Click the picture.
Posted on 09/12/2008 6:00:19 AM PDT by kellynla
My opposition on this thread found it necessary to repeatedly post that pic of me at a street FReep and although I didn't feel it necessary to address it after they posted it three of four times with what I considered to be a negative connotation I felt compelled to respond. Since you have asked me to elaborate, I will.
I was one of a small group of people who wanted to team up with Jim after he launched this website. My registration number is around 50 and it's only that high because the day he started registration I had to work and couldn't get to it until I got home after 5pm PST (;-]). I was one of four “first FReepers” who met Jim for the first time at his home in Fresno on July 4th, 1998. I suggested and organized that “first contact” and it was the first time Jim met any of his website fans in person. Jim and I became friends and have remained so. Jim will be the first to acknowledge that we disagree on some issues but our respect for each other transcends all other bounds. I trust Jim and I believe he trusts me. I have always valued that trust throughout my FR experience.
I was one of six people that organized our first “National FReep” in October of 1998 in DC dubbed “The March for Justice”. I then organized the subsequent “Judgment Day Rally” on the Capitol steps the day Clinton was impeached and then and “House Managers Rally” to support those Congressman who put their careers on the line to see justice done to Bill Clinton.
I helped put together the first functioning FR activism chapter in Los Angeles then created the non-profit “Free Republic Network” that acted as an management and organizing organization for all our fledgling chapters.
At that point we hit the radar of the left. I as well as others experienced things such as;
1. Personal investigations into our backgrounds.
2. Private investigators parked outside our home.
3. Personal information posted on the internet.
4. Our addresses and maps to our homes posted in the internet with suggestions for violence (one asked people to rape my wife).
5. Attempts to have us fired from our jobs.
6. Attempts to destroy our credit.
So when you talk about having an assault at a FReep, that was child play. Of course we were always at risk for that and people would get into our faces constantly and stuff like bottles would be thrown at us, but I was lucky and never had a fist into my face or a bottle into my head.
Others weren't as lucky, like my good friend Racebannon. At one rally of his a lib jumped onto a truck and started throwing fists. He ended up suing Race and others which took about 3 years to wind it's way through the court system and cost tens of thousands of dollars.
That was why one of the first things we did in the Free Republic Network was secure a “Managers and Directors” 1 million dollar liability policy that would offer protection to all our chapter leaders against this type of harassment. We understood that good honest people while well intentioned were not going to put the financial security of themselves and families at risk to promote FReepersdom...no matter how worthy.
The FRN quickly grew to over 50 chapters with maybe another 100 “gestating” (there were standards to be an “official” FR chapter ;-])
I hope that answers you r question. I agree I got a little long winded but there is so much history it's difficult to put it all in a couple sentences.
Thank you so much.
You’ve sacrificed a great deal ~ I can’t imagine that kind of harassment.
You certainly have my profound respect.
We do need to be careful.
More hubris, I see.
One of the key elements of this case that has been overlooked is Compean’s statement that he did a “magazine exchange.” There would have been absolutely no reason for Compean to do a magazine exchange unless he was under extreme duress. It’s unfortunate that the defense didn’t have somebdoy like Massad Ayoob.
And then Ramos chances along, fires once, and hits.
I remember you (or someone) mentioning that earlier on the thread.
I think you meant distress(?)--if so, I agree with you.
I do think Compean feared for his life.
Click the picture.
“There would have been absolutely no reason for Compean to do a magazine exchange unless he was under extreme duress.”
Or having fun.
Right. The fact that he fired a fusillade is also indication of his duress.
I know that you are probably trained on breath control and squeezing the trigger. I was.
Someone standing in a stationary position having fun shooting at another person with no intention of hitting the target would have no reason to pursue the target after shooting a complete (or nearly complete) magazine followed by multiple shots from the new magazine.
I wouldn’t go that far, but I’d say Compean’s feeling of duress passed fairly darn quickly, seeing that he warned none of the other officers that responded that he thought Aldrete-Davila was armed (and loose in the bush).
You have skinny legs.
BTW, when did I say I was a Ramos and/or Compean supporter? I think they're incompetent lawbreakers who received a punishment totally out of proportion to their crimes.
It was the socks.
The Fourth Amendment pretty much covers your defense of the trigger-happy.
That is the question in this case.
So, no, there is no such clause in the Constitution which prohibits shooting fleeing criminals, but it sets limitations on the cases when such action is lawful. What is strange in the case of using the Fourth amendment argument is that the government officials who perform an illegal search and seizure in other cases do not suffer a 10 year penalty when they use a gun to enforce the illegal search or seizure.
LOL—maybe you should have been the attorney in this case. Clearly, all the rest were incompetent.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think I could have done a job comparable to Compean's attorney Maria Ramirez. She was a divorce attorney. The other Compean attorney, Chris Antcliff, who was a criminal attorney was evidently hired around Feb 17, 2006. The trial started on Feb 21, 2006 and his name was not on the trial transcript dated Feb 15, 2006(vol 4). He had around 4 days to prepare.
And after all that, when the appeal rolled-around, he or she forgot to argue "insufficient defense." I mean, how incompetent do you expect the rest of us to hold the defense?
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.