Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump tweet slams 'disgraceful' Kate Steinle verdict
Communist News Network ^ | November 30, 2017 | Sophie Tatum

Posted on 11/30/2017 8:06:33 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum

Washington (CNN) - President Donald Trump, who often brought up the death of Kate Steinle during his campaign, tweeted Thursday night that the acquittal of the undocumented immigrant who shot her was a "disgraceful verdict."

"No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration," the President tweeted hours after a jury acquitted Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, who had been deported five times before the killing of Steinle in 2015.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration. 9:30 PM - Nov 30, 2017 8,380 8,380 Replies 11,729 11,729 Retweets 33,575 33,575 likes

Trump often cited Steinle's death on a San Francisco pier during his presidential run as an example of the dangers of sanctuary cities.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions condemned San Francisco's sanctuary city policy in the wake of a not-guilty verdict.

Sessions has been critical of sanctuary cities during his tenure as attorney general, and several cities have pursed legal action against the Department of Justice in response.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: immigration; steinle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum

No amnesty for any illegal alien, ever.


21 posted on 11/30/2017 8:56:35 PM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here Of Citizen Parents - Know Islam, No Peace -No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I saw them walking out after the verdict.
Every one of them was fat, ugly, stupid and clueless looking.
They all waddled when they walked.

Probably a hundred IQ points between them, total.

CUT OFF ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO “SANCTUARY CITIES”.


22 posted on 11/30/2017 8:56:39 PM PST by Senormechanico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
He didn't say that. He referred to Illegal Immigration, which is the proper term for the practice.
23 posted on 11/30/2017 8:56:42 PM PST by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative; Liz; AuntB; La Lydia; sickoflibs; stephenjohnbanker; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; ..

The legal term in our IMMIGRATION laws is

ILLEGAL ALIEN

someone from another country is called an ALIEN

there are REGISTERED ALIENS (with a “green card”)

and ILLEGAL ALIENS...here illegally...w2ithout prior permission from the US government..

as an IMMIGRANT I was a REGISTERED ALIEN with a “green card”

the proper name of that “card” is a ALIEN REGISTERATION card...it has a number which follows the IMMIGRANT throughout their life...it is placed on the Naturalization document when the IMMIGRANT becomes an American citizen...the “green card” is surrendered at that time...its the property of the US government and the number is protected...

just for you I have my naturalization paper out and here so I can make sure I am accurate...

the number which was on my “green card” is now annotated in the top right hand corner of my naturalization document underneath the new naturalization number...

“Alien Registration No.1234567890”

the new document has its own number but that green card number is important...

ILLEGAL ALIENS do not have that vital legal number...

so just for this 45 years here IMMIGRANT how about thinking of them as ILLEGAL ALIENS whatever else you wish to add...

I’m am IMMIGRANT ...I IMMIGRATED...

Illegal aliens don’t bother to IMMIGRATE..


24 posted on 11/30/2017 9:00:24 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: shanover

You’re right. It’s silly and selfish and would never ever work.

And yet because California is so important for many reasons, others have a free ride on it. It’s like we’re being dared to take it away from them.

That won’t happen forcibly as far as mere lefties are concerned, but the Feds do have room to stand on the Constitution here. California doesn’t have to WANT to be guarded from invaders for the Federal government to have the right to do that anyhow.

If I had to trade resources? I’d gladly drop the war on drugs to pay for a war on invaders. If all states want to join Colorado a mile high, let them. But let it all be citizens or authorized guests who are doing it. Rehab (and spiritual forfending) would quickly get very, very serious.

Oh, we might even have some sort of circumscribed amnesty, where circumscribed is the key. You don’t step up for it, or you weren’t on very good behavior, you are placed on the figurative trebuchet out of here.


25 posted on 11/30/2017 9:01:45 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Tryin' hard to win the No-Bull Prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Are you sure the prosecution proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Are we sure he really tried? Or did he take a dive for his political masters?

26 posted on 11/30/2017 9:01:57 PM PST by KarlInOhio (The Whig Party died when it fled the great fight of its century. Ditto for the Republicans now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

It is a mess. “They the people” got what they wanted.

I don’t know if a Federal prosecution would be possible.


27 posted on 11/30/2017 9:04:38 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Tryin' hard to win the No-Bull Prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

That’s what I started to wonder.


