And in reality, you're wrong, because the term I used was violent illegal immigrant felon. The adjective, at least as far as the English language is concerned, applies to the noun that follows said adjective, not the noun after it. Ergo, the violent referred to the part of the illegal immigrant being violent, not the felon. Just because someone is an illegal immigrant, doesn't mean that he's a felon, AiliAiliA. So your interpretation of a violent illegal immigrant being criminally violent, was bona fide bullshit. I can easily do semantics too, I just prefer to focus on the actual debate at hand, AiliAiliA. Oh, and speaking of semantics, AiliAiliA, what I said was that my view is that it should be a violent felony. I didn't say that it legally was one. Rosa Parks viewed her right to sit in front as a right, (as long as the seat was open,) irrespective of whether or not it was legal at that time. Views can be opinions, and it's hard to say whether they're right or wrong in most cases, because the law changes from time to time.
And this is where you're wrong yet again. As the OP, I can clarify as to what's on topic, and what's a tangent. Of course I cannot stop you from debating the tangent, as long as you do in another thread. In this thread, however, I can rule as to what's on topic and what isn't, should the issue be controversial. Oh, wait, did you mean overruled in a legal sense? I doubt it, because if that was case, that's just dumb, because NSG isn't a Courtroom.
AiliAiliA wrote:Discharging the firearm is the same act as the murder, and both are violent crimes (alleged crimes, though I'm not disputing he shot the woman). Different treatment of violent felons by the City, State or Federal government would still not have prevented that crime, because right up until that moment (and most crucially when he was last released from custody in April 2015) he did not have a record of violent crime.
Did I say violent felons, or violent illegal immigrants? I don't know of a single heroin drug dealer, who wasn't violent. Nor do I recall the quote, "please my good sir, would you like to say hello to my little friend? Oh no, would you like a cup of tea instead?"
Furthermore, San Francisco could've easily prevented the killing of California's Sweetheart Kathryn Steinle, if they simply did nothing. Instead, some morons in SF's offices, decided that it's time to save the drug dealer, Lopez-Sanchez, from ICE's deportation, and used a bullshit legal statue to do it, which resulted in the death of one of San Francisco's residents or visitors. And the fact that no one in the city was punished for it, simply speaks to how well connected all of those politicians are. Either that, or you can go ahead and believe the bullshit that SF deeply cares about 20 year old, $20 pot sales arrests.
AiliAiliA wrote:If you're changing your claim to "all illegal immigrant heroin-dealing felons should be deported" then OK, debate that. But admit you've moved the goalposts and were wrong in your claim that deporting violent felons would have prevented the crime.
Or you could try to prove that heroin dealing is a violent felony. Hint: don't bother, it isn't.
Once again, the term I used was violent illegal immigrant felons, which you pretended meant criminally violent. The violent term refers to the illegal immigrant part, not the felon part. For instance, when someone says "he was a bad boy singer" - that doesn't mean that he was a bad singer. The adjective, "bad", modifies the noun, "boy"; it does not modify the noun "singer". If you'd like to know more, here's a useful link: http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/h ... nd-adverbs