I told you so

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's an article following up on the killing of Sister Denise Mosier, about which I posted a couple of months age.  Seems ICE has formally taken the same position which I took then.

ICE: Revised immigration policies could have prevented nun's death

March 5, 2011-03-14

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement report made public Friday concludes that the new federal immigration policies would have prevented the release of an illegal immigrant who was subsequently charged with killing a nun in an alleged drunken-driven accident.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_73fc5c26-f49c-5c55-82a4-67ed6a7c3157.html

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Can you link us to the old thread.......I'm not sure what the reaction was to your initial telling us so.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The thread, Illegal aliens caught driving drunk will actually be detained from now on,” in the U.S. General Discussion Board of the General Politics Forum was started by dead0man on September 17, 2010, with my reply being the second post.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124304.0

intermoderate apparently could not get the simple point, as according to him, I had suggested that drunk drivers only kill people when they are Mexicans, obviously.”

Now, I don't know it he is trying to suggest that drunk drivers have the capacity to discern their victims, and pick on Mexicans or what?

Also, as I noted in reply #20 on the thread, the person arrested for the killing was a Bolivian national, and hence I had absolutely not idea what the Mexicans reference was supposed to concern (unless intermoderate was assuming all Hispanics are Mexicans.”

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

CARL, honestly I don't think there is any rational person here that would say the guy shouldn't have been locked up.......

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You'd achieve the same degree of increase in public safety by locking up citizens with two prior DUI offenses while awaiting trial on a reckless driving charge.  The danger the guy posed had nothing to do with his immigration status.

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARL, honestly I don't think there is any rational person here that would say the guy shouldn't have been locked up.......

Are you making a comment about intermoderate?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

CARL, honestly I don't think there is any rational person here that would say the guy shouldn't have been locked up.......

Are you making a comment about intermoderate?

Just accept what I said, as correct, please.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You'd achieve the same degree of increase in public safety by locking up citizens with two prior DUI offenses while awaiting trial on a reckless driving charge.  The danger the guy posed had nothing to do with his immigration status.

Sorry Ernest, but, you are wrong.

Let me clarify.

Experience has indicated that those who repeatedlty commit crimes tend to commit more crimes.

There are a number of psychological explantions for it, but it has been proven to be true.

Had the accused been incapacitated, i.e. not been present in the United States, he could not have committed the offense for which he is charged.

Even ICE acknowledges that fact.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My point, CARL, which you totally ignored (which I expected, but I wasn't expecting it to be ignored while you replied) is that his citizenship status had nothing to do with his being a habitual DUI offender.  What is the difference in effect between locking this guy up and locking up a John Whitebread who had been found to be guilty on the exact same offenses (save the immigration violation of course).  Answer: None

[CARLHAYDEN]

My point, CARL, which you totally ignored (which I expected, but I wasn't expecting it to be ignored while you replied) is that his citizenship status had nothing to do with his being a habitual DUI offender.  What is the difference in effect between locking this guy up and locking up a John Whitebread who had been found to be guilty on the exact same offenses (save the immigration violation of course).  Answer: None

YOU apparently missed my point.

It is NOT the nationality of the offender, but whether he/she has committed prior offenses (being illegally in the country for example).

Now, as criminologists can tell you, a person who has previously been convicted of aggravated assault is far more likely to commit murder than someone who has not been so convicted.

In short, your belief that the "offense" has to be the same to be relevant, is simply incorrect.

The bottom line, which you seem to ignore, is that had the law been followed, Denise Mosier would be alive today.

I guess that little point is unimportant in your defense of illegal aliens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I guess that little point is unimportant in your defense of illegal aliens.

Who said I was defending illegal aliens?  I am not defending anything here, I am attacking.  In particular, what I am attacking is your monomaniacal obsession with illegal aliens to the exclusion of more serious problems.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I guess that little point is unimportant in your defense of illegal aliens.

Who said I was defending illegal aliens?  I am not defending anything here, I am attacking.  In particular, what I am attacking is your monomaniacal obsession with illegal aliens to the exclusion of more serious problems.

First, the problem of illegal aliens is serious.  I would suggest you ask Denise Mosier, but, well, its impossible for her to reply.

Second, if you will note I have extensively posted on other matters on this forum.  So, your assertion is incorrect.  I guess instead of sticking with facts, you engage in ad hominem attacks.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I guess that little point is unimportant in your defense of illegal aliens.

Who said I was defending illegal aliens?  I am not defending anything here, I am attacking.  In particular, what I am attacking is your monomaniacal obsession with illegal aliens to the exclusion of more serious problems.

First, the problem of illegal aliens is serious.  I would suggest you ask Denise Mosier, but, well, its impossible for her to reply.

So, victims of drunk drivers only matter when the drunk driver is an illegal alien?  Your obsession on this issue sure makes it seem that way.

Second, if you will note I have extensively posted on other matters on this forum.  So, your assertion is incorrect.  I guess instead of sticking with facts, you engage in ad hominem attacks.

