Mollie Tibbetts, missing Iowa college student, found dead

[C r a b c a k e]

The argument of Fuzzy Bear kind of intrigues me, because it seems to me one that lends credence to Minority Report-esque preemptive arrests. The argument goes that illegal immigrants shouldn't primarily be judged on their original crime (either crossing a border or overstaying a visa, neither of which is a violent crime in of itself, whatever one thinks of immigration policy) but the potential violent crime they may commit. It's not an argument that particularly appeals to me, because, quite aside from being a breach of one's democratic rights to solely be convicted for one's own actions, nobody actually has the ability to tell who will turn out to do horrid things in the future. "Mollie Robbers would be alive if this man was deported" is a true statement, yes, but it's only something you can say in retrospect. The same logic would be somebody saying something like "why don't we just kill serial killers when they were babies so they wouldn't murder anybody?".

[Brittain33]

Mollie Tibbetts' killing was an act of senseless violence. The story of her last hours is exactly what countless women worry about every day, and the monster who did this to her should rot in jail until he dies. My heart breaks for her, her family, her friends - it seems like she was a brilliant young woman, taken by the whims of a predator before she could live her best days.

For the record, the politicization of this tragedy is being performed heartless individuals, who would rather exploit and trample upon a dead woman's legacy than let her loved ones mourn in peace. The government could not have done anything to save her life, and there are vile, deranged individuals of all creeds and colors. I didn't see anyone saying that we should remove police officers from the US after they caught Joseph DeAngelo. I didn't see anyone saying that Armenians should be removed from Canada after the Toronto van attack. Holding an entire group of people responsible for one monster's actions is just as ridiculous as the scenarios above.

Rest in peace, Mollie. You were gone too soon.

i've kinda been wondering, what exactly makes a murder committed by an illegal immigrant worse than by someone born in america? the result is the same...both are despicable, but it's not like it's possible for no immigrants (legal or not) to commit any crime...just saying

The fact that if that illegal immigrant had not entered the US the victim would not have been murdered by that person.

Yes, and if we had no illegal immigrants, hundreds or thousands of seniors would have died because they did not get the medical care they needed from a home aide or assistant. There are a large number of DACA Dreamers in the armed forces and some of them have saved lives while serving.  If we had no illegal immigrants, some people on the poverty line would have had to skip meals because of higher food prices, and some share of them would have succumbed to a disease they wouldn't otherwise get. There are thousands of other butterfly-in-the-Amazon cases one could refer to, too.

You can't look at one case in isolation and use it to justify policy affecting millions of people without considering all the benefits they bring, too, and also considering that a random cross-section of people will include both sinners and saints. On balance, undocumented immigrants are *less* likely to commit crimes because they don't want to draw the attention of police.

[Meclazine for Israel]

You can't look at one case in isolation and use it to justify policy affecting millions of people

Wanna bet?

The idea that the USA looks after a loving North American community where everyone is free to do as they please including kidnapping, raping and murdering young women the USA is abhorrent.

The only thing getting murdered in the USA is common sense.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The argument of Fuzzy Bear kind of intrigues me, because it seems to me one that lends credence to Minority Report-esque preemptive arrests. The argument goes that illegal immigrants shouldn't primarily be judged on their original crime (either crossing a border or overstaying a visa, neither of which is a violent crime in of itself, whatever one thinks of immigration policy) but the potential violent crime they may commit. It's not an argument that particularly appeals to me, because, quite aside from being a breach of one's democratic rights to solely be convicted for one's own actions, nobody actually has the ability to tell who will turn out to do horrid things in the future. "Mollie Robbers would be alive if this man was deported" is a true statement, yes, but it's only something you can say in retrospect. The same logic would be somebody saying something like "why don't we just kill serial killers when they were babies so they wouldn't murder anybody?".

Let's look at statements that are true about people here illegally.  I will state out front that this is probably more true for persons that actively crashed the border than people who are illegally here because they overstayed their visas:

1.  They have already shown a disregard for American Law by the way they entered the Country.

2.  They have no Real ID of their own that would allow them to work legally in the country.  

3.  Many are not legally here because they could not pass the vetting process, including criminal background checks in their home countries.

