No, they aren't and not going down the rathole of why they aren't.
Back to immigration....how can you tackle a major problem if liberals are going to the degree of protecting and rationalizing a POS like Zapata? This is lunacy.
Kate Steinle's murderer found Not Guilty in San Francisco
- Thread starter Wall Knight Teague
- Start date
No, they aren't and not going down the rathole of why they aren't.
Back to immigration....how can you tackle a major problem if liberals are going to the degree of protecting and rationalizing a POS like Zapata? This is lunacy.
Apply your same logic to the Texas church shooter who was court martialed, spent a year in federal prison, yet somehow bought a semi-auto rifle and blew away a church full of people.
So deportation would have saved that woman (obviously she would be alive if he were properly kicked out, but he wasn't, so what's the fix? A wall??), but gun laws and a tighter background check wouldn't have done squat for those church people?
JFC, you are the one that starting pontificating about political ideology driving the discussion. I merely pointed out there was more evidence the City was driven by politics based on their history.
I don't need to pontificate - just read the first 10 or so responses and you'll find plenty of political commentary...mostly "liberals", "libs", and such.
Politically motivated DA>>>>>Politically motivated catpaw poster
Gun nuts: Bah, tougher gun laws won't matter, crazy people will still find a way to kill people with guns.
There you go again labelling people "nuts". You just can't help yourself . You are just a natural *******
There you go again labelling people "nuts". You just can't help yourself . You are just a natural *******
I'm at the point where they can deport illegals and every stupid far left Liberal, and alt right fool, then build a wall. Then electrify it. Then build a force field around it.
Build it outside of California stretching along the Mexican border. Then let normal America get back to work.
Build it outside of California stretching along the Mexican border. Then let normal America get back to work.
Well, pretty GD clear if someone is making a rambling excuse argument for a POS like Zapata they have some social or political angle. Not complicated.
I am not talking about a wall. I am talking about people ignoring the law. San Francisco does not follow the law.
Where's the evidence it was politically-driven? Why not default to "damn, that DA was a craptastic attorney if he couldn't at least get some kind of conviction". That's what I did - figured that the defense attorney was just better at presenting the case than the DA.
Instead, you and almost all others in this thread start calling SF a ********, cite their being a "sanctuary city", and the political background of the DA as your "proof" that it was all political.
lol, read a damn newspaper, hippy.
It has been posted and easy to find you just won't allow yourself to process.
SF has defied federal law and has taunted that they will not aid in any way and will spend whatever money they have to in court to fight defunding due to it. The DA has a long history of immigration activism as does the lead defense. Why wasn't he thrown in the regular public defendant pool?
Gotta love how some people "debate" - completely deterring from the point to extrapolate that I'm defending this idiot illegal immigrant because I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and political obsession of those commenting in this thread...
Guess you missed the part where I said his *** should have been found guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter. What I won't do is "pontificate" why that happened, aside from it having been a **** job by the DA (or a good job by the defense). You and your brethren are free to "pontificate" that it's due to politics, and hell it might be, but just because you think so doesn't make it the root cause for why he got off.
What right does San Francisco have to be a sanctuary City? How did Miss Steinle benefit?
If you are denying the political motivation of San Francisco to CYA then no need for further discussion.
And good luck when @WayneDougan shows. You are going to need it.
I know - the USAF screwed up and didn't properly communicate his domestic violence case, thus allowing our lax background system to completely miss that he was a loose cannon with a background.
yo dipshit, you were referring to the first responses in the thread, not your own, which what I was referring to. Take a deep breath and try to understand your own words. Jesus.
He was not given "sanctuary" and he most certainly wasn't given a Carte Blanche to murder. First and foremost, there is almost no indication that he murdered anyone. That would imply that he had some level of intent or forethought. Accidental death would be the only thing that would come to close to describing what happened. Second, he was convicted of a crime, so he was also not exempt from the law.
Also, the whole aspect of Sanctuary City, is a tool to improve Law Enforcement, not to diminish it. Local law enforcement are not there to police federal matters. They have enough on their plate already and there is a reason those areas are separate. If the locals living in an area are not willing to trust and cooperate with police for fear of deportation then that only makes their jobs harder. I don't want local police involved in federal matters any more than I want National Guard planning for a military invasion. It's not their responsibility.
This case should have never achieved the national stage it did. There was never enough evidence to support a murder, and the evidence never pointed in that direction in the first place. Instead of being about illegal immigration it could just as easily have been about gun control, the incompetence of the DA's office, how the police handled someone who was obviously mentally ill, the proper handling of firearms by federal agents or any number of other issues that came up. The very title of the article that is posted at the start of this thread easily shows an agenda as opposed to an effort to seek the truth and find justice for the victim.
