Court reverses sole conviction in San Francisco pier killing


Trying to think of something to say that has more than 4 letters in the sentence!!:zipper_mouth_face:

(Uncluttered Link)


I have no desire to ever go to San Francisco, a lawless city that has ruled murder as a PC crime. So does this killer get to stay in the country? Sure, he’s innocent of the crime.


Wait a minute:

Forensics would have disproved his story if he wasn’t telling the truth. There’d be no mark on the concrete, and no t-shirt.

This is manslaughter; I’d be interested to know why that wasn’t the charge.


Assuming his story was the truth (which I don’t, but for the sake of argument…), was he in the process of committing a felony? That makes it murder pretty universally, I think. He was in the country illegally, so he was definitely in the act of committing (probably more than) one crime, but i didn’t get a solid answer in a quick internet search if “improper entry” constitutes a felony. By the definition I read, it would seem that a first offense is not, but repeated offences might be. YMMV.

The real answer is because a great many Americans are fed completely the **** up with the criminal rabble of a quarter of the world flooding across our southern border and committing multitudinous rapes, murders, thefts and drug offences, and D.A.s are political creatures.

My personal belief is that illegals who commit violent crimes should be stood against the border wall and shot, and their heads mounted on top.


You don’t have to believe him; they found the ricochet. The bullet itself was found to be flat on one side.

So he wasn’t aiming at her. There’s no intent here, so manslaughter fits.

The felony was possession of an illegal firearm; you can’t separate that from the death, so it would seem to me to fall under merger doctrine. But Idk that for sure.

They also save lives and advert kidnappings, Making things look one-sided comes across as artificial.

Equally, most are not hardened criminasl nor saviors; they’re just people who keep to themselves. Some in desperate situations; like the community of Indonesian Christians who ran away from Islamic violence. They’re the ones that pushed for sanctuary city status in Philadelphia.

It’s kind of BS the system doesn’t respond to their needs. Or anyone else who should be considered a refugee.


The greatest disservice that is done to the United States is the throngs of citizens who respect and defend our wholly corrupt Judicial “system”, the only thing it does consistently is act as a tool of terrorism against innocent citizens.

As much as I despise San Francisco as a feces
infested haven for the deranged and corrupt, this type of judicial corruption reaches everywhere within our pretend borders.


Yeah, I don’t buy the “found it on the pier wrapped in a t-shirt” part. Never did. Never will.

Disagree. To carry a gun is not to discharge it.

The merger doctrine subsumes lesser charges intrinsically part of a deliberate killing into first degree murder. Assault is subsumed into a murder charge because you can’t murder without assault. (Or murder is an assault with lethal results) So charging both is double jeopardy. As I read it, anyhow. This situation seems logically no different than a habitual violator drunk driver who kills someone in the process of dui getting charged with dui and felony murder. The irresponsible “enabling” crime is an offense in and of itself, whereas deliberately running someone over with a car is not both “reckless driving” and “vehicular assault” because vehicular assault is inherently reckless driving.

Perception is reality in politics. “Millions of people did nothing of note” is not news.

Uh huh, so that just excuses all the rapes and murders and thefts and all and no immigrant should be prosecuted? That attitude is why Americans are seriously fed up and want examples made.

The system responds to their needs a helluva lot more than it does citizens needs. You know ‘citizens’? The ones who pay for the system that craps on them and let’s illegal immigrants get away with murder?


I once had respect for the libertarian point of view. I have always disagreed with their foreign policy, which is neo-isolationist, but I thought that they had some ethics.

If AS typical of the libertarians, I want no part of them. At the beginning of the immigration mess, I thought that the Democrats could at least agree that we would prosecute and deport criminals and terrorists. I was wrong. The Democrats have defended them and give them sanctuary cities.

Now illegals can break the law whenever they want. It’s one more reason to stay out of San Francisco. It’s not safe to visit there.

AS also spends his time, like the Democrats, defending this one who has broken the law repeatedly and been departed five or six times. If you want to keep your reputation intact, you should keep silent about scum like this guy. All you do is drag your reputation down to his level when you defend him.


Deported 5 times!

The law specifically bars entry into the U.S. at places other than through ports of entry, like an airport or bridge on the U.S.-Mexican border. A violation of the law, also known as Section 1325, is a misdemeanor with a penalty of six months in prison, though most are sentenced to time served. A second offense, or illegal re-entry, is a felony.


Underneath a bench. Ballistics shows the gun was discharged at only 2-3 feet off the ground. He was either sitting or crouching when it went off, or at least bent over.

But that wheels back to why the conviction was overturned; how long did he have the gun?

If he made it go off in the moment he discovered it, a felony-possession is hard to substantiate. At the very least, it’s a case the jury needs to consider.

Fair enough, but to be clear, not just 1st degree murder, any greater charge. And manslaughter is a greater charge than felony possession.

It could also be 2nd degree murder; which would also fit, as again, there’s no clear intent.

But that’s the actual reality, the circumstance that needs to be considered when crafting policy.

