Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. What are you talking about about? He didn't get anything before he was illegally sent to a prison in El Salvador. Who gives a shit about the 2019 hearing at this point? He wasn't sent to prison as an outcome of that hearing. The due process violation is the recent shit.
  2. The direct comparison should absolutely be made. I hate the phrase "slippery slope" (in part because it is actually a logical fallacy), but that is exactly what this is. And I got to tell you, that slope is fucking steep.
  3. But that isn't what he said. He didn't say "this has to be carefully presented." He said Democrats shouldn't make a big deal about it because it is a political loser. People dislike illegal immigration. This case isn't about that. And I agree it would be a mistake to frame it that way. But I also know with certainty that abandoning it merely because it is a "political loser" is fucking stupid and evil. Soon enough birthright citizenship will be a political loser. And everyone single person relying upon it (read: everyone) will be fucked. And apparently we shouldn't fight for that either.
  4. Go ahead and substantively respond. Do you understand the guy was here legally? Do you understand that the same process and orders that had him shipped to a foreign country could apply to you? Do you not see how your response is exactly like the Germans' response during WW II? If you don't want to be called out, don't post ignorant or hateful drivel.
  5. @Nice Guy Eddie says we shouldn't care or try to help because it isn't a political winner. Illegally kidnapping people that have a legal right to be in the United States isn't important enough. Sending those kidnapped people to a foreign prison isn't important enough. The government refusing to follow court orders, include from the Supreme Court, just isn't important enough. Again, we have to wait until some generic white guy that is a citizen of the United States is deported. But really, even that isn't important enough because if the only basis someone has for citizenship is birthright citizenship and having been legally considered a citizen for a few decades, then really why should we care? Birthright citizenship is controversial and just isn't a political winner right now. When will Nice Guy Eddie care? When will it be important enough to him for people to fight for? Who the fuck knows. Probably sometime after he has spent a few years in a shithole prison in El Salvador. Maybe.
  6. If you think not forcing the issue here and making it clear that ignoring the rule of law is fucking unacceptable, you deserve neither respect nor freedom. You're literally no better than the Germans who acquiesced to the Nazis. That isn't hyperbole. It is fucking true. You absolutely need to rethink your perspective here. He had the legal right to be here. There was a literal court order to that point. The same mechanism they used to deport him to a foreign prison could be applied to you. And the same argument that the government can do nothing about it after making an "error" can be applied to you. At this point, I hope it does. Maybe then you'll think we'll have the proper "political" case to push back.
  7. Shut the fuck up. If you give up on core rule of law issue where the government ILLEGALLY kidnapped a man and sent to a prison in a foreign country, you might as well give up the whole fucking country. This is a stupid thought. You are fucking stupid for having it or for considering as a fucking reasonable "political position".
  8. 1.) I wasn't attacking you at all. I don't know why you feel compelled to defend yourself as if I were. Don't be so sensitive. 2.) You referenced that there may be circumstances you weren't aware of, so I provided some additional context for reference (his claim of self defense, the accounts of witnesses saying he was pushed) 3.) I wanted to emphasize that even in the absolute best case for him, he stills walks away a killer and has to live with the ramifications of that. People need to think more about the potential ramifications of their actions, including choosing not to walk away from conflict. 99.9% of the time, it isn't worth it even if it is "your right".
  9. While the general thrust of your post is correct, from everything we know it is clear that he killed someone. However, if it was in self defense, which isn't entirely inconsistent with reports from other witnesses, then it would not be murder and he would not be a murder. He would however still be a killer. And that carries its own internal and external burdens.
  10. Nice catch. Also, I'm confused. Did Service tag up or not?
  11. Flores not seeing the ball that AB. Swung at a ball no where near the strike zone and then watched strike 3 down the middle.
  12. How on earth would anyone know that? That just sounds like people making up bullshit.
  13. If I recall, he said he and his family were being pressured by the gangs. He didn't say he was a member.
  14. He literally has no lips. It is weird:
  15. You missed his point. We know the legal remedy of failure to provide due process in a criminal case. We really don't know what the remedy is here. Again, what are you wanting the judge to do? I sense this judge will absolutely order someone to jail for contempt. I believe it is coming. It is SCOTUS that worries me.
  16. The best the judge can do at this juncture is hold people's feet to the fire to provide information. Get them to testify in court, if they refuse, jail them to contempt. If they refuse to answer questions, jail them for contempt. If an attorney insists on making motions to delay things or confuse things after the judge denies them, jail them for contempt. If the evidence shows the administration is making no effort to comply with the judge's order to attempt to get him back, jail officials for contempt.
  17. Correct. That and they now drop people pretty aggressively.
  18. To be clear, I was just quoting Rex. I didn't take any offense at all. To answer your question, hard to say from what we know. It could be the other attorney no longer wanted to handle the case or didn't feel prepared. It could be they found a better fit. It could be a financial issue. Or it could be because of a disagreement on strategy.
  19. People know the phrase "innocent until proven guilty," but don't think about it much on a deeper level or truly understand what it means, as is demonstrated in this thread. People do not understand bond, its purpose, or the legal requirements around, as is demonstrated in this thread. And people still say incredibly ignorant and stupid stuff like "He clearly did it, is clearly a murderer, is clearly the aggressor and @BabaYaga’s use of “legal cunt” is the perfect descriptor of most in here. Yes, this guy absolutely is guilty until proven innocent, regardless of what you think. That is the way society works when 30 people watched you stab a guy in the heart." What you think is "known and obvious" obviously isn't.
  20. Yes it is. And I still use it because I'm lazy. Also, I'm really annoyed that Intuit purchased Mint and then killed the service in favor Credit Karma (which in no way replaces the functionality of Mint).
  21. It is an annuity, so I assume the answer to that question is: income
  22. That is stupid and you're stupid for thinking it.
  23. Pre-trial detention has a very limited purpose. It should not be and is not the default of the legal system in part because pre-trial detention is functionally identical to imprisoning someone without a trial. If your view of "danger to society" was adopted, everyone accused of a potentially violent crime or of crimes like theft would be subject to jail without trial. Here, the circumstances of this incident don't implicate a general danger to society while out on bond. This appears by all accounts to be an isolated incident with a particular individual in a particular setting. His "admission" to the crime came with a pretty important caveat that he was defending himself AND an expression of concern for the well being of the victim. No one is calling you names. No one is attacking you. We are simply explaining the law. And we are explaining why your argument isn't and should be a basis to jail him prior to any conviction. Stop being so sensitive. Man up.
  24. Irrelevant. He hasn't been found guilty. And he also told the police it was self defense and expressed concern for the victim, which at least partially tracks from eye witness accounts that he was pushed prior the stabbing. This is a tragic case. He will likely go to jail for a long a time. But nothing here justifies up rooting our most sacred legal principle.
×
×
  • Create New...