Liberals: illegal immigrants can now get away with murder.

[Infidel144]

If he was a citizen the prosecutor probably wouldn't have even gone for murder in this situation, which is obviously a textbook involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide. He/she was trying to score a political victory against the scary illegals and blew it.

I wonder what the reaction here would be if the exact same thing happened, but the perp was some scary "alt-right" person, Spencer or some such...

The DDA on the case is female, Diana Garcia.
edit: sumskilz was too quick...

[the_mango55]

I wonder what the reaction here would be if the exact same thing happened, but the perp was some scary "alt-right" person, Spencer or some such...

Spencer does seem like he's dumb enough to commit involuntary manslaughter, so if it did happen I would hope the prosecutor would be competent and go for something he would be convicted on.

[mongrel]

I wonder what the reaction here would be if the exact same thing happened, but the perp was some scary "alt-right" person, Spencer or some such....

Ironically, it would be like a slap on the face.

[Muizer]

My point was that in an overwhelmingly liberal city, a sanctuary city no less, meaning that it shields illegal immigrants from the rule of law, an illegal immigrant was acquitted of murder by a jury.


Given the city's bias in favour of such people, rule of law is essentially being abandoned while sentences reflect the political bias, to the point that illegal immigrants effectively get away not just with unlawful presence, but pretty much anything, including murder.

As such, I do not find it safe nor desiderable to live with people with such belief any longer and I expressed my preference for splitting societies peacefully, one side where liberals can go with their no border insanity and immigrants are free to rape and murder at will, another side where sentences do not reflect political bias and rule of law is implemented.

In short, you had preconceptions about the state of affairs, posted a news item that fits those preconceptions and then continued to reiterate your preconceptions. How is that a discussion? Are threads here now an OP's personal soap box?

[Basil II the B.S]

In short, you had preconceptions about the state of affairs, posted a news item that fits those preconceptions and then continued to reiterate your preconceptions. How is that a discussion? Are threads here now an OP's personal soap box?

Cute. Everything you accuse me of, your side does. The only ones with preconceptions are those who let a murderer walk free based on his ethnicity.

[TheLeft]

Cute. Everything you accuse me of, your side does. The only ones with preconceptions are those who let a murderer walk free based on his ethnicity.

No that's not what happened. You have ZERO evidence to backup your spurious claims. The only two ways you could possibly know that the jury aquitted the guy based on his ethnicity would be if you were:

a. In the jury room during deliberations. You weren't.
b. Spoke to a juror after the event. You didn't.

As with every crminal trial, the jury reached a verdict based on the evidence at hand.

[Basil II the B.S]

No that's not what happened. You have ZERO evidence to backup your spurious claims. The only two ways you could possibly know that the jury aquitted the guy based on his ethnicity would be if you were:

a. In the jury room during deliberations. You weren't.
b. Spoke to a juror after the event. You didn't.

As with every crminal trial, the jury reached a verdict based on the evidence at hand.

Sumkilz has posted a statistical argument according to which the pro illegal immigration bias is likely to have been extreme in the jury.

Considering that liberals claim that ''institutional racism'' exists based on the skin colour of the sentences, my argument is far superior to theirs. So there is ''institutional racism'' but not ''ideological one'' in overwhelmingly extreme left areas? Ridiculous.

[the_mango55]

US Citizenship is not a race, as conservatives are so quick to point out about Islam not being a race to brush off accusations of racism.

So how is being pro-illegal immigration racism?

[Basil II the B.S]

Because it's ethnic replacement, that Democrats do because it's easier to convince minorities to vote for them. Nonetheless, any form of population transfer to change the demography of an area is genocide. Many liberals don't even hide their anti-white views any longer.

[swabian]

Nonetheless, any form of population transfer to change the demography of an area is genocide.

No it isn't. Every "-cide" is a physical murder, as in homicide, infanticide, matricide, etc...

This is some serious pile of BS you're heaping up there, Basil II the BS.

[the_mango55]

Because it's ethnic replacement, that Democrats do because it's easier to convince minorities to vote for them. Nonetheless, any form of population transfer to change the demography of an area is genocide. Many liberals don't even hide their anti-white views any longer.

Illegal immigrants don't vote.

No, not even in California, no matter what your Lord and Savior Trump says.

And your "immigration = genocide" theory is certainly... interesting.

[Basil II the B.S]

Illegal immigrants don't vote.

No, not even in California, no matter what your Lord and Savior Trump says.

And your "immigration = genocide" theory is certainly... interesting.

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/cap...mit-they-vote/

Ah.

[mongrel]

Because it's ethnic replacement

I don't see any Navaho, Souix, or Cherokee people posting threads about white or black people (OJ, Zimmerman) 'getting away with murder'.

