Somehow I am not surprised

[Wazzzup]

I just found this;



"The jurors who were selected had to answer a 14-page questionnaire that probed their views about Latinos, immigration and guns. They were also quizzed about their gun ownership and political views of firearms.



Mercury News reported the jurors include two people who work in technology. The ages of the jurors range from the early 20s to 30s, and at least one of the chosen spoke Spanish.



"We are very pleased with the jury," said Matt Gonzalez, Zarate's attorney. "We have such great diversity built in San Francisco and I think we have a jury that understands a lot of the concerns about the defendant receiving a fair trial."



Jurors have to qualify for the defendant before the trial? How does THAT work?

Good info. I had not seen that before.



They made sure that the victim, Kate Steinle didn't get a fair trial.  The guy was waving around a gun he stole from a cop's car.  He was doing it in a crowd ed area and it went off three times. At the very least he is guilty of manslaughter.



The illegal has since been arrested by the US Department of Justice, I hope that means there will be a federal retrial, because justice was not served in this trial.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/01/12/46DBA3EB00000578-5134757-_Horrifying_verdict_on_Steinle_murderer_Politics_trumps_evidence-a-35_1512131147639.jpg">

[Wazzzup]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/01/mother-son-killed-illegal-immigrant-kate-steinle-verdict-build-wall-defund-sanctuary">http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/01/m ... -sanctuary">http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/01/mother-son-killed-illegal-immigrant-kate-steinle-verdict-build-wall-defund-sanctuary





https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/james-woods-steinle-verdict-turning-point-history-build-wall">https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w- ... build-wall">https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/james-woods-steinle-verdict-turning-point-history-build-wall

[Anonymous]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/01/mother-son-killed-illegal-immigrant-kate-steinle-verdict-build-wall-defund-sanctuary">http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/01/m ... -sanctuary">http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/01/mother-son-killed-illegal-immigrant-kate-steinle-verdict-build-wall-defund-sanctuary





https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/james-woods-steinle-verdict-turning-point-history-build-wall">https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w- ... build-wall">https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/james-woods-steinle-verdict-turning-point-history-build-wall

I don't care about the wall. However, sanctuary cities must be defunded. City councils that won't enforce laws should be removed from office. Deport illegals convicted of crimes.

[Anonymous]

I was unfamiliar with this case, so I did a search.

José Inez García Zárate (or Juan Francisco López-Sánchez),[16] of Guanajuato, Mexico, had been deported from the U.S. a total of five times, most recently in 2009.[17] He was on probation in Texas at the time of the shooting.[18] He had seven felony convictions. When he was apprehended, Garcia Zarate was listed as 45 years old by police, but as 52 in jail records.[19]

Garcia Zarate arrived in the U.S. sometime before 1991, the year he was convicted of his first drug charge in Arizona. In 1993, he was convicted three times in Washington state for felony heroin possession and manufacturing narcotics. Following another drug conviction and jail term, this time in Oregon, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) deported Garcia Zarate in June 1994. However, Garcia Zarate returned to the U.S. within two years and was convicted again of heroin possession in Washington state. He was deported for the second time in 1997.[16]

On February 2, 1998, Garcia Zarate was deported for the third time, after reentering the U.S. through Arizona. United States Border Patrol caught him six days later at a border crossing, and a federal court sentenced Garcia Zarate to five years and three months in federal prison for unauthorized reentry. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), successor of the INS, deported Garcia Zarate in 2003 for his fourth deportation. However, he reentered the U.S. through the Texas border and got another federal prison sentence for reentry before being deported for the fifth time in June 2009.[16]

Less than three months after his fifth deportation, Garcia Zarate was caught attempting to cross the border in Eagle Pass, Texas. He pleaded guilty to felony reentry; upon sentencing, a federal court recommended Garcia Zarate be placed in "a federal medical facility as soon as possible".[16]

On March 26, 2015, at the request of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department (SFSD), United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had turned Garcia Zarate over to San Francisco authorities for an outstanding drug warrant.[20] San Francisco officials transported Garcia Zarate to San Francisco County Jail on March 26, 2015, to face a 20-year-old felony charge of selling and possessing marijuana after Garcia Zarate completed his latest prison term in San Bernardino County for entering in the country without the proper documents.[21]

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for Garcia Zarate requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. However, as a sanctuary city, its "Due Process for All" ordinance[22] restricted cooperation with ICE to cases only where the immigrant had both current violent felony charges and past violent felony convictions; therefore, San Francisco disregarded the detainer and released him.[23][24] He was released from San Francisco County Jail on April 15, 2015, and had no outstanding warrants or judicial warrants, as confirmed by the San Francisco Sheriff's Department.[18]

 

[Anonymous]

Victims families should sue the city of San Francisco.