4.  At least some have entered as a result of the assistance of criminal cartels and transnational gangs, and are indebted to them.  Members of these gangs and cartels that are already here, doing their illegal business in the United States, account for some of their "contacts".  

5.  They are more likely to victimize persons who they, themselves, will not seek the help of law enforcement (for a variety of reasons), and they are aware of this.

If anyone thinks that these statements above aren't true; they're kidding themselves.  This does not mean every Illegal Alien is a criminal, or ought to be presumed to have committed felonies.  But these conditions are the conditions that lead people to do things to survive such as commit identity theft, work as "mules" for drug cartels, do the "business" of transnational gangs, etc.  These are valid reasons to enforce our immigration laws as they are; these, plus the simple principle of the rule of law, which folks often with to adhere to only selectively.

I really don't care about the "racial makeup" of the United States, but I care very much about whether or not our citizenry can be reached as Americans, or whether or not tribal and ethnic loyalties will prove more powerful than loyalty to America, a nation whom, after 242 years is, very much NOT about "blood and soil" as other nations in the world are.  And as unseemly as, say, Donald Trump can be in beating this issue to death at rallies, it is hardly an improvement to see the Democrats (at their convention, no less) to actually FEATURE illegal aliens on their platform and have a speaker point to a group of them and say to America, "These are your countrymen!".  

I'm certainly not a "Minority Report" guy, and I cringe at tendencies toward that.  People should not be punished for their thoughts.  But it's not unreasonable to conclude that when certain conditions exist, there is a greater likelihood of more negative outcomes than when they don't.  

The conditions surrounding the entry of "border crashers" are such as to lend themselves to the greater likelihood of criminal outcomes for the individual, in part because the percentage of those who'd not pass muster in vetting, and, in part, because of what they have to do to support themselves once illegally here.  If you wish to say, "Amnesty for all!" is the solution, an argument can be made for that, but so can a counterargument that it will only perpetuate the problem.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The argument of Fuzzy Bear kind of intrigues me, because it seems to me one that lends credence to Minority Report-esque preemptive arrests. The argument goes that illegal immigrants shouldn't primarily be judged on their original crime (either crossing a border or overstaying a visa, neither of which is a violent crime in of itself, whatever one thinks of immigration policy) but the potential violent crime they may commit. It's not an argument that particularly appeals to me, because, quite aside from being a breach of one's democratic rights to solely be convicted for one's own actions, nobody actually has the ability to tell who will turn out to do horrid things in the future. "Mollie Robbers would be alive if this man was deported" is a true statement, yes, but it's only something you can say in retrospect. The same logic would be somebody saying something like "why don't we just kill serial killers when they were babies so they wouldn't murder anybody?".

Let's look at statements that are true about people here illegally.  I will state out front that this is probably more true for persons that actively crashed the border than people who are illegally here because they overstayed their visas:

1.  They have already shown a disregard for American Law by the way they entered the Country.

2.  They have no Real ID of their own that would allow them to work legally in the country. 

3.  Many are not legally here because they could not pass the vetting process, including criminal background checks in their home countries.

4.  At least some have entered as a result of the assistance of criminal cartels and transnational gangs, and are indebted to them.  Members of these gangs and cartels that are already here, doing their illegal business in the United States, account for some of their "contacts". 

5.  They are more likely to victimize persons who they, themselves, will not seek the help of law enforcement (for a variety of reasons), and they are aware of this.

If anyone thinks that these statements above aren't true; they're kidding themselves.  This does not mean every Illegal Alien is a criminal, or ought to be presumed to have committed felonies.  But these conditions are the conditions that lead people to do things to survive such as commit identity theft, work as "mules" for drug cartels, do the "business" of transnational gangs, etc.  These are valid reasons to enforce our immigration laws as they are; these, plus the simple principle of the rule of law, which folks often with to adhere to only selectively.

