Sanctuary city pressured after illegal migrant allegedly burns woman alive
By: Mollie Markowitz
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In an unprecedented public attack that quickly spread across social media, a woman was lit on fire and burned to death on a subway train in Brooklyn, New York, on Sunday. The suspect arrested in connection to her heinous death is a previously deported migrant from Guatemala, as calls to end New York City's sanctuary policies enacted under former Mayor Bill de Blasio are escalating.
Sources previously identified the person of interest to Fox News Digital as Sebastian Zapeta, 33, who has been charged with first- and second-degree murder, as well as first-degree arson.
Zapeta was apprehended by Border Patrol and subsequently deported by the Trump administration in June 2018 after he crossed illegally into Sonoita, Arizona, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson Marie Ferguson told Fox News, adding that Zapeta later re-entered the U.S. illegally.
"It's beyond time to end sanctuary-city policies in New York," the New York Post editorial board wrote, adding that Zapeta "re-enteredthe country and, at some point thereafter, headed for New York,where local policies guarantee shelter, food and other taxpayer-funded aid to migrantsand forbid cops from working with ICE to deport even the ones who commit new crimes."
"In other words, he went where he'd be most able to do anything and everything he wanted, without much regard for the law or fear of consequences," the board continued.
Surveillance video of Sunday's attack showed the suspect approaching the woman, who was sitting motionless and may have been sleeping, while aboard a stationary F train at the Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue subway station and then setting her on fire.
"As the train pulled into the station, the suspect calmly walked up to the victim," Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said during a press conference on Sunday evening, adding that the female victim was in a seated position. "The suspect used what we believe to be a lighter to ignite the victim's clothing, which became fully engulfed in a matter of seconds."
The suspect then stayed on the scene and sat on a bench just outside the train car, as officers and a transit worker extinguished the flames. The woman was pronounced dead at the scene.
After three high school-aged New Yorkers called 911, the suspect was arrested just hours after the attack while riding on the same subway line. He was found with a lighter in his pocket, according to Tisch.
"People are tired of the revolving door where people are constantly committing violent crimes and back on our streets…it is not a safe haven for those who are committing criminal acts," New York City Mayor Eric Adams told Fox News last week in a discussion about the city's sanctuary policies. "Violent individuals should not remain in our country."
Adams is the first big city mayor to sit down with incoming border czar Tom Homan against the wishes of his own city leaders, saying he will work with the Trump administration to deport migrant criminals from his city.
This month and prior to Sunday's attack, Adams said there has been a 22-week drop in migrant arrivals into New York City, allowing for the closure of many of the migrant shelters used for housing, though the city has seen more than 225,000 migrants arrive since 2022, a surge that coincided with a spike at the southern border.
Yet more blood on his hands as he walks off....
Stop prosecuting innocent people. It is the guilty that are afflicted. This dude is in the hands of the law where he should be. . . and that is according to some conservatives who see all crimes/criminals as needing to have their 'day' in a court of law where s/he can be critically and legally assessed and if found guilty of a crime: punished. According to some conservatives that is all there is needed to do (here). Be consistent.
In the new year it would be. . . decent. . .if we (all) stop with the slanting of stories to one side or another. . . and aim for its >>center << figuratively speaking, of course.
The "dude" shouldn't have been in the country to begin with!
Did you miss this?
Why did the Biden Administration allow this criminal to gain entry to this country? Why did the sanctuary city of NY cater to his and all other illegal immigrant every whim so they felt entitle to pull not only this crime but others?
Stop defending Democrats enabling of criminal illegal immigrants to remain in this country. If they aren't here, they can't commit crimes here.
Flooding our already overcrowded prison system will illegal immigrant criminals isn't the answer either.
It is the mantra of some conservatives to 'let the justice system play out' - so let it. Be consistent. This 'dude' is in the hands of the proper authorities, and it will be dealt with properly and appropriately or not. Anything else from those who are in full support of releasing those criminals they like while damning those criminals they hate would be inconsistent. And, un-Christian too.
