Post: #126

(03-24-2017 05:26 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 05:22 PM)Renzy Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 03:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This case would take a turn for crazy if it turns out the girl had prior sexual relations with at least one of the guys.

But Merenguero, I don't think it will be very difficult to show a lack of consent in this case. How can it reasonably be shown that this girl wanted to fuck in the boys bathroom right in the middle of a school day? These guys are looking at 10-20 years in the slammer or a deportation.

Reports I read stated that this happened around 9am. Maybe we're justing reaching new levels of depravity, but I have a hard time believing a 14 year old girl is ready to get double-teamed in the school's hallway bathroom at 9 in the morning.

I can believe it, when I see her face, body, have a look at her ethnic makeup and sexual history. In this case I tend to favor her account, but it is not 100% impossible that she did not want it.

Either way this is a lose-lose situation for the Left.

If it turns out she's lying, this is going to be yet *another* false rape accusation that has gained national attention.

If it turns out to be true (most likely), it's shined the spotlight on the inherent dangers of having an open-borders policy and who the potential victims could be (your own kids).

Generally people are pretty protective of their children.

My guess is at least some liberals in MoCo are having what I've heard alcoholics refer to as "a moment of clarity" when it comes to their delusional ideas about the wonders of diversity and multiculturalism.

Post: #127

Looking through Maryland's jury selection process we find that it's one of the most biased in the country:

http://thedailyrecord.com/2009/11/30/jur...provement/

Quote:“In other states, the attorneys frequently run the show, and it is permissible for them to address a much broader range of issues,” Ward said. More personal questions about a prospective juror’s experiences, attitudes and beliefs “would be allowable in other jurisdictions,” but most likely not in Maryland.
She said attorneys in other states “are typically flabbergasted at what happens in Maryland.”
Without more information about jurors, Matlon and Ward said, attorneys must rely on demographic stereotypes about people of a certain age, level of education or occupation to make judgments about whom to exclude.
“If a juror wants to hide a bias from you, you’re really going to have a hard time finding that,” said Greg Hurley, a defense attorney who is now an analyst for the Center for Jury Studies in Williamsburg, Va. “You never have a complete picture of a person, and you get some facts, and decide whether you want them on a jury or not.”

This case could blow up huge. The entire case will be based around whether the jury is White or Latino. There could be 10 Whites saying Guilty with 2 Latinos saying Not Guilty, resulting in mistrials for years!

Post: #128

(03-27-2017 03:11 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Looking through Maryland's jury selection process we find that it's one of the most biased in the country:

http://thedailyrecord.com/2009/11/30/jur...provement/

Quote:“In other states, the attorneys frequently run the show, and it is permissible for them to address a much broader range of issues,” Ward said. More personal questions about a prospective juror’s experiences, attitudes and beliefs “would be allowable in other jurisdictions,” but most likely not in Maryland.
She said attorneys in other states “are typically flabbergasted at what happens in Maryland.”
Without more information about jurors, Matlon and Ward said, attorneys must rely on demographic stereotypes about people of a certain age, level of education or occupation to make judgments about whom to exclude.
“If a juror wants to hide a bias from you, you’re really going to have a hard time finding that,” said Greg Hurley, a defense attorney who is now an analyst for the Center for Jury Studies in Williamsburg, Va. “You never have a complete picture of a person, and you get some facts, and decide whether you want them on a jury or not.”

This case could blow up huge. The entire case will be based around whether the jury is White or Latino. There could be 10 Whites saying Guilty with 2 Latinos saying Not Guilty, resulting in mistrials for years!