I really don't care about the "racial makeup" of the United States, but I care very much about whether or not our citizenry can be reached as Americans, or whether or not tribal and ethnic loyalties will prove more powerful than loyalty to America, a nation whom, after 242 years is, very much NOT about "blood and soil" as other nations in the world are.  And as unseemly as, say, Donald Trump can be in beating this issue to death at rallies, it is hardly an improvement to see the Democrats (at their convention, no less) to actually FEATURE illegal aliens on their platform and have a speaker point to a group of them and say to America, "These are your countrymen!". 

I'm certainly not a "Minority Report" guy, and I cringe at tendencies toward that.  People should not be punished for their thoughts.  But it's not unreasonable to conclude that when certain conditions exist, there is a greater likelihood of more negative outcomes than when they don't. 

The conditions surrounding the entry of "border crashers" are such as to lend themselves to the greater likelihood of criminal outcomes for the individual, in part because the percentage of those who'd not pass muster in vetting, and, in part, because of what they have to do to support themselves once illegally here.  If you wish to say, "Amnesty for all!" is the solution, an argument can be made for that, but so can a counterargument that it will only perpetuate the problem.

So your argument is to assert a bunch of stuff without backup and declare the conversation closed? Cool beans, broseph.

[Brittain33]

You can't look at one case in isolation and use it to justify policy affecting millions of people

Wanna bet?

The idea that the USA looks after a loving North American community where everyone is free to do as they please including kidnapping, raping and murdering young women the USA is abhorrent.

The only thing getting murdered in the USA is common sense.

I'm familiar with the Republican talking points and that it resonates with a share of the population. I disagree with the characterization.

[afleitch]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/30/upshot/crime-immigration-myth.html

Very informative. But MUH EMOTIONS.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The argument of Fuzzy Bear kind of intrigues me, because it seems to me one that lends credence to Minority Report-esque preemptive arrests. The argument goes that illegal immigrants shouldn't primarily be judged on their original crime (either crossing a border or overstaying a visa, neither of which is a violent crime in of itself, whatever one thinks of immigration policy) but the potential violent crime they may commit. It's not an argument that particularly appeals to me, because, quite aside from being a breach of one's democratic rights to solely be convicted for one's own actions, nobody actually has the ability to tell who will turn out to do horrid things in the future. "Mollie Robbers would be alive if this man was deported" is a true statement, yes, but it's only something you can say in retrospect. The same logic would be somebody saying something like "why don't we just kill serial killers when they were babies so they wouldn't murder anybody?".

Let's look at statements that are true about people here illegally.  I will state out front that this is probably more true for persons that actively crashed the border than people who are illegally here because they overstayed their visas:

1.  They have already shown a disregard for American Law by the way they entered the Country.

2.  They have no Real ID of their own that would allow them to work legally in the country. 

3.  Many are not legally here because they could not pass the vetting process, including criminal background checks in their home countries.

4.  At least some have entered as a result of the assistance of criminal cartels and transnational gangs, and are indebted to them.  Members of these gangs and cartels that are already here, doing their illegal business in the United States, account for some of their "contacts". 

5.  They are more likely to victimize persons who they, themselves, will not seek the help of law enforcement (for a variety of reasons), and they are aware of this.

If anyone thinks that these statements above aren't true; they're kidding themselves.  This does not mean every Illegal Alien is a criminal, or ought to be presumed to have committed felonies.  But these conditions are the conditions that lead people to do things to survive such as commit identity theft, work as "mules" for drug cartels, do the "business" of transnational gangs, etc.  These are valid reasons to enforce our immigration laws as they are; these, plus the simple principle of the rule of law, which folks often with to adhere to only selectively.

I really don't care about the "racial makeup" of the United States, but I care very much about whether or not our citizenry can be reached as Americans, or whether or not tribal and ethnic loyalties will prove more powerful than loyalty to America, a nation whom, after 242 years is, very much NOT about "blood and soil" as other nations in the world are.  And as unseemly as, say, Donald Trump can be in beating this issue to death at rallies, it is hardly an improvement to see the Democrats (at their convention, no less) to actually FEATURE illegal aliens on their platform and have a speaker point to a group of them and say to America, "These are your countrymen!". 

