Law Kathryn Steinle's Murder: Illegal Immigrant Found NOT Guilty of Manslaughter by San Francisco Jury

Honestly, if onlye 1 in 36 commit crimes, it isn't really that bad.

Blacks as a demographic commit way more crime than that, and no one is talking about deporting them.
how do you "deport" u.s. citizens and what country would take them?
 
I'd almost go as far as saying any Cali city except for San Fran would have found him guilty.

In fact, they only other place where I could see this happening would be Boulder, Co.

*Bloody Pulp played the Berkeley card. All non-California based cards are cancelled out*
 
Was a SIG P239. I've carried a SIG P229 for about 15 years, and not ONCE has my gun ever accidentally gone off. The other 70 guys I work with also have carried a SIG and none of has ever gone off "accidentally", unless you count that one time a guy shot a hole in the floor. But I'm quite certain that was more operator error than an "accident."

This toad should have fried. No way he should have gotten away with this.

And you guys comparing this illegal alien murdering/manslaughtering a girl with a cop involved shooting are real jerkoffs. There is no comparison. What stress was the alien under?
This. /thread

Shit is hilarious though... in a sad, why is this country so full of fuckheads, way.
 
I know for certain your opinion would be different if he was white too.


NO. If he was an illegal from Ireland or France who had been deported 5 times and still came back and shot a woman in the back my opinion would be the same. I would want him put to death, and I would still want the rotten politicians who allowed this to happen to be fired and jailed.
 
It's true he shouldn't have been here.
 
You do realize that Obama deported him five times, right?

LOL @ you guys saying "Obama enabled this to happen!" when his administration was deporting criminals at a higher rate and turning away unlawful entries at the border at a higher rate than any previous administration.


This is a prime example of reactionaries using a minuscule and unrepresentative sample to misrepresent an issue.
<TrumpWrong1>

A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data. Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html#axzz2zA2BkKbZ

… a different picture of President Obama’s enforcement policies than the one painted by many immigrant advocates, who have assailed the president as the ‘deporter in chief’ and accused him of rushing to reach a record of 2 million deportations. While Obama has deported more foreigners than any other president, the pace of deportations has recently declined.

Somehow, the Obama administration is simultaneously responsible for the highest rate of deportation in 20 years and a 26 percent drop in deportation. What is going on here? As it turns out, changes in immigration law, terminology and classification are causing this confusion.

One problem is the continued use of “deportation” in virtually all media reporting. In actuality, that category has been obsolete in immigration law since 1996. Prior to 1996, immigration law distinguished between immigrants who were “excluded,” or stopped and prevented from entering U.S. territory, and those who were “deported,” or expelled from the United States after they had made their way into U.S. territory. After 1996, both exclusion and deportation were rolled into one procedure called “removal.” At that point, the term “deportation” no longer had any meaning within the official immigration statistics. Its continued use in media reports is part of the confusion.

The large number of immigrants who are apprehended, usually but not exclusively along the southwestern border, and prevented from entering the country were part of a category called “voluntary departure” before 2006. Now that is called “return,” which also includes the subcategory of “reinstatement.” There is also a large category of “expedited removals” of persons that do not appear before an immigration judge but the procedure carries all the sanctions as a judge ordered removal.

These would-be immigrants accept this sanction that forgoes a court appearance before an immigration judge because formal removal — in which the U.S. government runs them through legal proceedings and pays for their return to their home country — would result in a multi-year bar (five to 20 years) on their eligibility to legally reenter the United States. Critics deride this policy “as catch and release.” The consequences of a return are much less harsh than a formal removal because the returned immigrant could come back legally, and presumably illegally, at any time.

Thus, comparing the deportation statistics across different presidential administrations is dicey because it is unclear what categories of people are actually being counted and categorized. Moreover, different administrations choose to emphasize different statistics. Dara Lind notes that the Bush administration seems to have reported removals and returns together, but Obama’s administration has emphasized only its number of removals.

Meanwhile, many media reports continue to use the term “deportation” when they mean either return or removal or some subset of those. The Department of Homeland Security that issues official statistics must now try to retrofit new legal categories to old data, and even it cannot excise the term deportation altogether because pre-1996, there were, in fact, deportations.

Obummer is #FakeNews and so are you.
 
Anybody need some new jordans or a flat screen? I thought we were supposed to riot and burn down businesses for stuff like this.
 

Did you even read the comment you quoted?

I said he removed (deported) criminals at a higher rate, which is objectively true. Deportability under the criminal provisions of Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 237 and Expedited Removal under INA, Section 238 for aggravated felonies were both increased dramatically during Obama's tenure.

I also said unlawful entries were turned away from the border (also removal under the INA) at a dramatically higher rate than previous administrations, which is also objectively true.

Just because the administration focused on (a) stopping entries at the border instead of letting them in, letting them get settled, and then spending 20x as much to deport them from the interior as it would have cost to remove them at the border, and (b) used voluntary departure provisions to expedite deportations and dramatically lower administrative costs, doesn't mean he deported "less" people.

deportations.png


Fig-1-JCZMS.png


figure1_immigrationgraphic-01.png




The arguments against Obama on the issue of immigration are 100% semantics and smoke and mirrors.
 
Sig's don't just "go off" unless they're that brand new POS the Army just contracted them for. Which this gun was not.
 
NO. If he was an illegal from Ireland or France who had been deported 5 times and still came back and shot a woman in the back my opinion would be the same. I would want him put to death, and I would still want the rotten politicians who allowed this to happen to be fired and jailed.
<YeahOKJen>
 
I would if I read about it. I read shit like this all the time and I care about it.

Troll on Creepy

You would read it and say bummer, then keep moving.

You wouldn't be this emotionally invested about it and you certain wouldn't be crying about it on a karate forum subforum.
 
The family should look into suing the city of San Francisco for releasing him despite the feds saying hold him/detain him for us.
 
No, if he was a white guy no one would even care.

Bullshit... If he was a white guy, all he would have to do is look at her wrong to get sexual assault allegations.

White Guys are the root of all evil on the left coast.
 
Back
Top