I'm trying to tell you guys and I have more than a little bit of experience with this. Also, I don't really agree with that article that Samseau posted. The way it really works is the state and the defense are given a list of potential jurors with their names, occupations, education level, ages, cities, and zip codes. It always seems like there is a ton of retired people, many of whom were teachers or police officers, for some reason. You generally know what race the people are by looking at them and reading their names. Sometimes you can't tell, like when you have a very light skinned Hispanic women who is married to a white guy or black guy and took his last name. Both the state and the defense submit a list of proposed voir dire questions to the judge. These questions include things like "Have you ever been a victim of a crime"? "Do you have any problem with the constitutional provision that the Defendant need not prove anything"? "Would you be able to be fair and impartial knowing that the Defendant is a native of Guatemala and is not a United States citizen"?, etc. If a person answers affirmatively, you can then ask the potential jurors specific questions as to their affirmative response. This is done at the bench. The judge will generally excuse jurors who for one reason or another say that they cannot be fair and impartial, then both the defense and the state are given a number of strikes to have certain potential jurors excused. If one side has multiple persons of a certain race stricken in a row, the other side can make what is called a "Batson" challenge, meaning the the side which is being challenged must give a racially neutral explanation for striking repeated prospective jurors of the same race.

Post: #129

(03-27-2017 02:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The prosecutors will pack the jury with White moms and these guys are done.

No. They won't. In 2014, Montgomery County was 47% white, non hispanic and it has become less white since then. Let's call it 45% white, tops. There likely hasn't been an all white jury here in several decades. Out of twelve jurors in criminal cases, I would estimate that on average six or seven jurors are white. Maybe eight, but I doubt it. Any attempt by the state to strike every non white person will obviously be met with a Batson challenge. They are way too smart and experienced to try that here.

Post: #130

Two things. If they get away with the rape with no deportation or punishment:

1. The libs will suffer even more at the ballot box in places outside of Maryland. If Latino jurors simply vote for their race, you can also expect to see even more White hostility towards this community around the country.

I am guessing the victim was White based on the fact that the town-hall of angry parents were mostly White, which is why I am guessing things will come down to jury's racial composition.

2. Highly probable a vigilante goes after the accused or the judge with lethal intent.

Either way - this case has way too many eyeballs for some form of justice not to be delivered. It's actually not uncommon for vigilante justice to occur on rape cases, and that's without million+ views on the internet.


Conversely, if the men are convicted and proven fair and square it will do a lot to resolve tensions.

Post: #131

(03-27-2017 06:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I am guessing the victim was White based on the fact that the town-hall of angry parents were mostly White, which is why I am guessing things will come down to jury's racial composition.

2. Highly probable a vigilante goes after the accused or the judge with lethal intent.

That school is 64% minority, but it's entirely possible that the victim was white. I don't at this time know what her race was. It's also possible that she was not white.

If it goes to a jury trial, the judge is obviously not the ultimate finder of guilt or innocence, unless the judge grants a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal before the case goes to a jury. I realize that it won't matter and if one or both of these guys get off, some person may, for some reason, blame the judge and go after him. I'm pretty sure that the defense attorneys involved in this case have already received their share of threats.

Post: #132

(03-27-2017 06:47 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  That school is 64% minority, but it's entirely possible that the victim was white. I don't at this time know what her race was. It's also possible that she was not white.

I would expect real fireworks and violence if the victim was black.

Post: #133

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

I'm sick of hearing about how these illegal pieces of shit are entitled to the same rights as the citizens who reside in the US legally.

Does anyone really doubt these two fucking punks are not the lowest form of human being?

Merenguero, I'm guessing you are trying to exercise your attorney muscles right now, but how can you honestly expect a 14 year old girl to fight back against two 17 and 18 year old men?

A 14 year old boy wouldn't have a chance, let alone a little 14 year old girl fighting two people.

3 and 4 years make and enormous difference in high school.

ONE YEAR makes a huge difference and is why kids get held back a year so they'll be better in sports and are more likely to get scholarships.

I can't believe what I'm reading sometimes.

And honestly, talking about witnesses moving or not showing up?

Get real.

That isn't going to be an issue at all.

We ALL know how women don't want to be called sluts, especially 14 year old girls at high school.

You think she was just having such a nice time and wanted everyone to know what a whore she is and oh yeah, not to mention getting in trouble for fucking in the bathroom?