Some conservatives appear to be selective in who is a criminal, who should be punished for their crimes, and who should go free from their crimes.
I do not think even some conservatives are willing to go so far as to state that democrats want foreign criminals to come to our country; just so they can injure, maim, kill, or conduct a takeover! For every stupid, ignorant, dangerous, and corrupt person showing up at our border there are highly probably more good, decent, people running from tragedy in a far away place where they can't be anymore. Let's not try to broad-brush them all with the narrowest brush the collective "you" can handle.
Of course, the woman's death is unfortunate, immoral, and illegal. But, it is immoral to 'damn' all immigrants fleeing tragedies in their homelands because of a "bad apples' or several or a thousand!
At this time of year I call upon the some conservatives' humanity to remember that Native Americans considered and may still consider "YOU" an ILLEGAL in their land—along with the collective 'Me," but obviously there is nothing they can do to change that because "YOU" don't plan on leaving. . . EVER!
BE CONSISTENT!
COME BACK TO THE CENTER OF POLITICS!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
A person is dead because an illegal immigrant criminal was allowed into the country by the Biden administration and protected by sanctuary city NY.
Leave it to Democrats/leftists not to give a damn about the fact that it was completely preventable- or even care about the victim. The illegal immigrant criminal must be protected!
Why do Democrats/leftists love their criminals more than law abiding innocent civilians?
Catch and release isn't just done with illegal immigrants- US criminals in Democrat run bastions of stupidity get the same damn treatment.
As far as being un-Christian, I am an atheist so feel free to keep your religious platitudes.
By the way I am an American mutt- which includes being a portion Native American. So am I going to kick myself out of the country? Would like to know when you are planning on leaving since it is highly unlikely that you can claim the same.
Stop protecting criminals
Democrats/Leftists are not the center- so get off your damn pulpits!
Happy Holidays- your woke card has just been revoked!
It was a brutally horrific crime, for him to just sit there and watch then move along to another train without interference speaks volumes...
Some conservatives have a mantra and it goes let the courts take care of justice and so I say to the collective "You" - so be it. This alleged criminal means nothing to me. Indeed, I am against him killing any woman or man,. . . but she is dead and buried and there is nothing any of us know that can make her live again!
What is. . .unhealthy is hatred for the Other.
It's a sacred day for some. . . and as a Native American "mutt" you may should (or may not) have EMPATHY for others in dire straits and desperation.
As "You" are a conservative, I say to to some conservatives: BE CONSISTENT.
The (alleged illegal: to be factually determined in a court) man who killed a U.S. citizen is already in the proper hands of the U.S. Justice System. And, we can hope for its SUFFICIENCY to see that the alleged killer of this woman is properly tried and if/when deemed appropriate punished accordingly.
It is IMMORAL (and 'any' N/A might tell you so) to demean an entire class of people, especially out of spite and hatred.
Stop it. It's Mean-spirited.
Hate is a Disease. COME BACK TO THE CENTER OF POLITICS!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS. MERRY CHRISMAS. (I am not 'afeard' to say 'them' Both!)
It is a brutal crime. And even if it was not so 'brutal' it is was one man acting wrongly towards another person who may not have done anything to have set him off! He should not have been here, no one asked him to come here, but no one should use him as indicative of desperate illegals pressing our system; just to spurn them all.
There are highly probably many, millions, of illegals and 'becoming' legal migrants who despite and regret what this man represents. They deserve to be given a chance for their cases/issues to be heard and reconciled.
Of course, it is 'easy' to just sit back and watch the bad apples ruin 'it' for every migrant. But, then. . . where would that leave the collective 'us.' Native Americans have a 'record' of our collective sins in this land which we came (or were bought/brought) and "we" won't leave.
Therefore, this is a land of immigrants and for immigrants.
I am sure the collective 'you' will agree with the collective "me" when I state: There are two types of brilliant minds in this country: Native American and IMMIGRANT.
