Charged with sexual assault in my little Montana town. Don't tell me his is a "social justice" issue.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...72dfa5a47.html
Printable View
Charged with sexual assault in my little Montana town. Don't tell me his is a "social justice" issue.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...72dfa5a47.html
There is a joke in here but I'm not going to touch itQuote:
At about 2:45 a.m. Monday, a woman called 911 to report that Gonzales sexually assaulted her while they were pulled over to rest at the Town Pump in Four Corners.
He should have moved to San Francisco, Chicago or one of the other "sanctuary cities". They would have protected him.
His defense is going to be that she was deep in REM sleep and everything that happened was only in her mind. This case may be hard to prosecute. Especially if no one else in the vehicle at that time is old enough to be a credible witness. Of course, I don't know much about Montana law, so I'm just making a guess based on prior experiences in dealing withis cases similiar to this one.
That USCIS detainer is not a dream though. And if it comes out that he has been deported before, and if it's verifiable that he does have any prior criminal history, then he has some 'problemas grande' now.
Hope he ends up in Deer Lodge for a long time. Deport and he will justreturn.
Which is why we need a secured border. Most of these cases involve criminals deported multiples of times, they just go have a few beers in the cantina, wait for dark, and come back over.
Imagine if our solution for every criminal in the US was to put them on the other side of the border and then go home and hope they don't walk back over. It's insane.
There is a solution for sexual perverts like this guy, unfortunately the liberals don't understand that with creeps like this that there is no understanding them, there is no fixing them no matter how much 'counseling' or 'therapy' they receive, and that ultimately these people are a danger to ALL of us, and our children too. but no, the libs all think that more understanding is the cure.
My cure involves a healthy dose of lead poisoning. Think about that for a minute...... :sAng_soapbox:
Speaking of illegal immigrants, here is one that will get your goat
Illegal immigrant sues "sanctuary city" for turning him in
Guy is here illegally, gets his car stolen, shows up at San Francisco police station and is arrested. He sues city for violation of the CITY LAW for Sanctuary and wins $190,000. A you kidding me? Glad those liberal Californians are footing the bill but this is ridiculous. The advocate is claims that because of failure to reform immigration is why SF passed this law. That is what happens when local laws try to supersede federal law.
It is a stupid award and the jury should have to pay the money out of their own pockets as a penalty for being stupid. I think the award was for $190,000.00 I am sure the illegal is thinking man what a great country I am hiding in.
I'm as big a fan of federalism as you will find in this century, but the sanctuary city stuff is legal and constitutional nonsense.
There are a lot of areas where there should be no federal law at all. Speed limits? Nope, not a federal issue. Drinking ages? Nope. None of that stuff is federal.
But what is federal is immigration law. That is a matter of foreign policy,and that is the strict purview of the federal authority. California couldn't if it chose open diplomatic relations with North Korea or make a treaty with Cuba, neither can it determine who is let into this country legally and who is not, and that is what this tries to do.
If you don't like that law fine, but you have to change it in Congress. If Congress says person X is here illegally and the remedy is deportation, that may not be something you like, but you can't pass your own law and say you won't observe that law.
Now if a Congressional laws isn't within their authority that's one thing, I'm all for pushing back on Congressional overreach of the states even when I don't agree with the state in question, but this is one that really is the role of Congress.
To get drinking ages and speed laws enforced the feds use the power of the purse, and it seems they may do that this time with sanctuary cities, but there should be no need whatsoever.
Typo...againQuote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
I'm not a fan of Tucker Carlson at all but he does make a big point. Why is SF giving special rights to non-citizens? I mean if I rob a bank in Florida and move to SF, and get pulled over for speeding, they turn me in. I broke the law and should be turned in. Illegals have done no different. They violated the law when they entered this country illegally. The left wants to give them a pass on that, claim they haven't broken any laws. Well, they have. They broke the immigration laws. If you don't like the laws then change them. This guy in the link justifies the sanctuary cities because we have failed to pass immigration reform. That isn't an excuse to violate the law.
The reason these big cities cater to illegal immigrants is because those same cities have voting laws that endorse vote fraud.
A few questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
1) Would making sexual assualt of any kind (and the law has so many degrees of assault based on the violence of the crime) punishable by death deter criminals or incline them to kill their victims and leave no witnesses? Don't misunderstand. I hear about rapists and I got no pity for the guilty person. And of course a few famous notables have been accused of committing sexual assault and condoning it as well. And based on the article's description I am not sure the Attorney General would describe what took place in that car as assault. I disagree with the attorney general but he is the nation's top sheriff.
2) What percentage of convicted rapists are actually the guilty party? My primary objection to executions are that we can convict the wrong person and you can't make up for killing somebody.
