TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Often, judges and prosecutors conspire to prevent a fully informed jury.

If the judge gives the jury instructions that are not consistent with the law, the judge is responsible for the bad decision the jury makes.

Grammy wrote:

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.

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.
Jim

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.

baldeagle wrote:

Grammy wrote:

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.

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.
Jim

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, 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.

The “Campaign for Liberty” and other web sites that quoted them or posted a link to their site are the ones that should be ashamed.

Grammy, no problem with your original post - if anything, by linking it to the "rest" of the firearms community and drawing attention to it, you gave us the opportunity to evaluate it and get the right story out. (A few other websites I frequent also had links to the original story, so I linked the TSRA account to them.)

Kudos to those who found the "real" story.

The BATmen's actions are still unethical and corrupt, but the outrage isn't quite as bad as the original blog made it out to be. And enough of what they do is shady and underhanded that we don't have to make stuff up, or repeat bogus stories.

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.

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.

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.

Do we ask everyone for Birth Certificates?

I wish I had seen this thread earlier; sorry folks. As others have posted, Alice Tripp posted something about this event on the TSRA website. She and I talked with Mr. Copeland within two hours of his visit with the ATF at the Austin gun show. Versions of what happened between that conversation and now have changed markedly.

Chas.

Purplehood wrote:

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.

Do we ask everyone for Birth Certificates?

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.

VMI77 wrote:

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.

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.

It is obviously a Liberal left wing conspiracy.

Elmo

b322da wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

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.

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.

It is obviously a Liberal left wing conspiracy.

Elmo

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for posting this link.
Jim

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.

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.

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.