I had an 'encounter' of my own recently:
As I take my walk through the community for my health and relaxation, I come across a bridge and its adjoining creek with its attending bushes.
Since I always travel with a rather large and heavy stick which I use for protection and balance (if needed). I continue my stroll and land unto a
grouping of well-established and well-known bushes to me. Usually, these bushes are harmless and there is nothing to 'do' there but check them
out for a homeless person 'in-tow.' After-all, it is a named creek and despite many signs and postings by the city the occasional homeless (or "unhoused")
individual or two will try to take rest there if only for a day.
This day, my eyes fall upon a woman sitting and a man standing inside the bushes which leads to the facing fencing gates to enter the creek zone. At that
moment the woman hollers something, but it is not at me. She, however, is looking at me and off to her right quickly. I can not make out her words. Mind you,
I am one who 'walks softly and carries a big stick!' I continue on the sidewalk.
Then, I see a dog that looks more (definitely not less-could have even been stockier) staring me down through the brush:
She continues issuing "instructions". . . it continues looking at me ('in warning'?) and oh the man. . . he is scrawny and slight in frame he stands motionless and says nothing at all this whole time and throughout.
I continue walking with my large and heavy stick 'on guard' and on my side in need if called upon to 'serve.'
This massive dog (beautiful to look upon but difficult to gauge in temperament - does nothing. It does not sit. It remains standing. It lets me pass-by.
I do so. I keep a watchful eye out for a 'sneak attack' on my literal 'rear-flank' - and not by the man!
I appreciate the control the woman has over her animal (and maybe her man). This dog did not budge from its upright pose or ease its gaze. I saw no
'strings' attached to this animal through the bushes. Yet, it did not come for me.
Whew.
I tell the above real-world story to make this point. I am a citizen of this country out for a walk. There is a 'creature' lurking in the bush ahead of me with unknow intentions and reputation which is different of kind. Had it wanted to it could possibly have done me some harm (especially had it done so 'laying low' until I stepped into its near path)!
Had I been attacked. It would have been an unwarranted assault on my person! I walk for heart-sake. That time is not wisely invested in fighting any large breed dogs-singular or plural!
Who should I blame for this? The unhoused dog? The unhoused sitting woman? The standing (unhoused) man?
Let's continue: The mayor of my city? The governor of the State? The President of the United States?
Democrats have broken the justice system. I know no conservatives that trust it any longer- especially in Democrat run bastions of stupidity like New York. Two tier justice at it's finest. Third world tin horn dictators look at Democrat run justice with envy.
But he does. You are defending his right to be in country along with ever other illegal immigrant to be in this country. Every last damn one of them are breaking our laws.
Now you sound exactly like Hillary Clinton. Screw the fact that the death was completely preventable and never should have happened. Screw the fact that her friends and family and suffering from a completely brutal animalistic inhuman act. Screw the fact that Democrats/leftists refuse to take responsibility and do anything to prevent acts like this from happening again.
So hating criminals is wrong? Why do Democrats/leftists love criminals more than law abiding peaceful US citizens.
So expecting anyone coming this country to enter legally and obey our laws is wrong? I have empathy but it has it's limits; and illegal immigrants have crossed them. They are taking resources that should be going to US citizens at the federal, state, and local levels. Why do they matter more than US citizens in need?
Conservatives are being very damn consistent- get the fuck out if you entered the country illegally and never come back. I know of no conservative that is against legal immigration. I have great respect for anyone that comes to this country legally and goes through the process. It is a process that is way too difficult; costs way too much; and takes way too long. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of people that do it every year!