I'm a gun nut - I have quite a few in my collection and stand to inherit 40+ more from my dad some day. As I said, I don't give a rats *** as to whether the laws are more or less strict - and I don't think making laws stricter will matter - gun crazies will still get their guns and kill people. Just as a wall won't do squat - people will still sneak in and kill Americans.
This is the difference between what I'm saying and what people I've seen here say (not necessarily in this thread). I don't think any additional regulation, wall, or roadblock will stop the crimes related to such things. But there are an astonishingly-large number of people that think that a wall and tougher immigration is the perfect answer to illegals, crime and terrorism, while railing against the same type of regulation for their guns - claiming nothing will stop gun crime, so why bother?
I'm dumbfounded I have to beat this dead horse. You couple of dudes are choosing to go all around this topic rather than face it directly. Name calling, resorting to nitpicking things I've said, but never facing the point of my original comment:
If you think a wall and tighter immigration regulations will stop or lessen terrorism or illegal alien crimes, do you also believe that tighter gun laws would stop or lesson gun crimes?
I THINK the dude is saying everyone in this thread is politically motivated but the DA and defense counsel, with a history of political activism, are not or at least he isn't sure. And gun laws are related because some posters probably think something about guns the same way. And probably homophobia.
I hate SF so much I honeymooned there, btw.
I hate SF so much I honeymooned there, btw.
Liberals have more blood on their hands than the shooter in this case. They facilitated this guy to be there in the form of a sanctuary city resulting in her death. San Fran should be held liable for this .
Denying? Where did I deny? I said there's no proof. Show me proof and I'll listen...
How long does one need for intent?
He wasn't given sanctuary?
Try sticking to facts. Facts that disagree with your agenda are none the less facts.
Wow.
can you stay on one point. You're bouncing from gun control to terrorism to illegal immigration. Your brain must be absolutely fried. They should probably come take your guns away.
You look pretty silly using your anecdotal "facts" against someone that clearly understands the law. I'd wager Perrin is packing a JD after his / her name.
Boy, you really are dull.
The point isn't directly about each of those three things - it's about the things people think will solve them are identical:
ROADBLOCKS to prevent crimes related to each of them from happening.
Gun control = tighter regulation supposedly will lessen gun crimes.
Immigration control = tighter regulation and physical barriers like a "wall" supposedly will lessen terrorism and crimes by illegals.
They're exactly the same thing - just the subject changes from "guns" to "illegals".
Clear yet? Sheesh.
Digging a tunnel under the wall could make it about immigration control?
So
much
effort
and everything about it was totally preventable if securing more votes for the democrat party (at the expense of American's lives) were not the primary objective.
I am not a big wall guy but if the issue was tackled with employment and housing laws to deter, the Zapata case shows the lengths that liberals in this country to do everything they can to fight ANY enforcement.
No wonder your neighbor kept tearing down your mailbox, you probably annoyed the **** out him with false equivalences.
Gotta love you and your cohorts' attempts to drag me into the political wormhole.
You seem to think there's a way to better control illegal immigrants and, given the topic of this thread, it must be safe to say if those things were in place, your belief is that these controls would lessen crimes related to illegals, including terrorism.
But do you think tougher gun laws will lessen gun crime frequency?
Depends on what laws, probably if liberals can stop talking about taking guns and over-the-top melodrama to get a reasonable debate going.
Umm...which facts are you pointing to?
There was literally no evidence that pointed towards this man operating with the intent to kill this woman, and all of the evidence, including the fact that the bullet ricocheted supports an accidental killing. So, unless you think this guy is a world renowned trick shot assassin how do you think 'intent' was involved.
And since the guy was arrested, stood trial and was convicted of a crime he was not given sanctuary. Just because some moron decided to label these things "Sanctuary Cities: does not change the legal definition of that word. If the feds would have done their job and showed up with a warrant to arrest and deport him he would not have been set free. Actually, if the feds were so concerned about deporting this guy they would not have transferred him from federal custody to San Francisco in the first place.
So what facts am I missing?
To suggest that San Francisco politicians are politically motivated, man that's really a stretch.
Nothing false about it. You believe illegal immigrants are a "weapon" against American citizens, and thus think that if we put into place tougher immigration regulations, that weapon/threat will be reduced/eliminated.
Other people believe guns are a weapon against human life, and thus think that if we put into place tougher gun laws, that weapon/threat will be reduced/eliminated.
Both ideals have the same perceived outcome - to remove a weapon deemed harmful to human life - illegals, or guns.
I suppose one could make the case that immigrants are the root cause, while guns don't shoot themselves, so keeping immigrants out would be the equivalent of keeping crazy people (with guns) out. So how about we renounce the citizenship of crazy Americans (with guns) and nip the root cause in the bud? Just lump them in with the illegals so we can rid America of all of the psychos wanting to commit crimes on us "normal" citizens".
just a hunch but he probably thinks illegal immigration is........ ILLEGAL wrap your tiny brain around that