[MNJohnnie]

Right we really want to encourage the Chief Executive to just arbitrarily ignore Court Decision because of the emotional hysteric of bunch of uninformed Know Nothings and the ranting of con man activists striving to keep the big fat donations flowing into their pressure groups.


If this were a Democrat and he did what you are all bellowing for Bush to do you all would be in utter hysterics demanding Impeachment. NONE of you were in the Court. You have NO idea what the real facts of this case are.

[taxed2death]

....sounds to me like you know everything.

[savedbygrace]

So, what do you make of the two jury members who now say they felt intense pressure and intimidation to vote with the other 10 who just wanted to get back to the lives and jobs sooner?

One of them says the foreman told them they were not allowed to return a hung jury; the other one says the same thing was said, but doesn't recall who said it.

How do you respond to these facts?

[USMMA_83]

Please tell me what the real fact are? I'm being honest in my question...not sarcastic. Why are these two men guilty of doing their job?

[AndrewC]

You have NO idea what the real facts of this case are.

Maybe not, but I do have enough reasoning skills to ascertain that needing to grant immunity to someone such as the following --- Their own government granted immunity in exchange for testimony to a Mexican drug runner[the alledged victim] who had a van with more than 700 pounds of marijuana is to me sufficient to produce reasonable doubt.

[Singermom]

Please read the following argument.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53873

Yet, from the get-go, Sutton cleverly reframed the issue to bias the trial in the government's favor. This was the point of charging Ramos and Compean inappropriately under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). The statute presumes those charged, namely Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, were involved in the commission of a crime when they fired their weapons. This is totally inaccurate and misleading given the facts of the case. Yet, the presumption of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) – that criminal behavior was already being conducted by the accused – appears precisely suited to the impression Sutton wanted to create. The criminals here, according to Sutton, are the law enforcement officers. Every presumption Sutton made was sympathetic to the drug dealer in this case.

[DaGman]

"Right we really want to encourage the Chief Executive to just arbitrarily ignore Court Decision because of the emotional hysteric of bunch of uninformed Know Nothings and the ranting of con man activists striving to keep the big fat donations flowing into their pressure groups.

LOL! You nailed it! It's only in the 1930's movies that law enforcement is allowed to shoot someone running away in the back.

Speaking of shooting someone in the back while they're running away, isn't that what Kerry is accused of doing in Viet Nam/Cambodia/whatever?

[Leatherneck_MT]

"NONE of you were in the Court. You have NO idea what the real facts of this case are."

Were you?