As for being consistent- how about the Brandon administration be consistent and stop trying to deport 3 Palestinian girls here on student VISA's. One from the West Bank, and two from Gaza? They have no damn place to return to! Israel will not let them in; and even if they did- the West Bank has turned into an IDF/Israeli push to drive Palestinians out; and Gaza is an IDF fish barrel. It is not safe for them to return. No country is willing to accept them- and even if they did what would they have to look forward to? Life in refugee camps in Lebanon (where they wouldn't be safe), Syria (where they wouldn't be safe), Jordan, or Egypt? These three teenage girls present no damn danger to anyone; the US government knows exactly where they are- and they have all been properly vetted. Yet they have received deportation papers. Their family they are staying with in the US is fighting it costing them tens of thousands of dollars. The US government will not budge. I even suggested that they send the girls to Mexico and have them cross unaccompanied as illegals. Brandon would treat them much better then.
Democrats and leftists need to take their own damn advice. BE CONSISTENT.
What, so he can spend the rest of his life in prison until some bleeding heart leftist decides to free him again? Still a burden on the US taxpayer. Doesn't bring the woman he killed back to life. Does nothing to help the friends and family of the victim. There will be more victims like her and Laken Riley. But Democrats/leftists simply don't care. Illegal immigrants matter more than innocent US civilians.
It is immoral to defend known criminals. Illegal immigrants aren't a class of people- they are criminals! What part of that is so damn hard to understand? Every second they are in this country they are violating our laws. Only in leftist land is enforcing our laws as written a sign of spite and hatred.
STOP DEFENDING CRIMINALS
DEMOCRATS/LEFTISTS AREN'T THE CENTER OF POLITICS
SORRY, YOUR WOKE CARD WAS ALREADY REVOKED!
Nice story.
If the dog would have attacked you.
Both the man and women would have been charged to the full extent of the law; and you would have been able to sue them. Chances are they didn't have much- but any family they had might would have been held culpable as well. I know that from experience with the US legal system. Hadn't talked to my now dead brother for over 30 years- no damn contact what-so-ever; but when he was sued they came after my assets. Didn't know the plaintiff in the case at all. Still had to get a lawyer to defend myself. Luckily the judge took into account I didn't view or treat my brother as family; and I had more than enough witnesses- including our mother to back that up.
The dog would have been instantly put down. No trial needed. No burden to the US taxpayer of having to house and care for it for the rest of it's life.
I am sure you, nor your family/friends, wouldn't be as callous and uncaring to your injuries or death- as you seem to be in the victim in this case.
Unlike the man and woman with the dog. Democrats/leftists don't have control on their illegal immigrant problem. It is proven repeatedly on a daily basis; and is one of the reasons they lost the last elections and Republicans control everything at the federal level.
I don't have time for this right now; though I am actually considering not responding farther to it at all. (We'll see, when I have time - later today).
Again the point of the story 'condenses' down to this:
Had I been attacked. It would have been an unwarranted assault on my person! I walk for heart-sake. That time is not wisely invested in fighting any large breed dogs-singular or plural!
Who should I blame for this? The unhoused dog? The unhoused sitting woman? The standing (unhoused) man?
Let's continue: The mayor of my city? The governor of the State? The President of the United States?
Your collective seems to want to make 'outside' parties the fall-guy for something done by an individual and y'all even name parties' names! The questions above are rhetorical, but it is notable that you did not name names in 1.1.9!
Name-calling is irrelevant. Best let it go. Name-calling, in ninety-nine percent of the cases says more about its writers than its recipients. Moving on.
There are plenty conservatives that trust in the justice system. They simply may not be MAGA/TRUMPIST who TRUST IN TRUMP!
We can all support our justice system—when it is right! When it is wrong we are justified in questioning it. That's the hardest part about this: Sticking to critical facts of justice (the whole process of justice: Top, Bottom, Left, Right. . .and some times 'diagonals.'
There is no alleged murderer (based on the charges - nice or not) that means anything whatever to me. In his upcoming legal proceedings it my be found that Mr. Zapeda is a person suffering with personal mental problems and not a symptom of the whole of the illegal/smuggling into our country issue itself.
My 'focus' is on this is the 'spillage' and attempt at portraying INNOCENT migrants - legally here or illegally as associates to the crimes of Mr. Zapeta when people say based on one act or several mass deport them all.