[Basil II the B.S]

I don't see any Navaho, Souix, or Cherokee people posting threads about white or black people (OJ, Zimmerman) 'getting away with murder'.

Yeah, you don't see them because they are essentially gone.

1+ for genocide.

[Heathen Hammer]

It is different, Zimmerman intended to kill some kid who was armed with a bag of Skittles. The migrant , it is accepted, did not.

This is factually incorrect. If you want to argue for talking points that were debunked several years ago, you are free to create s separate thread in which we can educate you again.

There is no inconsistency , indeed another reader backed me up. Zimmerman, OJ and this migrant using the terminology of the OP 'got away with murder', or, in the language normally in use, were acquitted by juries having heard the evidence.

Zimmerman didn't get away with murder, he got away with his legal right to defend his life against a man that tried to kill him. That was supported by all evidence presented, which was actually considered by the jury. In case presented in OP, all evidence pointed to the fact that accused was guilty, and jury ignored the evidence, unlike the former.

[the_mango55]

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/cap...mit-they-vote/

Ah.

This is your proof? A poll of 800 people? Not even 800 illegal immigrants but 800 Hispanic people. And of the ones who identified as non-citizens (no number given), 13% of those claimed to have voted. How many was that total? 20? 5?

Did they follow up and see if their votes were actually counted? Were they even actually registered?

[Basil II the B.S]

This is your proof? A poll of 800 people? Not even 800 illegal immigrants but 800 Hispanic people. And of the ones who identified as non-citizens (no number given), 13% of those claimed to have voted. How many was that total? 20? 5?

Did they follow up and see if their votes were actually counted? Were they even actually registered?

Do you realize that ''800'' people is the standard sample for most polls? It's generally around 1000. Or is it the first time you've read the details of the sampling?

Nonetheless, they admit being illegal and voting nonetheless. Not just Hispanic. Of course this could only happen in a joke state like California, where law enforcement is essentially non-existing so that Liberals can rig elections.

Just to further prove what kind of failed state Liberals are running. People enter without controls, vote without controls, murder and walk free. Failed state.

[the_mango55]

Do you realize that ''800'' people is the standard sample for most polls? It's generally around 1000. Or is it the first time you've read the details of the sampling?

Nonetheless, they admit being illegal and voting nonetheless. Not just Hispanic. Of course this could only happen in a joke state like California, where law enforcement is essentially non-existing so that Liberals can rig elections.

Just to further prove what kind of failed state Liberals are running. People enter without controls, vote without controls, murder and walk free. Failed state.

800 people would probably be OK until you divide by about 10-15% twice and try to extrapolate from that tiny number.

So 800 hispanic people in the poll. about 10% of hispanic people are illegal immigrants, so that's 80 illegal immigrants in the poll. 13% of those say they voted. That's 10 people. How many of those 10 people who claim to be illegal voters actually had their vote counted?

Also, how many of those who said they voted are non-citizens but are legal permanent residents (green card holders) who are able to vote in certain state and local elections.

The article you posted answers none of these questions, it just jumps to the conclusion that 13% of all illegal immigrants are voting.

[mongrel]

This is factually incorrect. If you want to argue for talking points that were debunked several years ago, you are free to create s separate thread in which we can educate you again.

Zimmerman didn't get away with murder, he got away with his legal right to defend his life against a man that tried to kill him. That was supported by all evidence presented, which was actually considered by the jury. In case presented in OP, all evidence pointed to the fact that accused was guilty, and jury ignored the evidence, unlike the former.

He killed an unarmed kid , he walked without paying any sort of consequences, just like this migrant, who could at least plead it was an accident. These are the pure facts.

[ioannis76]

Another travesty of justice where an illegal immigrant walks free for murdering a citizen, obviously in that liberal racist hellhole that is San Francisco.

http://abc7news.com/kate-steinle-mur...uilty/2679176/




In short: liberals allow uncontrolled immigration, illegals get in and out at will.
When they are in, liberals prevent deportations with so called ''sanctuary cities''. Then illegals commit crimes, murder a girl, liberal jury finds the guy not guilty because ''he was inexperienced with guns and accidentally fired''.

To me, it's safe to say that society must be split. Many liberals now, like those in the jury, simply hate white people and will overlook on literal murder if the victim is white and the perpetrator is an immigrant.

Rule of law is essentially either absent or applied in a racist way.

In conclusion, I don't think it's safe to live in a society with these people any longer. It'd be safer for everyone to simply part ways. Split our societies in two, one side where liberals can go with their open borders and diversity insanity, the other side where border controls and rule of law still count.

What do you guys think?

I think that we have become the Eloi to the imported Morlocks. It's time for people to MASSIVELY start supporting nationalism. A good step was made with the election of Trump, but he needs all the support, and I do mean ACTIVE support, he can get.