3) Lead poisoning? Why don't we use firing squards over hanging, electrocutions and needles and gas? Seriously it is effective and we have plenty of guns and bullets. Most killers kill people with a gun or a knife. So a gun is a proportional response. Seems the most humane way too.
4) Why are liberals at fault so often? Not sure who you think are more responsible for the crimes. The criminals or the liberals.
That is insane that the illegal alien as standing to sue the city in this manner. A great example of the dangers and unintended consequences of sanctuary cities defying (illegally) federal authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
I have read stories about illegal aliens such as a woman going to court to get restraining orders on an abusive husband and at the court house is arrested by ICE.
ICE is within its rights but seems counterproductive to the rule of law. We want everyone to feel safe enough to ask for help from the police. Not sure there is a way to balance that out.
This situation is similar. I think it better if ICE doesn't arrest the guy at the police station. If I was a sanctuary city leader, I would rethink my position if ungrateful folks were suing because police complied with the law.
[
-I don't disagree about being counterproductive but to be able to sue a city and win. Perhaps this guy should not have been arrested and deported (a case could be made) but to get a payout is ludicrious.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
The (IMO only) argument for the "sanctuary" type policies is that these people are here, and if they are afraid of being arrested they wont' work with police and they become easy targets for crimes, abuse, etc.
OK, I get that, and I have long supported immigration reform, including some kind of addressing of the people already here.
But the answer cannot be to throw the Constitution out the window and ignore federal laws that obviously take precedence. You do it by changing the federal laws, and you do that by compromising on things like border security so you can get real reform.
The thing is the anti-immigration side has not wanted to give in on the people here, and pro-immigration doesn't want border security b/c they know what that will do to the tide of immigration, but recently many on the right have been willing to offer a path even to citizenship for those who are here, but the other side hasn't given an inch on a border wall.
The solution is relatively simple in design, hard to get in reality:
1) Border security. You can't have any meaningful policy in any respect if there is no real border. Build the wall. Physical, virtual, whatever, we can't let the cartels control who gets into this country. That's insane.
2) A path for normalizing people who are here. We really will have a hard time rounding up every illegal in the country , and many have been here long enough to have roots and families. I don't think you get a wave of the wand citizenship, but some path where they can earn that citizenship just like those who did it legally. If they meet that same process great, if they don't sorry you're gone. They should get a path, but not a path that's a shortcut of what those who came here legally have to do.
3) CRIMINAL aliens are all deported. Now "criminal" will take some defining, but we draw that line and that's that. We have to get the gangs and cartels out, as well as the obvious criminals who have come here not for a better life but to pray on Americans and immigrants alike. They're gone.
That's a basic plan most Americans would support. It can be set up to protect those who are here from random deportation for coming in contact with the police, but it allows us to go after criminals and clean up the drug/gang mess.
But cities and states going it alone b/c we can't get that done isn't acceptable, any more than a state that disagrees with our relations with China can go it alone, etc. Right or wrong some things are federal in nature.
FWIW Trump should adopt this approach and go to Congress and get it done. The GOP Would come out smelling like roses and the more extreme open border types on the left as well as the draconians on the right would all be put out to pasture on this issue. It would also codify it in the law, which is what we're supposed to do instead of these executive orders.
1)I believe the death penalty should be in play for anyone who sexually abuses any child under the age of 16. And if they're convicted in an American court of law by a jury of their peers, nationality notwithstanding, then death should be the price. We have prisons full with convicted sexual predators, who, if you spoke with them, will tell you to the very last person that it wasn't their fault, they didn't do anything wrong(and who very likely will tell you "Yeah, I did it. But it's not my fault.....") or some other lame BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
2)By legal definition, if they're convicted, they're guilty. Yes, sometimes we do convict the wrong person. Unfortunately, we live in this world, and it is far from perfect.
3)The firing squad (hence, lead poisoning) would be my preferred method. Quick, economical, efficient.
4)Why are liberals at fault? They're not, but they are the ones who always go to bat for these creeps that prey on our children. So if they're guilty of anything, it's for being dumb enough to believe that these reprehensible predators should be breathing the same air that we do. There is nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada, that these damn child molesters deserve but to be removed from our midst so that they cannot hurt our children.
I base this on what I have observed over the many years on the job, and watching them being sentenced in court.
We are not anywhere near tough enough on these creeps. There is no amount of counseling, or therapy, or whatever that will ever correct what goes on in these sexual predators minds. These people are truly dangerous and do not need to be among us. Again, JMHO. Yours may differ.
It's mostly, for me, the illegal alien thing. It's not a "speeding ticket". They are in this country breaking the law every minute they are here. They will break many laws to stay, and survive, on their terms.
Which is the most dangerous thing about them being hereQuote:
and survive, on their terms.