Post: #134

(03-27-2017 04:20 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 02:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The prosecutors will pack the jury with White moms and these guys are done.

No. They won't. In 2014, Montgomery County was 47% white, non hispanic and it has become less white since then. Let's call it 45% white, tops. There likely hasn't been an all white jury here in several decades. Out of twelve jurors in criminal cases, I would estimate that on average six or seven jurors are white. Maybe eight, but I doubt it. Any attempt by the state to strike every non white person will obviously be met with a Batson challenge. They are way too smart and experienced to try that here.

It's men that convict. Not women.

Post: #135

(03-27-2017 07:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

I'm sick of hearing about how these illegal pieces of shit are entitled to the same rights as the citizens who reside in the US legally.

You can be sick and tired of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution all you want. The court is not going to care what you don't like about the law.

Post: #136

(03-27-2017 07:22 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

I'm sick of hearing about how these illegal pieces of shit are entitled to the same rights as the citizens who reside in the US legally.

You can be sick and tired of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution all you want. The court is not going to care what you don't like about the law.

Awww well look who's decided to cherry pick one comment and chime in with his pearls of wisdom.

As much as you'd like to make my feelings the point of discussion my greater point is that these pieces of shit will be convicted and you can suck on that.

Post: #137

(03-27-2017 07:18 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 04:20 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 02:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The prosecutors will pack the jury with White moms and these guys are done.

No. They won't. In 2014, Montgomery County was 47% white, non hispanic and it has become less white since then. Let's call it 45% white, tops. There likely hasn't been an all white jury here in several decades. Out of twelve jurors in criminal cases, I would estimate that on average six or seven jurors are white. Maybe eight, but I doubt it. Any attempt by the state to strike every non white person will obviously be met with a Batson challenge. They are way too smart and experienced to try that here.

It's men that convict. Not women.

In sex offense cases, it's the women who are the most skeptical in my experience.

I'll give you guys an example. Hispanic Defendant. A young, but still an adult, black female alleged victim. Sex offense, but not a rape. Only fact witness was the alleged victim. There was a police officer witness who just took the statement of both the Defendant and the alleged victim. The jury was (this is just a rough estimate) nine women and three men. One of the women was black, another was neither black, nor white, probably either middle eastern or Hispanic. All the rest of the women were white. All of the men were white. The alleged victim testified, as did the officer and the Defendant. The alleged victim did not do horrible on the stand, but there were at least two or three differences between the statement she made to the officer and her testimony in court. The officer's testimony therefore greatly helped the Defendant's case. After two and a half hours of deliberating, they came back with a not guilty verdict. In retrospect, if the state had not called the officer, there would have been a much higher chance of a conviction, but the defense attorney, some guy who doesn't give one flying fuck about English, grammar, and/or E.S.L., asked the officer to stick around in case the state didn't call him as a witness. I do think that in jury trials, Defendants who testify in their own defense generally do much better than those who do not. The obvious risk is that low intelligence Defendants run the risk of saying something incredibly stupid on the stand and hanging themselves.

Post: #138

(03-27-2017 07:28 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:22 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

I'm sick of hearing about how these illegal pieces of shit are entitled to the same rights as the citizens who reside in the US legally.

You can be sick and tired of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution all you want. The court is not going to care what you don't like about the law.

Awww well look who's decided to cherry pick one comment and chime in with his pearls of wisdom.

As much as you'd like to make my feelings the point of discussion my greater point is that these pieces of shit will be convicted and you can suck on that.

So, your point is that due process is going to work just as intended, but you just don't like due process?

Post: #139

(03-27-2017 07:32 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:28 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:22 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

I'm sick of hearing about how these illegal pieces of shit are entitled to the same rights as the citizens who reside in the US legally.

You can be sick and tired of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution all you want. The court is not going to care what you don't like about the law.

Awww well look who's decided to cherry pick one comment and chime in with his pearls of wisdom.

As much as you'd like to make my feelings the point of discussion my greater point is that these pieces of shit will be convicted and you can suck on that.

