Posted on 12/01/2017 5:51:14 AM PST by Bon of Babble
The Justice Department is considering bringing federal charges against Jose Ines Garcia Zarate after his not guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial, department officials told Fox News on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Try him on different charges, like they did with the cops in the Rodney King incident.
Civil rights violation.
Such intelligent discourse.
I was hoping this would happen. If this does happen, please choose an American venue.
Top 5 Concealed Carry Guns for Seniors
Am Shooting Journal ^ | 12/1/2017 | J Hines
Posted on 12/1/2017, 6:23:18 AM by w1n1
As you get older in age, your CCW pistol may not be the same as when you were young. Your hand strength may not be the same as it was.
Here are things to consider when choosing a handgun for concealed carry for seniors:
easy trigger pull
grip ergonomic
recoil
easy operation
There are many fine handguns to choose from but we’re narrowing it down to some great brands that fits the senior level criteria. Here’s our top 5 concealed carry pistols for seniors:
For full story use the FR link below:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3609576/posts
Yes, please try this animal on federal charges.
But not in Mexifornia.
Kate Steinle’s life was sacrificed at the alter of the Bipartisan strategy to flood America with illegal immigrants ....................
It’s the Bush Plan for North Mexico
Show me the "civil rights" double-jeopardy exemption in the US Constitution.
can they not retry on another charge? They went for murder 1 right? how about 2nd degree?
how the hell they got it wrong, even in liberal sanfransicko is beyond me.
I didn’t realize our country was this far gone.
“double-jeopardy is unconstitutional and there is no.t feral government exception”
That is wrong. The federal and California governments are separate sovereigns. He can be charged under the exact same facts by the Feds without double jeopardy being an issue.
They can also charge him with felon in possession of a firearm, which I believe is also a federal offense. It does not matter that California convicted him of its version of the same offense.
Show me the double standard clause. If it was good enough for the cops vs Rodney King, it’s good enough for a foreign invader who gunned down a US citizen. If they didn’t want the King case to set a precedent, they shouldn’t have done it.
Or are you arguing that foreign invaders who commit murder have more rights than cops who use excessive force?
The reason they use “civil rights” charges in homicide cases is because there is no general federal law against regular old murder. This case is different in that there is a federal crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Either way, the concept of double jeopardy does not apply. (Perhaps it should but it does not.)
As for double jeopardy, the Bundy trial is a good example of on-going double jeopardy in a THIRD trial for the same acts.
Another point, the gun used was stolen from a Federal Officer. He was not tried on this charge. The Feds can certainly charge him for taking and then using the gun.
The add to the charges by having a Federal officer interview him. He will lie.
STEPHAN MOLYNEUX: What Pisses Me Off About The Kate Steinle Murder Acquittal
https://youtu.be/kTgXV__ZbVE
Hadn’t thought of that. Thanks.
L
The DOJ needs to make a public statement that he is going to testify against Hillery in the ongoing email scandal.
What you said.
Just deport him.
See Heath v Alabama. The Duel-sovereignty doctrine. The feds absolutely can go after him for federal charges. 18 USC 922 is a no brainer.
“The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common-law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the “peace and dignity” of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct “offences.” As the Court explained in Moore v. Illinois, “[a]n offence, in its legal signification, means the transgression of a law.” Consequently, when the same act transgresses the laws of two sovereigns, “it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable.”
You are correct. See Heath v Alabama.
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.