illegal immigrant, deported 5 times, shoots a woman dead... found not guilty

It is a bit. The point I'm taking though is that if he wasn't in the country (which he shouldn't have been) then that woman wouldn't have been killed. I also find his excuses to be somewhat - thin.

But then you can't convict him of murder due to his illegal immigrant status, can you?

You can convict him of violating whatever immigration law but not murder, clearly…as the verdict says. One is distinct from the other.

But you are saying "a bit" that being the illegal status pushes the line for murder. This is where armchair jury vs real jury difference is.
 
DOJ has filled an arrest warrant and are looking into what they can charge him with, so justice can still be done.

Anyway, according to this illegals guys lawyer, it's "racist" to find him guilty or something. :rolleyes:

nm446f770j101.jpg
 
But then you can't convict him of murder due to his illegal immigrant status, can you?

You can convict him of violating whatever immigration law but not murder, clearly…as the verdict says. One is distinct from the other.

But you are saying "a bit" that being the illegal status pushes the line for murder.

I'm starting to question your reading comprehension here...although I'm sure I've done that before.

The thread title is a bit misleading is the point made that I was agreeing with.
 
I'm starting to question your reading comprehension here...although I'm sure I've done that before.

The thread title is a bit misleading is the point made that I was agreeing with.

You link his illegal status to his murder conviction arguing that if he wasn't in the country, he wouldn't have killed.

Albeit being true, it is also true that may be if she had gone on holiday that week she wouldn't have been killed either? One has nothing to do with the other so "it is a bit." is invalid, legally speaking.
 
You link his illegal status to his murder conviction arguing that if he wasn't in the country, he wouldn't have killed.

Albeit being true, it is also true that may be if she had gone on holiday that week she wouldn't have been killed either? One has nothing to do with the other so "it is a bit." is invalid, legally speaking.

She had every right to be there. He didnt. And legally speaking it's not invalid, he's previously been convicted of multiple crimes, I think it's probably a pretty strong indicator of his character.
 
She had every right to be there. He didnt. And legally speaking it's not invalid, he's previously been convicted of multiple crimes, I think it's probably a pretty strong indicator of his character.

It is invalid, one can be illegal to be in the country yet not murder.

You are suggesting they should convict him of murder because of his legal status, "a bit".

They should only convict him of murder base on the law of murder, not for his legal status. They are different laws, do you not see that?

And you question my reading comprehension...
 
It is invalid, one can be illegal to be in the country yet not murder.

You are suggesting they should convict him of murder because of his legal status, "a bit".

Again learn to read. I'm suggesting that a propensity to commit crime is an indicator that he is more likely to have committed a crime. He hasnt just been there illegally once, has he? Hes shown a fragrant disregard for the laws of civilised society on multiple occasions. Something that to my mind shows his character. I'm not disputing that he's innocent of murder, I just find the whole set of circumstances to be an utter stretch. Especially considering he, what, changed his story 3 times?
 
Part and parcel of living in a country where the liberal judiciary overturn the President's well founded attempts to stop illegal immigration and immigration from dodgy countries by dodgy people. Get that damned wall built, get the stop in place for divisive elements. That Mexican should be in the electric chair.

For a crime he was found not guilty to? Wow. You really just want to round up and exterminate all immigrants don't you Chris?
 
Good old liberal cesspit San Fran. She'd be alive today if this so called 'sanctuary city' rubbish didn't exist. 5 times lol.
Actually one of the main reasons you have "sanctuary cities" is because law enforcement have found that having people scared to talk to them about "local" law breaking tends to make it much harder to do their job, and this weird idea that everyone should be able to access the law*.
For example if someone has raped an illegal immigrant (and that person is unlikely to have just done it to an illegal immigrant), you, as law enforcement really want that victim to come forward, if just to prevent it happening to a legal resident, it also creates a situation where anyone who looks/sounds like an immigrant is more uncomfortable dealing with the police, and those who know or have family/loved ones who are illegals are unlikely to help the police with unrelated crimes for fear of drawing attention to their friends/family.
There have been cases since Trump issued his orders to round up the illegals where people acting as witnesses, or who were victims of serious crimes have been arrested at the courthouse when they've gone to give evidence (in at least one documented serious domestic violence case the victim was an illegal, the suspect was legal, he called the ICS to get them to arrest her in order that he could try and avoid being convicted).


