Merged Woman Killed by Illegal Immigrant in San Francisco

[phiwum]

And the Trump Haters and the We Need Infinity Refugees on Welfare liberals will ignore the fact that this guy had no right to be in the United States in the first place. We need to immediately adopt Israel style immigration policies that will keep unskilled uneducated low IQ useless eaters like this loser out of our country.

PS: He shot her. It was no accident.

Man, those people sound bad. Also, they sound a little innumerate, but never mind. Mostly just really, really bad.

 

[phiwum]

It's too late anyway.
I'm sorry Kate lived in a place that just didn't care.

Maybe the feds will take action on sanctuary cities now?

Who am I kidding...

Sorry, you really think that the issue here is that he was an illegal immigrant?

Say, suppose it wasn't a sanctuary city. Did Homeland Security inquire about him? If not, then the fact that San Francisco is a sanctuary city is irrelevant. All that means is that they don't cooperate with the Feds on immigration issues.

Nah, this isn't a sanctuary city issue. A bad person did something bad. He should pay for his crime, but that crime has ****-all to do with his immigration status.

 

[phiwum]

coughDickCheneycough

Didn't die, but still shot someone else. No consequences, because, hey, he was a white guy...

Oh, come now.

There are so many reasons you could have reached for, such as that he was one of the most powerful men in the nation, that this ******** about his being a white guy explaining things is just facile.

Know what? Had Obama somehow accidentally sprayed some shotgun pellets in the face of his compatriot, he wouldn't have gone to jail either. Know why not? Because he was President of the USA. Similarly, Cheney was an important figure in the administration of the day and maybe he should have been charged, but the reason he wasn't charged has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with power.

 

[LTC8K6]

It looks like he may have been acquitted because the jury doesn't know anything about guns, and jurors believed that the gun could just "go off" by itself several times if you handled it. The jurors apparently were not allowed to learn how the gun actually worked and how hard it was to cause it to fire. They were apparently not allowed to try to fire it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It looks like he may have been acquitted because the jury doesn't know anything about guns, and jurors believed that the gun could just "go off" by itself several times if you handled it. The jurors apparently were not allowed to learn how the gun actually worked and how hard it was to cause it to fire. They were apparently not allowed to try to fire it.

The defense did discuss that. Regardless of how hard it is to have the gun "go off" this optional police handgun was responsible for 15% of the accidental discharges committed by police. So the prosecution has the position of accepting accidental discharges truly happen regardless of how hard to do, or admit the police they work with are lying.

 

[theprestige]

There's no such thing as an "accidental" discharge with a modern firearm.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There's no such thing as an "accidental" discharge with a modern firearm.

The prosecution is free to argue that, but it may have implications for their career when the Los Angeles county police report 13 accidental discharges a year

 

[phiwum]

There's no such thing as an "accidental" discharge with a modern firearm.

Yes, there is. I'm not saying that's the case here, but yes there are accidental discharges. They are due to negligence, but they are not intentional.

 

[Stacko]

Yes, there is. I'm not saying that's the case here, but yes there are accidental discharges. They are due to negligence, but they are not intentional.

I think he's getting at the fact that you're supposed to refer to it as a negligent discharge now and not an accidental discharge. Calling accidental infers that there is no fault and it was unavoidable while calling it negligent doesn't. It's the same reason there's a push to call motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). There may have been no intent to cause the incident but negligence led to it. This is why negligent homicide or manslaughter was an appropriate in this case. The intent was not to commit murder but the actions resulted in the death of Kate.

 

[phiwum]

I think he's getting at the fact that you're supposed to refer to it as a negligent discharge now and not an accidental discharge. Calling accidental infers that there is no fault and it was unavoidable while calling it negligent doesn't. It's the same reason there's a push to call motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). There may have been no intent to cause the incident but negligence led to it. This is why negligent homicide or manslaughter was an appropriate in this case. The intent was not to commit murder but the actions resulted in the death of Kate.

I'm okay with calling an unintentional discharge negligent rather than accidental. If that's ThePrestige's point, I'll concede it.

 

[Travis]

What I find interesting is how differently everyone would approach the case if it was just some random American who picked up the gun.

 

[phiwum]

What I find interesting is how differently everyone would approach the case if it was just some random American who picked up the gun.

Aside from die-hard anti-immigrant folk, who do you think treats it differently?