I'm certainly not a "Minority Report" guy, and I cringe at tendencies toward that.  People should not be punished for their thoughts.  But it's not unreasonable to conclude that when certain conditions exist, there is a greater likelihood of more negative outcomes than when they don't. 

The conditions surrounding the entry of "border crashers" are such as to lend themselves to the greater likelihood of criminal outcomes for the individual, in part because the percentage of those who'd not pass muster in vetting, and, in part, because of what they have to do to support themselves once illegally here.  If you wish to say, "Amnesty for all!" is the solution, an argument can be made for that, but so can a counterargument that it will only perpetuate the problem.

So your argument is to assert a bunch of stuff without backup and declare the conversation closed? Cool beans, broseph.

Why are any, let alone all, of those 5 points not reasonable to believe?

We don't know the exact makeup of the entire illegal alien population in America, but we can surmise the kind of behavior it requires to live "on the lam", undetected from ICE and Law Enforcement.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The argument of Fuzzy Bear kind of intrigues me, because it seems to me one that lends credence to Minority Report-esque preemptive arrests. The argument goes that illegal immigrants shouldn't primarily be judged on their original crime (either crossing a border or overstaying a visa, neither of which is a violent crime in of itself, whatever one thinks of immigration policy) but the potential violent crime they may commit. It's not an argument that particularly appeals to me, because, quite aside from being a breach of one's democratic rights to solely be convicted for one's own actions, nobody actually has the ability to tell who will turn out to do horrid things in the future. "Mollie Robbers would be alive if this man was deported" is a true statement, yes, but it's only something you can say in retrospect. The same logic would be somebody saying something like "why don't we just kill serial killers when they were babies so they wouldn't murder anybody?".

Let's look at statements that are true about people here illegally.  I will state out front that this is probably more true for persons that actively crashed the border than people who are illegally here because they overstayed their visas:

1.  They have already shown a disregard for American Law by the way they entered the Country.

2.  They have no Real ID of their own that would allow them to work legally in the country. 

3.  Many are not legally here because they could not pass the vetting process, including criminal background checks in their home countries.

4.  At least some have entered as a result of the assistance of criminal cartels and transnational gangs, and are indebted to them.  Members of these gangs and cartels that are already here, doing their illegal business in the United States, account for some of their "contacts". 

5.  They are more likely to victimize persons who they, themselves, will not seek the help of law enforcement (for a variety of reasons), and they are aware of this.

If anyone thinks that these statements above aren't true; they're kidding themselves.  This does not mean every Illegal Alien is a criminal, or ought to be presumed to have committed felonies.  But these conditions are the conditions that lead people to do things to survive such as commit identity theft, work as "mules" for drug cartels, do the "business" of transnational gangs, etc.  These are valid reasons to enforce our immigration laws as they are; these, plus the simple principle of the rule of law, which folks often with to adhere to only selectively.

I really don't care about the "racial makeup" of the United States, but I care very much about whether or not our citizenry can be reached as Americans, or whether or not tribal and ethnic loyalties will prove more powerful than loyalty to America, a nation whom, after 242 years is, very much NOT about "blood and soil" as other nations in the world are.  And as unseemly as, say, Donald Trump can be in beating this issue to death at rallies, it is hardly an improvement to see the Democrats (at their convention, no less) to actually FEATURE illegal aliens on their platform and have a speaker point to a group of them and say to America, "These are your countrymen!". 

I'm certainly not a "Minority Report" guy, and I cringe at tendencies toward that.  People should not be punished for their thoughts.  But it's not unreasonable to conclude that when certain conditions exist, there is a greater likelihood of more negative outcomes than when they don't. 

