On 5/7/2025 at 3:59 AM, WDSmart said:

The point here is that to refer to all immigrants as "criminals" just so they can be detained and deported is a very "un-woke" thing to do, and one which I will not tolerate. 

 

No one is saying that all immigrants are criminals. You are making stuff up. Show me where someone said all immigrants are criminals. 

On 5/8/2025 at 12:27 AM, radiochaser said:

Both as an active duty Federal Agent and as a retired Federal Agent, it is my understanding that, anyone that commits a violation of a criminal law, is a criminal, regardless of whether or not they have been charged with violation of that criminal law.

 

But not in Lefty Bizzaro world.

 

On 5/6/2025 at 5:07 PM, Social Media said:

In a chilling twist, hours after Modebadze’s body was discovered, police found another Israeli businessman, Meni Hidhra — the brother of a prison warden in Israel — murdered in his home in the same neighborhood.

 

I'm reminded of the famous quote from Ian Fleming's Goldfinger:

“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”

On 5/7/2025 at 2:23 PM, WDSmart said:

On 5/7/2025 at 2:12 PM, klauskunkel said:

I define "criminal" as someone who has committed a criminal act. No charge, conviction or even witnesses are necessary to be a criminal.

Yes, that's how all the "un-woke", MAGA supporters use the term, also. They don't believe any due process is necessary. They believe just the suspicion or assumption that someone has committed a criminal act makes them a criminal. That is the root of this and many other problems between the "un-woke" MAGA supporters and the "woke" liberals. It's very hard to discuss something when you're both not using the same meaning for terms relevant to the issue. 

WDSmart, first you comment on my post with a whole paragraph of self-importance,

and then, after a day or two, you post the very some sentiment I posted, which you earlier debated and apparently now agree with, namely:

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, A criminal is someone who has committed a crime.

I just can't decide whether you are reformed or just weird...

14 hours ago, blaze master said:

 

No one is saying that all immigrants are criminals. You are making stuff up. Show me where someone said all immigrants are criminals. 

There are many people (MAGA supporters) who believe all immigrants, whether they have a visa or not, should be treated like criminals. This and other forum topics are full of their posts. 

12 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

WDSmart, first you comment on my post with a whole paragraph of self-importance,

and then, after a day or two, you post the very some sentiment I posted, which you earlier debated and apparently now agree with, namely:

WDSmart: Yes, A criminal is someone who has committed a crime.
 

I just can't decide whether you are reformed or just weird...

I am neither reformed nor weird. I'm woke. 

Yes, I also believe a "criminal" is someone who has committed a crime. My point is, and always has been, that to call someone a criminal, you first must KNOW they committed a crime, not just SUSPECT them of committing a crime. If that's the case, they are a "suspect," not a "criminal," or you could call them a "criminal suspect." 
"A criminal suspect is a person who is believed to have committed a crime, but has not yet been found guilty. In criminal law, a suspect is someone who is under suspicion, often formally announced as being under investigation by law enforcement officials. If a suspect received an arrest warrant, they might then be identified as a defendant; and after the suspect was convicted or found guilty, they would be called an offender." Microsoft Edge online dictionary

9 hours ago, WDSmart said:

There are many people (MAGA supporters) who believe all immigrants, whether they have a visa or not, should be treated like criminals. This and other forum topics are full of their posts. 

 

You made a claim it needs backed up. Show me precise posts saying all immigrants are criminals. 

 

Otherwise you're just talking rubbish.

 

 

On 5/9/2025 at 12:31 PM, Evil Penevil said:

 

I'm reminded of the famous quote from Ian Fleming's Goldfinger:

“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”

 

Aleksandre Modebadze ran a cannabis shop. His own family said he had loaned the suspects, fellow Georgians, money, and called a meeting because he wanted it back. They killed him. So this was a legalised drug dealer giving loans to illegal, living on the lam, immigrants. Seems pretty shady. The suspects were found with $60k in cash

 

Manny Hidra was stabbed with a screw driver. Hidra had been dead for 3 days before being discovered during a welfare check. A 27 year old, Erick Escamilla, was arrested at hospital where he was receiving treatment. Escamilla is described as a part time vagrant, living occasionally with his mother, or on the street. He had previously been arrested by the police in February for trespass. There is no suggestion he was an illegal immigrant. The implication is he was committing burgulary and was suprised by the victim, and a struggle ensud. The victom's nationality and religion was never a factor.

 

So coincidence.

On 5/7/2025 at 7:01 AM, Mavideol said:

it must be Biden's or the Democrats  fault

Yep

On 5/9/2025 at 6:11 AM, WDSmart said:

Yes, A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. My point is, how do YOU KNOW someone has committed a crime unless you see them commit the crime yourself, they admit to it, or they are found guilty by due process. Otherwise, you're just taking someone else's accusation that they committed a crime. 

Really?   It is unlikely that today, there is anyone born in the United States that is not in some database, as having been born in the U.S. of A., which means that person is legally a U.S. of A. citizen and is legally in the U.S. of A. 

Conversely, if a person is not in a database as having immigrated legally into the United States, through an authorized port of entry, with the legal documents proving that the person did legally enter the United States, but the person is physically in the United States, then it is highly likely that person violated an immigration law, and entered the U.S. of A., illegally and thus, is a criminal for having violated a criminal law.  

 

As to "do YOU KNOW", I assume you are making a reference to a generic you, and not me personally. 

 

I am curious.  Have you ever worked in the field of law enforcement, in which you investigated violations of law, and gathered the evidence that was used to convict someone in a criminal court of law?