[Bricktop]

I'm pretty sure civil authorities cannot be litigated against.



Even in the US.



Only the voters can make the needed changes to that State's perverted leaders.

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure civil authorities cannot be litigated against.



Even in the US.



Only the voters can make the needed changes to that State's perverted leaders.

I believe they can.



When governments are responsible for your accidents and injuries, you can normally sue them just as you would sue another person or company. This can include personal injury lawsuits for auto accidents and premises liability lawsuits for slip and fall injuries

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/you-can-sue-city-hall.html">http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-inju ... -hall.html">http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/you-can-sue-city-hall.html

[Bricktop]

Same here.



But what you cannot do is sue them for executing their duties, as long as they execute them "in good faith"...that is to say, within reasonable bounds of their authority. In fact, here in Oz, its relatively recent that government authorities could be sued for workplace negligence. Prior to that being imposed, they hid behind the "no sue" rule.



But the current, and I stress the word CURRENT civil laws in most democracies prevent governments being sued for the consequence of their decisions and policies. If they could be, there would be no governments.

[Anonymous]

Same here.



But what you cannot do is sue them for executing their duties, as long as they execute them "in good faith"...that is to say, within reasonable bounds of their authority. In fact, here in Oz, its relatively recent that government authorities could be sued for workplace negligence. Prior to that being imposed, they hid behind the "no sue" rule.



But the current, and I stress the word CURRENT civil laws in most democracies prevent governments being sued for the consequence of their decisions and policies. If they could be, there would be no governments.

Sanctuary cities means not enforcing the law of the land. Though, I'm no legal expert, I think they could be sued in this case.

[Bricktop]

Well, it would certainly make a robust legal argument that would forever change American politics.



But it seems that the only way the Feds can establish their jurisdiction is by prosecuting the states.

[Anonymous]

Well, it would certainly make a robust legal argument that would forever change American politics.



But it seems that the only way the Feds can establish their jurisdiction is by prosecuting the states.

The Trump administration has talked about withholding federal funds for states that have  sanctuary cities thereby putting pressure on the state to reign in cities that refuse to enforce the law. But, I haven't heard anything  about legal action.

[Bricktop]

The American federation must be constructed differently to ours. The Federal Court is the highest of the land. State courts could never involve themselves in Federal issues as they do there. All matters involving Federal Law go direct to the High Court.



All taxation is controlled by the Federal Government, but all GST money MUST go to the States.



The relationship between the US State and Federal governments seems unique to them. Pretty much everywhere else, states are subordinate to Federal legislation unless specified in the Constitution (local traffic laws etc...although even that is moving to a nationalised system).



Many here believe its time for the States to be abolished, anyway. In this modern age of communication and travel, fragmenting a country into differing jurisdictions is unnecessary and unwarranted.

[Anonymous]

The American federation must be constructed differently to ours. The Federal Court is the highest of the land. State courts could never involve themselves in Federal issues as they do there. All matters involving Federal Law go direct to the High Court.



All taxation is controlled by the Federal Government, but all GST money MUST go to the States.



The relationship between the US State and Federal governments seems unique to them. Pretty much everywhere else, states are subordinate to Federal legislation unless specified in the Constitution (local traffic laws etc...although even that is moving to a nationalised system).



Many here believe its time for the States to be abolished, anyway. In this modern age of communication and travel, fragmenting a country into differing jurisdictions is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Take Trump's travel ban on six nations. State courts have blocked part of it.

[Bricktop]

Yes, we find that strange. Its Federal law. How can a State block Federal jurisdiction?

[Frood]

Federalism is a cancer.