Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do people think the jury was nobbled?

Yes.

With money, or threats?

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:how can one say that he's to be assumed innocent until he goes to court?

Because not everything is as it first appears, and it's up to the court of law to find the facts about the situation.

But the more I hear about this particular case, the more it seems that some corrupt politician in Mexico may have tossed around some money or influence to get the outcome they wanted...

Now you're on the path to understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:With money, or threats?

Both.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:how can one say that he's to be assumed innocent until he goes to court?

Because not everything is as it first appears, and it's up to the court of law to find the facts about the situation.

I was talking about the guy in Arizona who shot a bunch of people at a speech that Representative Giffords was giving. The guy was caught by people in the crowd with the gun and caught on camera, in those instances I think its pretty easy to say who's guilty.

Kilkrazy wrote:With money, or threats?

When I looked it up the definition I got was: to incapacitate ( horses) esp by drugging. Somehow I thought it was a slang. I thought you meant incapacitated by information. the jury was deliberately mislead by the restriction of the judge rather than the prosecutor. That formed a biased opinion. Given the first trial was thrown out for "problems with jurors" it's within the realm of possibility the jury was bribed or intimidated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:how can one say that he's to be assumed innocent until he goes to court?

Because not everything is as it first appears, and it's up to the court of law to find the facts about the situation.

I was talking about the guy in Arizona who shot a bunch of people at a speech that Representative Giffords was giving. The guy was caught by people in the crowd with the gun and caught on camera, in those instances I think its pretty easy to say who's guilty.

Jack Ruby?

Exactly, sometimes its a definite thing because there are pictures of it and the guy was arrested right after he did it.

No, I meant Jack Ruby did it. Jared L-who cares how to spell. Is just a patsy.

While I detest the Police, as the majority of them have little to no restraint, it is clear that the officers were definitely in the right here.

A shame that they have to waste years of their lives in there, though they will likely be among the best treated.

Phototoxin wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

jp400 wrote:What a sad world we live in when an ILLEGAL alien has more rights then the officer arrenting his dumb ass does.

Except he doesn't have more rights, he has the same rights. The law says you can't beat up prisoners, not that they can't beat up prisoners unless they are from Mexico and in that case just go nuts becuase they aren't really people anyway.

The Officer does have more rights... just for the simple facts that he is a LEGAL citizen of the United States and isn't breaking the law on two counts (drug smuggleing and illegal border crossing/immigration).

And according to the article, the Agent didn't "beat up" the "prisioner":

"The council also noted that the teenager claimed no injuries in court other than sore shoulders, which the council attributed to “the weight of the drug load, approximately 75 pounds, he carried across the border.”

why does the officer have **MORE** rights?

He might be acting 'in the right' more than the suspected criminal but they both have the SAME human rights. (or ought to !)

Legal Trumps Illegal... end of story.

jp400 wrote:
Legal Trumps Illegal... end of story.

Until you don't like the law.

halonachos wrote:Exactly, sometimes its a definite thing because there are pictures of it and the guy was arrested right after he did it.

It still has to go through the legal process, because the evidence needs to be examined by a jury, or we only have a lynch mob's word that they strung up the right guy. Open and shut cases are quickly dealt with in court.

@AustonT -- In British slang "nobble' can mean any deliberate interference to bias a result, i.e. not just horse racing. There was a TV comedy sketch in which a man is filing his car with petrol and very carefully fills up the last few drops to get to exactly £20. The garage attendant then presses a hidden button marked "nobble", and the meter jiggles on to £20.01.

@KilKrazy, gotcha. Well then by that yes I think the jury was nobbled. Maybe not bribed, probably intimidated, and very much deliberately interfered with to create a desired result.
Given what happened to the two cops that shot the drugrunner, it almost probable.

dogma wrote:

jp400 wrote:
Legal Trumps Illegal... end of story.

Until you don't like the law.

