Someone here might know "the law" far better than I do so if you have an idea here then chip in.

submitted by thomastheglassexpert from (zerohedge.com)

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Jiminy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Are you saying liberals that let illegals in should be held partly accountable for the illegals murders?

[–]thomastheglassexpert[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What I specifically asked did not use the word liberal. I used the word accomplice. If I myself assisted in facilitating the death of another then the law says I am an accomplice. If the judges and DA's of a city let a real and known danger back on the street then why are they not being held criminally liable for that? My wonder is there some kind of shielding law/rule that protects them? Has that law been tested with a real death case?

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You didn't say it that's why I asked for clarification .

A judge or lawyer does have immunity for that. Judicial immunity.

[–]thomastheglassexpert[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The idea here is "facilitating the crime of murder". Meaning a person not accused of wielding the weapon itself rather the accused is that of helping the murderer commit the crime. Judges and politicians and AG's and DA's are releasing criminals back on the street instead of keeping them in jail until their trial and then that released person goes on to commit horrific crimes and rape and murder once released. Is this all-ok with the law? Is there no way to holed that accomplice to the crime to blame and bring them to court or are all parties enjoying some kind of shielding protection from any accusation or held accountable?

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, first he was arrested in Texas but Texas released him. Probably because he said he was going to New York. That's sort of Greg Abbott's whole jam - sending as many immigrants to New York as he can.

So then Ibarra found his way to New York, where he was eventually arrested under what appears to be NY PL 260.10(1):

You are guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child pursuant to New York Penal Law 260.10(1) if you act knowingly in such a way that is likely to cause an injury to the mental state, person of (physical) or moral welfare of a child. This child must be sixteen years old or younger.

In other words, his crime was probably pretty minor. The charges are consistent with an incident like "He shouted at a child and the kid called the police" or "He got caught buying cigarettes for a kid" or something like that.

So, New York bonded him out, and it looks like he left the state before trial and ended up in Georgia.

No, I don't think there's any way that the Texas or New York District Attorneys (or any other of the probably 20-odd bureaucrats involved in his case) could be charged with a crime. They followed the law and ordinary criminal procedure.

[–]Mark_Shill 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it not illegals murdering people, its tranny's with guns.

[–]Ihatenigs 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jesus let’s just finish the wall and institute lethal action for anyone caught trying for get across. That’ll stop these sub human from making it here to rape and beat a woman.