When you've got the likes of NYC police complaining that ICS raids are making it harder for them to catch serious criminals (not just those that have overstayed a visa etc), you should start to realise that there may be reasons why areas think it's better to concentrate their law enforcement efforts on serious criminals.
Sheriff Joe, the beloved of the anti immigrant crowd (lets not play the "illegal immigrant crowd card" given he target anyone with a mexican look/sound) had a clear up rate of rapes and child abuse that was exceptional - mainly in that so many cases were "cleared" without actually doing any investigations, including no statements from victims or suspects in many instances - he decided possible illegal immigrants were a higher priority than dealing with rapists and child abusers who were white**.



*There have been studies that show that the average illegal immigrant in the US is less likely to commit crimes because they really don't want the attention of the law, so are less likely to cause trouble, and more likely to do things like pay their bills on time.

**Something like 400 cases where rape allegations were mishandled in a 3 or 3 year period, including one where a 13 year old was abused, reported the abuse and had it ignored, only to be abused again by the same person (I think his department paid out over $3 million for that little blunder).
 
Last edited:
DOJ has filled an arrest warrant and are looking into what they can charge him with, so justice can still be done.

Anyway, according to this illegals guys lawyer, it's "racist" to find him guilty or something. :rolleyes:

*nonsense meme picture*
They didn't have the level of proof to show he actually killed the woman, I'm guessing that the jury would have been more likely to convict on flimsy evidence as he was an illegall, but the prosecution sounds like they couldn't provide any proof that he actually fired the gun...
If you can't prove someone fired a gun, and he claims he found it, you're pretty much stuck with having the gun as the only crime you can prove.

Mind you we've only got the OP's blatantly and obviously biased account of what happened and why, an actual link to a relatively neutral news article, or even better court report/transcript would probably help.
 
They didn't have the level of proof to show he actually killed the woman, I'm guessing that the jury would have been more likely to convict on flimsy evidence as he was an illegall, but the prosecution sounds like they couldn't provide any proof that he actually fired the gun...
If you can't prove someone fired a gun, and he claims he found it, you're pretty much stuck with having the gun as the only crime you can prove.

Mind you we've only got the OP's blatantly and obviously biased account of what happened and why, an actual link to a relatively neutral news article, or even better court report/transcript would probably help.

He admitted he fired it...
 
Again learn to read. I'm suggesting that a propensity to commit crime is an indicator that he is more likely to have committed a crime. He hasnt just been there illegally once, has he? Hes shown a fragrant disregard for the laws of civilised society on multiple occasions. Something that to my mind shows his character. I'm not disputing that he's innocent of murder, I just find the whole set of circumstances to be an utter stretch. Especially considering he, what, changed his story 3 times?

And does that amount to a murder conviction?

It didn’t so what’s your point exactly?
 
u wut

They got it on camera that he fired the gun and he confessed to the Police he shot her.

What more do you want?

That's not the requirement for the charge of murder or manslaughter...

It's not in question that he killed her and oddly enough it does need to be more than just killing someone.
 
That's not the requirement for the charge of murder or manslaughter...

It's not in question that he killed her, it was about meeting the requirements for the charge.

That's not what werewolf was saying...werewolf was saying he didn't kill her. He did.
 
And does that amount to a murder conviction?

It didn’t so what’s your point exactly?

My point is to me their reasoning for finding him not guilty seems quite flimsy and based on an utterly unbelievable series of events. They obviously believe them however.
 
My point is to me their reasoning for finding him not guilty seems quite flimsy and based on an utterly unbelievable series of events. They obviously believe them however.

Haha.

Could you please point out where I've passed any judgement on the decision of the jury? Or would you be projecting your (incorrect) bias just like Raymond?

It was obvious you wanted to say it from the start. Don't know why you tried to be shy about it. Legitimate opinion that juries don't always get it right.

But as I still say, there's a chain from evidence to prosecution to jury. Why specify the jury.
 
Back
Top Bottom