Re: Liberty Optics no longer accepts "GPal"
Disclaimer:
I am not a user of GPal, have no connection to its CEO, and will NOT defend the poor customer service and "floating" of client funds reported.
But this post shows a stunning lack of observational and analytical skillz, coming from a Hide member who says he was a cop.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pepperbelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It isn't as cut and dried as this thread makes it sound. When I was a cop, waaay back, I learned that everything is not blacka nd white- it's all shades of gray. Just because charges are dropped doesn't mean someone is innocent. Being found not guilty often means that it can't be proven in a court of law.
As for the cops not investigating this, I copied the following from the ABC news article:
"Detectives from the sheriff's office's violent crimes unit identified 29-year-old Benjamin Philip Cannon as a suspect. After the woman identified him as the man who pulled her over, Cannon was placed under surveillance, Spallino said.
</div></div>
Eyewitness identification of perpetrators is notoriously fallible. It's often right, often wrong, and often earnestly and sincerely wrong without being a lie. I suspect but don't have ready access to the research showing how often it is right, but I'm pretty sure it's far more reliable than not. In other words, helpful but not necessarily conclusive.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pepperbelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cannon was arrested Thursday at his residence in the 1100 block of East Sunnyslope Road for impersonating a police officer and false imprisonment, Spallino said.
Detectives seized Cannon's silver 2001 BMW and found a police scanner, strobe light, handcuffs and a siren inside, Spallino said. Cannon was booked into the Sonoma County jail and has since posted $10,000 bail."
Notice that the victim identified him. Notice what was in his car when they picked him up.</div></div>
I sure cannot tell that from what you quote. In court, your statement would be striken from the record as assuming facts not in evidence. Arrested at his home, then a description of the items found in the search of the car. Nothing about him being IN the car at the time of the arrest. We're a tough crowd here, so I won't apologize for suggesting remedial reading instruction.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pepperbelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He apparently has cell phone records showing he was 40 miles away. Cell tower triangulation isn't that precise, and all it shows is that his cell phone was there. I am sure there are ways to fudge that too.</div></div>
Do you even KNOW the maximum range of the various types of cell towers now in use?
Your strongest point is that the evidence described merely places the location of the phone--IF it has not been spoofed. Other accounts in this thread and in the CalGuns.net thread introduce further elements corroborating the "miles away at the time" defense. If they are accurate (see, I'm keeping an open mind), then the PD and individual officers with actual knowledge of the exculpatory evidence all have some serious federal Section 1983 problems to contend with, and an equally serious hazard of losing their qualified immunity defense because they simply do NOT qualify for that immunity.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pepperbelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In my gut- he did it sure as shit.
Jim </div></div>
I'll trust the evidence and my analysis more than your gut, thankyouverrrymuch. Remember all this the next time the creeps resume efforts to outlaw your deadly sniper rifle because it's too powerful and too accurate. How will YOUR stuff be described to sucker reporters?
