I mistyped what I was trying to say. People who are anti-illegal immigration (as in the hardline right wingers) want to use this story as another example of why Mexican immigration is a terrible problem for America. Look at the drug cartels! Do we want them here? Liberals don't want the story be to true because they don't want the hardline right wingers to have a story that they can hold up to back up their rhetoric.
That's fine if we are on the set of Law and Order but we are not. In general I agree with your position but arguing over jetskis just seems more of a distraction than substantive.
The facts of the case surround an alleged jet-ski hijacking, a jet-ski murder and then an alleged jet-ski escape - how is that a distraction? As pointed out, it doesn't really back up rhetoric - U.S. immigration laws and the enforcement thereof don't extend to the locus of this incident. There's a logical disconnect between "Arizona needs to check the papers of a brown guy mowing the lawn because a jet-ski hijacking went bad 1000 miles away."
I agree it doesn't back up the rhetoric logically, but that doesn't mean incidents like this aren't used to bolster the immigration law argument of the right.
And jetskis are watercraft and Jo Mama pointed out that there have been prior reports of crime targeting watercraft. You are making a semantics argument with little meaning. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but I doubt just arguing about the class of watercraft is that material. I agree with you there.
It's not a semantics argument it's a forensics argument, and there's a lot of meaning when you're discussing crime and motive. Robbing an armored car and a teen taking a joyride are both unauthorized uses of vehicles, but at the core they are different events for more than just "semantics". An attempted robbery of a jet-ski rider seems like mugging a jogger - what's the point? They don't have any money on them.
I have been on jetskis and have had money on me. There are actually even special compartments under the seat to store your stuff (including money). You can have money on you on a jetski as much as you can have it on a boat. Plus, the jetski itself represents a monetary value. Plus, drug cartel gangsters may not be completely rational and only kill because they want to make money, but just for the sake of killing or defending "their" area.
Not quite sure why so many people love to make snap judgments before any sort of evidence or some claim is refuted. You'll have egg on your face if you're wrong. Maybe it makes y'all happy in the pants when you turn out to be correct sometimes?
We all don't know. I just got into that discussion because someone was acting like he does, and trying to follow his little condescending routine in the process, while making several flawed arguments.
You are assuming facts not in evidence counselor. We do not know that they were attempting to rob the jetski for financial gain. They could have targeted the watercraft as a useful addition their fleet. They could have valued the riders as potential ransom money. They could have been under the false impression that the jetskiers saw something they did not want reported. Etc. , etc. What we know is that she was on the lake with her husband on a jetski and that she returned alone. We have her story that she was attacked by pirates on the lake and that her husband was killed. We have a witness who apparently backs up the claim and blood on the lifejacket. We have prior incidents of hostility by lake pirates on this lake. We have the local sheriff saying that the cartel is violent and controls a portion of the lake, and we have the Mexican government temporarily ending the search for the body because they felt the cartel posed them a threat. It seems like it takes more of a logical leap to think she is simply lying and all of this is some elaborate attempt on her part to either cover up a murder or drum up political support for something than it does to believe her. You are bitterly clinging to the type of watercraft robbed for some strange reason because you apparently DON'T WANT HER STORY TO BE TRUE. She may not be telling the truth, I have no idea, but there isn't anything to suggest she is lying based on what we know, even the fact that it was a jetski she was on and not a boat.
To sum up so far... We have an unnamed witness saying the gal was seen being chased back to the US side by a boat. We apparently have some blood on a life jacket that has not been directly tied to the guy. We have an odd Sheriff (Gonzalez, Zapata County) who is a bit of a publicity hound and has a history of histrionics regarding border issues. We have another Sheriff (Cuellar, Webb County... who happens to be the brother of US Congressman Henry Cuellar, also heavily involved in the case) saying the gal is not suspected of anything criminal. The gal has hinted she "may" take a lie detector test. Given all this, and considering the egos in play and the political aspect, we don't really know much. I'm still dubious and awaiting solid info.
I should also point out that as far as I can tell, we do not know the Mexican government stopped searching because of threats from the cartel. The only source for that comes from Sheriff Gonzalez, who doesn't strike me as the most reliable guy. Other sources, including US Congressman Cuellar and the Mexican Government suggest the search was halted temporarily because of weather.
LOL - bitterly clinging? I don't really have skin in the game, I'm just pointing out potential holes in her story as any good investigator would do. I may be wrong, you may be right. What's weird is that you seem to want me to admit that I'm compelled by your version of events rather than somewhat skeptical - I don't think either of us is in a sufficiently informed position here to be so vehement about it (to the extent where you appear to be exaggerating some aspects, as rimrocker pointed out). However, it wouldn't be the first time an alleged victim claimed unnamed, anonymous perpetrators for crimes that nobody witnessed and then turned out to be the culprit. It happens taht way on CSI and in real life all the time. By the way, it's illogical for you to say "THIS LAKE HAS A HISTORY OF ROBBERIES!" on the one hand, and then lambaste me for assuming it's a robbery on the other hand - I'm simply using your own assumption in order to build a theory of the incident.
Before I continue reading I wanted to point out that this particular line from my post was meant to be taken in jest. I'm sorry it fell flat.
You seem to be taking a particularly strong interest in this thread, and seem to be particularly sure she is lying for someone who doesn't "really have a skin in the game." FWIW, I'm not sure she's telling the truth. I have no idea one way or another. And I wasn't exaggerating any points, I pulled them directly from the article that was posted here on the CBS site. If that article exaggerated or I misunderstood what they meant, so be it. I took it at face value. It also wouldn't be the first time an unnamed, anonymous perpetrator for a crime that nobody (actually somebody apparently) witnessed in fact turned out to exist. Victims sometimes lie. Victims tell the truth too though. I said: And even if I had said prior incidents of robbery, if we have prior incidents of members of a drug cartel robbing people, it's silly to say that it is hard to image them leaping from robbing to killing.
I'm not saying they don't have the necessary resolve to pull the trigger, I'm questioning why a fearsome, professional multi-million dollar paramilitary organization would resort to sloppily knocking over tourists for what amounts to chump change.
Fair argument, but that leads me back to "we have no idea what potential motives they may have had." Like I said, perhaps they thought this couple witnessed something.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CMNry4PE93Y?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CMNry4PE93Y?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> i was not participating in a discussion about minutemen. i commented on how we might not want to jump the gun and essentially accuse this woman of murdering her husband and then you began arguing w/ me about minutemen and jetskis. sorry if ive been pwning you this entire thread, but you are the one who started it. thats right law boy. you are the one who brought it up - the question is why? how are minutemen relevant to the topic at hand?