The conditions surrounding the entry of "border crashers" are such as to lend themselves to the greater likelihood of criminal outcomes for the individual, in part because the percentage of those who'd not pass muster in vetting, and, in part, because of what they have to do to support themselves once illegally here.  If you wish to say, "Amnesty for all!" is the solution, an argument can be made for that, but so can a counterargument that it will only perpetuate the problem.

So your argument is to assert a bunch of stuff without backup and declare the conversation closed? Cool beans, broseph.

Why are any, let alone all, of those 5 points not reasonable to believe?

We don't know the exact makeup of the entire illegal alien population in America, but we can surmise the kind of behavior it requires to live "on the lam", undetected from ICE and Law Enforcement.

As has been pointed out over and over, a significant component of that behavior is keeping your head close to the ground to not get caught and deported.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The argument of Fuzzy Bear kind of intrigues me, because it seems to me one that lends credence to Minority Report-esque preemptive arrests. The argument goes that illegal immigrants shouldn't primarily be judged on their original crime (either crossing a border or overstaying a visa, neither of which is a violent crime in of itself, whatever one thinks of immigration policy) but the potential violent crime they may commit. It's not an argument that particularly appeals to me, because, quite aside from being a breach of one's democratic rights to solely be convicted for one's own actions, nobody actually has the ability to tell who will turn out to do horrid things in the future. "Mollie Robbers would be alive if this man was deported" is a true statement, yes, but it's only something you can say in retrospect. The same logic would be somebody saying something like "why don't we just kill serial killers when they were babies so they wouldn't murder anybody?".

Let's look at statements that are true about people here illegally.  I will state out front that this is probably more true for persons that actively crashed the border than people who are illegally here because they overstayed their visas:

1.  They have already shown a disregard for American Law by the way they entered the Country.

2.  They have no Real ID of their own that would allow them to work legally in the country. 

3.  Many are not legally here because they could not pass the vetting process, including criminal background checks in their home countries.

4.  At least some have entered as a result of the assistance of criminal cartels and transnational gangs, and are indebted to them.  Members of these gangs and cartels that are already here, doing their illegal business in the United States, account for some of their "contacts". 

5.  They are more likely to victimize persons who they, themselves, will not seek the help of law enforcement (for a variety of reasons), and they are aware of this.

If anyone thinks that these statements above aren't true; they're kidding themselves.  This does not mean every Illegal Alien is a criminal, or ought to be presumed to have committed felonies.  But these conditions are the conditions that lead people to do things to survive such as commit identity theft, work as "mules" for drug cartels, do the "business" of transnational gangs, etc.  These are valid reasons to enforce our immigration laws as they are; these, plus the simple principle of the rule of law, which folks often with to adhere to only selectively.

I really don't care about the "racial makeup" of the United States, but I care very much about whether or not our citizenry can be reached as Americans, or whether or not tribal and ethnic loyalties will prove more powerful than loyalty to America, a nation whom, after 242 years is, very much NOT about "blood and soil" as other nations in the world are.  And as unseemly as, say, Donald Trump can be in beating this issue to death at rallies, it is hardly an improvement to see the Democrats (at their convention, no less) to actually FEATURE illegal aliens on their platform and have a speaker point to a group of them and say to America, "These are your countrymen!". 

I'm certainly not a "Minority Report" guy, and I cringe at tendencies toward that.  People should not be punished for their thoughts.  But it's not unreasonable to conclude that when certain conditions exist, there is a greater likelihood of more negative outcomes than when they don't. 

The conditions surrounding the entry of "border crashers" are such as to lend themselves to the greater likelihood of criminal outcomes for the individual, in part because the percentage of those who'd not pass muster in vetting, and, in part, because of what they have to do to support themselves once illegally here.  If you wish to say, "Amnesty for all!" is the solution, an argument can be made for that, but so can a counterargument that it will only perpetuate the problem.

So your argument is to assert a bunch of stuff without backup and declare the conversation closed? Cool beans, broseph.

Why are any, let alone all, of those 5 points not reasonable to believe?

