Remember how the Philly Dem Mayor danced when he found out a judge upheld them being a sanctuary city?

Quote:Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were able to arrest an illegal alien accused of sexual abuse against children after local police refused to honor an ICE detainer and twice released him from their custody.

The Philadelphia Police Department arrested Hector Moran-Espinoza, a Guatemalan national living in the U.S. illegally, on two different occasions on charges relating to the sexual abuse of children. Both times, federal immigration authorities lodged a detainer request for Moran-Espinoza, but both times, Philadelphia Police ignored their requests and released him back into the community, according to a press release from ICE.

The PPD arrested Moran-Espinoza on April 2 for an eyebrow-raising list of charges: involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion, unlawful contact with a minor-sexual offenses, statuary sexual assault, endangering the welfare of children-parent or guardian commits offense, indecent assault-without the consent of other person, rape by forceable compulsion, sexual abuse of children-photographing, videotaping, depicting on a computer or filming sexual acts, aggravated indecent assault without consent, corruption of minors, and reckless endangerment of another person

ICE’s Philadelphia Enforcement and Removal Operations lodged an immigration detainer on the same day of Moran-Espinoza’s arrest, which asked PPD to hold onto him temporarily until ICE agents could arrive at the detention center and make an apprehension. However, the PPD chose to ignore the request and released Moran-Espinoza, according to ICE.

The illegal alien was arrested again May 9, barely a month later, by the PPD for unlawful contact with a minor-sexual offenses, indecent assault of a person under 13 years of age, reckless endangerment of another person, corruption of minors, and endangering the welfare of a child-parent or guardian commits offense.

Again, ICE lodged a detainer request on the same day of his arrest, but local authorities refused to honor it — releasing Moran-Espinoza back into the community for a second time. Despite local law enforcement’s refusal to cooperate, ICE agents were able to arrest Moran-Espinoza themselves Wednesday.

“By releasing a criminal with multiple offenses, the Philadelphia Police Department is putting their city at risk by letting this individual roam free to potentially harm the most vulnerable, our children,” read an ICE statement released Friday.

A spokesperson for the agency took aim at all sanctuary localities across the country that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

“We are seeing politicians put their political agendas above the safety of the citizens they serve,” ICE Philadelphia Field Office Director Simona Flores-Lund said in a statement released Friday. “The victims in this case are young children, whose lives are now forever changed. This monster was released not once, but twice, without notifying ICE. We are committed to strengthening our relationship with local law enforcement, as we want nothing more than to keep our communities safe.”

Political leadership in Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, stands adamantly against cooperation with ICE. The city, for example, earlier in 2019 defeated an attempt by the Trump administration to withhold federal funds from the city because of its refusal to work with the agency.

Moran-Espinoza was just the latest illegal alien accused of heinous crimes and released by the PPD.

The PPD arrested Ervin Urrutia-Sagastume, another illegal alien from Guatemala, on Nov. 12 on charges of sexual abuse against children. The department chose to ignore a detainer lodged by ICE, and released Urrutia-Sagastume back into the community without notifying the agency. He was apprehended by ICE a week later.

Jesus Romero-Bisos, an illegal alien from Mexico, was arrested by the PPD on Oct. 17 on charges on rape and other sexual abuse allegations against a minor. Like the previous cases, PPD did not honor an ICE detainer, and released Romero-Bisos back into the community. The agency was able to arrest him on their own accord in early November.

Link

Apparently the "City of Brotherly Love" also condones child molestation as a form of "love". Do voters see and actually want the additional criminals that sanctuary cities bring? For the failing DEMONcrats it's all about incentivizing votes...TO HELL with the actual CITIZENS!

W
T
F!!!!!

I actually understand the whole "Sanctuary City" thing. I do not agree with it at all, but I can at least understand the position.

Where is the line though? I am sure there is much much more to the story that this small snippet, but FFS... if you have an actual sexual predator in your custody AND they are breaking an actual illegal alien/immigration law, how can you just release a person like that?

Where does common sense take over and these people in charge actually think - "Hey this guy is a threat and we can get him out of here, maybe well hold on to this one...?"

Let's put the ICE/Sanctuary city thing to the side for now....

