(07-15-2015, 03:00 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: He's the number one GOP candidate according to all recent polls.

I know, isn't that incredible! A great deal of people are lovin' what he has to say. I've watched a few of his interviews at this point and I don't oppose all that he has to say, I believe some of it has merit but I have trouble getting past his fuckface attitude.

He's a joke.

Anyone who would seriously consider voting for Donald Trump is a dipshit, IMO.

Yeah, some of his points have merit, but some of nearly everybody's points have merit. Even Gunnar's.

Trump talks so much shit which is easily contradicted by fact and common sense, and then deflects to some other inflammatory point when he's called out on it.

I wouldn't want a loud-mouthed hothead who makes impossible promises and gets into petty name-calling Twitter feuds with celebrities and Mexican drug lords anywhere near the Oval Office. Talk about national insecurity...

However, he is good for a laugh.

(07-15-2015, 03:11 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Trump talks so much shit which is easily contradicted by fact and common sense, and then deflects to some other inflammatory point when he's called out on it.

I laughed out loud when Anderson was interviewing him and there was deflecting going on left & right. Donald didn't give one shit when presented with facts that countered his bullshit, he just moved on to something else. It was crazy, wild to see that in a Presidential candidate.

^ Here's the clip of Trump spewing shit about immigration and getting called out on it.



His lame responses are comedy gold.

I think Trump has found the secret Liberal handbook left behind in the transgender bathroom at the local Barnes & Noble he seems to be using all their ideas lately.

(07-15-2015, 03:57 PM)Maggot Wrote: I think Trump has found the secret Liberal handbook left behind in the transgender bathroom at the local Barnes & Noble he seems to be using all their ideas lately.

This isn't directly related to immigration or this case, but since you brought up blatant liberal bullshit..........here's one of my favorite examples of it.

Good old Nancy Pelosi a few years back, pushing for speedy approval of the economic stimulus package.



500 million Americans will lose their jobs every month that the stimulus package is delayed?

Never mind that there only 320 million people living in the US, and that includes all of the immigrants.

That's a good one HotD... I'm guessing the one about 'passing the bill before you can know what's in it' would be her legacy clip, but this one has to be a very close second.

She's detestable. I think her and Gloria Allred are scissor sisters.

I'm glad the family took some time to grieve but I'm also glad they're starting to speak up. There was a year or two in which the current administration deported a record number of illegal immigrants (particularly those convicted of violent crimes) but that number has now dropped. A lot! Shame.

I heartily support deporting as many criminal illegal immigrants as we can get our hands on. I think a request from ICE should be sufficient to return someone in the hands of law enforcement back to the ICE (no warrant required) and finally, I generally support the proposed Kate's Law although 5 years seems extreme to me (I think 6 months to a year would make someone think hard about making further attempts to illegally try to re-enter the U.S.).

I support the concept behind Kate's Law, even the five years if it applies to illegal immigrants who are also convicted felons and who've already been deported once. The original proposal also calls for 10 years for subsequent convictions by illegal immigrant felons.

The bad part is the cost to tax payers, but it's one that I think we should bear for increased public safety. I don't know if we could realistically charge Mexico for the cost of those incarcerations because it's a failure on both sides' border control. But, maybe it could be a split cost. I'm just thinking out loud.

Anyway, already, the original proposal for Kate's Law seems to be changing and morphing to apply to any illegal immigrant, whether they've been convicted of any crime other than illegal entry or not. At least, that's how the bill called "Kate's Law" submitted today by Arizona Rep Matt Salmon reads to me. I do not support that. Salmon's bill: http://salmon.house.gov/media-center/pre...kate-s-law

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see where this goes.

P.s. In the case of Sanchez, I agree that the ICE request should have been honored. Sanchez was already a convicted multiple felon with a history of re-entry. Sheriff Mirkarimi should man up and own his department's failure, IMO.

PRELIMINARY HEARING UNDERWAY



The shot that killed a young San Francisco woman and touched off a heated immigration debate ricocheted off pavement before striking her in the back, which defense attorneys say show the killing was an accident.

San Francisco police inspector JohnEvans testified Wednesday that investigators found a spot on Pier 14 where a bullet left a mark on July 1 before striking Steinle in the back as she walked with her father.

San Francisco medical examiner Michael Hunter also testified Wednesday that the bullet made a rectangular-shaped wound rather than a typical oval-shaped wound, indicating too that the bullet had ricocheted before striking Steinle.

Nonetheless, prosecutors have charged Lopez-Sanchez with intentionally firing at Steinle.

Sanchez told police he fired the fatal bullet, but called the incident an accident, according to his lawyer Matt Gonzalez and court testimony.

Lopez-Sanchez said he found the Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistol wrapped in a T-shirt under a bench on San Francisco's Pier 14. The gun belonged to a Bureau of Land Management ranger, who reported that his service weapon was stolen from his car in downtown San Francisco in June.

