More background on the Quinn case..from back in 2011:
Who confronted me with "facts"? Certainly not you; that's never your style.![]()
More background on the Quinn case..from back in 2011:
Bill
This entry was posted on October 28th, 2011 at 12:29:40 pm and is filed under Observer Opinions, Law, Crime & Punishment, City Hall.
The fact is, he never raised the argument that he was not at home and the police knew or should have known that at the time of the execution of the warrant. That's a fact.
:
More of that "reliable" information you post!!!!! Some guy named bill in an editorial....hahah
Where you get your facts?
more here. No mention of the son's whereabouts in this one. But the fundamental 2A v. 4A issue remains the same. It was never the son's firearms that were an issue. He apparently didn't even have any.
Where you get your facts?
more here. No mention of the son's whereabouts in this one. But the fundamental 2A v. 4A issue remains the same. It was never the son's firearms that were an issue. He apparently didn't even have any.
QUOTE]
http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/fifth-court-of-appeals/2013/05-12-00049-cr-1.html
You are easy. So easy. Got any other sources? The enquirer write anything?
I'll give you your next move. Now it will be to change the topic. You will move away from him not being home, and try some other insult. You are very predictable.
It's long...but an interesting read.
https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/12-19-2013_Quinn-Petition.pdf
I'll give you your next move. Now it will be to change the topic. .
This one was better.
Nope..still perfectly the same. The fundamental 2A v. 4A issue remains the same. It was never the son's firearms that were an issue. He apparently didn't even have any.
Go ahead, call me names. I'll just keep providing factual information.
Hey Jillian how are the update's ....oh that's right ,can't update your lies .![]()
You need to read the CASE FACTS that outline the warrant. The police had information that Brian kept an AK 47. I know reading what you don't like is difficult for you, but if you want to be honest than that is the best method.
So you are no longer arguing that the police knew or should have known he was in the house. Now you are arguing the police knew or should have known Brian didn't have a firearm. Of course, that is not what is in the case facts. The case facts indicate the police had information he did. You are way too easy.
Go ahead, call me names. I'll just keep providing factual information.