(It is tantamount to saying based on the actions of several "handfulls" of feral cats that repeatedly (abusively) use my lawn as a toilet - remove all the 'homeless' or 'yard' cats in the neighborhood. A 'total' disregard for any benefit such animals may be accomplishing for any of the other residents in the COMMUNITY.)
Finally, as some conservatives are steadfastly pointing out, Mr. Zapeta is here illegally. No one—including this democratic president 'asked' him to SNEAK IN TO THE COUNTRY after once being escorted out! Doing this makes Mr. Zapeta wrong and accountable!
No-one supported his actions.
Now then, when he commits a second wrong of murder and is 'id-ed' for doing so it would be a failure of our systems accountability to not round him up and punish him under our laws which protect our citizenry.
To my knowledge, President Biden certainly has not passed any policy which RESPECTS the right to murder innocent citizens of this country. Democrats should not (if any do) support any policy which would RESPECT murder/crime. Generally, democrats do not support such people and definitely not support such behaviors!
Lastly atheists, I have come to believe, are generally good/great/citizens to 'all' when treated fairly. Atheists are also familiar with persecution and 'lack' for their worldview coming from self-styled religious 'warriors' for God. Surely, it is understood even by STRICT FATHER CONSERVATIVE TYPES that not all the people pressing themselves into our country through illegal means are dangerous, murderous, or elsewise.
Come back to the Center of Politics! There is room for a proper discussion- Here!
Hate is a disease to be over-comed
Democrat policies at work. And it's costing people their lives.
Right? Any and all murders in the USA are committed by illegals..........................right?
Where did I say that exactly?
This crime appears to be beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, they shouldn’t waste one taxpayer dime trying this shitbird. Put him in a cell with bubba and let nature take it’s course.
“This crime appears to be beyond a reasonable doubt,”
There is absolutely no doubt. It’s on video surveillance. Skip the costly trial and go straight to sentencing.
Then Mr. Zapeta's public defender would get the case "slam dumped" out of court when it is demonstrated that he was not given proper due process. (And, democrats do not want to see that happen—despite some conservatives' insistences).
You’re right, let’s spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a trial to find out what we already know
Whatever it takes to follow the ESTABLISHED rule of law. And, not open the slide that leads to vigilantism or worse!
Surely, the "law and order" crowd wishes to abide by the Rules! Certainly. /s
Let's be clear: I don't like what this guy is alleged to have done, but we have a properly established system for dealing with violators of our laws for a really good reason. That is, to NOT ALLOW 'self-righteous' parties to cause additional harm by deploying 'select' and 'expedient' shortcuts that short-circuit the system as a whole!
BTW, since he is an alleged illegal in the country. . .he is in a gray-zone of sorts (similar to the terrorists in Guantanamo) -. though no one has defined him as a terrorist (or not—maybe Trump can do it if allowed under law). A military trial is highly unlikely for him.
All i’m saying is in a case where there is no doubt, whatsoever, about guilt, go straight to sentencing. The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence. We know with no doubt whatsoever this illegal committed the crime. Straight to sentencing.
Does not work that way. It is a maxim of conservativism to 'want' to hear the other side's point of view. In a court of law it is called: the Defense. A defendant is entitled to it.
Btw, I appreciate 'softening' of the some conservative position. Really, I do.
Our system of justice has been through the harsh 'fire' (that burns down or lynches everything it touches) due to raw and angry passion, and we learned the lesson of why (what/why/how/when/where/how long) matters in every case brought before a court!
When your actions are available on video for all to see, what defense is there?...
“Does not work that way.”
Yeah, no shit. I never said it did. I did say when there is irrefutable evidence, as in this case, why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to determine what we already know.
”It is a maxim of conservativism to 'want' to hear the other side's point of view. In a court of law it is called: the Defense. A defendant is entitled to it.”
we heard/saw the other side’s point of view crystal clear, on video.
question for you, what is the purpose of having a trial?
That violates due process. Even in cases where one believes it is open and shut, the whole point of jurisprudence is to prevent such summary judgments and instead force an objective process based on fact, logic and as little emotion as possible.