Why was this guy being released at all? The offenses on the first arrest were heinous enough for him to be held without bond, but on the second arrest they released him again. Something doesn't make sense about this

(12-02-2019 03:11 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Let's put the ICE/Sanctuary city thing to the side for now....

Why was this guy being released at all? The offenses on the first arrest were heinous enough for him to be held without bond, but on the second arrest they released him again. Something doesn't make sense about this

My guess is it was to make a polital statement only. Nothing more than that. Makes no sense, but that's how they think.

(12-02-2019 03:11 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Let's put the ICE/Sanctuary city thing to the side for now....

Why was this guy being released at all? The offenses on the first arrest were heinous enough for him to be held without bond, but on the second arrest they released him again. Something doesn't make sense about this

(12-02-2019 03:32 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:11 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Let's put the ICE/Sanctuary city thing to the side for now....

Why was this guy being released at all? The offenses on the first arrest were heinous enough for him to be held without bond, but on the second arrest they released him again. Something doesn't make sense about this

My guess is it was to make a polital statement only. Nothing more than that. Makes no sense, but that's how they think.

What a great political statement.....

If my kid was assaulted by that f*ck after being released on that basis, you can bet your sweet arse I am pursuing a full on lawsuit worthy of bankrupting the entire city - and I will run that right through the supreme court if I have to.

Once again - ANY crime committed by any person who should not be here in the first place is a crime that should never have been committed here!!!!!

(12-02-2019 03:42 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:32 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:11 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Let's put the ICE/Sanctuary city thing to the side for now....

Why was this guy being released at all? The offenses on the first arrest were heinous enough for him to be held without bond, but on the second arrest they released him again. Something doesn't make sense about this

My guess is it was to make a polital statement only. Nothing more than that. Makes no sense, but that's how they think.

What a great political statement.....

If my kid was assaulted by that f*ck after being released on that basis, you can bet your sweet arse I am pursuing a full on lawsuit worthy of bankrupting the entire city - and I will run that right through the supreme court if I have to.

I agree. It just shows where their priorities lie. I have no idea how one can think that way but that's where they are. I would fully expect these same people to fully reject the idea of a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary City. That's the type of hypocrites we are dealing with.

(12-02-2019 03:11 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Let's put the ICE/Sanctuary city thing to the side for now....

Why was this guy being released at all? The offenses on the first arrest were heinous enough for him to be held without bond, but on the second arrest they released him again. Something doesn't make sense about this

Well, read the article.

It wasn't "this guy" at all, it's their SOP apparently.


Alllllll about the social justice and "righting" some perceived wrong by those prior that actually took the well-being of children seriously.

Kick their assses out, build the wall, lock the door. Enough.

(12-02-2019 03:42 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:32 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:11 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Let's put the ICE/Sanctuary city thing to the side for now....

Why was this guy being released at all? The offenses on the first arrest were heinous enough for him to be held without bond, but on the second arrest they released him again. Something doesn't make sense about this

My guess is it was to make a polital statement only. Nothing more than that. Makes no sense, but that's how they think.

What a great political statement.....

If my kid was assaulted by that f*ck after being released on that basis, you can bet your sweet arse I am pursuing a full on lawsuit worthy of bankrupting the entire city - and I will run that right through the supreme court if I have to.

I get that sentiment, and it seems this may be the only avenue for retribution of any sort, it's a given these leftist tools won't be voted out anytime soon.

But, even so, little late for the young victims, no? These are charges of abuse of those under 13 YO's. They don't specify how much under 13, not that it really matters, but these could truly be little toddlers these sick f$%^s are doing this to.

Good thing the only people showing up at the borders unwanted are those women and orphans.

Thanks zerO, yet another of your stellar plans. Dumbasss.

I wish some of these GOP states (like TN) would pass legislation which would effectively make judges & parole board members responsible for people they release back into society.


If a judge chooses not to give a maximum sentence then the judge should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal he lets reenter society.

If a parole board grants early release to a criminal then each member who voted in the affirmative should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal they let reenter society.


Instead of putting citizens at additional risk with no impunity, these officials should bear a percentage of the punishment in the criminal engages in future crimes.

Rape & kidnapping would carry a 10% penalty. If the criminal commits one of these crimes during the time he was released but should still be in jail, then the judge/parole board members would be sentenced to 10% of the criminal's sentence. A 10-year sentence would net them 1 year.