Gonzalez suggested that his client "mishandled" the gun, which needs about five pounds of pressure to pull the trigger and successfully fire.
Gonzalez said he plans to call a gun expert to the witness stand Thursday to testify about accidental shootings involving the gun Lopez-Sanchez fired.

San Francisco and other cities and counties ignore requests from federal authorities to detain jail inmates who are thought to be in the country illegally. San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said he was following city law when jailers released Lopez-Sanchez after a 20-year-old marijuana possession charge was dropped. But leading politicians, including top Democrats such as California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, said Lopez-Sanchez should have been detained.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisc...-ricochet/
-----------------------------------------

Based on what's been presented, I don't think the shooting of Kate classifies as an an accident, as the defense contends. Sanchez likely had to illegally and negligently pull the trigger purposely for the gun to go off. But, it seems unlikely based on the evidence that Sanchez intentionally shot/murdered Kate, as the prosecution contends. It sounds like manslaughter and illegal gun possession, to me. We'll see what the judge thinks.

I do agree with Feinstein and Clinton; Sanchez shouldn't have been on the pier that day. He should have been turned over to ICE custody.

(08-27-2015, 04:12 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: But, it seems unlikely based on the evidence that Sanchez intentionally shot/murdered Kate, as the prosecution contends. It sounds like manslaughter and illegal gun possession, to me. We'll see what the judge thinks.

I agree with your opinion.

I don't know if a homeless person would have access to a good attorney but I'm pretty sure one could get those charges lowered.

(07-14-2015, 07:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I don't know why anyone from Arizona wants to protest auto insurance programs

(07-14-2015, 07:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think it will be great if the federal government ever gets anywhere on immigration reform that moves a lot of Mexicans, South Americans and Central Americans out of "illegal" status, but that's been dragging on for years.

I am vague with the details of this case but I had to say I totally agree with both! I work in insurance and have a good bit of long term business with Hispanics...well until they stopped being able to register cars because they could not renew their driver license after having them for 10+ years. They can't buy houses or new cars even though they could 5 years ago.

These are good people that paid their taxes and usually worked 2+ jobs.

^ Most of my experiences with undocumented/illegal Hispanics have been similar Tammy; very hard-working individuals who stay out of trouble.

It's disheartening for me to see the political conversation shift from paths to citizenship for those such residents to deporting all illegal immigrants and their American children. Hopefully, that will pass soon and some real and rational immigration reform is forthcoming. It's long overdue.

As for Sanchez, the illegal immigrant who shot Kathryn Steinle, I think that he should have been turned over to ICE as requested, rather than being released onto the streets. He had multiple felonies and illegal re-entries on his record. I don't believe that he's a murderer however, based on the known evidence. I haven't seen the judge's ruling on his Preliminary Hearing yet.

The Charges and Legalities

It's been difficult to find good legal (non-political) coverage of the case against Lopez-Sanchez.

This was compiled from various media reports of last week's preliminary hearing and review of the California law/codes.

1. Prosecutors are seeking to prove probable cause exists to try Lopez-Sanchez for Second Degree Murder.
Second Degree murder does not require express malice or intent to kill. It requires implied malice. Implied malice can be found when the defendant intentionally committed an act, the natural consequences of which were dangerous to human life. In this case, that act would be intentionally firing a gun in a crowded public area.

2. The defendant, Lopez-Sanchez, claims he accidentally fired the gun.
He said he found the stolen Bureau of Land Management ranger's gun, a Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistol, wrapped in a t-shirt underneath a bench (that's not disputed, as far as I know) at Pier 14, where the shooting took place. He and his defense attorney maintain that he did not intend to pull the trigger.

Jim Norris, a forensic science consultant and former director of the San Francisco Police Department's Forensic Services Division was called by the defense last Thursday.

Norris' testimony contradicted that of the prosecution's expert witness. Norris said a Sig Sauer P239 .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol has no safety switch and the weapon has a trigger that requires little force to pull, therefore supporting the defense position that it could have accidentally gone off.

3. The Prosecution contends that Lopez-Sanchez intentionally pulled the trigger.
Early last week, San Francisco police criminalist and ballistics expert Gerald Andrew Smith, who examined the gun, testified that the trigger required about 5 pounds of pressure and had to be intentionally pulled for the gun to go off. Smith admitted during cross-examination that the gun could have misfired.

4. The fatal shot was not a direct hit; the victim was struck by a ricocheted bullet.
San Francisco's chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Hunter, who took the stand on Wednesday, said the victim suffered an atypical, rectangular entrance wound, consistent with a ricocheted bullet. The bullet was severely flattened on one side, indicating that it had hit a very hard surface like concrete or steel before penetrating Kathryn Steinle's back. This is not disputed -- both sides acknowledge that Kate was hit by a ricocheted bullet and not by direct fire.

