Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Often, judges and prosecutors conspire to prevent a fully informed jury.b322da wrote:In a jury trial neither the prosecutor, the BATF, the APD, the Grand Jury, nor the judge convict a defendant. Too often we forget the jury, in the final analysis the protector of our liberties from judicial oppression by the authorities.
You do not have egg on your face. One of the values of a community like this is that it is self-correcting. If you post something you believe to be true, there will always be someone who will do research to confirm or refute it. As a computer security professional I constantly get "is this true" emails from my wife and others who have received the standard forwarded stuff. There is so much stuff out there on the internet that it's hard to know what's true and what's not. You can hardly be blamed for having assumed that the facts reported where true. The folks that have egg on their face are the ones promulgating falsehoods. Not you.Grammy wrote:I in now way meant to post an untrue event, I feel I have "egg on my face". I should have did more research. This won't happen again. I origingally saw the topic on GlockTalk, no excuses though.VoiceofReason wrote:One of the main reasons I like this web site is that members research stories like this rather than just take them as fact. The members maintain a high degree of respect for others plus Charles and the moderators do a good job of controlling radicals and troublemakers.
These things maintain a degree of integrity that is found on very few discussion boards.
Jim
Grammy, as Baldeagle said, you have nothing to be embarrassed or feel bad about. I started my research to find out if Paul Copeland had a defence fund so I could contribute. The people on this board are probably among the very few that know this is a bogus story.baldeagle wrote:You do not have egg on your face. One of the values of a community like this is that it is self-correcting. If you post something you believe to be true, there will always be someone who will do research to confirm or refute it. As a computer security professional I constantly get "is this true" emails from my wife and others who have received the standard forwarded stuff. There is so much stuff out there on the internet that it's hard to know what's true and what's not. You can hardly be blamed for having assumed that the facts reported where true. The folks that have egg on their face are the ones promulgating falsehoods. Not you.Grammy wrote:I in now way meant to post an untrue event, I feel I have "egg on my face". I should have did more research. This won't happen again. I origingally saw the topic on GlockTalk, no excuses though.VoiceofReason wrote:One of the main reasons I like this web site is that members research stories like this rather than just take them as fact. The members maintain a high degree of respect for others plus Charles and the moderators do a good job of controlling radicals and troublemakers.
These things maintain a degree of integrity that is found on very few discussion boards.
Jim
That's only true in the technical sense. Practically speaking any number of people in the legal system can effectively convict a defendant. It's an old saying that a "good" prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. Prosecutors and/or judges can, and sometimes do, control the evidence in a trial in such a way that a conviction is inevitable (and sometimes do so in clear violation of the law). Judges also sometimes instruct juries contrary to the law and essentially direct a verdict that the jury would not otherwise have made. And law enforcement agencies sometimes falsify evidence (and have been caught doing it numerous times). During my last call to jury duty the prosecutor himself said that police officers will lie on the stand and cautioned the jury not to automatically assume everything a police officer says is true. I also don't think the reasonable doubt standard is always so much of a hurdle, especially when there are relatively uninformed people on a jury --many people seem to lack skepticism even when it comes to some pretty preposterous claims.b322da wrote:In a jury trial neither the prosecutor, the BATF, the APD, the Grand Jury, nor the judge convict a defendant. Too often we forget the jury, in the final analysis the protector of our liberties from judicial oppression by the authorities. Had the original report been true, a jury of the defendant's peers would have found him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is no easy burden for a prosecutor.
Do we ask everyone for Birth Certificates?Beiruty wrote:Next time, ask for birth certificate or a Valid Passport. Just to keep the Feds happy. Or, use an FFL to do transfer.
Frankly, this should be appealed immediately even all the way to Supreme court. Why this illegal immigrant has a valid DL? Why he was not prosecuted, or even deported? He has clearly committed a crime.