Considering that you act as if all twelve million or so illegal aliens are here for no other reason than to kill American citizens via drunk driving or commit other heinous crimes, that certainly makes you monomaniacal in my book.  Anytime an illegal alien does something bad, you act as if the worst thing he did was cross the border without authorization.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I guess that little point is unimportant in your defense of illegal aliens.

Who said I was defending illegal aliens?  I am not defending anything here, I am attacking.  In particular, what I am attacking is your monomaniacal obsession with illegal aliens to the exclusion of more serious problems.

First, the problem of illegal aliens is serious.  I would suggest you ask Denise Mosier, but, well, its impossible for her to reply.

So, victims of drunk drivers only matter when the drunk driver is an illegal alien?  Your obsession on this issue sure makes it seem that way.

Second, if you will note I have extensively posted on other matters on this forum.  So, your assertion is incorrect.  I guess instead of sticking with facts, you engage in ad hominem attacks.

Considering that you act as if all twelve million or so illegal aliens are here for no other reason than to kill American citizens via drunk driving or commit other heinous crimes, that certainly makes you monomaniacal in my book.  Anytime an illegal alien does something bad, you act as if the worst thing he did was cross the border without authorization.

Ernest,

You are becoming increasingly dishonest in your positions.

You seem to believe that the problem of illegal aliens is NOT serious because??

Next, I DO NOT ACT as you allege.  It is your inability to deal with matters that is the problem.

Now, I cited the numerous posts on this board alone on the day I posted this thread, with none of the others on that date dealing even remotely with the problem of illegal aliens.  However, anyone who does even mention the problem of illegal aliens seems to be "monomaniacal in (Ernest's') book."  I would say that assertions says a lot about you and 'your book.'

Finally, you seem to be completely unable to deal with the concept of causation.  I have repeatedly noted that IF the illegal alien committing the additional offense cited (in the instant case, the killing of Denise Mosier) had NOT committed the prior offense, she would likely be alive today.  That you are apparently unable (or unwilling) to grasp this point, which ICE acknowledged, seems really weird to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Carl, what you seem to be unable to grasp is that dealing with repeat DUI offenders is a far more serious concern than dealing with illegal aliens.  We both agree that something should have been done about this guy before Denise Mosier died, but I fail to see why his immigration status had anything to do with it.  He shouldn't have been out on the highway in any event.  The reason he was let go was not because we aren't treating illegal immigration seriously enough, but because we don't treat repeat DUI offenses seriously enough.

I would much rather share the highway with a random illegal immigrant than a random repeat DUI offender.  The latter will on average be far more likely to kill me or someone else.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, we all knew only immigrants are committing serious crimes.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, what you seem to be unable to grasp is that dealing with repeat DUI offenders is a far more serious concern than dealing with illegal aliens.  We both agree that something should have been done about this guy before Denise Mosier died, but I fail to see why his immigration status had anything to do with it.  He shouldn't have been out on the highway in any event.  The reason he was let go was not because we aren't treating illegal immigration seriously enough, but because we don't treat repeat DUI offenses seriously enough.

I would much rather share the highway with a random illegal immigrant than a random repeat DUI offender.  The latter will on average be far more likely to kill me or someone else.

Ernest,

You keep making assertions based on your belief system, rather than facts.

Now, its very simple, even ICE gets it.  If the perpetrator had been expelled, he would NOT have been able to kill Denise Mosier.  What's so hard for you to grasp that fact???   

[John Dibble]

Carl, what you seem to be unable to grasp is that dealing with repeat DUI offenders is a far more serious concern than dealing with illegal aliens.  We both agree that something should have been done about this guy before Denise Mosier died, but I fail to see why his immigration status had anything to do with it.  He shouldn't have been out on the highway in any event.  The reason he was let go was not because we aren't treating illegal immigration seriously enough, but because we don't treat repeat DUI offenses seriously enough.

I would much rather share the highway with a random illegal immigrant than a random repeat DUI offender.  The latter will on average be far more likely to kill me or someone else.

Ernest,

You keep making assertions based on your belief system, rather than facts.

Now, its very simple, even ICE gets it.  If the perpetrator had been expelled, he would NOT have been able to kill Denise Mosier.  What's so hard for you to grasp that fact???

You don't get it - he's saying you're attributing the wrong thing to this case. Even in the event that the guy had been deported, he could have still ended up drinking, driving, and killing someone else there. Then someone could just have easily said "well if he hadn't been deported he wouldn't have killed that person in that country". The danger the guy posed has nothing to do with which country he was from or what country he happened to be in. If we handled repeat DUI offenders better in general, we'd have not only prevented Denise's death we would likely have prevented others caused by legal citizens.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, what you seem to be unable to grasp is that dealing with repeat DUI offenders is a far more serious concern than dealing with illegal aliens.  We both agree that something should have been done about this guy before Denise Mosier died, but I fail to see why his immigration status had anything to do with it.  He shouldn't have been out on the highway in any event.  The reason he was let go was not because we aren't treating illegal immigration seriously enough, but because we don't treat repeat DUI offenses seriously enough.

