I think it deserves it's own thread. The jury had the option for manslaughter but chose a not guilty verdict. http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html
This is the abomination that is the Sanctuary city...As an immigrant to this nation, my family came here legally. And these fck boys tarnish our work in the community...The verdict from San Fran sicko is pathetic and despicable. No, there wont be a massive protests for this young woman who lost her life. There wont be riots in our nations cities for a woman who was trying just being herself, before being ruthlessly gunned down by an illegal alien.
I'm outrage too. I'm outrage (not really) that Trump and his minions uses this case to paint a broad brush on all immigrants and it work on some people. The fact hasn't changed that immigrant (both legal and illegal) commit less violent crimes and are more law-abiding than native-born Americans. If you are so emotional and outrage about crimes, you want more immigrants, not less. But last I heard, we want more guns and are perfectly fine with more gun violence, not less. This case was used by Trump to make political points. Get emotion riled up. Hate all immigrants because here is one example. One example is all that is needed by some. And really, Trump and his admin should stay out of making pre-judgement of criminal case before they happen. We have the judiciary system for that. You know, Trump, the Trump campaign and his people are under investigation and some of them might be facing obstruction and other criminal charges. I bet they would love it if government officials start making judgement call before those case actually happen. And if and when those verdicts come back as non-guilty, blame the voters for voting in those criminals.
Tragedy for that woman, her family and friends. Since I didn't follow this case, I don't know the details... but this was a jury trial, so what evidence did the jury hear that wasn't public?
Read the article you posted and I don't see a quote from his attorney saying anything like that. It quoted them as saying No mention about the president at all. What happened is terrible and I don't believe his story...but I don't know much about the case. Changing from "I stepped on it" to "I was shooting at a seal" is, well, fishy. I agree that he should be deported as well. He's a criminal more than just being here illegally.
This case further demonstrates that we need stricter and more vigilant gun control. The easy in which this illegal alien was able to get a gun is extremely troubling. Ohhh wait this is supposed to be about illegal aliens: but the gun control argument fits just as well. Also why is the President getting involved in these matters? I heard for 8 years Obana needed to butt out (which I agreed with) so why is it fine if Trump does it at a new level? Is it because we have such low expectations? California is a unique state, many would argue a backwards morally empty state. Not shocked that the outcome is what it is. At some point people not to get mad at juries and ask prosecutors why often times they are just bad. I am sure it isn’t the low pay... but then again no one wants their taxes raised to pay them so.... this is the America we deserve.
Moments after the verdict, defense attorney Matt Gonzalez addressed reporters outside the courtroom. He addressed potential critics of the “not guilty” decision who might “criticize” the jury. Gonzalez specifically mentioned the president, vice president and attorney general. The attorney sent a blunt message to the Trump administration: “Let me remind them that they themselves are under investigation… and may avail themselves to the presumption of innocence.”
perhaps you can provide a linked article with the direct quotes. Because I saw a video of the lawyer's comments you are mis-paraphrasing... he was specifically asking people hat will undoubtedly be upset with the verdict, including the president, to remember that presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial is an important part of our legal system. He did not say "it was a message to President Trump and vindication for illegal immigrants."
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/11/30/jury-reaches-verdict-in-steinle-murder-trial/ “I hope that they do not interpret this verdict as diminishing in any way the awful tragedy that occurred,” said Gonzalez. “This jury’s verdict should be respected,” Gonzalez said. “They heard the evidence. They deliberated as a group. They heard read back testimony. They looked at the physical evidence and they rendered a verdict to the best of their abilities in accordance with the law.” “For those who might criticize this verdict – there are a number of people who have commented on this case in the last couple of years; the Attorney General of the United States and the President and Vice President of the United States,” said Gonzalez. “Let me just remind them: they are themselves under investigation by a special prosecutor in Washington D.C. and they may soon avail themselves of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, so I ask that they reflect on that before they comment or disparage the results of this case.”
I think mentioning the President immediately after the verdict is politicizing the verdict. Hard to argue otherwise. He could have just stuck to the accident theory.
That would be a BIG ASS NO! Stay away from my guns! Well, then, consequences happen. Much bigger issue than illegal immigrant crimes.