The idea is to, ultimately, protect those who are not guilty ... even if it means providing the guilty more of a break than they deserve.
In this case, the evidence should be overwhelming and the trial will go swiftly. And, in the end, it will be an unimpeachable verdict and the perp will be held accountable.
Nah, go straight to making him room with bubba
Due process?
That horse left the liberal barn long ago.
Long ago …..
Misses the point. A video is a single unit of evidence it is not a substitute or stand-in for a proper court proceeding where critical analysis takes place. (Let's not belabor that point!)
This man is a non-citizen alleged to be here illegally. What other 'outside' issues may the court ascertain from him or from his background bearing on this case? Did she do something substance to provoke a 'response' of this magnitude from him? If so, how much bearing should it have on the case?
Such things can only be learned through due process (which is constitutional - so no argument will withstand it). Not through 'hasty' sentencing.
Note: I am. . .reminded of the 'hasty judgements' done in the past history of the U.S. . .for which many formal apologies and large financial recompenses were made (and still are being done so). Many black Americans where unceremoniously lynched, shot, castrated (with hot utensils), and burned alive as forms of punishment ("sentencing")—only to have been found innocent once a critical evaluation of the 'cases' came to light!
You think that due process is no longer part of our system of jurisprudence?
Look it up, Gazoo. We have some 'incredible and remarkable search and AI tools nowadays. And 'Alexa' is a dream device!
(But really - according to 'Alexa' a trial is an occasion for arguments by plantiffs and defendants to argue their points in an official proceeding.)
It is no longer automatic with the triggered.
You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not recognize that.
Did you notice that Gazoo was the one who was in favor of suspending due process? Are you suggesting he is a liberal ... or triggered?
Your comments seem very confused.
In reality, our system of jurisprudence —with all of its human-infused flaws— is still based on due process.
Also, propping up a video ("picture worth a thousand words") is insufficient in itself to answer all the questions in law. A video is a tool. As such it is 'subject' to its handlers, lighting, placement, angles, and even mechanical parts. It used alone to convict and sentence would certainly lead to a technical 'toss' of the case. Or, a retrial—presumption of the defendant not being 'removed' from this life already. (In which case: A miscarriage of justice.)
I’ll ask again. What is the point of having a trial?
Well, my understanding is strict father types do not look favorably on such activity. Do explain what is meant from the strict father worldview about what is mean there.
I’ll leave the judgmental supposition game up to you.
Except if your name is Trump or other conservative who has the temerity to not goosestep in unison with the prefered liberal narrative.
3.1.13. Sorry, I do not cater to (or appease) a one-size fit all point of view!
Lol
If our system of jurisprudence made exceptions for 'obvious' guilt then that would basically unravel the system. Incrementally more things will be seen as obvious and we will be back in medieval times where 'judges' (prosperous members of the community) act as judge and jury and simply declare guilt as they see fit.
The whole idea of our system is to get away from kings, lords and lower level 'judges' operating on opinion / bias and to instead have a system ... a process ... designed to be as objective and formal as possible so that we minimize falsely deeming someone guilty.
Exactly. The intent of jurisprudence is to remove all (or as many as humanly possible) biases from official legal proceeding. As someone once stated on television: 'Just the facts!'
Your comments are now getting even stranger. If anything, Trump enjoyed massive deference by the system. With all the wrongdoing in which he engaged his attorneys (with the help of the ScotUS) managed to delay his serious trials (the ones that really mattered) and ... in the end ... they disappeared by virtue of the election.
Trump was never held accountable for his traitorous attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election.
Well, Sparty, there is no judgement required. Just read his comment @3.1.17 where he asks again why a trial is necessary.
Rabbit meets hole.
“If our system of jurisprudence made exceptions for 'obvious' guilt then that would basically unravel the system”
When i say obvious, i mean video evidence, as in this case, or caught in the act. I think the system would survive just fine, and it would save money.
