation, I don’t think anyone would be bothering to argue with them as much as we are.
Tell it to the judge!
I don’t see where you “debunked” anything.
As I remember, the story was that they had no criminal record. Period. If you have a source that disproves that then show it.
Here’s a funny(to me) story. About 20 years ago I was at a friends house watching football with about 30 other guys. Wife of the house got 300 bucks stolen out of her pantie drawer. Or somewhere. Anyway. Hubby decides that all of us are going down to the Police station to get finger printed. I know. Alcohol.....So, all 30 of us head to the police station.
We get there and the Chief looks through his records and says “Well, I only have to print Jeff. The rest of you we already have on file.” I guess you had to be there.
So, I kinda have a hard time believing that 117 had no record at all.
Will you decry the poster who called me an Obama bootlicker Sarge has since said that was a joke, It wasn't.
Fair enough.
Just so you know, Cucuy.
Don’t mess with my dogs.
There could be trouble.
“As I remember, the story was that they had no criminal record. Period.”
No, that wasn’t the story.
“If you have a source that disproves that then show it.”
Sure, here you go:
“Records searched by The Associated Press show more than 115 of the 170 people arrested in the aftermath of a motorcycle gang shootout outside a Central Texas restaurant have not been convicted of a crime in Texas.”
So, as I said, the story claims only no convictions in Texas, that were found in the records searched by the reporter. Finny misconstrues and leaves out relevant details in order to portray the claim as much stronger than it actually is.
That’s been pointed out to them many times, but they have continued to use the same misleading tactic.
Amen Brother FReeper.
Fine post. There are complexities that do need careful sorting out. You contribute greatly to that.
“YOU should admit it, too (the second part, not just the first part).”
Why would I admit what has already been debunked as a false/misleading claim?
I just debunked it again a couple posts ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3334116/posts?page=534#534
Ummm, no, go to my post (14), which you replied to at 307, and follow the "View Replies" links.
The thread goes from my 14, to your 307 to my 331, to your 360, to my 467, to your 470, to my 491, etc. There is a short concurrent thread, started by me at 476 with a question about distinguishing between "attended" and "participated." Anybody can follow that thread too.
The fact that you can't keep track of the conversation (understandable, in that you have a number going on at the same time) does not make my quoting of you "random." All of the discussion, including the subthread beginning at my 476, revolves around your remark at 307, and my rebuttal to your remark at 307.
The conversation would have been brief if you'd earlier noticed the distinction between "commit" and "conspire," and didn't craft a few straw men.
You said "When police witness you participating in a deadly gang fight, that's all the probable cause they need." My rebuttal is that according to the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals, the affidavit in support of arrest does not recite probable cause of participating in a deadly gang fight.
They may have probable cause of participating in a deadly gang fight, but they didn't reduce it to writing in the cooking cutter affidavit. The only thing the cookie cutter affidavit is good for is an allegation of conspiracy, and it's only good for that because the Texas Courts don't want to open a big can of worms.
“decry the poster”
not my job and I know you can handle that yourself ; )
“There is a short concurrent thread, started by me at 476 “
Your reply at 476, where you brought up the “participating” stuff, was in reply to an unrelated post of mine, so no this was not relevant to the post you were replying to, sorry, buddy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.