That’s right
In a bit of a twist, it was announced tonight on the evening news that the gun Lopez-Sanchez used to shoot Kathryn Steinle belonged to a federal agent. There were no other details about the gun.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m … tml#page=1
I’m sure it will come out in due time but I would like to know which federal agency the gun owner was affiliated with and if the gun had been reported missing or stolen.
Also, there seems to be a difference between ICE detainers and warrants with the sanctuary cities not honoring the detainers ICE places on an illegal immigrant but they do honor the warrants. Lopez-Sanchez had a detainer lodged by ICE but not a warrant. As you can imagine there are many websites that discuss both sides of this particular issue, way too many to post links. Just do the Googling yourself. From what I can surmise, the immigration system is broken from the federal level down to the local level with a lot of inconsistencies in how the current laws are administered.
In my Criminal Justice classes, our professor (former military, then long time police officer) was explaining to us about ICE–it was in our textbook as well. It was mentioned that local law enforcement really doesn’t take a stand and that it is up to the people assigned to that agency who are to handle it. When local law enforcement was more involved it was creating a lack of the Hispanic community cooperating with them–people afraid to speak up to the cops. They will step in when necessary, but don’t go around policing for illegal immigrants.
It will be interesting to hear more about that gun Seagull.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
There was just something about the gun on the 10 O’clock news. The gun was reported stolen from the federal agent’s car about a month ago in San Francisco. It was a 40 caliber and was not the agent’s service gun.
Still can’t be good for that agent.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
And a little more about the gun….. The gun was in an unlocked case in the car and it was loaded.
California law states that you can transport a gun in your car if it is locked up, it cannot be loaded and the ammo must be in a separate locked container. This is the law for the average person who does not have a concealed carry permit. If someone has a concealed carry permit they can carry an unlocked loaded gun in their car. The agent, no doubt, was licensed for concealed carry.
And a little more about the gun….. The gun was in an unlocked case in the car and it was loaded.
California law states that you can transport a gun in your car if it is locked up, it cannot be loaded and the ammo must be in a separate locked container. This is the law for the average person who does not have a concealed carry permit. If someone has a concealed carry permit they can carry an unlocked loaded gun in their car. The agent, no doubt, was licensed for concealed carry.
Either way the agent is a fool, law or not, if these are the facts, and the law shows total disregard for life and like I said earlier, even supposedly law abiding people cannot be trusted with weapons.
I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
–signed me, law abiding gun carrier. 
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
–signed me, law abiding gun carrier.
And if I find myself about to be murdered, (when I’m not standing next to a policeman,) my best chance will be if someone like Tahoe27 is near, and packing.
I don’t see the murder of an innocent young women by a convicted felon as being political, I simply see it as wrong – Damn wrong because it could have and should have been prevented.
So who here is defending murder as right? Everyone agrees that murder is wrong. You are being intentionally obtuse by reframing the issue. It’s the circumstances that led to that murder, and those circumstances are a legal issue, and those are the things that you want to change, thus why they are politcal. If that wasn’t the case you wouldn’t be talking about "sanctuary cities" and such.
It’s just a cheap rhetorical tactic to say that you are outraged about the murder because that implies anyone who agrees with the legality by virtue must then be agreeing with the murder.
Legal immigrants can be violent criminals. Illegal immigrants can be violent criminals. Natural born citizens can be violent criminals. So what does immigration status have to do with the morality of violent crime? Nothing, really.
So then the issue is about immigration laws, which is subject to legalities that are not neccesarily morally based, or at least not based on the same moral value as violence. That’s why it’s a politcal issue.
Bits of info are dribbling in about the gun. Most recently on the news the "federal agent" is said to have been a ranger with the Federal Bureau of Land Management.
I don’t see the murder of an innocent young women by a convicted felon as being political, I simply see it as wrong – Damn wrong because it could have and should have been prevented.
So who here is defending murder as right? Everyone agrees that murder is wrong. You are being intentionally obtuse by reframing the issue. It’s the circumstances that led to that murder, and those circumstances are a legal issue, and those are the things that you want to change, thus why they are politcal. If that wasn’t the case you wouldn’t be talking about "sanctuary cities" and such.
It’s just a cheap rhetorical tactic to say that you are outraged about the murder because that implies anyone who agrees with the legality by virtue must then be agreeing with the murder.
Legal immigrants can be violent criminals. Illegal immigrants can be violent criminals. Natural born citizens can be violent criminals. So what does immigration status have to do with the morality of violent crime? Nothing, really.
So then the issue is about immigration laws, which is subject to legalities that are not neccesarily morally based, or at least not based on the same moral value as violence. That’s why it’s a politcal issue.
Spin it however you want. I don’t have an agenda here.
You obviously do.
you realize if the woman was black & obese instead of very pretty we probably wouldn’t know about it . now he is claiming the gun just went off by accident …right
whom are we more mad at , him or the cancer Dr.
I say at the Doctors trial ,the judge stands up and tell him your free to go , as he leaves the court house happy ,he notices no police around at all , then he see’s the 500+ victims waiting for him as he tries to make it to his ride.
You mean like Michael Brown?
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
Spin it however you want. I don’t have an agenda here.
You obviously do.
So what is my agenda? and if you don’t have one, then what am I "spinning"?
No, I haven’t told you what I really think. That wouldn’t be very nice and THAT is my point.
I see it all the time, I’m sick of people circumventing the board rules designed to stop arguments because they think they can voice whatever opinion they want to, and because other people are civil enough to actually uphold the rules and NOT do that, they think that means everyone is in agreement with them and there is no dissent.
