I never stated that Zimmerman does not have issues. I stated that in the particular instance of Zimmerman's encounter with Trayvon, Zimmerman was in the right -- as the legal system agreed. The entire episode is polluted with two equally unlikable people with a host of issues & police encounters in their pasts.
I see. So until Colin Kapernac/sp is happy and has declared all problems solved then it is okay and perhaps even good to shoot white women. Got it. Actually, I got it the first time.
In depth and good legal analysis and summary article. Worth the read. Have We Been Lied to About the Kate Steinle Case? https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/ The illegal immigrant who killed Kate Steinle in 2015 was found not guilty of her murder by a San Francisco jury today. Outrageous, right? Before the killing, Garcia Zarate had been released from a San Francisco jail despite a standing federal deportation order. He had been deported five times before. This made him a very effective villain for Trump’s border security campaign messages — proof that sanctuary city policies kill! — and it’s natural to be sympathetic about Steinle, who died in her father’s arms at the far too young age of 32. The trouble with a politically-charged case like this is that there are many who seek to benefit from twisting, if not outright lying, about what really happened. And the facts here are far more complicated than any campaign slogans would lead you to believe. These two facts are undisputed by the prosecution and defense: On July 1, 2015, Kate Steinle was fatally struck in the back by a single bullet as she walked on Pier 14 with her father to view the San Francisco Bay. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a Mexican citizen illegally in the United States, fired the gun that killed Steinle. The complicated part is pretty much everything else. (Much more at above url)
Atleast the U.S. isnt welcoming ISIS fighters home with plans to reintegrate them into society. Check this out for a doozy of a fact check, liberals and Trudeau have explicitly stated they want to reform Canadians who fought for ISIS and bring them back into society, but somehow the mainstream media "Fact checks" something that is 100% true and calls it a lie by giving all kinds of different justifications for WHY we SHOULD be reintegrating people who fought for ISIS back into society. LOL, this is a thing of beauty. The experts that this "Fact Check" article quote literally say the plan is to reintegrate these people into society, but they give the claim the most false rating that they have, lol, i have highlited the part in red where their expert talks about reintegration. This is some serious Pravda level bullshit here. Fact check: Are Liberals welcoming ISIS returnees to Canada with open arms? By Lee Berthiaume The Canadian Press 21 3.7k more Iraqi policemen raise their weapons during a training session at a camp in the Bardarash district, 30 kilometres northeast of Mosul in January 2015. The policemen were preparing to try and drive IS out of Mosul. Safin Hamed / AFP / Getty Images A A Listen OTTAWA – The question of what to do about members of the so-called Islamic Statewho try to return to Canada has become a heated political battle in recent weeks. “The Liberals are putting the safety of all Canadians at risk by allowing (Islamic State) fighters to return to Canada and proposing a ‘reintegration program’ and support services for them,” Conservative deputy leader Lisa Raitt wrote in a fundraising letter last week. WATCH: Opposition questions consequences for IS fighters returning to Canada The insinuation is that the Liberals are soft on terrorists. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shot back in a fiery exchange with Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer on Tuesday, defending the government’s approach even as he accused the Tories of scaremongering. “We have enforcement, surveillance, and national security tools that we use to a significant degree,” he said. “But we also have methods of de-emphasizing or de-programming people who want to harm our society, and those are some things we have to move forward on.” READ MORE: What happens when an IS member returns to Canada? The story of one Toronto-area man So is the government putting Canadians at risk with its approach to returning Islamic State members? Spoiler alert: The Canadian Press Baloney Meter is a dispassionate examination of political statements culminating in a ranking of accuracy on a scale of “no baloney” to “full of baloney” (complete methodology below). This one earns a rating of “a lot of baloney.” Here’s why. The Facts The so-called Islamic State has been all but driven from its strongholds in Iraq and Syria, but that victory has sparked fresh fears that members from countries like Canada will try to continue their fight back home. Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Wednesday that the government has identified about 250 people with links to Canada who are suspected of travelling overseas to engage in terrorist activity . This could involve front-line fighting, training, logistical support, fundraising or studying at extremist-influenced schools. Yet the number who have returned to Canada has remained largely unchanged at around 60 over the past two years, suggesting there has not been a sudden influx of terrorists into the country. READ MORE: Number of returned foreign fighters ‘essentially the same’ as 2 years ago Still, the government has refused to say much about those 60 individuals, including who they are, where they travelled, what they may have done, and what the government is doing about them. Much of the current political furor has centred on a new government centre that is funding research and programs to stop radicalization and help people leave extremist groups like IS. The Conservatives have heaped scorn on the work of the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence and suggested the Liberals aren’t taking a hard line with IS returnees. WATCH: Canada offers ‘reintegration support’ for ISIS fighters But the government says it has deployed a full range of counter-terrorism