“Just read his comment @3.1.17 where he asks again why a trial is necessary.”
That’s not what i asked. I asked what is the point of having a trial. So far no one on the left can answer that simple question. The point of having a trial is to determine innocence or guilt. The video evidence has supplied that determination. There is no question about this guys guilt, none! Save the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars and go straight to sentencing.
So how do you draw that line, Gazoo? And as soon as you draw the line, how do you prevent new lines being drawn via incrementalism?
That is how the system unravels.
Our system exists to do precisely the opposite of what you suggest. And that is because our ancestors learned that empowering individuals to be judge and jury based solely on their opinion was fundamentally unjust and catered to the rich and powerful at the expense of the 'common folk'.
"What is the point of having a trial?"
vs
"Why is a trial necessary?"
You want to explain to us all how those two questions are different?
What if Mr. Zapeta is framed? Has a twin? Has a 'lookalike (lots of us do)? The video lens (or film) decrepit/grainy? Tampering of the video (glitches)?
The alleged has a right to our justice system to clear any of that (and more) up in a court of law!
Any number of scenarios have been brought up in a court by attorneys that are potentials for a judge to rule as a change in the landscape of video production. I've only listed a few.
Here is video of this that I can retrieve (quickly):
Woman's HORRIFYING death after being set on fire in Subway.
Note: None of my questions may even be probable or possible, but THEY are what/why/when/where/how/how long that courts exist to determine BEFORE findings of guilt or innocence .
If he did this, as the smell must have been 'exotic,' strange, and maybe stench (toxic?) the alleged perp is one ill individual and deserves whatsoever he gets in court.
Just looking at this makes no sense. . . unless it is something someone has experience through having done before. (There should be a record back in Guatemala.("MO").
To be clear, the (short) clip of the violent fire is evidence of someone fanning a fire happening inside a subway car, that is all that is EVIDENT from it (alone). May be their are better clips? I have not found them yet. In any case, court is where judgement plays out.
BTW, what happens to the notion of 'quick sentencing' if that alleged defendant pleads: NOT GUILTY?
Nah but your comments do appear to be becoming less informed as time goes on. A simple google search is all that is required:
It makes me sick when I see the triggered pushing for Due Process for criminal illegal aliens and ignoring Due Process violations for folks likeTrump.
Just the type of egregious hypocrisy we’ve come to expect from our triggered friends on the left.
Alrighty then ….. If you want to know what a member here is or isn’t. Ask them not someone else.
‘You want to explain to us all how those two questions are different’
very simple
‘What is the point of having a trial?"
Let me explain. You (collective you) on the left have found Trump guilty of everything you think he has done, especially the imaginary stuff. You (collective you) wish him to be sent to prison for no other reason except that he is Trump.
‘Why is a trial necessary?"’
To determine guilt or innocence by a jury of a person’s peers, not by a hateful group that just wants someone in prison because of that person’s name.
I can’t believe this has to be explained.
If you read my comment you will see I was referring to his federal indictments, in particular the one dealing with the attempt to steal the election. If you are going to attempt to rebut my claim that he was given considerable deference then citing an opinion on his New York trial is not going to cut it.
Yeah, you deflect when shown to be wrong.
And you failed to do so. Instead of showing the difference between the two questions, you simply provided two narratives with an absurd level of exaggeration even.
You want to skip a trial and go directly to sentencing:
This is a violation of due process. If our system starts making exceptions when the guilt is "obvious" then that crack in due process will incrementally expand. Our system is designed to eliminate as much bias as possible by presuming innocence and persuading a jury (and judge) through a formal process of logic and evidence that the charged is guilty. Your suggestion is what used to happen in medieval times when kings, lords, and down to city aldermen decided guilt and punishment based on personal opinion.
Our system is designed to protect those who are not guilty. As such, it requires a formal finding of guilt even when the case is "obvious".
I disagree. Due process is due process. Is it not? Shouldn’t matter if it’s federal or not. Either you are for it or against it. Which is it for you? Which “cuts it?”