So, your point is that due process is going to work just as intended, but you just don't like due process?

Go reread what I wrote and deliberate about it all you want.

Post: #140

(03-27-2017 07:35 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:32 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:28 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:22 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I'm sick of hearing about how these illegal pieces of shit are entitled to the same rights as the citizens who reside in the US legally.

You can be sick and tired of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution all you want. The court is not going to care what you don't like about the law.

Awww well look who's decided to cherry pick one comment and chime in with his pearls of wisdom.

As much as you'd like to make my feelings the point of discussion my greater point is that these pieces of shit will be convicted and you can suck on that.

So, your point is that due process is going to work just as intended, but you just don't like due process?

Go reread what I wrote and deliberate about it all you want.

Tell us what you would rather have happen here. They're going to get a jury trial and then deported either way. What else should be done with these two illegals?

Post: #141

(03-27-2017 07:38 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:35 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:32 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:28 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:22 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  You can be sick and tired of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution all you want. The court is not going to care what you don't like about the law.

Awww well look who's decided to cherry pick one comment and chime in with his pearls of wisdom.

As much as you'd like to make my feelings the point of discussion my greater point is that these pieces of shit will be convicted and you can suck on that.

So, your point is that due process is going to work just as intended, but you just don't like due process?

Go reread what I wrote and deliberate about it all you want.

Tell us what you would rather have happen here. They're going to get a jury trial and then deported either way. What else should be done with these two illegals?

I said two separate things:

1) I'm sick of SJWs like you crying about how Constitutional rights should be given to people who are not even in the US legally.

2) I'm appalled the argument that a 14 year old girl should have fought back against two grown men is being made and I don't see the point in raising doubts about whether witnesses will show up.

You act like being deported is some sort of terrible sentence.

Will they serve time in their host country?

What would I like to see done?

I think any illegal who's been arrested for heinous crimes should be given a summary tribunal trial with the evidence against him or her and the sentence carried out immediately.

And I think rather than wasting money housing and feeding these people they should be branded on their foreheads and expelled from the country on the other side of the wall.

edit - if they did rape that girl they should be summarily executed.

Post: #142

Montano has a Preliminary Hearing scheduled for this Friday. He will likely be indicted before then. I see no chance of him being waived down to juvenile court.

Post: #143

(03-27-2017 07:51 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:38 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:35 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:32 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:28 PM)Fisto Wrote:  Awww well look who's decided to cherry pick one comment and chime in with his pearls of wisdom.

As much as you'd like to make my feelings the point of discussion my greater point is that these pieces of shit will be convicted and you can suck on that.

So, your point is that due process is going to work just as intended, but you just don't like due process?

Go reread what I wrote and deliberate about it all you want.

Tell us what you would rather have happen here. They're going to get a jury trial and then deported either way. What else should be done with these two illegals?

I said two separate things:

1) I'm sick of SJWs like you crying about how Constitutional rights should be given to people who are not even in the US legally.

2) I'm appalled the argument that a 14 year old girl should have fought back against two grown men is being made and I don't see the point in raising doubts about whether witnesses will show up.

You act like being deported is some sort of terrible sentence.

Will they serve time in their host country?

What would I like to see done?

I think any illegal who's been arrested for heinous crimes should be given a summary tribunal trial with the evidence against him or her and the sentence carried out immediately.

And I think rather than wasting money housing and feeding these people they should be branded on their foreheads and expelled from the country on the other side of the wall.

So being deported isn't a punishment, yet your solution is for them to be deported without a prison sentence.

That's what I was looking for.

Post: #144

(03-27-2017 07:56 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:51 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:38 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:35 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:32 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  So, your point is that due process is going to work just as intended, but you just don't like due process?

Go reread what I wrote and deliberate about it all you want.

Tell us what you would rather have happen here. They're going to get a jury trial and then deported either way. What else should be done with these two illegals?