We don't know the exact makeup of the entire illegal alien population in America, but we can surmise the kind of behavior it requires to live "on the lam", undetected from ICE and Law Enforcement.

As has been pointed out over and over, a significant component of that behavior is keeping your head close to the ground to not get caught and deported.

That is an element of it, granted, but earning sustinance is also part of it.  Those two behavioral necessities to remaining undetected are somewhat at odds with each other.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

The family of Mollie Tibbets is again displaying courage and standing up to the Reaganfans of the world.

https://people.com/politics/mollie-tibbets-dad-speaks-out-against-donald-trump-jr/

https://splinternews.com/mollie-tibbetts-father-pleads-for-an-end-to-the-politi-1828772201

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/02/us/mollie-tibbetts-father-op-ed/index.html

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The family of Mollie Tibbets is again displaying courage and standing up to the Reaganfans of the world.

https://people.com/politics/mollie-tibbets-dad-speaks-out-against-donald-trump-jr/

https://splinternews.com/mollie-tibbetts-father-pleads-for-an-end-to-the-politi-1828772201

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/02/us/mollie-tibbetts-father-op-ed/index.html

The Tibbets Family entered the political fray with these comments.  They do not have the right to be free from critical feedback.

You can't look at one case in isolation and use it to justify policy affecting millions of people

Wanna bet?

The idea that the USA looks after a loving North American community where everyone is free to do as they please including kidnapping, raping and murdering young women the USA is abhorrent.

The only thing getting murdered in the USA is common sense.

If Trump's wall had already been built, Mollie Tibbets would be alive today, all else being the same.

Liberals advocate expenditures all the time that seem counterproductive using the emotional reasoning, "If it just saves one life, it's worth it!".  We hear this whenever funding is cut for drug treatment centers, for Planned Parenthood Women's Health Services, for mental health clinics, for nutrition programs, etc.  We hear this about programs that, all agree are beneficial, and we hear it about programs that are of dubious value. 

Why isn't that logic used here?  If The Wall would have saved Mollie Tibbets' life (or, in this case, the life of a future Mollie Tibbets), isn't it worth it?  Yes, Planned Parenthood has undoubtedly saved more lives than just one' but an effective system of border security would  have saved more than one innocent American life, no?  This isn't milking a tragedy; this is the discussion of the many implications of public policy here that are front and center in the American stream of consciousness, and have been since before Mollie Tibbets' tragic death.

What I've said is truer than the assertion that Mollie Tibbets was going to be die, anyway; it just so happened that the person was an undocumented immigrant illegally in the US.  Yes, death is not a preventable accident, but a homicide is a preventable crime.  If her accused killer had not illegally entered the US, Mollie Tibbets would be alive, and he wouldn't have if there had not been a wall.

If liberals want to raise the issue of cost/benefit ratios, that's fine, too, but let's raise them about all liberal programs on the chopping block that have a constituency supporting them.  Programs that are deemed "worth it"  for "the sake of one life".  Trump's wall has a better argument for its being built according to that argument than a whole lot of other initiatives that liberals will defend to the edge of reason and beyond.

[J. J.]

When it was announced that the killer was an illegal alien, I knew that this going to be politicized.  It is just the flip side of what happens after a mass shooting.   The only "good" thing I will say is that it is not as vocal  on the right as it is on the left.

Not everyone that is not in the country legally is a violent criminal.  Not everyone who owns a gun is going to shoot a whole bunch of people. 

Folks, let's keep are prospective in these things. 

[cvparty]

When it was announced that the killer was an illegal alien, I knew that this going to be politicized.  It is just the flip side of what happens after a mass shooting.   The only "good" thing I will say is that it is not as vocal  on the right as it is on the left.

Not everyone that is not in the country legally is a violent criminal.  Not everyone who owns a gun is going to shoot a whole bunch of people. 

Folks, let's keep are prospective in these things. 

you’re not wrong about there being parallels between the two issues, obviously not all gun owners murder people. but an importance difference to note is that guns are inherently dangerous. their sole purpose is to harm/kill

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

When it was announced that the killer was an illegal alien, I knew that this going to be politicized.  It is just the flip side of what happens after a mass shooting.   The only "good" thing I will say is that it is not as vocal  on the right as it is on the left.

