I am not one to generalize or put people into a box as we are human beings comprised of unmeasurable opinions, values, experiences and knowledge. However, the stance that the liberal left has taken on just about every issue that comes to mind at the moment makes it difficult not to view each and every one of them as either mindlessly ignorant, mentally defective, or a combination thereof.
The issues this nation is facing that would serve to bolster the above statement are too numerous to cover in one post, so today the focus will remain on immigration and more specifically the murder of Kate Steinle. From the refusal of San Francisco law enforcement and officials to cooperate with federal authorities to the jury nullification that took place in the Kate Steinle murder case, it is beyond my comprehension what kind of thought process is being employed on the left coast. There is absolutely no question that had San Francisco cooperated with ICE, Kate Steinle would not have been shot to death by Jose Ines Garcia Zarate. While jury nullification is sometimes necessary for true justice to be served, this case was certainly not one of those times.
I wish that I had been able to watch the entire trial as, based upon what we know, it does not seem the prosecution did their job. First of all, I am not buying that the Sig Sauer Ms. Steinle was shot with fired accidentally. There is a reason that Sigs are a very popular choice of law enforcement across this nation, they are not cheap firearms and while no firearm is perfect or fail safe, Sigs are not prone to just fire without someone pulling the trigger. Not only that, but that particular gun, in single-action mode, requires 4.5 pounds of pressure to be applied to the trigger to fire the weapon. If the gun was in double-action mode, which seems more likely unless it had been fired recently, it would have required almost 10 pounds of pressure to the trigger for the gun to fire. Zarate made contradictory statements, in addition to the fact that he was an illegal immigrant with multiple felony convictions, which should have called into question the credibility of anything he claimed. In one statement he claimed he was aiming at sea lions and in another stated that the gun was wrapped in a t-shirt and fired when he was picking it up.
While there is no evidence of intent, it is not necessary for a 1st Degree Murder, or Felony Murder, conviction. As a convicted felon, the mere act of picking up the firearm was a felonious act by Zarate, meaning that Kate Steinle’s death occurred as a result of a negligent act committed while Zarate was actively engaged in the commission of a felony, which meets the requirements for a charge and conviction of 1st Degree Murder, even in the State of California. The defense did not argue that the gun was not in Zarate’s hand when it went off, they simply argued it was an accident, meaning their argument SUPPORTS a 1st Degree Murder conviction under California law. Beyond that, the verdict form offered jurors the option of conviction of the lesser included offenses of 2nd Degree Murder or Negligent Homicide. What that jury did was come back and say that Zarate was in no way responsible for the death of Kate Steinle. Using what kind of reasoning can anyone possibly come to that conclusion?
Can there be any question in one’s mind that the jury in this case was making a political statement regarding illegal immigration? They basically sent the message that illegals can get away with murdering U.S. citizens in San Francisco because they are going to protect them. But why protect them? Could it be so that they do not have to admit that Trump’s assertion that murderers and rapists are illegally crossing our borders? This, my friend, is insane, there is simply no other way to look at it. I do not believe that anyone has advocated for going door-to-door looking for illegals to deport, and I do to some degree understand the concern regarding deporting those that have been here for many years, built families and committed no other crimes. One might even argue that the U.S. government has even been complicit, to some degree, in that we have not controlled our borders to keep illegal immigrants out nor have we enforced our immigration laws. Yet none of this can negate the fact that we need to control our border and we need to enforce our immigration laws because we are a sovereign nation. None of this can negate the fact that while not all illegal immigrants are drug dealers, rapists or murderers, many of them are and they present a real danger to American citizens.
What kind of reasoning could possibly lead one to oppose controlling our borders, and knowing who comes into our country? What kind of reasoning could possibly lead one to conclude that illegal immigrants who commit felonies within our borders should not be deported? What kind of reasoning could in any way bring people to want to protect a man like Zarate who is, without question, responsible for the death of an American citizen? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had it been an American citizen rather than an illegal immigrant on trial for the death of Kate Steinle, that San Francisco jury would have come back with a conviction for murder. The mindset of the left that is allowing such mind-blowing atrocities to happen without consequence to the perpetrators is beyond my comprehension, I can manage no reasonable thought process that leads to their positions. Whatever it is, however they get to their conclusions, it is dangerous to America and to American citizens and how that is not obvious is to every thinking person is simply incomprehensible.