tools for returnees, including surveillance, criminal investigations, peace bonds, and the revoking of passports. However, it says it is ultimately up to intelligence officials and police – and not politicians – to decide who should be investigated, arrested or charged. As for the centre, which has a budget of $35 million over the next five years, it will fund programs and initiatives run by local organizations and groups. That means the federal government will not actually be rehabilitating or re-integrating returnees. What the Experts Say Several terrorism experts say there is a clear need for more deradicalization and re-integration programs in Canada – and that such efforts don’t detract from holding terrorists to account. “An intervention program does not derail or take away from other counter-terrorism measures,” said Jez Littlewood, an expert on national security and terrorism at Carleton University. “Counter-terrorism is never one-dimensional in a democracy. Prevention and re-integration are simply strands within a comprehensive counter-terrorism approach.” READ MORE: Terrorists returning to Canada can be rehabilitated with careful effort, expert insists One of the reasons the experts say it complements other counter-terror measures is that actually convicting someone of having committed a terrorist act overseas is extremely difficult, the experts say, which is why so few cases have actually gone to court. Authorities do have the ability to monitor those they suspect of having nefarious plans, and even restrict their movements with peace bonds or no-fly lists. WATCH: ‘Who Do You Want To Be?’ Counter-terrorism campaign in Edmonton Lorne Dawson, a University of Waterloo sociology professor and director of the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society, said it would be folly to believe they aren’t using those powers. But there are limits, Dawson said, which is where re-integration and disengagement can fill the gap. “If you can’t prosecute them or there’s long delays in prosecuting them or if peace bonds are only a partially effective measure … we can just do nothing. Just let them loose in our society,” he said. “Or you try and have some kind of program available that they could be strongly encouraged to partake in these programs.” There is a valid question as to whether the police and prosecutors have the right resources, said Craig Forcese, a law professor who teaches on national security at the University of Ottawa. “And in terms of policy reform, why have we not moved in full on the various recommendations for more effective terrorism trials proposed by the Air India bombing inquiry?” he said. Among the inquiry’s recommendations in 2009 were the appointment of a special prosecutor to handle terrorism-related trials, and clearer rules and guidance in the collection and use of secret intelligence in court cases. But, he added, “those are questions for two governments – the present and the past.” The Verdict Should the Liberals dedicate more resources to ensure anyone coming back to Canada who is a member of ISIL or another terrorist group is investigated and prosecuted? Could the government be more transparent in terms of who is returning and what is being done to ensure they don’t pose a threat to society? These are fair questions. But the Conservatives suggest there has been a sudden influx of IS members into Canada, and that the government is welcoming them with open arms, the experts say. “(Raitt’s) statement is trying to play upon people’s emotions in a reactionary way instead of being practical and realistic,” Dawson said. Adds Littlewood: “The statement implies things that are not correct. There are no factual errors in the statement – but there is an interpretation of the issue and the response of the government of the day to the problems posed by returnees.” For that reason, Raitt’s statement is deemed to have “a lot of baloney.”
Wow, some people gonna die from this, eh? Preferably Americans too, they might argue. Let's just say they know the way to their cousins house in Dearborn, Michigan fairly well. Just to contribute to this Muslim Bullshit Without Borders discussion, I offer up a reminder of how several years ago a Muslim TV station in Buffalo started up with the express purpose of countering negative stereotypes of muslims and helping to keep the flock fluffy and upbeat and integrated in western society. That little experiment did not end well. Again, those of you with short attention spans will find that you really don't need to read more than the title of the article and a couple sentences to see how it turned out. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html
Admittedly i havent paid much attention to this story, were they actually able to scientifically prove the bullet bounced off the ground? If so its clearly not first degree murder, and i agree with what you said, it sucks, some piece of shit is going to get off, but the bottom line is first degree murder implies some kind of pre-planned coordinated effort, its really tough to prove that if the bullet bounce off the ground. Looks like a stupid prosecutor overcharged the guy cause the story got blown up in the media and he didnt want to be seen as going soft. Edit: nevermind just read the first article on this, looks like he was charged with involuntary manslaughter and got acquitted, how they can let him off on that when he admits he fired the gun, is beyond me.
DOJ files arrest warrant for illegal immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle case. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/0...immigrant-acquitted-in-kate-steinle-case.html
Richocheting/sp in and of itself does not absolve the defendant of first degree murder in this country. You have to demonstrate that he did not intend to target her and it just ended out that way. If he tried to aim at her for the purpose of hitting her and it bounced around a bit and still got her even though his aim was lousy and he lucked out, then that is still first degree.
Pretty tough to prove that a guy intended to kill someone who didnt see it coming and who was not moving, by richocheting a single bullet off the ground.