Judge Helps Illegal Escape

[dgiharris]

No....it isn't.

Yes... it is

there is always a percentage that supports the other side that no matter what will say, "Gee, I can't make a determination because I don't have 100% of all the facts and circumstances, etc..."

Sometimes it is reasonable, sometimes it is not. My argument is simply that when we have a reasonable amount of data, evidence, and facts to condemn... there is a sizeable percentage that claims an inability to do so because they don't have 100% of the facts...

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh that's easy, it's the judges courtroom.

She basically gets to say whether the guy leaves out the front, or the back, in cuffs or not, in custody of the ICE agent...or evading him.

For anyone else to claim it would be disobeying a higher authority than themselves....which seems unlikely.

Well there's the courtroom that the judge controls, and the courthouse it resides in. Is it that small of a courthouse to only have one room? Was the ICE agent directly outside the courtroom doors that he needed to leave through a back door in the courtroom? Is there even a back door to the courtroom that leads to a back door of the courthouse? Your article said he left through a back door of the courthouse, not that he left through a back door of the courtroom. And cuffs, was he wearing cuffs to begin with? That isn't always the case is it? If he was, isn't it customary for a bailiff to remove them when the defendant is released? Do people released on their own recognizance typically get escorted out the front door in cuffs and then have them removed? Sounds weird to me.

Like I said, she released him because ICE would have shipped him out otherwise, and that's bad. There are still a lot more details missing before you can show that she did anything more than that.

No one is claiming escape.

You used the word "escape" so I had to ask. Maybe use the word "evade" instead.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I'd be curious to know more about this judge. Is she majorly anti-immigration? Has she been known to accept bribes in the past? It doesn't make much sense why she would help a repeat offender evade justice when she herself a judge?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes... it is

there is always a percentage that supports the other side that no matter what will say, "Gee, I can't make a determination because I don't have 100% of all the facts and circumstances, etc..."

Sometimes it is reasonable, sometimes it is not. My argument is simply that when we have a reasonable amount of data, evidence, and facts to condemn... there is a sizeable percentage that claims an inability to do so because they don't have 100% of the facts...

In this case there's only a couple of relevant facts...

1. He was in court custody.
2. He left court custody without being turned over to ICE custody.

If he escaped court custody, that would be one thing....where it would be important to find out all the facts.

It's not comparable to a police shooting.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well there's the courtroom that the judge controls, and the courthouse it resides in. Is it that small of a courthouse to only have one room? Was the ICE agent directly outside the courtroom doors that he needed to leave through a back door in the courtroom? Is there even a back door to the courtroom that leads to a back door of the courthouse? Your article said he left through a back door of the courthouse, not that he left through a back door of the courtroom. And cuffs, was he wearing cuffs to begin with? That isn't always the case is it? If he was, isn't it customary for a bailiff to remove them when the defendant is released? Do people released on their own recognizance typically get escorted out the front door in cuffs and then have them removed? Sounds weird to me.

Like I said, she released him because ICE would have shipped him out otherwise, and that's bad. There are still a lot more details missing before you can show that she did anything more than that.

You used the word "escape" so I had to ask. Maybe use the word "evade" instead.

I don't know what games you're trying to play.

He was in court custody. He was released from court custody instead of being turned over to ICE.

Pretty much everything else is irrelevant.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't know what games you're trying to play.

He was in court custody. He was released from court custody instead of being turned over to ICE.

Pretty much everything else is irrelevant.

Then you shouldn't have claimed she did more than simply release him. Is that all she did now? Are you admitting that all the other stuff you claimed she did was all made up? Why did you make up all that stuff if it was irrelevant?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then you shouldn't have claimed she did more than simply release him. Is that all she did now?

If she didn't turn him over to ICE custody, she helped him evade ICE custody.


It's one or the other....there's no middle option. ICE wasn't there for funsies.

 

[Moral Orel]

If she didn't turn him over to ICE custody, she helped him evade ICE custody.


It's one or the other....there's no middle option. ICE wasn't there for funsies.

But that's not "going to significant lengths" nor is it "ushering him out a back door" now is it? So why did you make a claim that you had no evidence of?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But *snip*

That is what the article quotes those who are part of the investigation as saying.

If you don't want to believe the article, or those investigating....I don't really care.

Thanks for replying.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is what the article quotes those who are part of the investigation as saying.

If you don't want to believe the article, or those investigating....I don't really care.

Thanks for replying.

LOL! But you do believe that what she allegedly did is what she actually did. I thought you were an "innocent until proven guilty" guy too, but I guess that just depends on the issue. What a joke.

 

[Ana the Ist]

LOL! But you do believe that what she allegedly did is what she actually did.

Yup.

I thought you were an "innocent until proven guilty" guy too, but I guess that just depends on the issue. What a joke.

I am, the fact that she didn't turn over custody....when she was supposed to turn over custody....is evidence of her guilt.

I'm as reasonable as the next guy....but if you have two people in a desert, one with a gun and gunpowder on his hands and the other dead from a bullet wound....I'm not going to blame you for jumping to a conclusion before the ballistics results are in lol.

There isn't even a plausible scenario where she isn't at fault and she isn't denying it.

What exactly do you want me to entertain here? You got something you'd like to add? Some possible ways this could've played out?

 

[Moral Orel]

I am, the fact that she didn't turn over custody....when she was supposed to turn over custody....is evidence of her guilt.

I'm as reasonable as the next guy....but if you have two people in a desert, one with a gun and gunpowder on his hands and the other dead from a bullet wound....I'm not going to blame you for jumping to a conclusion before the ballistics results are in lol.