Homicide would carry a 25% penalty. If a criminal commits murder while he's out early and his sentence is 40 years, the judge/parole board should get 10 years.

If you want to release criminals back into society, you should only be able to do so if you have some skin in the game.

Don't put all of us at risk while you can put it out of mind.

(12-02-2019 06:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wish some of these GOP states (like TN) would pass legislation which would effectively make judges & parole board members responsible for people they release back into society.


If a judge chooses not to give a maximum sentence then the judge should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal he lets reenter society.

If a parole board grants early release to a criminal then each member who voted in the affirmative should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal they let reenter society.


Instead of putting citizens at additional risk with no impunity, these officials should bear a percentage of the punishment in the criminal engages in future crimes.

Rape & kidnapping would carry a 10% penalty. If the criminal commits one of these crimes during the time he was released but should still be in jail, then the judge/parole board members would be sentenced to 10% of the criminal's sentence. A 10-year sentence would net them 1 year.

Homicide would carry a 25% penalty. If a criminal commits murder while he's out early and his sentence is 40 years, the judge/parole board should get 10 years.

If you want to release criminals back into society, you should only be able to do so if you have some skin in the game.

Don't put all of us at risk while you can put it out of mind.

We have a judge here in ABQ who likes to release repeat felons, even ones that commit a crime while waiting for a trial for another crime. Yet he has no problem throwing first-time offenders in jail with no bond who have no criminal history. He insists his hands are tied by the law.

(12-02-2019 06:26 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 06:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wish some of these GOP states (like TN) would pass legislation which would effectively make judges & parole board members responsible for people they release back into society.


If a judge chooses not to give a maximum sentence then the judge should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal he lets reenter society.

If a parole board grants early release to a criminal then each member who voted in the affirmative should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal they let reenter society.


Instead of putting citizens at additional risk with no impunity, these officials should bear a percentage of the punishment in the criminal engages in future crimes.

Rape & kidnapping would carry a 10% penalty. If the criminal commits one of these crimes during the time he was released but should still be in jail, then the judge/parole board members would be sentenced to 10% of the criminal's sentence. A 10-year sentence would net them 1 year.

Homicide would carry a 25% penalty. If a criminal commits murder while he's out early and his sentence is 40 years, the judge/parole board should get 10 years.

If you want to release criminals back into society, you should only be able to do so if you have some skin in the game.

Don't put all of us at risk while you can put it out of mind.

We have a judge here in ABQ who likes to release repeat felons, even ones that commit a crime while waiting for a trial for another crime. Yet he has no problem throwing first-time offenders in jail with no bond who have no criminal history. He insists his hands are tied by the law.

w/o more evidence to the contrary, the justice may very well be (strapped by law)....

this is the conundrum how laws are circumvented and designed on the fly with a 'knee and a jerk or two'....the criminals are always a step ahead of the 'gin factory'...

what too many dipshites don't understand is how and why the laws are conceived based on the 'agenda o'day'

this is the real beauty of DJT....he's moderate on social policy with an affirmation to conservative/mod judicial appointees...

this is the crux the dems cannot combat....toss in the screaming economy and patriotism, and it's wearing dems out a new arsehole...

and nuts zongo is still laughing his fk'n arse off....

(12-02-2019 06:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wish some of these GOP states (like TN) would pass legislation which would effectively make judges & parole board members responsible for people they release back into society.


If a judge chooses not to give a maximum sentence then the judge should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal he lets reenter society.

If a parole board grants early release to a criminal then each member who voted in the affirmative should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal they let reenter society.


Instead of putting citizens at additional risk with no impunity, these officials should bear a percentage of the punishment in the criminal engages in future crimes.

Rape & kidnapping would carry a 10% penalty. If the criminal commits one of these crimes during the time he was released but should still be in jail, then the judge/parole board members would be sentenced to 10% of the criminal's sentence. A 10-year sentence would net them 1 year.

Homicide would carry a 25% penalty. If a criminal commits murder while he's out early and his sentence is 40 years, the judge/parole board should get 10 years.

If you want to release criminals back into society, you should only be able to do so if you have some skin in the game.

Don't put all of us at risk while you can put it out of mind.

Then why even have bond, sentencing guidelines, and parole?

