Then do it. Why are you waiting for other people to be outraged? Just come out and say what you want to say.
The president didn't respond until hours after the verdict. The lawyer stepped out of the courtroom with Trump's name in his mouth
You'd have to share an exact timeline but even if the lawyer spoke first, he must have known Trump and other republicans would attempt to politicize the jury's decision. And Trump did, and continues to. Seemingly without a knowledge of our laws and justice system.
He was referring to past statements by Trump and others who politicized this over the last year and throughout the campaign. He literally said that in the statement posted on the previous page. You seem to be making things up as you go. “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,”
I was responding to the poster that said the President immediately tweeted after the verdict. I have been respectful to you in all of my posts so please take a minute to read them before getting triggered.
no one is arguing about public safety and access to justice system. you can have all of that but remove the part where you can be released after 5+ deportations for *** sake. common sense, that's all folks are asking for.
No, you're asking to stop sanctuary city practices, which are employed to build trust so that immigrants will be willing to cooperate with police to maintain law and order, and which have been criticized for creating an environment where illegal immigrants might feel safe enough to make a border crossing worth doing. Maybe you've been swimming in sound bites too long and forgot the thread of the conversation, but that is what the debate on sanctuary cities is about. That has naught to do with whatever choice ICE made the 5th time they deported this guy.
i don't give a **** about the debate, it's the wrong debate. i want common sense and there is no common sense used in an immigrant with a criminal background and 5+ deportations still being in the country.
But you said the reason that this guy is here is because of the sanctuary city laws. So what is the right debate you want to have?
How much more can you control the guns? Especially in the ignorant liberal states. There are more guns in circulation that there are people in the US. The term "gun control" is a feel good word created by liberals. Do we want the police to be able to walk in your home and just take your weapons? If you look at the sheer number of gun related homicides vs medical malpractice, you should be afraid to go see your doctor. The key word in gun control is "control". We have too much gov't intervention as it is.
If you are referring to me, please note that you brought up the lower's statement in post #2 of this thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php...itted-in-kates-law-case.286739/#post-11456505 I was only responding that the lawyer wasn't starting the politicizing of the case. And it appears Major further clarifies that.
laws as they are, you can tweak it with common sense so that good illegals are protected but criminal illegals are not. you think it's all or nothing which is a joke but that's what two parties want you to do. keep arguing about all or nothing and ignore common sense improvements.
I am a gun owner but I certainly don't love my gun to such a degree that I have to worry about a scenario like you just described. I really don't understand some people's incredible gun fetish and this entire "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" belief system.
Ironically, the only law this dude was convicted on was a gun law. Meanwhile, I'm wondering WTF is wrong with the SF prosecutors office that they can't even get this guy on an involuntary manslaughter charge?
Indeed Or This would never happen if we had a proper ban on Mexicans. This would never happen if we had a proper ban on men. This would never happen if we had a proper ban on bullets. This would never happen if we had a proper ban on San Francisco. I like where you are going on this Kingcheetah....
I am not coming for your guns... I agree with you that it would be difficult (impossible) for the level or restrictions it would take. My point was that it is simplistic to look at this case and say “build a wall”, just like it is simplistic to say “ban guns”. This case has certainly become quite politicized. To the people mad at the defense attorney for mentioning Trump; I would remind them that the President politicized it first and that the defense attorney represents his client and no one more. The President should be held to a higher standard.
Don't you think Trump inserting himself heavily into the discussion and using this for political game makes him fair game?
More fear mongering eh? You think that owning a gun, an invented necessity is comparable to requiring medical attention? People die if they don't get medicine, people don't die if they don't own a gun.
An immigrant has legal status in our nation. An illegal alien does NOT. By virtue of this very distinction, illegals are NOT law abiding. They broke the law. Second...what a disgusting comment...political points? This POS was deported like 7 times, was in possession of a stolen firearm...fired it into a crowd...bullet struck Kate in the aorta...and she bled to death in her father's arms...yup emotions all riled up. And how can you lump immigrants who have legally entered our nation...illegal aliens are NOT immigrants. Kate would have been alive today if this fck werent in our country illegally. Period.
