Look at it like this: Since the jurors thought that it was just an accident they should never get upset when something similar happens to someone they care about.

(December 1, 2017 at 5:28 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Look at it like this:  Since the jurors thought that it was just an accident they should never get upset when something similar happens to someone they care about.

So, no one should be upset when a loved one dies in a car crash or a cave in or an amusement park ride failure? Or an accident with a firearm? What kind of idiotic position is that?

Boru

(December 1, 2017 at 5:28 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Look at it like this:  Since the jurors thought that it was just an accident they should never get upset when something similar happens to someone they care about.

I really hope this is sarcasm. If not....

What the hell is wrong with you?

(December 1, 2017 at 12:26 am)Cecelia Wrote: Instead of building a wall, we should just ban guns. If the illegal immigrant never had a gun, Kate Steinle would have been alive. If it'd save ONE life, surely it would be worth it. And unlike the wall it would neither be expensive, nor would it have negative environmental impact.

The gun was stolen. It wouldn't have made a difference if guns were banned. The illegal immigrant/criminal shouldn't have been in this country, though I highly doubt a wall would have kept the prick away.

---

(December 1, 2017 at 1:11 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(November 30, 2017 at 9:54 pm)A Theist Wrote: Uhh...then we don't need to compound that problem by looking the other way when illegals sneak across our border and commit those same crimes! Get that wall built!

I'm one of the liberals who agrees that tighter border security is a good idea.

That said, the idiotic wall is a product of a very simplistic mind who can't even comprehend the intelligence and determination of a domestic cat - never mind the ingenuity of a desperate human being. I don't know off the top of my head what the best way to tackle this situation would be but the simplistic idea of a big fucking wall over a thousand mile span is something worthy of a 5-year-old. Seriously, grow to fuck up! Real-world problems are not solved with knee-jerk ideas come up with by drunk idiots with no imagination.

Even if a stupid wall would be effective, are you aware of a recent study that the Eminent Domain cases required to seize land for the idiotic wall against unwilling private holders would carry on for decades?

Pull your simplistic head out of your simplistic ass and THINK! By the time we could even build the idiotic thing (at enormous cost), the situation would likely be changed.

I'm all for PRACTICAL measures to better secure our borders. I do agree it's a problem. More border patrol agents better equipped and with surveillance drones at their disposal might do the trick. I don't know because I haven't studied it. But a big, fucking wall? Are you serious? This ISN'T the middle ages. I doubt it would work even if it were. How hard is it to build a fucking ramp? It might seem hard to you because you are not in need but to a desperate person or a group of desperate people, it's just another hurdle to leap. If you feel you MUST achieve a certain end, you WILL find a way of achieving it because that is the Human Spirit. We do what we have to do.

The most effective way to secure our borders is probably to put pressure on the Mexican government to provide their people with a decent enough life so they won't feel compelled to flee here illegally. I'll admit I don't know what the practicality of that is but it's got to be better than the practicality of building a wall.

Cant say i disagree with anything here. Good post.

Now that I know more about the case/trial, I think they got it right.

(December 1, 2017 at 7:58 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Now that I know more about the case/trial, I think they got it right.

The people who should also go to prison are the governing body in California. Their own Sanctuary City status, in defiance of of the Federal government, refused to turn the illegal border jumping killer over to ICE when it was requested that they do so. That murdering piece of shit has a criminal / felony history, was deported from this country five times prior, and ICE was going to deported him for the sixth time. Now this pos steals a gun that belonged to a police officer and kills Kate Steinle. So now the fucker walks and is only facing a couple years in prison for gun possession. It's a failing of a leftist governing body who cares more for illegals than they do for their own citizens. Just now heard on the news that the DOJ may get involved and file additional charges against the killer.

(December 1, 2017 at 8:31 am)A Theist Wrote:

(December 1, 2017 at 7:58 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Now that I know more about the case/trial, I think they got it right.

The people who should also go to prison are the governing body in California. Their own Sanctuary City status, in defiance of of the Federal government, refused to turn the illegal border jumping killer over to ICE when it was requested that they do so. That murdering piece of shit has a criminal / felony history, was deported from this country five times prior, and ICE was going to deported him for the sixth time. Now this pos steals a gun that belonged to a police officer and kills Kate Steinle. So now the fucker walks and is only facing a couple years in prison for gun possession. It's a failing of a leftist governing body who cares more for illegals than they do for their own citizens. Just now heard on the news that the DOJ may get involved and file additional charges against the killer.

Did that feel good to get it out?

I don't agree with the "Sanctuary City" policy.

(December 1, 2017 at 7:58 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Now that I know more about the case/trial, I think they got it right.

From what I've read, which is admittedly very little, I don't. According to the article I read asshole testified during the trial that he was shooting at a seal when he fired the round that killed Ms. Steinle. Intentionally discharging a firearm for that reason in that kind of place meets all three requirements for at least a conviction on a charge of criminally negligent homicide. Those requirements are an unjustifiable risk, an affirmative act, and causation.

There is the possibility that such a conviction may not have even been an option for the jury though. If that's the case then the prosecutor is guilty of criminal stupidity.

(November 30, 2017 at 9:19 pm)A Theist Wrote: Kate Steinle's killer was found not guilty of murder. Her killer, whose name is not worth mentioning, is an illegal border hopper with a criminal record who had been deported five times. Build That Wall!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/30/kat...urder.html

And, so what? Go live in North Korea if you hate jury trials.

(December 1, 2017 at 7:53 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The gun was stolen. It wouldn't have made a difference if guns were banned. The illegal immigrant/criminal shouldn't have been in this country, though I highly doubt a wall would have kept the prick away.

When is permissable for any regular joe to have them, stolen gun numbers increase. If guns are properly regulated, including psych tests to be alowed to buy one. They are harder to be stolen and sold in the black market.

If any yee-haw cowboy likes to have a gun, buys it and carries it in the belt, most probably it will be stolen.