Posted on 01/01/2003 10:25:03 AM PST by justlurking
That's awefully hard to do on the internet.
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.
Of Course. My concern is that you continue to present yours after being proven wrong time and time again. Then you send little meaningless profane messages to those who point out your argument's deficiency. Its already been posted once by another freeper that got the same message - I'll not share your profanity on the public side of FreeRepublic.
If you are looking for a flame war, please let me know now. That way, I can bring this right to the attention of Jim Robinson without any muss or fuss.
Daaaaadddyyyy!!!! Heeee's pickin' on me...
On the brighter side, it is a small price to pay in comparison to "guilt by location".
Still, the residents of Houston have re-elected Lee Brown as mayor twice, and that's what's keeping me from feeling full sympathy.
The incident did provide a very interesting topic regarding police actions, though, and eventually just about everybody here recognized how wrong this was.
I will, however, try to refrain from discussing your position without flagging you. If I choose to respond to another one of your assertions, I will do so. Sorry.
I'm not sure there is any need to do so, though, because, in my opinion, your position has been thoroughly discredited.
Except that he will whine to Jim until Jim gets annoyed enough to pull the entire thread.
I suspect that's the intent.
You have repeatedly refused to answer direct questions about the raid. Those questions would show that you either realize that the police were wrong or show you to be incredibly deluded. You make crude insults towards others but whine to the moderators when someone says something that you do not like. For one Freeper to warn others that you are not worth our time is not an example of profanity, personal attack, racism, or violence that breaks the rules. You appear to be the only person trying to start a flame war, and I have to wonder why you don't want to see this issue discussed reasonably.
I will say to your face that no one here respects you because of your position and more importantly your tactics on the threads related to this event. Maybe you don't respect any of us either. Your opinion means no more to me than the opinions of people like the Clintons.
The fact is that the police acted wrongly. They either knowingly arrested people that they knew to be innocent or they are so deluded themselves that they believed those innocent people were guilty. Those who gave the orders should be heavily punished for their wrongdoing. Those who were obeying the orders should have a note put in their files, but if they perform properly in the future, the note should eventually be removed. Those who ordered the raid should spend a day in jail for every hour taken from the lives of those innocent people who were arrested. Those who ordered the raid should pay all costs associated with clearing the records of the innocent people arrested and any expenses that they incurred. They should additionally pay for the time and trouble that those people suffered. Those who believed that they were acting correctly should not be police officers anymore. This is of course only my opinion, but it is completely right.
Sure doesn't seem right ---if the charges were dropped, they should clear their records at the same time.
No, that's the way the system works: a record remains of the arrest even if the charge is dismissed. It stinks, but unless federal and state law is changed to require expungement of arrests in the absence of a conviction, it won't happen.
It's really hard to get the arrests reliably expunged. I have a friend who was the victim of some sort of vendetta: a guy joined the Army using my friend's name and SS#, then went AWOL. Subsequently, this guy died (car accident, I think). My friend (and his lawyer) has been trying for years to get the record cleared, but has been arrested on a couple of occasions after a traffic stop.
That's certainly true, and part of the reason is because of the various differing computer systems that the various agencies use. There's no master "delete" key.
Maybe when the government finally enters the 21st Century in terms of computing, this will be easier.
There has yet to be a single question asked concerning the raid that has not been answered. So I would like to know what you are referring to.
You make crude insults towards others but whine to the moderators when someone says something that you do not like.
Name one.
For one Freeper to warn others that you are not worth our time is not an example of profanity, personal attack, racism, or violence that breaks the rules.
No, it is disrespectful to make those kind of comments in a public forum, not to mention a troll. Nothing more, nothing less.
I will say to your face that no one here respects you because of your position
So in order to get your respect, I have to agree with you, and say none of the people who were arrested did anything wrong, only the police. Not only does that fly in the face of firmly established and undeniable facts, but you are telling me I should stop thinking for myself just so I can get your respect.
My response to that comes in just two words, and the second word is you.
The fact is that the police acted wrongly.
No. That is an opinion. As is this:
This is of course only my opinion, but it is completely right.
I am definitely going to save this so I can bring it up when Aguirre and Wentzel are acquitted. (Or, if they are convicted, when they are overturned.)
You have been consistently wrong on everything you've said about this incident and I highly doubt that you'll break that streak.
This, of course, is an easy one to make, because not only will it be hard to prove "Official oppression", but all Terry Yates has to do is show reasonable doubt, based on a single question that will undoubtedly be presented to the jury:
Was the raid and subsequent arrests justified?
Creating reasonable doubt will be child's play.
It wouldn't make any difference, DG. He would just continue to back up and re-draw the line in the sand, like he did when all the arrests were dismissed, and when the senior officers were suspended, and when Aguirre and Wentzel were indicted.
Note that he is now adding the condition that that appeals are unsuccessful, which means he doesn't have to admit error in the likely event that Aguirre and Wentzel are convicted.
No, that won't be the question. The question will be whether the arrests were legal. Justification is not an issue: Police are not free to arrest someone on a bogus charge just because they can't substantiate a real one.
It's already been established that the arrests were not legal: all were dismissed because the property owners had not made a complaint that can be documented. The city's efforts to go beyond dismissal and foot the bill for expungement settles that issue.
The question will be whether Aguirre and Wentzel knew the arrests were illegal, as this is a requirement for "official oppression". I expect that the infamous "no trespassing" signs will be a factor: if Aguirre and/or Wentzel ordered the posting of those signs without the permission of the property owners, it indicates a pre-meditated act rather than a momentary decision.
And, Houmatt, I'm pinging you to this post so that you don't think I'm talking behind your back.
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.