yep, AND guilty - but the frame job, set him free.
Kate Steinle Verdict
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
yep, AND guilty - but the frame job, set him free.
Lefists think this should be a land of refuge, for all crimes.
gcthomas
New member
Your country already massively incarcerates even minor offenders and had the death penalty. Had that far improved crime rates or the levels of successful rehabilitation?
Executing people for the sole crime of walking across an international border, then mutilating their corpse and treating it disrespectfully by displaying body parts at the border would not make for a safer country.
It will just normalise arbitrary violence and distort the teachings of the Bible. If you support what you have posted previously then that makes you just the sort of person that needs deporting for the sake of the US. A hard working immigrant would be a good swap for you.
It amazes me how little you know.
Rats, need a new irony meter---again.
Interplanner
Well-known member
San Francisco and CA are secessionist and seeking not to turn these cases over to ICE. On the question of deterrence, obviously he was not deterred from re-entry because SF/CA welcomed him each of the times. Maybe they will secede so that the US can then invade and take control.
It's almost 25 years ago now that novel THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS by a French satirist showed what would happen to Europe without borders. It only takes a little common sense to be opposed to the Left's agenda. If you search for the book on Amazon, you will also be shown the recent THE STRANGE DEATH OF EUROPE.
The countries that hold out light to the world are those which honor private property and God-given rights. Guess what? As one rabbi has showed, each of the 10 commands are essentially about theft in the most creative (!) sense of the word.
So all over the world the Left seeks the destruction of each of these things. Whose side are you on?
It's almost 25 years ago now that novel THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS by a French satirist showed what would happen to Europe without borders. It only takes a little common sense to be opposed to the Left's agenda. If you search for the book on Amazon, you will also be shown the recent THE STRANGE DEATH OF EUROPE.
The countries that hold out light to the world are those which honor private property and God-given rights. Guess what? As one rabbi has showed, each of the 10 commands are essentially about theft in the most creative (!) sense of the word.
So all over the world the Left seeks the destruction of each of these things. Whose side are you on?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
California isn’t going to secede. No matter how much some might wish we would. 
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
And there's Tweedle Dum
I think it is rather important that a madman controls the nuclear codes, that this country has been attacked, and that a criminal investigation is the last hope of democracy. I have to prioritize my focus, and this cases hasn't risen to the level to get much of my attention. but I will point out a few things:
1. The only reason he is going to jail at all after the verdict is because of gun control. He was convicted on the felon in possession of a firearm charge. And it's entirely possible that stronger gun control laws could have prevented the whole tragedy.
2. I can't even being to try to parse out what the jury discussed related to the involuntary manslaughter charge, but what I can tell you is that the statute is fairly narrow:
https://www.shouselaw.com/involuntary_manslaughter.html
3. People are hurt and killed by guns every single day, in ways just as stupid and tragic as this. The fact that the defendant repeatedly entered the country illegally is politically convenient for people with an anti-immigrant agenda, but it really has nothing to do with the crime. When a US citizen who isn't Muslim shoots someone, all we hear from conservatives is "thoughts and prayers". Why is it so much more urgent to try to preempt the crime in those two cases?
4. Any time you put a case to a jury, you are taking a risk. It could have been as simple as the jurors not feeling that the state had met it's high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It could have been some detail of the circumstances of the crime when compared to the jury instructions. And there's no way we are likely to ever know.
You're pretty good at telling me things I already know but with your spin on it. It's fascinating to watch.
If it's stuff you know, why don't your comments seem to reflect that knowledge?
It could be because it was a liberal jury, judge and attorneys.
Or it could be because the prosecution was not as strong as it thought it was.
Thanks, Tweedle Dee
Because liberals are notoriously lenient on gun crime? The Voir Dire would have tried to ensure that the jurors would have had as little knowledge of the crime as possible, and I suspect (but don't know) that they lawyers would have had to keep it out of the case since it is prejudicial and not relevant to the charges brought against him. And especially in California, assuming that a Hispanic man is an immigrant would be inaccurate more often then not.
Or it could be that the prosecutors couldn't make their case to the satisfaction of the jury.
WOO HOO! Finally, someone who is older than me!
I guess I should just curl up in a corner and die now, right?
Nah, you can come over and we can start a Wednesday Night Women's Group. Re-runs of "Maude" and "All That Glitters". You are responsible for the beverages.
:cheers:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
WOO HOO! Finally, someone who is older than me!
Nah, you can come over and we can start a Wednesday Night Women's Group. Re-runs of "Maude" and "All That Glitters". You are responsible for the beverages.
:cheers:
You crack me up. :chuckle:
As good a friend as you are though, we might end up fighting over the remote. I've never even heard of "All That Glitters."
Pretty sure on the drinks we'll be simpatico.
:cheers:
You crack me up. :chuckle:
As good a friend as you are though, we might end up fighting over the remote. I've never even heard of "All That Glitters."
Pretty sure on the drinks we'll be simpatico.
:cheers:
I am sure a lot of people haven't heard of it. It was produced by Norman Lear in 1977, however, I do believe you would appreciate the theme of the sitcom. Think the opposite of Al Bundy ... he wouldn't have liked it.
Any God who buys into Breitbart's vicious anti-immigrant white supremacy is evil, and it certainly isn't found in the Christian or Jewish Bible.