Yeah, Sparty, and one opinion on one case for Trump does not mean that Trump is the poster child for failure of due process. You put forth one example yet I had put forth the federal examples that nobody could possibly even imply did not give Trump due process and beyond.
A failure of Due Process is a failure of Due Process. No triggered spin required.
[deleted][✘]
The projection at play in your comment is egregiously abundant.
Nobody has claimed that due process is always applied perfectly. As usual, you resort to a strawman.
The point was that due process is important. Even when the guilt of the accused is "obvious". Do you understand why it is important to always apply due process even if the accused is "obviously" guilty?
Wrong, my point was clear, concise and this conversation is going in the usual direction. Nowhere …..
You pushed for Due Process for a criminal illegal alien while ignoring the failure of Due Process for Trump. A Trump triggered reaction.
Nothing more.
Donald Trump pays a 'bank' of attorneys to get him the maximum treatment (and arguably beyond) in a court of law. A poor (and potentially stupid or 'mental') Guatemalan caught in the jaws of the justice system— rightly or wrongly deserves the best public defense s/he can acquire.
Utter bullshit. I noted that due process is fundamental to our system of jurisprudence and that the notion of having exceptions where due process is skipped is dangerous to our system.
The only bullshit being shoveled here is coming from your comments. Admit that what happened to Trump was dangerous and we are in agreement. But you have to say the words.
Not expected though. Not at all.
You have a nice News Years ya hear.
I have stated repeatedly (and even explained repeatedly) that the suspension of due process is dangerous.
Trump was granted all sorts of deference and got far more than mere due process in his federal indictments, immunity cases, etc. You can object to the quality of the due process in his New York case, but it was still due process. And Trump made use of the appeal process (as always) and lost. So your claim that he did not receive due process even in the New York case is feeble. Our system did not simply do as Gazoo stated and go directly to sentencing.
My point, which you cannot deal with and thus deflected to Trump, is that due process is fundamental to our system of jurisprudence and that making an exception and go directly to sentencing even when guilt is "obvious" would be a very dangerous precedent.
Let me call it out for what it is. This is easily a 'case' of white preference and conservative preference. That is, as Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott opinion (1857) on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution uttered:
"A black man has no rights that a white man was bound to respect." - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Taney. 1857 Opinion. *
And from Wikipedia:
The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled that this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy .
The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction.
This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
Thus, it is impossible for Mr. Zepeta to have a properly FAIR and EQUAL trial with 'missing steps,' namely 'sentencing' alone. Some conservatives are ARGUING for 'special pleading' to give 'old-timey' and 'wilderness' justice as they see fit based on passion. . . and not law.
* It appears some conservatives consider foreign nationals who violate our laws as undeserving of the same value system of justice as themselves.
Whatever the underlying reason, it is dangerous to ever have conditions in which due process is suspended (go directly to sentencing) because the guilt is "obvious".
Yeah, that’s what I thought. Just can’t say it directly.
Sad
Yawn …..
My pleasure. Anytime. Glad to help out!
As this shows, heroes like Daniel penny are the exception and those that are so inclined to help others will think twice after the treatment penny received by insane New York government.
Just one more reason to avoid shithole sanctuary cities like NYC.
Texas school shooting among deadliest in state's history | Fox News
2023 Nashville school shooting
Mockers have to mock, I guess. (Sigh.)
The article is about NYC. Not whatever it is you are trying to do here. How about you get back to it.
It ain't about "shitholes" (mocking) either.
NYC. Is it not a sanctuary Shithole? Short answer - Yes. It IS a Sanctuary Shithole.
BYE.
Meh, one persons genuine is another persons mock.
Welcome to Newstalkers…..
Too pithy. In need of substance!
So?
So …. buy flame retardant clothes if you ride the NYC subway.
Not only does Mar-a-Lago use about 380 foreign workers under the H-1B visas program. There were at least that number roaming around Trump’s property when he had dozens of unsecured top secret documents just laying in boxes.