AJaRuleStan
All Star
Okay, I don't know what you mean by "meaningless", but either way, that's a completely separate argument. Again, the only point I made in relation to the usage of the affidavit was in reference to the judge's reasoning capabilities. If you want to argue about the severity of an order of protection than argue that with the person who's making an argument about that.
I'm sorry but this is not how reasonable and sane people evaluate true and false, in science, philosophy, or law, because we can never be 100% sure of anything. When humans argue with the use of proof, the standard we are using is more likely than not. In other words, I make a claim, then demonstrate the claims validity with proof, the onus is then on you to falsify that evidence with your proof. Who ever presents the more likely proof wins the debate. And this is how this works, because its the only way we can ever reach conclusions on anything.
However, what you're doing here is engaging in a weak and tired dodge of appealing to infinite possibilities. Under this line of logic you could obstruct and muddy the waters of every claim imaginable. Even if a signature was presented, there is nothing stopping you from saying, "it's possible the cops forged his signature", or even if video footage was given of him snitching to the detective, you could again keep going and say, "its possible that was a look alike that signed it, and not 50.". And you would be right in both instances, there is no way I can 100.00000% prove that potentially didn't happen. All I can do is present that my conclusion is more likely than your scenario using evidence.
At the moment, I have presented official court documents of an officer, under oath, referring to 50 cent as an information and citing statements 50 made to him. This officer was a good enough cop to be promoted to an officer for the attorney general of NY. I've more than enough met the standard of "clear and convincing" evidence here. But than here you come, with nothing but bias motivated reasoning, and present the idea that its possible that the officer lied and then you act as if our arguments and evidence is equally just as likely as being true and the only difference is our own subjectivity...I'm sorry but that's insulting as fukk. No offense, but you're not equipped for this sort of discussion, at all.
The detective specifically refers to 50 cent as an informant on 3 difference occasions between both pages:
1) Punch about the face and body of informant, Curtis Jackson...
2) Deponent is informed by Mr. Jackson that informant observed defendant Gil(Black Child) stab Mr. Rondeau(Dj gis) in the chest.
3) Deponent is further informed by Mr. Jackson that as a result of the above described conduct, informant suffered lacerations and stabs to the back requiring stitches.
You're being totally dishonest here.
Last edited:
