It states there the illegals were the victims in 2006, yet the real victim (IMO), Monti, claims they attacked him after the police left and he had to defend himself. Interestingly, all but the current plaintiff dropped their suit against Monti and Fox News. One has to wonder over that if they indeed were the victims...
Frankly, I'm more than inclined to believe the true victim in this case than I am the 7 illegals. And you're using a pro-illegal website to bolster your argument doesn't do it for me.
I'll stick with the facts of the story I posted.
I provided you with two reports providing details on who was charged with crimes in this incident. Those charges are a matter of public record. I gave you that information in response to your statement that anybody who was charged with a crime was a criminal, and to your claim that Jimenez had been tried on criminal charges.
Had you taken even a moment to read either of those stories, you would have realized that you’d misread the original article and that it was Monti who’d faced criminal charges in the incident, Jimenez. You might also have discovered the foolishness of your claim that anyone charged with a crime is a criminal since, in point of fact, Monti was found not guilty of all charges.
Your bias has lead you to misread the original story, summarily reject two other stories that set the record straight on who was charged and for what, and you’re now announcing that you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the reality. That’s fine, but it doesn’t change the fact, as stated in my original post, that the case doesn’t revolve around whether using “criminal” to describe an illegal alien is defamatory. That is, and remains, my point.