Most people are not cartel members, gang bangers, or drifters like García Zárate. Treating all of them as stand-ins for the latter is neither fair nor worthwhile.

Like the left pushing for assault weapons bans, draconian doesn’t substantively address the problem being reacted to. It doesn’t have eyes on the drivers.

One flows from the other. We have a bad result, because we created a bad system for managing immigration.

A system too complicated for most people to follow if they can’t afford a lawyer.

You would get more order, if the system better incorporated an understanding of human factors.

I don’t see it as a dichotomy. A system that respects immigrants, respects the citizen. One that fails the immigrant, will also fail the citizen. Respect and trust requires a two-way street.

The entire reason I point this out as important, is that not acknowledging individual sovereignty of immigrants, creates blow back onto citizens.

Both in terms of those horrible things we see the black market create, and what we create in our policy where we don’t treat rights as hard-wired.

Either we hard-wire what rights are, or the left’s idea that rights only exists as a temporal concession of government (and thus can be “renegotiated” at any time) is what will advance.

And we then get more social planning that piles up bodies and turns cities into Detroit and Chicago.


Send, you’ve already trotted this line out. Enough.

I’m not a liberal, I’m not a libertarian either. I’m just as conservative as the Republicans pushing for Guest workers.

And again, people who’ve fought for sanctuary cities include Indonesian-Christians who fled Islamic violence.

These people. Their needs, and the very real dangers they face, seem to have been swept under the rug.

I asked why he wasn’t given a manslaughter charge, which is more serious than the gun-possession felony he was charged with.

So no, you admit you’re wrong on this. Same as when you said Democrats wanted a guest worker program.


How “complicated” is it to tell people to apply for asylum at a U.S. consulate or embassy or in the 1st country you enter after leaving the one you’re seeking asylum from? How “complicated” is it to require people to go to a port of entry and apply for asylum there and not swim the Rio Grande and then go looking for a Border Patrol agent to ask for asylum?


You apply for asylum at the border or inside the country.

At an embassy you apply to be a refugee.

The problem for Central Americans, is that we closed down the refugee program. So asylum is their only option.

For Indonesia, they have the same problem as Afghan translators being hunted down by the Taliban – our process takes too long and endangers them and their family.

As people seeking refuge from Islamic-majority countries, they’re scrutinized with more paperwork and hoop jumping. It doesn’t matter that they’re not Islamic.

It’s not simple, it’s not efficient, and given the danger involved, it’s not safe.


So that’s a “yes, unfortunate circumstances of immigrants excuses them of any responsibility to live within the rules of our society and from facing any consequences when they don’t.”


No one has a “right” to come to the U.S.–legally OR illegally. That you seem to believe that they DO is what screws up most of your post here. They all (posts) originate from the assumption that “freedom of movement” includes a “right” to intrude on other people and their space, which is pure BS. I dare say that you wouldn’t tolerate for a second some Guatemalan crawling into your home through an open window and then settling therein permanently, using YOUR bed, refrigerator, computer or your wife and children however he wishes. Why do you profess, then, to “tolerate” people crawling into your COUNTRY, settling permanently and doing the same thing?


Not really, immigrants are punished, including ones who’ve done nothing but be here without the right paperwork.

Resulting in families being torn apart, and people being sent back to countries where they’re in danger.

That’s a real need qix, just as real as anyone whose put in danger by the cartels.

I don’t see them as opposing needs; you’d assist both by making the immigration system better.


If they’re no danger, there’s no need to block them.

If they’re in danger, you’re immoral to block them.

An Afghan translator once turned up on the living room floor of an American soldier he saved.
He was here illegally, but anyone with sense knows that it’s the system that was wrong.


I daresay that the former Shah of Iran, once ousted from power, was “in danger” in his own country, but people like you, fought tooth and nail to keep him and his family from being given “sanctuary” in the U.S. so your claim of “immorality” falls on deaf ears, AS. We have NO moral imperative to provide “safe haven” to every Tom, Abdul and Juan on the planet. Certainly not if none of them bring anything to the country except their “needs”.


Should have let him in too.

But let’s compare; a king with guards and resources to spare,

vs a poor man who answered our call when we needed him, putting himself and his family at risk, to fight the Taliban alongside our troops

Then when he needed us, we’re the no show?

Yeah, that is immoral Dave. We made a promise, offered token efforts, and then didn’t help him. When help did come, it came in the form of the Americans soldiers he saved stepping in where our Government failed him.

BS like this will result in people not fighting alongside us, because they know we can’t be relied on.

You have no reason to object.

A Christian Indonesian heading for the largest Indonesian-expat community in the world for safety?

A victim of Islamic terror, a terror we ourselves are in pitch battle with?

Yeah Dave, I’m going to love hearing your explanation for how this isn’t the system ******* up, as usual.
Or how this is not exactly the same thing as turning away the Jews in WWII.


So he answered our call? I thought WE were fighting to liberate THEM and THEY joined US.

The Left spin every story to condemn the United States and glorify any and all of our critics.