PV speaks out on Phil's case
 

I believe this deserves a thread of its own.

BB/PV got it wrong again

What a load of xxxxx. The only thing correct in the entire blog is the fact that Phil had a BP. The rest is a complete fabrication. Gotta love how they leave it all out there so that anyone who doesn't actually check will have no idea of the outcome of the trial or check the videos and recordings to hear for themselves what really happened. I cannot believe they continue to get away with posting outright lies on that blog. At least the first two comments, which will probably be deleted, take them to task.

When I was a child, I believed that only foreign governments published propaganda.

The TSA blogs proves that this was only a childish belief.

I listened to every bit of testimony in that case -- I don't see how it is possible for anyone could come to the conclusions in that blog. Nevermind that the verdicts do not even get a passing mention.

On the plus side, this may actually get it more national exposure, hopefully by reporters who review evidence and other accounts first.

It's disturbing to read this on an official government-sponsored blog, and I'm not referring to the extraordinarily poor topic sentence:

A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently.

How long was the jury out again? An hour or so? Perhaps the blogger is missing the verdict recently. :rolleyes:

They reference the case and talk about charges against him but make no mention of the fact that he was found completely innocent of all charges.

Am I crazy or does that fit the textbook definition of libel?

At best, the post by Bob is exceptional disingenuous.

The fact the defense did not call a single witness and the jury returned with "not guilty" verdicts in about an hour is a complete repudiation of the prosecution's case and the testimony of the ABQ cop and the TSO supervisor.

Of course, we can all forget hoping that Bob will quote the testifying TSO supervisor who said (paraphrase) "I don't know why we check ID. I just do what I am told."

(But, dang, I might pay good money to see that quote appear on the TSA blog.)

This is borderline libelous. I think Phil might want to mention that to Bob.

That is THE most disingenuous spin I've ever seen. Either that or I need to get treatment for this vertigo ASAP.

~~ Irish

And, like clockwork, TSORon shows up in the comments of that post to tell everyone that Bob is the only one telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that leaving out the fact that Phil was acquitted is irrelevant.

For the life of me, I am still trying to figure out a reason why the TSA would even post something like this. In my 35 years of government service, I do not recall a single instance in which any government agency published something like this after a court case had been decided against them.

Can anyone help me figure out the motivation behind this? I'm baffled.

No Rev, that’s not what I said, please rephrase.

What I did say was:
I also said:

We both know I was and am correct, but I don’t expect you to admit it. :rolleyes:

I agree. It hadn't even been that publicized. It does make sense to clarify the rules in response because of some of the descriptions of the case but it is very poorly written.

TSORon, I assume you are familiar with the concept of lying by omission?

One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it's a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination.

I believe that is the issue people are taking with Blogger Bob's post.

I'm more curious as to what BB means by thanking the local police for their support. Why one would want to waste police resources for charges which don't stick among a jury of one's peers is beyond me. Of course conspiracy theorists will likely point out that doing so would cause more people to conform to the TSA's requests.