Not everyone that is not in the country legally is a violent criminal.  Not everyone who owns a gun is going to shoot a whole bunch of people. 

Folks, let's keep are prospective in these things. 

you’re not wrong about there being parallels between the two issues, obviously not all gun owners murder people. but an importance difference to note is that guns are inherently dangerous. their sole purpose is to harm/kill

The inherent reality in every illegal alien is that they have insufficient regard for the laws of the nation they have illegally entered to obey it's immigration laws.  Not all who have such insufficient regard for the laws of the country they enter have that condition to the point that they will kill innocent lives, but their are insufficiently respectful of our laws, and one can say that having broken the law to get here, it is more logical to believe that such a person will break additional laws, as opposed to stopping their lawlessness once they have entered the United States.

I put that statement in italics because that's not necessarily my position, but it is a statement that flows from using the same logic as the poster in the previous post.

Is Past Behavior a reliable predictor of future behavior?  Yes, i recognize the Minority Report aspects of that, and, yes, I believe that people can and do change, but I also believe that people can assert the notion that they've "changed" to manipulate the good will and desire to forgive and restore in others when it isn't warranted.

[J. J.]

you’re not wrong about there being parallels between the two issues, obviously not all gun owners murder people. but an importance difference to note is that guns are inherently dangerous. their sole purpose is to harm/kill

The inherent reality in every illegal alien is that they have insufficient regard for the laws of the nation they have illegally entered to obey it's immigration laws.  Not all who have such insufficient regard for the laws of the country they enter have that condition to the point that they will kill innocent lives, but their are insufficiently respectful of our laws, and one can say that having broken the law to get here, it is more logical to believe that such a person will break additional laws, as opposed to stopping their lawlessness once they have entered the United States.

I put that statement in italics because that's not necessarily my position, but it is a statement that flows from using the same logic as the poster in the previous post.

Is Past Behavior a reliable predictor of future behavior?  Yes, i recognize the Minority Report aspects of that, and, yes, I believe that people can and do change, but I also believe that people can assert the notion that they've "changed" to manipulate the good will and desire to forgive and restore in others when it isn't warranted.

I rest my case. 

I can very easily argue that the main purpose of a gun is to deter.  Likewise, I can very easily argue that illegal entrants really do not want to go back their home country, and will try not attract the attention of law enforcement; ultimately, that the reason they are here is because they love the USA. 

I do realize that Fuzzy Bear was using an his italicized comments as an example.

[cvparty]

When it was announced that the killer was an illegal alien, I knew that this going to be politicized.  It is just the flip side of what happens after a mass shooting.   The only "good" thing I will say is that it is not as vocal  on the right as it is on the left.

Not everyone that is not in the country legally is a violent criminal.  Not everyone who owns a gun is going to shoot a whole bunch of people.  

Folks, let's keep are prospective in these things.  

you’re not wrong about there being parallels between the two issues, obviously not all gun owners murder people. but an importance difference to note is that guns are inherently dangerous. their sole purpose is to harm/kill

The inherent reality in every illegal alien is that they have insufficient regard for the laws of the nation they have illegally entered to obey it's immigration laws.  Not all who have such insufficient regard for the laws of the country they enter have that condition to the point that they will kill innocent lives, but their are insufficiently respectful of our laws, and one can say that having broken the law to get here, it is more logical to believe that such a person will break additional laws, as opposed to stopping their lawlessness once they have entered the United States.

I put that statement in italics because that's not necessarily my position, but it is a statement that flows from using the same logic as the poster in the previous post.