Except you don't have any evidence she did anything other than release him. But you believe she did everything she allegedly did for no reason other than the fact she released him. Therefore she concocted an escape plan? Therefore she told him which doors to go through? Therefore she instructed bailiffs to unlock restricted areas?

Therefore nothing. She released him, that's all that is in evidence. That's why reasonable people expect more details.

There isn't even a plausible scenario where she isn't at fault and she isn't denying it.

What exactly do you want me to entertain here? You got something you'd like to add? Some possible ways this could've played out?

I already gave you a bunch of plausible scenarios which you failed to show were impossible or even improbable. Again, you made more claims than that she simply helped him. Stop trying to weasel out of those claims by saying, "But, but, but she did help him!". You keep trying to shift the focus down to "Well, ultimately she's responsible because she released him". That's how I know your other claims are bologna, because not only are you incapable of supporting them, you're trying really, really hard to avoid addressing them at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Except you don't have any evidence she did anything other than release him. But you believe she did everything she allegedly did for no reason other than the fact she released him. Therefore she concocted an escape plan? Therefore she told him which doors to go through? Therefore she instructed bailiffs to unlock restricted areas?

Yup.

Therefore nothing. She released him, that's all that is in evidence. That's why reasonable people expect more details.

I already gave you a bunch of plausible scenarios which you failed to show were impossible or even improbable. Again, you made more claims than that she simply helped him. Stop trying to weasel out of those claims by saying, "But, but, but she did help him!". You keep trying to shift the focus down to "Well, ultimately she's responsible because she released him". That's how I know your other claims are bologna, because not only are you incapable of supporting them, you're trying really, really hard to avoid addressing them at all.

Well there's an ICE agent inside and at least another outside with the vehicle in what's known as a "sally port"....so clearly he was released in a manner as to avoid them.

So whether the deception happened as told or in another manner isn't really relevant.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I already gave you a bunch of plausible scenarios which you failed to show were impossible or even improbable.

I must've missed these scenarios....they weren't disguised as questions that show you've never been in a courtroom, are they?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Except you don't have any evidence she did anything other than release him. But you believe she did everything she allegedly did for no reason other than the fact she released him. Therefore she concocted an escape plan? Therefore she told him which doors to go through? Therefore she instructed bailiffs to unlock restricted areas?

Therefore nothing. She released him, that's all that is in evidence. That's why reasonable people expect more details.

I already gave you a bunch of plausible scenarios which you failed to show were impossible or even improbable. Again, you made more claims than that she simply helped him. Stop trying to weasel out of those claims by saying, "But, but, but she did help him!". You keep trying to shift the focus down to "Well, ultimately she's responsible because she released him". That's how I know your other claims are bologna, because not only are you incapable of supporting them, you're trying really, really hard to avoid addressing them at all.

I'll lay it out for you nick....I've been in at least 3 dozen courtrooms and they all basically have 3 entrances. 1 is the main entrance, for the public....pretty self explanatory. 2 is for the prisoners, either being transferred from some other detention, or held in detention there. Needless to say, security is pretty tight. 3 is a back entrance for the judge and sometimes attorneys, if people are inclined to harass them. It typically also leads to the judges chambers.

Now, we know from the article that he left in exit 3. How often does that happen do you suppose? I've never heard of it...ever. I'm not saying it never happens at all....but I imagine it's super rare.

So please, let's hear your whopper of a story about how this judge isn't at fault.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'll lay it out for you nick....I've been in at least 3 dozen courtrooms and they all basically have 3 entrances. 1 is the main entrance, for the public....pretty self explanatory. 2 is for the prisoners, either being transferred from some other detention, or held in detention there. Needless to say, security is pretty tight. 3 is a back entrance for the judge and sometimes attorneys, if people are inclined to harass them. It typically also leads to the judges chambers.

Now, we know from the article that he left in exit 3. How often does that happen do you suppose? I've never heard of it...ever. I'm not saying it never happens at all....but I imagine it's super rare.

So please, let's hear your whopper of a story about how this judge isn't at fault.

Like I pointed out before, your sources say he left through the back door of the courthouse not the courtroom. So no, we do not know that he left through number 3, unless you're telling me that this courthouse has just the one room that leads directly outside.

We know that the judge released him and the last door he came out of was in the back of the building. How do you know what path he took to reach that door?

I've only been in two courthouses, but they both had several courtrooms, and lots of other rooms and hallways. Are you telling me I'm understanding that wrong? The whole building is the courthouse and it can have more than one courtroom.

I must've missed these scenarios....they weren't disguised as questions that show you've never been in a courtroom, are they?

Nope. Not my fault if you're not paying attention. Go back through the thread and find the post with a bunch of sentences that start with, "Maybe...".

Well there's an ICE agent inside and at least another outside with the vehicle in what's known as a "sally port"....so clearly he was released in a manner as to avoid them.

So whether the deception happened as told or in another manner isn't really relevant.

"Inside" where? He wasn't inside the courtroom, so where was he in the building, and how do you know?

If you don't know the layout of the building, and you don't know where the ICE agent was inside the building, how can you tell me that you know his path through the courthouse?

 

[dgiharris]

In this case there's only a couple of relevant facts...

1. He was in court custody.
2. He left court custody without being turned over to ICE custody.

If he escaped court custody, that would be one thing....where it would be important to find out all the facts.

It's not comparable to a police shooting.

I apologize,

I'm speaking too broadly with too many assumptions for this to be a comparable argument. I will retract my argument...

 

[DanishLutheran]

I wonder if all those who claim "we need all the facts" were as zealous about facts during, say, the Kavanaugh-hearings?