28 posted on 11/30/2017 9:07:56 PM PST by GnuThere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I don’t know if a Federal prosecution would be possible.

Being deported five times before this; or being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.

29 posted on 11/30/2017 9:12:32 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Were you in the courtroom? Did you hear the testimony?


30 posted on 11/30/2017 10:37:32 PM PST by MarvinStinson (`1`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

KATE STEINLE’S MURDERER

Office of the Mayor San Francisco, CA, 94102
415-554-6141
mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org


31 posted on 11/30/2017 10:58:06 PM PST by Az Joe (Gloria in excelsis Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Trumps didn’t use the term “immigrant” he spoke of the process of illegal immigration. Illegal aliens got here by immigration not alienation.


32 posted on 11/30/2017 11:42:15 PM PST by PTBAA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PTBAA; Liz; AuntB; La Lydia; sickoflibs; stephenjohnbanker; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; ...

Illegal aliens got here by immigration
____________________________________________

No they didn’t...

No illegal alien uses IMMIGRATION to get here...

Illegal aliens don’t IMMIGRATE..

If they bothered to IMMIGRATE they would be IMMIGRANTS...

Since they don’t IMMIGRATE, they are illegal aliens...

Only IMMIGRANTS use IMMIGRATION to get here...

President Trump shouldn’t use the term immigration, even “illegal immigration”

what the illegal aliens do to get here has nothing to do with IMMIGRATION..

You either IMMIGRATE or you don’t...

IMMIGRATION is a process that involves asking permission of the United States government to enter our country and being granted permission prior to coming here...

Illegal aliens don’t give that civil activity a thought...

Having no respect for our sovereign IMMIGRATION laws they just sneak in...

But they don’t IMMIGRATE...


33 posted on 12/01/2017 12:13:27 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Were you in the courtroom? Did you hear the testimony? Are you sure the prosecution proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

There wasn't much dispute about the facts in this case. The defense admitted to the killing of Kate Steinle and claimed it was an accident.

I found this definition of an accidental homicide in California:

2.2. The killing was an accident

If.at the time you kill someone.you had no criminal intent to do harm, were not acting negligently, and were otherwise engaged in lawful activity at the time of the killing,

So, as far as I can see there is no way to reasonably find that this killing was an accident. By definition, this guy was guilty of some type of criminal homicide (not 1st degree murder, though).

I am no expert on California law by any stretch of the imagination, but I think a reasonable person would have to believe that the jury ruled incorrectly. I can understand that you are comfortable with some amount of jury nullification because you think the alternative would be worse, but that's no reason to attack a poster for saying, "These jurors must be on drugs."

34 posted on 12/01/2017 2:29:48 AM PST by j. earl carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

If I had shot and killed Kate, I would be guilty of some form of homicide. It would not be self defense. At the very least I’d be guilty of someone’s death for negligently discharging a weapon. And, if I broke laws to have possession of that gun in public, there would be additional charges. I would not go Scott free.

This jury consists of 12+ regional representatives. With voir dire the tampering is complete. I’ve sat on many Californian juries - firearms ignorance multiplied. If such a jury wants to impose its will, it will. Disgusting.


35 posted on 12/01/2017 3:10:44 AM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

STEPHAN MOLYNEUX: What Pisses Me Off About The Kate Steinle Murder Acquittal
https://youtu.be/kTgXV__ZbVE


36 posted on 12/01/2017 6:54:17 AM PST by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

I guess you missed that adjective “illegal” that Trump put in front of the noun “immigration”. He was correct and you are wrong to say he wasn’t.


37 posted on 12/01/2017 7:52:22 AM PST by PTBAA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PTBAA; Liz

kid, again...

illegal aliens do not IMMIGRATE...

this has nothing to do with IMMIGRATION

I know what I know...

Sincerely,

Tennessee Nana
IMMIGRANT


38 posted on 12/01/2017 8:46:19 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Stop ALL State Income Tax deductions on Federal Income Tax...


39 posted on 12/01/2017 12:10:24 PM PST by GOPJ (https://www.reddit.com/r/StumpSheet/comments/6ec3z1/fake_hate_crimes_official/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson
Were you in the courtroom? Did you hear the testimony?

No, which is why I am not willing to condemn the jurors.

40 posted on 12/01/2017 12:23:17 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson