Posted on 01/24/2007 5:51:23 AM PST by NapkinUser
You know how often the evidence is manipulated. Take teh Libby case, for example, where Libby is not allowed to bring in memory experts or to discuss the FACT that Valerie Plame was not covert, but the persecutor is allowed to rant about the war.
If he's convicted, will it be on the strength of the evidence or just the evidence the governmetn chooses to allow for its own reasons?
These border cops were found by the jury to have lied and destroyed evidence, so I will turn it back to you: An innocent cop has no reason to lie or destroy evidence.
And really, the argument is a slippery slope even beyond that. For example, one could say with equal validity that an innocent person would have no reason to fear unannounced warrantless searches of their homes and property. Or that an innocent person would have no reason to fear tracking devices and speed monitors being put into every automobile.
R-E-A-L S-L-O-W FOR YOU:
The jury didn't get to hear that the "victim" was smuggling over 700 hundred pounds of marijuana at the time, or of his prior and subsequent crimes, or of his immunity deal with prosecutors. How do you think his credibility would stack up with theirs if the jury knew the facts?
Good Lord. Where do you live, Cuba?
Has the jury said anything?
In this case, apparently Mexico.
Good comement and excellent question.
Excellent post!!
Finally, somebody with an active brain came by.
I'm not willing to dig through a treatise on Evidence, but my guess is that most, if not all, of the things you listed have been held to be inadmissible for more than a hundred years.
I don't really care though. A drug smuggler was evading arrest.They shot at him. The BP should have fired them if they violated p/p but this should have never went to court IMO .Tracking down a suspect and giving him immunity to testify is a disgrace. What do you think drug dealers are doing now? Laughing at us? Mocking us? "Compadre, if you get caught, just run. They won't shoot you.
Are you for real?
Do you think Al Baby or Jon Carry would be doing a better job right now?
Lame excuse. It's thinking like that which got us into this mess. Time to start voting out the folks who sell our country down the river (the Rio Grande, that is).
It is time for Americans to get behind him and help him do what needs to be done
Like sealing the border? What a joke.
I did not post advice about fleeing felons, I posted fact. In NYS when you obtain a pistol license you are given a set of guidelines regarding what is legal use. Shooting a fleeing felon is legal.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53873
"The U.S. Army doctor who removed the bullet testified at the trial that the drug smuggler was not shot from behind, but that he removed the bullet from the side, with the bullet piercing the left side of his left buttock and traveled to his right groin."
Oops.
Help me out here. You don't think criminals don't know that already? Ever watch COPS?
Could very well be.
"Could?" More like "if I click my heels together and repeat, 'I want to go home.'" LOL
Stop confusing people with facts. Next we'll hear that the guy wasn't actually shot from teh back. Oh, wait...
That is incorrect.
They told their supervisors about it. That isn't a coverup. But keep beating up on these two Hispanic Americans.
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.