Is Past Behavior a reliable predictor of future behavior?  Yes, i recognize the Minority Report aspects of that, and, yes, I believe that people can and do change, but I also believe that people can assert the notion that they've "changed" to manipulate the good will and desire to forgive and restore in others when it isn't warranted.

how did you draw that conclusion? illegal immigrants are not inherently dangerous, they’re people, no one manufactured them with the purpose of harming. if i’m correct in the assumption that most come to the us because they want to live here and not because they want to unleash hell, wouldn’t they commit less crime than people born in the US (besides the immigrating illegally obviously). on the hand people that have a gun are more likely to commit violent/serious crime than people that don’t have a gun (for obvious reasons)

[7,052,770]

If Trump's wall had already been built, Mollie Tibbets would be alive today, all else being the same.

That's something you just pulled out of your ass with no proof or evidence.

[7,052,770]

The Tibbets Family entered the political fray with these comments.  They do not have the right to be free from critical feedback.

As is always the case in situations like these (Parkland, Khans, etc.), you're conflating policy-based criticism, which is fine, with personal criticism, which is not fine.

[Badger]

The Tibbets Family entered the political fray with these comments.  They do not have the right to be free from critical feedback.

As is always the case in situations like these (Parkland, Khans, etc.), you're conflating policy-based criticism, which is fine, with personal criticism, which is not fine.

And let's focus on an even more Salient Point, shall we? The family did not enter the political Fray by demanding that politicians stop wrongly using the tragedy of their daughter's death as a political football.. Fuzzy and his ilk need someone to demonize, though, in order to point out their underlying point that beaners is bad.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The Tibbets Family entered the political fray with these comments.  They do not have the right to be free from critical feedback.

As is always the case in situations like these (Parkland, Khans, etc.), you're conflating policy-based criticism, which is fine, with personal criticism, which is not fine.

And let's focus on an even more Salient Point, shall we? The family did not enter the political Fray by demanding that politicians stop wrongly using the tragedy of their daughter's death as a political football.. Fuzzy and his ilk need someone to demonize, though, in order to point out their underlying point that beaners is bad.

The Tibbets Family is different in that they didn't deliberately inject themselves into a purely political setting.  I grant you that.  But their demand that people not use their tragedy as a political football is not realistic.  This is America, and what has happened to them has happened to others.  

This is America.  There's no "time out" on issues like this because they are fluid and narrative-driven.  I find the tongue-lashings by the Badgers and Harrys of the world to be a form of manipulation, trying to guilt-trip those who think as I do into silence, while they, and their minions, jump in to manipulate the greater narrative.  

I also see nothing wrong with politicizing tragedies.  Tragedies such as this one, and the one at Parkland, are tragedies where there are issues of systemic failure, policy failure, fundamental Constitutional rights, and the rule of law, all mixed in.  Mollie Tibbets is the identified victim in her murder, but her death is a CRIMINAL matter, and ALL the people are victims.  It's not a civil matter.

The Constitution, and all its amendments, weren't meant to apply EXCEPT in special circumstances; they were meant to apply ESPECIALLY in special circumstances.  That includes the First Amendment.  

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

If Trump's wall had already been built, Mollie Tibbets would be alive today, all else being the same.

That's something you just pulled out of your ass with no proof or evidence.

All else being the same, yes.  If her life was the same up until the minute that this person (presumably) killed her, then she'd still be alive (or would have died at a later date than she did).

That's a flat out fact what I said, and if you actually thought about what I said, you'd agree.

[ProudModerate2]

That Fuzzy calls himself a Christian has become nothing but one big Atlas joke.
The evil he spews, even to families who have lost their daughter, is constant and unimaginable.

[7,052,770]

If Trump's wall had already been built, Mollie Tibbets would be alive today, all else being the same.

That's something you just pulled out of your ass with no proof or evidence.

All else being the same, yes.  If her life was the same up until the minute that this person (presumably) killed her, then she'd still be alive (or would have died at a later date than she did).

That's a flat out fact what I said, and if you actually thought about what I said, you'd agree.

You have no clue under what circumstances the killer arrived in America and whether a wall would have prevented his arrival. You're just asserting things to fit your anti-Christian agenda.

[DrScholl]

If the family does not want their relative's death used politically then that wish should be respected.