Friday, December 1, 2017

We need to look back to our glorious history...to find the answer to the murder of Kathryn Steinle

The San Francisco Committee of Vigilance was a vigilante group formed in 1851. The catalyst for its formation was the criminality of the Sydney Ducks, it was revived in 1856 in response to rampant crime and corruption in the municipal government of San Francisco, California. The need for extralegal intervention was apparent with the explosive population growth following the discovery of gold in 1848. The small town of about 900 individuals grew to a booming city of over 200,000 very rapidly.[This overwhelming growth in population made it nearly impossible for the previously established law enforcement to regulate any longer which resulted in the organization of vigilantes.
These militias hanged eight people and forced several elected officials to resign. Each Committee of Vigilance formally relinquished power after three months. (WIkipedia)



The photo is a screen shot of "The Oxbow Incident."  A nifty piece of liberal propaganda by William Wellman in which he loads the dice to manipulate the audience. In which innocents get hung despite the efforts of the heroic Henry Fonda and Colonel Potter. The thing is they load the dice to garner sympathy. These were innocent people who didn't do it. Not hardened criminals. Why not show someone who killed a young girl in the prime of her life? Why not show that this illegal piece of shit was a murderer? Then we should see what the outcome is in these United States.
What we need is a filmmaker who will show this case for what it was. A young tourist murdered by an illegal alien who got deported five times but was protected by the sanctuary city commie pricks. Show her vibrant life being snuffed out by a drug dealer who has all the rights in the world while this poor young girl is rotting in her grave. Never to get married. Never to have children. Never to live the life she was entitled to as a citizen in these United States.
What about Kathy Steinle? 
Who speaks for her?
The fact is the legal system doesn't work anymore. The law and the Deep State favors the illegal immigrant over the native born American. The criminal over the victim.
He needs to be hung from the nearest lamppost. 


4 comments:

ndspinelli said...

You know there are normal people in SF who find this horrible. We talk about the need for non radical Muslims to step forward. Well, we need the same from decent SF citizens.

There is the matter of prosecutorial malpractice which may have also occurred here. But w/o having seen the proceedings I can't assess that. Plus, I doubt few here would care to discuss this possibility anyway.

edutcher said...

The judge was a creep Leftist and nobody seemed to mind much.

As for Troop's idea, many a man did get strung up only because he was a stranger and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Committees of Vigilance were the substantial people of the town demanding law and order after the duly constituted authority couldn't or wouldn't do their job.

Try finding any of them in San Fiasco.

chickelit said...

The jurors will be feted as heroes in their town. They stood up to Trump and that mean AG who is giving them such headaches.

Best thing that could happen is if more criminal illegals migrate there for the sympathy and turn it into more of a hell. Turn more tourists away and let the city fester.

Chip Ahoy said...

The prosecution went for the maximum crime. They put all their effort into proving the guy went to pier with malice aforethought aimed the gun at the girl with intention to kill her. They did not leave open the possibility of a lesser crime, manslaughter. They were thinking if they left that idea open then the jury might go for that instead of greatest mostest biggest worst most vicious possibility imaginable.

Defense proved otherwise.

While everything mentioned about the political periphery is true. Evidenced by the statement made by the defense attorney about Trump and Trump voters. Makes you want to shoot him right in the face. Because he did that in the place and time that defense attorneys say, "I'm pleased that my client was found innocent, and that justice is served." But no. He makes the jackass provocative political statement instead. Because THAT is foremost important to him.

The guy was not found innocent. Not completely. There's still the matter of a felon with a gun. And to the crackpot liberal S.F. political activists mindset, that is considered rather serious. Just touching a gun. YIKES! A gun!

And there's still the side matter of a State Trooper being so careless in safekeeping of something so horrible and so menacing so disgusting and so unwelcome as a gun.

Thinking like a liberal, it's hard or impossible to work up rage for an attractive young female cis-normal Barbie doll privileged caucasian, but actually aiming the gun at seals is an immediate outrage.

The guy was on trial for this crime, not his previous crimes. The jury is not allowed all that we find so outrageous. The prosecution blew it. And we saw this same prosecutorial overreach before. The vigilantes imagined should at least go after them and knock their heads together.