1 Robber from NYC Shooting Arrested--Shocker, he has a record

[nyc999]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...I was told he was the shooter...

[/ QUOTE ]

TT, I am unclear on this detail. All the articles say policed does not believe he was the shooter. Am I understanding this correctly? You got some information, from some other source, that police believe he was the shooter, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

other sources. Apparently he wasn't the shooter, but I should not disclose why it was assumed he was until the indictment is handed down.

PS - they got the right guy. Trust me on this one, he was one of the robbers. There are a lot more than just one eye witness, there were over 60 people in the club.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know if this guy was a regular in the NYC poker scene?

[FireStorm]

Not to create more havoc then I usually do, but, what the hell, let's give it a go:

One wonders why, given the rules of this forum, we are constantly told not to discuss anything specific, but you feel free to give us the statement "they got the right guy ... trust me on this one". Seems a bit contradictory to make someone's guilt "obvious" when said person was arrested and then released after several days without an indictment. Also, it stands to reason that if we're told that this person is 100% "the right guy", it shouldn't be an issue for us to be told whether or not he was a club regular, etc.

[*TT*]

Firestorm - do us all a favor, get lost. You have done nothing helpful in these NYC poker threads. I'm 1 post away from banning you for trolling. It hasn't happened sooner because I'm trying to be as fair as possible but next time will be the last straw. This is your final warning, and its public so you have no one to blame but yourself if you misstep. If you don't like the way the forum is run then start your own forum and you will have nobody to complain about.

[FireStorm]

I told you already, feel free to ban me at any point. If that's what you do for freedom of speech, so be it. My question is simple and makes a legitimate point, if you choose not to answer by blasting me because you hate the fact that I criticize your policies, this is your issue, not mine. The question is very clear, why is it OK to conclusively state that someone is guilty of robbing XYZ club but not OK to state whether or not said person frequented XYZ club? Which forum rule is this violating?

[FireStorm]

I requested myself to be banned, sorry to those who like my posts, and those who don't, you have a reason to be happy now. Absolutely ridiculous that I get threatened to be run for asking a reasonable legal question. I suppose I should construct future inquiries with the provision that the responding party possess a functioning brain.

[*TT*]

All - sorry for the distraction from this critical issue. Firestorm is gone, lets get back on track.