Murder in the Sanctuary City

How many times have you heard it said “the law is the law” as a justification for or against a particular action?

As members of a relatively free society we are able to pursue the life, liberty and happiness that our founding principles afford us.  But only activities within the established legal confines are deemed acceptable while certain proscribed actions result in a variety of consequences and punishments.  The vast majority accept the law and live accordingly everyday.

But a disturbing trend continues where designated officials, the very authorities in charge of enforcing our laws, shirk the legal constraints of society.  And in so doing they leave law-biding citizens vulnerable to the elements that the law is meant to protect against.

The recent shooting of Kathryn Steinle at Pier 14 in San Francisco is a tragedy rooted in the dereliction of duty of the city’s leaders.  San Francisco prides itself on being a so-called “sanctuary city” where immigration status is a non-issue, despite federal laws to the contrary.  The result of this “compassion” led to an inevitable consequence, the murder of a young woman.

The shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, had been deported on five separate occasions yet successfully returned each time to the United States, finally landing in San Francisco.  And in San Francisco, legal immigration is not worth supporting and illegal immigration is not worth pursuing.  “San Francisco and SFSD policy is to deny ICE detainer requests, barring special circumstances, such as a warrant for a suspected violent offender. The ICE detainer request was denied, and on April 15, 2015 Lopez-Sanchez was released. Two and a half months later Kate Steinle was killed.”

The same story notes that “Sanchez said he knew San Francisco was a sanctuary city where he would not be pursued by immigration officials.”

The hubris of the San Francisco policy is that it upholds its own relative standard, dismissing the  objective legal one, and does so at the expense of other values that such progressive ideology purports to extoll:

The man was on drugs, not busy at a job that Americans don’t want to do, as the justification for allowing illegal immigrants to remain so goes.

He somehow has access to a gun (he claims he found it) which would suggest that gun control measures are also lacking, not in substance but in practical application.  In other words, they exist but don’t work.

The cries for such control that follow tragedies like mass shootings, along with the regulations on smoking and trans fats, stem from the benevolent desire of the state to protect us from ourselves.  But keeping this guy out of the country, where he would not have been able to shoot Kathryn Steinle, is not a compassionate enough reason to enforce the laws regulating immigration.

Here is a guy who shoots a woman, thus conducting his own private, literal, War on Woman.

And for the animal rights folks, “Sanchez had initially told police he had shot the gun at sea lions, ABC 7 reported.”

But even an event as exposing as this will not sway the feeling-based, subjective reasoning that is a direct and tragic insult to the rule of law.  The mayor of San Francisco stated, “Let me be clear (a subconscious nod to the president I’m sure): [the policy] protects residents regardless of immigration status and is not intended to protect repeat, serious and violent felons,” he said.

He reveals the necessity of law by refusing to support the law.  Of course it is “not intended to protect repeat, serious and violent felons.”  That’s the very definition of an Unintended Consequence.  They occur without intention but nevertheless result from the flawed policy of his sanctuary city.

But do you know what the Intended Consequence is of immigration laws that deport, incarcerate or otherwise eliminate people like Lopez-Sanchez from our society?  That’s right! It prevents them from being on drugs at Pier 14 with a gun at the same time as Kathryn Steinle.  That law helps promote a sanctuary city for the legal citizens who reside there.

The law is the law because it was created following the rule of law.  If laws need to be changed, updated, amended or discarded there is a process that allows for such legal evolution.  But until they do change, we are subject to those laws and the corresponding penalties should we break them.  I sometimes speed, jaywalk and used to smoke in public in the city of Burbank (similar restrictions exist in Boulder). But I don’t get to absolve myself from consequence because I view those laws as mean, discriminatory or otherwise not worthy of my adherence.  No, I get a fine because I am subject to such laws and must follow them.  All of them.

This mayor, the president, all executive government officials of every city, state and the federal government are tasked to enforce existing laws, as well as follow them.  When they start choosing which ones they will enforce, people die, literally.  When they choose feelings and ideology over legal doctrine, they become rulers, not public servants.

Kathryn Steinle is dead because a man shot her in a drastically misnomered sanctuary city.  That man was subject to the law, and its punishments, on numerous occasions.  But because relative, subjective compassion rules in the not-so-sanctuary city of San Francisco, the law has become a suggestion, more what you call guidelines than actual rules.  This tragedy could have been prevented by the rule of law.  But those in power decided that “the law is only the law if I agree with it.”

Love In America

Racism, prejudice and discrimination exist.  People are sometimes still viewed and treated differently solely because of their superficial attributes without any consideration for the deeper identity of the individual, the content of character.  And it represents a great flaw of humanity that human beings will never be able to fully eradicate these feelings from any society.  Where there are people, there will be hatred and evil, just as there will be goodness and love.

While these feelings are ubiquitous, they are not pervasive, despite the endless calls of racism in the United States.  With the recent shooting in South Carolina comes the all too predictable claim that hate and prejudice rule in America.  On June 19, USA today ran with the headline “Hate in America,” recounting the events in Charleston, focusing on the aspect of racism and “lone wolf” attacks.

Also on Friday, the Denver Post led with the headline  “Racism likely factor” pointing out the investigation of this tragedy as a hate crime and using the President’s frustrations as a thinly veiled attempt to promote gun control.  The same article points to the President’s words, “at some point, we, as a country, will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries,”Obama said.  The people of Norway might have something to say about that and direct the president to educate himself on the 2011 attacks in that nation.