If you don't have to show it for the presidency, which requires knowledge of where someone was born, I don't see why you'd have to for a gun sale, which doesn't.Purplehood wrote:Do we ask everyone for Birth Certificates?Beiruty wrote:Next time, ask for birth certificate or a Valid Passport. Just to keep the Feds happy. Or, use an FFL to do transfer.
Frankly, this should be appealed immediately even all the way to Supreme court. Why this illegal immigrant has a valid DL? Why he was not prosecuted, or even deported? He has clearly committed a crime.
It is obviously a Liberal left wing conspiracy.VMI77 wrote:That's only true in the technical sense. Practically speaking any number of people in the legal system can effectively convict a defendant. It's an old saying that a "good" prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. Prosecutors and/or judges can, and sometimes do, control the evidence in a trial in such a way that a conviction is inevitable (and sometimes do so in clear violation of the law). Judges also sometimes instruct juries contrary to the law and essentially direct a verdict that the jury would not otherwise have made. And law enforcement agencies sometimes falsify evidence (and have been caught doing it numerous times). During my last call to jury duty the prosecutor himself said that police officers will lie on the stand and cautioned the jury not to automatically assume everything a police officer says is true. I also don't think the reasonable doubt standard is always so much of a hurdle, especially when there are relatively uninformed people on a jury --many people seem to lack skepticism even when it comes to some pretty preposterous claims.b322da wrote:In a jury trial neither the prosecutor, the BATF, the APD, the Grand Jury, nor the judge convict a defendant. Too often we forget the jury, in the final analysis the protector of our liberties from judicial oppression by the authorities. Had the original report been true, a jury of the defendant's peers would have found him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is no easy burden for a prosecutor.
To me there is nothing obvious about your response. Since it was important enough for you to make the comment I hope you consider it important enough to explain it because I've got no idea what you're getting at.b322da wrote:It is obviously a Liberal left wing conspiracy.VMI77 wrote:That's only true in the technical sense. Practically speaking any number of people in the legal system can effectively convict a defendant. It's an old saying that a "good" prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. Prosecutors and/or judges can, and sometimes do, control the evidence in a trial in such a way that a conviction is inevitable (and sometimes do so in clear violation of the law). Judges also sometimes instruct juries contrary to the law and essentially direct a verdict that the jury would not otherwise have made. And law enforcement agencies sometimes falsify evidence (and have been caught doing it numerous times). During my last call to jury duty the prosecutor himself said that police officers will lie on the stand and cautioned the jury not to automatically assume everything a police officer says is true. I also don't think the reasonable doubt standard is always so much of a hurdle, especially when there are relatively uninformed people on a jury --many people seem to lack skepticism even when it comes to some pretty preposterous claims.b322da wrote:In a jury trial neither the prosecutor, the BATF, the APD, the Grand Jury, nor the judge convict a defendant. Too often we forget the jury, in the final analysis the protector of our liberties from judicial oppression by the authorities. Had the original report been true, a jury of the defendant's peers would have found him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is no easy burden for a prosecutor.
Elmo
Thank you for posting this link.skub wrote:Fox article on this case
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/09/te ... d-illegal/
Focus of the article is the straw purchaser - the middle man- who was an illegal immigrant himself, but was not prosecuted, nor does he appear to have been deported.
An interesting question remains: Why was a DL issued for longer than his valid Visa? Assuming that he presented the Visa as evidence that he should have a DL, can't the DPS system issue one that is coterminus with that Visa? 2007 was a long time ago from a records perpective.skub wrote:Fox article on this case
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/09/te ... d-illegal/
Focus of the article is the straw purchaser - the middle man- who was an illegal immigrant himself, but was not prosecuted, nor does he appear to have been deported.
IIRC, DPS changed the rules to do as you describe in Oct 2008. That was after 2007 and a 2007 issued DL would be good until 2012. Simples.chasfm11 wrote:An interesting question remains: Why was a DL issued for longer than his valid Visa? Assuming that he presented the Visa as evidence that he should have a DL, can't the DPS system issue one that is coterminus with that Visa? 2007 was a long time ago from a records perpective.