--For Second Degree Murder to apply: Lopez-Sanchez would have had to intentionally fire the gun in the crowded tourist spot. The prosecutor has gone one step further and is alleging that Lopez-Sanchez also intentionally aimed the gun at Kate when he intentionally pulled the trigger. A lesser related charge would be manslaughter; an unlawful killing without malice, but with a "conscious disregard for human life. The penalty for Second Degree Murder is 20 years to life. The penalty for manslaughter is up to 5 years.

--For a Murder charge to be denied: The judge would need to find that there is no probable cause to dispute the defendant's claim; that Lopez-Sanchez mishandled the gun and it accidentally fired (no intent to pull the trigger), releasing a bullet that hit a hard surface and then ricocheted into the back of Kathryn Steinle.

The judge continued Lopez-Sanchez' preliminary hearing until 9 a.m. on Sept. 3 to allow additional witnesses to take the stand.

If Judge Conroy finds that there is probable cause to believe Lopez-Sanchez committed the crime of murder, the defendant will stand trial.

Sources:
http://abc7news.com/politics/expert-pier...t-/959901/
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/....html?_r=0
http://www.criminallawconsulting.com/mur...ghter.html
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-...-laws.html

TRIAL

The trial of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate is now underway.



He's charged with the second-degree murder of ^ Kathryn Steinle in 2015.

Garcia Zarate was a homeless undocumented immigrant who'd just been released from jail after San Francisco police dropped 20-year old marijuana possession charges against him (ignoring the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold onto him).

Garcia Zarate found .40 caliber Sig Sauer P226 pistol wrapped in a t-shirt under a bench on Pier 14. The gun had been stolen from the car of a San Francisco Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officer.

Garcia Zarate first reportedly told police he was shooting at sea lions. But, when he was interviewed by reporters, he said he didn't mean to pull the trigger or hit Steinle, that he'd taken sleeping pills found in a dumpster and the gun just went off when he was handling it. Three bullets were fired. The Defense will claim that the gun has a hair trigger and wasn't locked when Garcia Zarate got his hands on it.

The autopsy and a ballistic experts indicated that Steinle was likely hit by a bullet that ricocheted off the ground. But, the prosecution now contends that Steinle was shot on purpose and will present experts to testify that the gun-type can't go off accidentally, it requires trigger pull pressure.

(continued)

In September 2015, the Steinle family announced their intention to file a lawsuit against the City of San Francisco, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Bureau of Land Management, alleging complicity and negligence in the death of their daughter. On January 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero dismissed the family's claims against San Francisco and former Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. The magistrate also dismissed their claim against ICE, but he ruled that the lawsuit accusing the BLM of negligence can proceed.

Unlike the writer of the LA Times piece linked below, I don't think the Steinles have a very good case against BLM. The gun was stolen from a locked vehicle; the thief stole the gun by breaking the window and the BLM officer reportedly notified authorities immediately.

Anyway, Donald Trump used Steinle's death often on the campaign trail to support his contentions about illegal/undocumented Mexicans and sanctuary cities. The judge in the trial has banned those political statements and issues from the trial. That's the right thing to do legally, in my opinion.

But I sure wish the San Francisco police had held on to Garcia Zarate, a repeat felon who'd been deported 5 times previously, rather than let him out on the street.

Refs:
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la...story.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...einle.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_o...yn_Steinle

Not Guilty

The Mexican illegal immigrant who admitted to shooting Kate Steinle in the back while she was walking with her father on a San Francisco pier on July 1, 2015 has been found not guilty of second-degree murder.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was charged with second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Though he admitted to shooting the 32-year-old in the back, he said the gun went off accidentally.

He was also not found guilty of involuntary manslaughter or assault with a firearm, and was only indicted on being a felon in possession of a weapon. Garcia Zarate now faces between 16 months and three years in state prison.

Full story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...urder.html

I agree with the jury that prosecutors were overreaching in charging Zarate with murder. Based on the evidence and the fact that Kathryn was killed by a ricocheted bullet rather than a direct shot, it never seemed likely that he aimed to kill.

However, I think I could have voted for involuntary manslaughter after hearing the evidence. Too bad the prosecutors didn't focus on proving that case.

Zarate's defense attorney pointed at President Trump after the verdict was read, reminding him that people don't get convicted without evidence and when there exists reasonable doubt.

Attorney Jeff Sessions lashed out at California's sanctuary cities, claiming that this is what happens when sanctuary cities release illegal/undocumented immigrants.

The jury was right in not focusing on Zarate's immigration status during their deliberations. Whether the defendant was a U.S. citizen, a visitor, an illegal immigrant..........was not relevant in determining whether evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Zarate murdered (requires intent) Kathryn Hienle.

I feel very sorry for her family though. No real justice to be had on this one.

Yeah. I was surprised they didn't come back with at least involuntary manslaughter too.

I wonder what Zarate is doing today, maybe walking his dog or getting the mail............