On 5/9/2025 at 6:12 AM, Mavideol said:

and Trump being elected president is proof of your non sense statement, the guy was convicted as a criminal

Have I ever, to your knowledge, denied that?

10 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

Really?   It is unlikely that today, there is anyone born in the United States that is not in some database, as having been born in the U.S. of A., which means that person is legally a U.S. of A. citizen and is legally in the U.S. of A. 

Conversely, if a person is not in a database as having immigrated legally into the United States, through an authorized port of entry, with the legal documents proving that the person did legally enter the United States, but the person is physically in the United States, then it is highly likely that person violated an immigration law, and entered the U.S. of A., illegally and thus, is a criminal for having violated a criminal law.  

 

As to "do YOU KNOW", I assume you are making a reference to a generic you, and not me personally. 

 

I am curious.  Have you ever worked in the field of law enforcement, in which you investigated violations of law, and gathered the evidence that was used to convict someone in a criminal court of law?

I agree with most everything you've said above, but I'd expect all this to be done following due process. In other words, I don't think an ICE agent should be able to stop anyone on the street, demand proof of their citizenship or visa status, and if they couldn't produce that on the spot, detain them and deport them without further due process. 

And, yes, my "...how do YOU KNOW,,,?" was a generic reference. I could have written, "...how does ONE KNOW,,,?"

I have never worked in law enforcement, investigated violations of the law, or gathered evidence to be used in a court of law. I have only learned about these from reading about them or seeing them portrayed in movies.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

I agree with most everything you've said above, but I'd expect all this to be done following due process. In other words, I don't think an ICE agent should be able to stop anyone on the street, demand proof of their citizenship or visa status, and if they couldn't produce that on the spot, detain them and deport them without further due process. 

And, yes, my "...how do YOU KNOW,,,?" was a generic reference. I could have written, "...how does ONE KNOW,,,?"

I have never worked in law enforcement, investigated violations of the law, or gathered evidence to be used in a court of law. I have only learned about these from reading about them or seeing them portrayed in movies.

I am a retired federal agent.   I have investigated violations of federal law, collecting factual evidence prior to submitting that evidence to the Department of Justice.   What you might see in the movies is rarely factual, even when "based on a true story!"

 

A court generally determines the level of guilt and the severity of punishment, not that the person was or was not a criminal.   Courts in some cases have determined that a person charged with a crime, was in fact innocent, which not something that happened as a result of any of my investigations.  Most people or business' I investigated were sentenced to paying a fine ranging from a few hundred dollars to upwards of $50,000.00.    Some people were fined and sentenced to federal prison with incarceration ranging from 1 year to 7 years, this result was not that common.   

 

There were people who I was positive had violated federal law, but I was unable to gather enough factual evidence to send the case to court.   I also decided, on my own volition, that a violation of crime was unintentional and closed the investigation, not seeking punishment for the individual as there was no harm done.   I did this for roughly 22 years, beginning after my one year of on the job training in the field I was hired in. 

 

 

1 hour ago, radiochaser said:

I am a retired federal agent.   I have investigated violations of federal law, collecting factual evidence prior to submitting that evidence to the Department of Justice.   What you might see in the movies is rarely factual, even when "based on a true story!"

 

A court generally determines the level of guilt and the severity of punishment, not that the person was or was not a criminal.   Courts in some cases have determined that a person charged with a crime, was in fact innocent, which not something that happened as a result of any of my investigations.  Most people or business' I investigated were sentenced to paying a fine ranging from a few hundred dollars to upwards of $50,000.00.    Some people were fined and sentenced to federal prison with incarceration ranging from 1 year to 7 years, this result was not that common.   

 

There were people who I was positive had violated federal law, but I was unable to gather enough factual evidence to send the case to court.   I also decided, on my own volition, that a violation of crime was unintentional and closed the investigation, not seeking punishment for the individual as there was no harm done.   I did this for roughly 22 years, beginning after my one year of on the job training in the field I was hired in. 

 

 

Thanks for your response.

I believe and agree with everything you said above, except for two things:

"What you might see in the movies is rarely factual." I believe that many movies with scenes of trials are based on facts, even though they may be dramatized somewhat.

"A court generally determines the level of guilt and the severity of punishment, not that the person was or was not a criminal." If the person is found guilty of a crime, then they are, by definition, a "criminal." If they are found not guilty in this one case, they still could be a criminal, but not from the judgment of this one case. They may be a criminal because they have been found guilty in a prior case, or have admitted their guilt without going to trial. 

You also bring up an interesting point when you write, "I also decided, on my own volition, that a violation of crime was unintentional and closed the investigation, not seeking punishment for the individual as there was no harm done." That, for me, raises the question of whether or not a person is a criminal if they UNINTENTIONALLY committed a crime and/or there was, at least in your judgement, NO HARM DONE. These are aspects of a crime that, IMO, should be decided by a prosecutor, judge, or jury, not by an investigator. 

On 5/7/2025 at 12:35 AM, bkk6060 said:

Another murder because of Biden. Total idiot.

Wonder how many murders were committed on the same day but by us citizens?this one seems a bit fishy because all seem to be east European??perhaps a business deal gone bad or mafia who knows.furthermore I find it ironic that many of you rail and howl whenever an illegal commits a crime but when it comes to kids getting slaughtered in school or a mass killing at a Walmart of Mexican appearance people all is mum……

So far in 2025....14 murders per day in the US.......I guess from the news items we keep receiving nearly all of these are committed by illegal immigrants.

 

Once the Mexicans have saved up enough money to pay for the wall this figure  should drop to less than one per day.