Posted on 09/12/2008 6:00:19 AM PDT by kellynla
Not just feeling that way, I have given evidence of your acceptance of presumption. You presumed that someone used Compean's testimony to determine that Compean was angry among other things. You have yet to show that testimony.
The comment to which you responded was also responding to an "uninspired" comment by you about LEOs determining in advance a person's rights.
(Two can play this game).
Thanks for reminding me. I presumed something that I do not believe, and now have to prove it.
You mean this argument?
No it’s not moot, because the turmoil involved in this case is an ongoing problem.
There is certainly turmoil here. And that statement is not conflating anything.
That is not an "uninspired" comment, unless you believe that LEO's are entitled to classify the people with whom they interact into "deserving" and "not deserving" in advance.
If you believe that, you're just an idiot.
Here is your statement(to a comment about the statement, "Compean was angry...").
I think he's working off of Compean's own testimony.
Looks like a presumption to me.
Well, I'm not an idiot, because I don't buy your idiotic hypotheticals. The burden of proving your statement as true is upon you.
The turmoil is just in your head, I'm afraid. Weren't you complaining about red-herrings earlier? What do you call this (moot versus not moot) issue?
Think about it this way: a Tinkerbell-like fairy appears, touches her magic wand to this thread, and voila!--Border Patrol policy regarding the discharge of firearms simply evaporates. It doesn't exist anymore. You can't even recall ever discussing it.
Are Ramos and Compean still in prison, and if so, why?
No, the burden is upon the person who is arguing for a (let's call it bipolar--LOL) view of constitutional rights. They were smart enough to drop it. You just picked it up again. That makes you, "not very bright."
There are lot's more people on this thread and elsewhere considering and disputing this subject than me. Even Sutton has to attempt to justify his actions to this day. He keeps releasing statements on the subject.
Fairies are not involved in this discussion unless you... Well, I'll leave it at that.
I won't answer your patronizing question.
But, fair enough . . . this is only an internet forum after all, not a court of law. I'll just wait for one of your questions that I deem "inconvenient" and just tell you to shove it.
So that's it, game over I suppose . . . it's safe to say that this dispute is far from over. I'll simply remind you that it is over in the (six) eyes of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The defense can ask for an en banc, or go to the Supreme Court. The odds are getting pretty long.
I did no such thing. I'm not arguing anything about LEOs. Your hypotheticals are not my arguments.
I'm beginning to understand your mental malfunction.
I'll make it so easy that even Fido can see the whole context.
|
To: CodeToad
You were there?? I think he's working off of Compean's own testimony.
|
Don't try the profession of mind-reading. You'll die of starvation.
Man, I've got to pay closer attention to my comments on these longer threads. Any poseur can come along and paint them in a totally different light. I can't believe I gave you the benefit of the doubt, AndrewC.
Oh, yes . . . the old “I have an answer but I won’t give it to you because you are unworthy” trick. LOL
It was irrelevant evidence that should have been kept out. I probably would have ruled the same way had I been judge because if I hadn't, the case would have been overturned. Aldrete-Davila had the right to plead the 5th Amendment with regard to the second incident that was still pending, and really all introducing this evidence would have done is made the jury hate the guy even more and clouded their judgment on the underlying case. The danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence. It was already clear to the jury he was bringing in a large amount of marijuana. That was enough. Allowing the defense to keep piling on more would have been the same as allowing them to make a jury nullification argument, arguing that Aldrete-Davila is such a bad guy he deserved to be shot and therefore the border agents crimes should be ignored. I realize that's the way most people here arguing for Ramos and Compean feel, but I promise you we don't want to go down that road where we allow our lawmen to be lawless. It is not at all uncommon for cumulative or irrelevant evidence like this to be kept out at trial. This issue was raised at the trial level and on appeal and the appellate court did not find that the judge erred in keeping out this evidence. I'd bet a million bucks the Supreme Court would agree.
“Maybe your gut is uneasy but for the wrong reason. ;-)”
My gut is not uneasy.
I sure can. You have yet to produce the Compean testimony. But I did reference the statement here..
The comment to which you responded was also responding to an "uninspired" comment by you about LEOs determining in advance a person's rights.
But if it stresses you so much, here is the intervening statement.
I presume your question to imply that you would prefer that we be invaded by a foreign nation and have not constitutional rights.
You stopped reading after presume.
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.