I sure as hell don't. I don't care about his immigration status as far as this event is concerned. Indeed, I think that you'd like people to be concerned about his status, but very few on this forum give a damn.

 

[Ranb]

Close to what I just said:

She added this:

Coming from RedState, I find this an extremely honest look at the situation:

Excellent and very thorough article.

I think it's dishonest to call this an accidental discharge. It was negligence. He held the gun and pulled the trigger or improperly decocked it; not really an accident. Calling it an accident is just an attempt to avoid responsibility for a person's actions.

I know this because I've had a couple of negligent discharges over the years. One was the result of improper operation of the safety on a rifle, another cause by faulty ammo I loaded.

Ranb

 

[pgwenthold]

I think it's dishonest to call this an accidental discharge. It was negligence. He held the gun and pulled the trigger or improperly decocked it; not really an accident. Calling it an accident is just an attempt to avoid responsibility for a person's actions.

I know this because I've had a couple of negligent discharges over the years. One was the result of improper operation of the safety on a rifle, another cause by faulty ammo I loaded.

Ranb

Fine, call it negligent discharge.

Doesn't change the facts, that the prosecution tried to charge him with murder, and couldn't prove the case.

They screwed up, and no amount of pedantry over terminology will change that.

Even if it were "negligent" discharge, he didn't bring the gun to the pier, aim at her and shoot like the prosecution claimed he did. That's why they lost their case.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Fine, call it negligent discharge.

Doesn't change the facts, that the prosecution tried to charge him with murder, and couldn't prove the case.

They screwed up, and no amount of pedantry over terminology will change that.

Even if it were "negligent" discharge, he didn't bring the gun to the pier, aim at her and shoot like the prosecution claimed he did. That's why they lost their case.

It also does not appear to be that negligence is enough for conviction of a serious crime.

 

[johnny karate]

Aside from die-hard anti-immigrant folk, who do you think treats it differently?

I think those are the people to whom Travis is specifically referring. They’re fairly easy to spot in this thread.

 

[johnny karate]

There's no such thing as an "accidental" discharge with a modern firearm.

Interesting spot to plant your flag on this issue, considering that term is not uncommon in explaining gun-related deaths that result in no criminal charges.

 

[Egg]

What I find interesting is how differently everyone would approach the case if it was just some random American who picked up the gun.

I don't suppose anyone (other than those directly involved) would be approaching the case at all. It would be a statistic, not a news story.

 

[Giordano]

Sorry, you really think that the issue here is that he was an illegal immigrant?

Say, suppose it wasn't a sanctuary city. Did Homeland Security inquire about him? If not, then the fact that San Francisco is a sanctuary city is irrelevant. All that means is that they don't cooperate with the Feds on immigration issues.

Nah, this isn't a sanctuary city issue. A bad person did something bad. He should pay for his crime, but that crime has ****-all to do with his immigration status.

Exactly!

Do these types of crimes not occur in non-sactuary cities? From what I could google undocumented immigrants have committed a broad variety of crimes, including first degree murder, in the vast portions of the USA that are not sanctuary cities. Many of these criminals were previously deported and yet were able to return. Conversely are most crimes in sanctuary cities committed by undocumented immigrants? No again. So sanctuary/non-sanctuary: there will be crime and at rates that will not be significantly different.

Even though San Francisco is a sanctuary city it is not on the border with Mexico and even more broadly as a municipality SF doesn't have any control over border crossings or international entry. ICE is not a sanctuary government organization, but is responsible for screening individuals entering the USA: it has repeatedly failed to prevent Lopez Sanchez re-entering the USA. Further there are clear exceptions in the SF sanctuary law allowing cooperation with Federal immigration officials for individuals who have committed violent or serious felonies within the prior 7 years.

In citing this info I emphasize that several studies indicate that the crime rate of undocumented immigrants in general is equal or somewhat less than that of USA citizens. And that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants protected by sanctuary cities are simply people like you and I- trying to make a good life for themselves and their children and adding to our society. Abolishing sanctuary status will not solve crime problems but will hurt many people who should not be hurt.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't suppose anyone (other than those directly involved) would be approaching the case at all. It would be a statistic, not a news story.

Exactly. Mass shooting after mass shooting is just the cost of doing business. But a single incidence of an illegal Mexican immigrant killing someone heralds the unraveling of American society.