Meanwhile, the city of Chicago has seen 33 people (as of this writing) shot and killed in the month of June alone with 179 killed in 2015. The vast majority of these were the violent acts of black Americans on other black Americans.  And while not entirely illegal, the possession and use of firearms in the city of Chicago has some of the most stringent restrictions in the country.  I have yet to see the headline in the Denver Post or USA Today highlighting this violence, or the president make it a priority to end the violence in Chicago, his adopted home city.

This stubborn silence has a direct relation to the outcry of racism that has been splashed all over the news over the past few days.  One scenario provides ostensible support for an agenda, the other is a direct contradiction.  Meanwhile, people die.

The actions of killers in Chicago, South Carolina or Main Street, USA do not reflect the ideology of most Americans of any race.  Hate is not a fundamental belief system in the United States.  It used to be, but this nation has made great strides towards promoting equality of opportunity, based in a society of respect, justice and love.

There is also a tragic irony to the prejudice and ignorance that exists in the way that the progressive mentality views these situations.  Instead of treating people as the equals they are under the law, hate crime legislation separates identical acts based upon the motive of, well, hate.  As though the people being shot in Chicago were not shot out of some sort of hatred.  Murder and gun violence is a hateful act, by itself.  It does nothing but further segregate society to distinguish a crime based upon racism as something other than the delusional, violent actions of one individual.

It has been a sad few days in this nation but not because we are a hateful country.  The tragic actions of individuals have that effect, regardless of their color or their motivations.  But the feelings of this killer do not reflect yours or mine or the vast population of this country.  What we can do is promote love and tolerance in the face of that slim minority that still promotes hate.  We can also provide a level of self-defense for ourselves that is the foundation of the principle behind the second amendment.  We must also face the fact that hate exists and will always exist.  As will love.  And we can be one nation, unified in love.  As this Google search reveals, hatred is not in our creed.

Never allow those with predetermined ends to dictate the rules of the game.  Keep on in love for one another.  These words say it all:

“I forgive you,” Nadine Collier, the daughter of 70-year-old Ethel Lance (who was killed in the shooting) said at the hearing, her voice breaking with emotion. “You took something very precious from me. I will never talk to her again. I will never, ever hold her again. But I forgive you. And have mercy on your soul.”

Ferguson Cont’d

To riot or not to riot? That is the question…

The pending grand jury decision in the Ferguson case of Officer Darren Wilson where teenager Michael Brown was shot and killed, has politicians pleading for peace. The president has assured us all that race relations are much better than they were fifty years ago. Is anyone sensing a disconnect between the pleas of our executive and the preparations of the local leaders?

The governors, mayors and police chiefs are prepped and ready for pandemonium in the streets but, if we are as evolved in our acceptance of one another as we have been told then, *hehem*, why are such preparations necessary? Our country has transformed from the era of Jim Crow to see the two-time election of a black president. And yet Dyson, Sharpton and Jackson contend that the “system” is still rigged to protect the oppressive white majority that supports the killing of innocent, defenseless, unarmed black teens by white police officers.

These race hustlers espouse that the deaths of young black men by white police officers is an epidemic that must be protested and rioted against on the streets while being officially countered by the Department of Justice, which is (or rather was) headed by a black attorney general. Except (more confusion)… there is no epidemic. The simple narrative in this case is that a police officer, responding to a call concerning a strong-arm robbery (which was caught on video, and yep, it was Michael Brown) was then confronted by the same person (who turns out to be Michael Brown) who committed the robbery. The police officer was attacked and opened fire on his attacker. The social debate over why Michael Brown acted as he did or if there are enough police officers of color in Ferguson can occur, but the fact is, for those interested, that whether white, black, brown or whatever shade of the Technicolor Dreamcoat you choose, the ILLEGAL and DANGEROUS ACTIONS of Michael Brown himself led to his own death. Not his skin color. The actions of the police officer, under current law (which treats all officers of any color equally) were justified. His skin color is just as irrelevant.

SIDE NOTE: Where skin color does become relevant is in the statistics regarding overall homicides of black Americans. Over 90% of black people murdered die at the hands of another black person. Not a white police officer. Google “Chicago” and “shooting” at any time and fresh news stories will appear describing the relentless mayhem tormenting the Windy City. But no protesters riot. No visits by Sharpton or Jackson. No criticism by Michael Eric Dyson against that violence. Their interest only piques when denunciations of white privilege permit them to victimize black Americans, which inevitably leads to delusions of grandeur and shameless self promotion.

All Americans should take notice when a protector of the peace kills an unarmed civilian. Grand juries must convene to investigate and hold our societal officials accountable for their actions. In some cases, even when no wrongdoing has occurred, it may be impossible for these people to return to their jobs and engage in business as usual. The tragedy can be too great. I believe all of this will happen to Officer Darren Wilson. He was tragically forced to make a decision in response to the dangerous actions of a kid. Officer Wilson used his gun to shoot a teenager. And I believe his actions will be found to have been legal because he acted, not out of hate or racism, but in defense of himself and out of the possibility that others could be harmed as well. In this case, the system worked as it should. A teenager is dead and that’s a tragedy. A law-abiding police officer will likely never work again and that is a shame.

But let’s not forget that unlike those race hustlers who cling to hate as a means to support their own existence, there are Americans who, while still seeing race, can apply the principles of justice to anyone and everyone. And that is a dream come true.