Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt

Apparently you didn’t bother to check the penal code reference in your own quote, as the statute eviscerates the argument you are trying to make.


360 posted on 09/09/2015 9:42:13 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman
-- Apparently you didn't bother to check the penal code reference in your own quote, as the statute eviscerates the argument you are trying to make. --

I've read the code several times over the past few months, and the "argument" was made by the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals.

You used the word "participate." I don't know what that means, to you, in this context, so I used other words - the words from the statute.

According to the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals, the affidavit plainly does NOT allege that Pilkington or Weathers committed one of the underlying offenses, ergo, no probable cause (in the affidavit) that Pilkington or Weathers committed one of the underlying offenses. That conclusion applies to all 177 arrested on the same affidavit, because the affidavit is identical for all 177, other than the name of the accused.

In ordinary English usage, the participants in the brawl (not necessarily counting the victims) would have committed or attempted to commit assault. The affidavit does not allege the commission of any form of assault, according to the Texas Tenth Court of Appeals. Therefore, there was no probable cause for commission, attached to any particular individual.

467 posted on 09/09/2015 11:55:21 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson