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

To: Boogieman
I wouldn't have repeated the "participating stuff" at 476, if you hadn't used the word "participated" in the first place.

No matter if you want to call a subthread unrelated from your point of view, to be unrelated from my point of view, no harm, even though factually erroneous. I summarized our argument in one paragraph, cutting through all your veiled insults and 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.

Buddy. Ha.

543 posted on 09/09/2015 1:37:24 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

“I wouldn’t have repeated the “participating stuff” at 476, if you hadn’t used the word “participated” in the first place.”

I have no idea why you do the things you do, and I really have no interest in trying to puzzle it out.

“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.”

Well, the 10th Courth of Appeals is not adjudicating this case. The judges who are adjudicating this case don’t agree with you or your interpretation of the Texas penal code and Texas judical decisions. Apparently, you fancy yourself more of an expert on those matters than sitting judges in Texas, but I don’t.


565 posted on 09/09/2015 2:07:09 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | 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