I said two separate things:

1) I'm sick of SJWs like you crying about how Constitutional rights should be given to people who are not even in the US legally.

2) I'm appalled the argument that a 14 year old girl should have fought back against two grown men is being made and I don't see the point in raising doubts about whether witnesses will show up.

You act like being deported is some sort of terrible sentence.

Will they serve time in their host country?

What would I like to see done?

I think any illegal who's been arrested for heinous crimes should be given a summary tribunal trial with the evidence against him or her and the sentence carried out immediately.

And I think rather than wasting money housing and feeding these people they should be branded on their foreheads and expelled from the country on the other side of the wall.

So being deported isn't a punishment, yet your solution is for them to be deported without a prison sentence.

That's what I was looking for.

You are one cherry picking little twat.

Branded, and thrown on the other side of the wall, never to return.

With your version of deportation they can simply return.

edit, you also seem to ignore that I said they shouldn't have constitutional rights.

That's a different process completely to what you are advocating.

edit - Actually I don't care I didn't write it before but now I will

They should be exterminated.

Post: #145

(03-27-2017 07:59 PM)Fisto Wrote:  You are one cherry picking little twat.

Branded, and thrown on the other side of the wall, never to return.

With your version of deportation they can simply return.

edit, you also seem to ignore that I said they shouldn't have constitutional rights.

That's a different process completely to what you are advocating.

14th Amendment of the Constitution:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you don't like the Constitution, then write your congressman. Otherwise, the law can make you angry all you want, and the courts won't care.

Post: #146

Post: #147

(03-27-2017 08:04 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:59 PM)Fisto Wrote:  You are one cherry picking little twat.

Branded, and thrown on the other side of the wall, never to return.

With your version of deportation they can simply return.

edit, you also seem to ignore that I said they shouldn't have constitutional rights.

That's a different process completely to what you are advocating.

14th Amendment of the Constitution:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you don't like the Constitution, then write your congressman. Otherwise, the law can make you angry all you want, and the courts won't care.

Maybe I'll do that.

Oh, because you like to ignore things I highlighted the relevant parts you seem to miss.

Post: #148

(03-27-2017 08:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 08:04 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:59 PM)Fisto Wrote:  You are one cherry picking little twat.

Branded, and thrown on the other side of the wall, never to return.

With your version of deportation they can simply return.

edit, you also seem to ignore that I said they shouldn't have constitutional rights.

That's a different process completely to what you are advocating.

14th Amendment of the Constitution:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you don't like the Constitution, then write your congressman. Otherwise, the law can make you angry all you want, and the courts won't care.

Maybe I'll do that.

Oh, because you like to ignore things I highlighted the relevant parts you seem to miss.

Note that the Amendment uses two separate terms: Citizen and Person. That's why I underlined PERSON so that you might see it.

Post: #149

(03-27-2017 08:10 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 08:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 08:04 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:59 PM)Fisto Wrote:  You are one cherry picking little twat.

Branded, and thrown on the other side of the wall, never to return.

With your version of deportation they can simply return.

edit, you also seem to ignore that I said they shouldn't have constitutional rights.

That's a different process completely to what you are advocating.

14th Amendment of the Constitution:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you don't like the Constitution, then write your congressman. Otherwise, the law can make you angry all you want, and the courts won't care.

Maybe I'll do that.

Oh, because you like to ignore things I highlighted the relevant parts you seem to miss.

Note that the Amendment uses two separate terms: Citizen and Person. That's why I underlined PERSON so that you might see it.

Note, that the opening clause is pertaining to citizens and by definition an illegal alien does not reside with in the jurisdiction of a state.

Post: #150

(03-27-2017 08:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  Note, that the opening clause is pertaining to citizens and by definition an illegal alien does not reside with in the jurisdiction of a state.

And the next two phrases talk of PERSONS which shows Congressional intent that the two things are to be considered differently.

If you don't like what I have to say about this, go read what the Supreme Court says about it.

PLYLER v. DOE (1982)
YICK WO V. HOPKINS (1886)