I would much rather share the highway with a random illegal immigrant than a random repeat DUI offender.  The latter will on average be far more likely to kill me or someone else.

Ernest,

You keep making assertions based on your belief system, rather than facts.

Now, its very simple, even ICE gets it.  If the perpetrator had been expelled, he would NOT have been able to kill Denise Mosier.  What's so hard for you to grasp that fact???

You don't get it - he's saying you're attributing the wrong thing to this case. Even in the event that the guy had been deported, he could have still ended up drinking, driving, and killing someone else there. Then someone could just have easily said "well if he hadn't been deported he wouldn't have killed that person in that country". The danger the guy posed has nothing to do with which country he was from or what country he happened to be in. If we handled repeat DUI offenders better in general, we'd have not only prevented Denise's death we would likely have prevented others caused by legal citizens.

Um,

What makes you think the accused would have been able to obtain a vehicle "there"?

Do you know where "there" is?  (Hint, I posted the information to correct another poster's erroneous assumption).

[John Dibble]

Um,

What makes you think the accused would have been able to obtain a vehicle "there"?

Do you know where "there" is?  (Hint, I posted the information to correct another poster's erroneous assumption).

Bolivia, and he may have been able to for all any of us know - there are cars in Bolivia, you know.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Um,

What makes you think the accused would have been able to obtain a vehicle "there"?

Do you know where "there" is?  (Hint, I posted the information to correct another poster's erroneous assumption).

Bolivia, and he may have been able to for all any of us know - there are cars in Bolivia, you know.

May...

Some day Dibble may drop his adoration of the Obamamessiah....

May...

Not holding my breath!

[John Dibble]

Um,

What makes you think the accused would have been able to obtain a vehicle "there"?

Do you know where "there" is?  (Hint, I posted the information to correct another poster's erroneous assumption).

Bolivia, and he may have been able to for all any of us know - there are cars in Bolivia, you know.

May...

Some day Dibble may drop his adoration of the Obamamessiah....

May...

Not holding my breath!

I don't recall being a big Obama fan. 

But I notice none of this is an actual refutation to anything, just ad hominem and avoiding the real meat of the issue as usual. Not that I should expect better from someone who is obsessed as you are.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now, its very simple, even ICE gets it.  If the perpetrator had been expelled, he would NOT have been able to kill Denise Mosier.  What's so hard for you to grasp that fact??? 

No you don't get it.  Your solution would have let him go free to kill her if he had been a legal resident or citizen.  My solution would have been to lock him up as a proven danger to society regardless of his citizenship status.  Why can't you grasp the fact that it wasn't his immigration status that made him dangerous?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Um,

What makes you think the accused would have been able to obtain a vehicle "there"?

Do you know where "there" is?  (Hint, I posted the information to correct another poster's erroneous assumption).

Bolivia, and he may have been able to for all any of us know - there are cars in Bolivia, you know.

May...

Some day Dibble may drop his adoration of the Obamamessiah....

May...

Not holding my breath!

I don't recall being a big Obama fan. 

But I notice none of this is an actual refutation to anything, just ad hominem and avoiding the real meat of the issue as usual. Not that I should expect better from someone who is obsessed as you are.

Not lets try to reduce this to a level you MAY comprehend.

Just about everybody agrees that had the accused been deported when he should have been, he would not have been unable to kill Sister Denise Mosier.

You respond that he MAY have instead killed someone in Bolivia.  You do not alledge that he would have killed someone in Bolivia.  You do not identify the person he MAY have killed.

So the difference is between a death with rational people acknowledge would NOT have occur ed and a possible death which MAY (or may not) have occurred in Bolivia.

I'll take preventing the known death, as opposed to a possible (MAY) death.

Now, you might want to study the legal theory of causation.  In both Criminal law and Tort law, it consists lf actual cause and proximate cause.  The primary test of actual cause is the "but for" test.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now, its very simple, even ICE gets it.  If the perpetrator had been expelled, he would NOT have been able to kill Denise Mosier.  What's so hard for you to grasp that fact??? 

No you don't get it.  Your solution would have let him go free to kill her if he had been a legal resident or citizen.  My solution would have been to lock him up as a proven danger to society regardless of his citizenship status.  Why can't you grasp the fact that it wasn't his immigration status that made him dangerous?

Ernest,

I recognize that you do not want laws enforced which deal with aliens illegally in this country!

Now, while I recognize that you love spending the taxpayers money to lock some one up rather than enforce existing laws respecting illegal aliens, I would prefer to both save the taxpayer money as well as prevent criminal homicides where reasonably possible.

Apparently you not only love aliens illegally present in this country, but want to punish the taxpayers as well.