TBH I don’t find it easy to believe the Mexican drug barons would go to all the trouble of subverting the Mexican government, the US DoJ, trial judge, and jury, just to put a policeman in jail for two years because he roughed up a teenager with a rucksack of weed.

Why would they even bother?

To make border patrol agents that little bit more afraid to do their jobs? In a systemic manner, that is what is going on.

Kilkrazy wrote:TBH I don’t find it easy to believe the Mexican drug barons would go to all the trouble of subverting the Mexican government, the US DoJ, trial judge, and jury, just to put a policeman in jail for two years because he roughed up a teenager with a rucksack of weed.

Why would they even bother?

The same reason why they'd try to subvert the privacy attempts of various websites to track down and brutally murder anyone who dares warn anyone that any fighting is going on anywhere, even if they dont' tell the police.

These drug barons are ruthless.

Bromsy wrote:To make border patrol agents that little bit more afraid to do their jobs? In a systemic manner, that is what is going on.

It seems a very roundabout way of doing it. Wouldn't it be simpler just to kill the policemen and their families?

They are doing that.

Kilkrazy wrote:TBH I don’t find it easy to believe the Mexican drug barons would go to all the trouble of subverting the Mexican government, the US DoJ, trial judge, and jury, just to put a policeman in jail for two years because he roughed up a teenager with a rucksack of weed.

Why would they even bother?

I didn't actually say the drug cartels were doing the nobbling (new favorite word). Sometimes people with agendas come from weird angles. In this case the West Texas DA (I think citation needed) filed the charges that put this guy in jail, also filed the charges against the buttshot agents. The "victim" was given a visa to testify against the agents and used it to smuggle drugs, and got caugt before he testified, a fact kept from the jurors which no doubt would have spilled the wind from that cases sails (enough...they still shot the guy in dubious circumstances). In this case it appears that the witnesses and victims also lacked a good deal of credibility and a case that should have been delt with by OPR and a sanction if necessary went to trial instead. If anything this officer should have had immunity (I can't remember the legal term for the kind of immunity) because of the supremacy clause.

jp400 wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

jp400 wrote:What a sad world we live in when an ILLEGAL alien has more rights then the officer arrenting his dumb ass does.

Except he doesn't have more rights, he has the same rights. The law says you can't beat up prisoners, not that they can't beat up prisoners unless they are from Mexico and in that case just go nuts becuase they aren't really people anyway.

The Officer does have more rights... just for the simple facts that he is a LEGAL citizen of the United States and isn't breaking the law on two counts (drug smuggleing and illegal border crossing/immigration).

And according to the article, the Agent didn't "beat up" the "prisioner":

"The council also noted that the teenager claimed no injuries in court other than sore shoulders, which the council attributed to “the weight of the drug load, approximately 75 pounds, he carried across the border.”

why does the officer have **MORE** rights?

He might be acting 'in the right' more than the suspected criminal but they both have the SAME human rights. (or ought to !)

Legal Trumps Illegal... end of story.

Evidently not when the government of Mexico calls certain people.

Frazzled wrote:
Evidently not when the government of Mexico calls certain people.

"I have rights!"

"I have guns."

Kilkrazy wrote:

Bromsy wrote:To make border patrol agents that little bit more afraid to do their jobs? In a systemic manner, that is what is going on.

It seems a very roundabout way of doing it. Wouldn't it be simpler just to kill the policemen and their families?

This avoids having to do that. Plus, you start shooting more (note the key phrase more as they already have) eventually the US government has to do something.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Bromsy wrote:To make border patrol agents that little bit more afraid to do their jobs? In a systemic manner, that is what is going on.

It seems a very roundabout way of doing it. Wouldn't it be simpler just to kill the policemen and their families?

This avoids having to do that. Plus, you start shooting more (note the key phrase more as they already have) eventually the US government has to do something.

Well... they ARE killing policemen. Just not American ones.

Mexican policemen have a very low survival rate...

They have been shooting American ones. Of Course our dear AG signed off on selling them the guns to do it...