The crux? The MUSLIM boy saw his siser talking to a catholic boy yesterday at school and proceeded to beat her. She’s now in ICU with a broken back. I checked ABC’s CH7 WXYZ for a link but of course their linkage o stories they cover is spotty at best.

This multi-culti tolerance crap has gone on long enough! Any Muslim that feels honor beatings/killings are a legitimate tenet of their faith needs to pack their bags and get out of this country. Leave!!! Go!!! and don’t let the door hit you on the way out!!!

Of course, expect CAIR to care more about protecting the civil rights of the perps from racism in prosecuting this case than caring about the minor female victim.

I know. But its not quite being used in court either.

Did you get to the part where this might be a hearsay exception?

http://www.dictionary.com has hearsay with the following definition as well as yours.

a statement made out of court and not under oath which is offered as proof that what is stated is true called also hearsay evidence

It is a statement made out of court and not under oath Actus.

People are crying about the Geneva convention. I’m going to repeat what has been said so many times. The convention does not apply, and, oh yeah, we never signed it. We treat people better than any other country on earth, because we are better.

When did we turn into a nation of cowards? Before you you start with the, “Why don’t you join,” crying and whining, I’m already a veteran of a war. I’m too old to reenlist. I would. We are in a war to the knife and the people need to wake up and see it.

Next, there are no moderate Muslims. There are Muslims who believe every word in their holy book and are willing to follow every word therein. For these you can use the words terrorist, and supporter of terrorists. Then, there are hypocrites.

Truthfully, I think most American muslims fall into the category of hypocrite. The rest are traitors.

Its hearsay for someone other than the declarant to say it. It is not hearsay for the declarant to say it.

“You mean rather like addressing the factors that affect the Rathergate memos credibility, and how it is and is not like fake?”

I’m not following, you think this document isn’t credible, like the rather memos?

It is hearsay.

I thought you knew more about law Actus…. that is hearsay.

the problem im noticing is that a rather explicit disagreement with a point is taken as a misunderstanding of a point. The point is to attack the credibility of the memo, by likening it to hearsay. The point is addressed by talking about other factors that affect its credibility, and how it is and is not like hearsay.

Tangentially, we can even talk about what hearsay exceptions it falls under, because these exceptions are usually motivated by the same veracity concerns that motivate the hearsay rule in the first place.

With actus . . . . no, not likely.

Probably internal handling of the FOIA by the feds.

“And no I’m not interested in a FOIA since I really couldn’t care less what we dish out to the detainees.”

Just trying to assuage your fears that this is a doctored document.

Really? I suspect that when top guys at the FBI ask FBI agents for what they saw, those FBI agents tend to tell the truth. In that way it has real value.

I do admit that in court it would be challenged as hearsay, and we would need the original declarant there. Or to use a hearsay exception.

Like I said. Its not a statement under oath. But it is a statement on a rather weighty topic to a higher up. I think this is quite a bit more reliable than hearsay. Do you think bosses are used to taking statements from their underlings like hearsay? What else do they have?

“Point, meet actus, actus, meet point. You’ve been missing each other, passing but never meeting.”

I understand the point. The point is that andy thinks that we can’t belive what FBI agents tell their bosses. Because apparently is just like hearsay and not under oath.