Posted on 01/07/2017 10:16:55 AM PST by KingofZion
The parents of Kathryn Steinle, who was shot to death on a San Francisco pier in July 2015 by an immigrant with a record of deportations, can sue the federal government for negligence because a ranger allegedly left the gun used in the shooting in his unlocked car, a federal magistrate ruled Friday.
U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero dismissed the parents’ claims against the city of San Francisco, which had released Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez from custody less than three months before the shooting without notifying immigration authorities. But Spero said the parents may be able to prove that the federal government was at fault for Steinle’s death because its employee’s apparent carelessness led to the shooting.
“Leaving a gun loaded makes (its) capability for harm readily accessible in the same way as leaving the key in the ignition of a vehicle,” Spero said. *** Spero dismissed the rest of the suit filed by Steinle’s parents, Jim Steinle and Elizabeth Sullivan. He rejected their claims that the city was legally responsible for releasing Lopez-Sanchez without contacting the federal government and that federal immigration officials, who had known the city was holding him, had a duty to pick him up and deport him. The parents could appeal those rulings.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
5 years prior to this incident member of MS-13 from El Salvador killed the entire family of a San Francisco woman:
the tax paying dad and his 2 law abiding boys went out to bring home a pizza and in a very brief traffic altercation were all shot to death by this insect, who was protected against deportation by the laws of the city of San Francisco.
I’d like to know how they and their daughter voted. I can guess.
The city is to blame for letting the illegal criminal go free. The ranger was stupid for leaving his weapon in an unlocked car, but that act did not make the guy steal the gun and murder a woman with it. Under that reasoning victims of crime can be blamed for a lot of things.
I also hope the idiot judge gets overturned. What a terrible story this is—the needless death of a beautiful young woman whose last words were ‘Help me, daddy’. Breaks my heart.
Her family’s life will never be normal again, just as Pat Smith’s life will never be normal again.
And we can trace all of this heartbreak and loss back to the same source: liberals.
You’re right. Real America finally had enough of this kind of suffering and took our country back in November.
Also of interest would be how they will vote going forward.
Re-file the suit against San Francisco with a different judge.
you know how they voted and you and I know how they will vote. although the fact that they sued over him not being deported May mean they have seen the light, at a horrific cost.
-—I’d like to know how they and their daughter voted. I can guess.-—
Honestly, does that really matter...?
It’s not like if they were rock ribbed conservatives it would have made a difference in SF if this dirt bag illegal killed her...
U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero dismissed the parents’ claims against the city of San Francisco, which had released Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez from custody less than three months before the shooting without notifying immigration authorities.
...
States don’t have to help enforce federal laws. That’s part of state’s rights. But SF will end up paying big if it remains a sanctuary for illegal aliens.
it was a cold statement. And I apologize. We all make mistakes.
I’d like to see a legal analysis based on precedents.
Like it or not, the attractive nuisance liability doctrine has been around for decades now.
And it even has echoes in Old Testament custom, such as the liability if somebody falls off your roof that didn’t have a proper wall. It doesn’t add up to murder, but it isn’t negligible negligence either.
I fear that fallacies of the excluded middle are being bandied about here.
But anyhow, arguments by label (”libtard”) should and do fail. This is what we would expect from a system of impartial principles. Sometimes the blind squirrel finds a nut before it. That is a valid nut.
True, but there should be a penalty for hindering the enforcement of Federal Law. As with all things, the Leftists (and SF/Ca are perfect examples of Leftists) pick and choose what federal laws and what parts of the Constitution to support.
“... such as the liability if somebody falls off your roof that didn’t have a proper wall.
Wut? Who has a roof with a wall?
Thanks for the post. After reading this article I find myself infuriated and scratching my head at this judge’s logic, or should I say lack thereof. How can the City of San Francisco not be liable after this maggots release due to an ordinance is beyond belief. The fact that this judge cited a California law which allows a victim to sue the owner of a car used in the commission of a crime because the car was stolen with the keys in it defies description. This asinine decision will undoubtedly be reversed upon appeal when brought before a judge who has some semblance of sanity. This brings me to another point. The judge stated that San Francisco had this release policy in place and that they were not legally obligated to inform immigration officials about his release. That has to change. One of President Trump’s first bills he signs into law should be a bill that outlaws “sanctuary cities” and compels any law enforcement agency to inform ICE upon the detention of any and all illegal aliens. This senseless bloodshed has to stop.
Congress must fix the law so in the future sanctuary cities can be sued
When roofs served also as decks, this was the practice. Some people still have roofs like this today. (I remember visiting a house that had one, and I thought it was mongo cool. But it wouldn’t be so cool to slip off the edge.)
I’d like to see an exploration of constitutional law as to which this can happen. If there are precedents and such that would need to be overcome, a different route would be needed. A different route may make sense anyhow; a chief reason that states went sanctuary was in order to collect more Federal welfare benefits based on sheer head count. This points out something obvious to stop. Making welfare local to states (even non-Federal voluntary compacts of states) would remove the incentive to forcibly pick other states’ pockets this way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.