(12-02-2019 03:11 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Let's put the ICE/Sanctuary city thing to the side for now....

Why was this guy being released at all? The offenses on the first arrest were heinous enough for him to be held without bond, but on the second arrest they released him again. Something doesn't make sense about this

It makes complete sense if you have an agenda to destabilize our cities and indeed our entire country by allowing predators of any kind to run loose without fear of reprisal.

(12-02-2019 06:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wish some of these GOP states (like TN) would pass legislation which would effectively make judges & parole board members responsible for people they release back into society.


If a judge chooses not to give a maximum sentence then the judge should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal he lets reenter society.

If a parole board grants early release to a criminal then each member who voted in the affirmative should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal they let reenter society.


Instead of putting citizens at additional risk with no impunity, these officials should bear a percentage of the punishment in the criminal engages in future crimes.

Rape & kidnapping would carry a 10% penalty. If the criminal commits one of these crimes during the time he was released but should still be in jail, then the judge/parole board members would be sentenced to 10% of the criminal's sentence. A 10-year sentence would net them 1 year.

Homicide would carry a 25% penalty. If a criminal commits murder while he's out early and his sentence is 40 years, the judge/parole board should get 10 years.

If you want to release criminals back into society, you should only be able to do so if you have some skin in the game.

Don't put all of us at risk while you can put it out of mind.

You've touched on this before and I couldn't possibly agree with you more.

(12-02-2019 06:42 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 06:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wish some of these GOP states (like TN) would pass legislation which would effectively make judges & parole board members responsible for people they release back into society.


If a judge chooses not to give a maximum sentence then the judge should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal he lets reenter society.

If a parole board grants early release to a criminal then each member who voted in the affirmative should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal they let reenter society.


Instead of putting citizens at additional risk with no impunity, these officials should bear a percentage of the punishment in the criminal engages in future crimes.

Rape & kidnapping would carry a 10% penalty. If the criminal commits one of these crimes during the time he was released but should still be in jail, then the judge/parole board members would be sentenced to 10% of the criminal's sentence. A 10-year sentence would net them 1 year.

Homicide would carry a 25% penalty. If a criminal commits murder while he's out early and his sentence is 40 years, the judge/parole board should get 10 years.

If you want to release criminals back into society, you should only be able to do so if you have some skin in the game.

Don't put all of us at risk while you can put it out of mind.

Then why even have bond, sentencing guidelines, and parole?

I wouldn't prescribe to any of that either...

I know what he's driving at....its simply the wrong method...

you cannot place liability on the ones that decide 'judgement'...

you simplify why law is developed/revised...

unfortunately, it's the lawyers that get elected that 'design'...

it's not that hard to figure out why the impasse is sometimes impassible in scope...

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

(12-02-2019 06:42 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 06:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wish some of these GOP states (like TN) would pass legislation which would effectively make judges & parole board members responsible for people they release back into society.


If a judge chooses not to give a maximum sentence then the judge should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal he lets reenter society.

If a parole board grants early release to a criminal then each member who voted in the affirmative should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal they let reenter society.


Instead of putting citizens at additional risk with no impunity, these officials should bear a percentage of the punishment in the criminal engages in future crimes.

Rape & kidnapping would carry a 10% penalty. If the criminal commits one of these crimes during the time he was released but should still be in jail, then the judge/parole board members would be sentenced to 10% of the criminal's sentence. A 10-year sentence would net them 1 year.

Homicide would carry a 25% penalty. If a criminal commits murder while he's out early and his sentence is 40 years, the judge/parole board should get 10 years.

If you want to release criminals back into society, you should only be able to do so if you have some skin in the game.

Don't put all of us at risk while you can put it out of mind.

Then why even have bond, sentencing guidelines, and parole?

You can still have them. But the people making the decisions should bear some responsibility if their decision results in somebody being assaulted, raped or murdered.

(12-03-2019 09:57 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 06:42 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 06:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wish some of these GOP states (like TN) would pass legislation which would effectively make judges & parole board members responsible for people they release back into society.


If a judge chooses not to give a maximum sentence then the judge should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal he lets reenter society.

If a parole board grants early release to a criminal then each member who voted in the affirmative should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal they let reenter society.


Instead of putting citizens at additional risk with no impunity, these officials should bear a percentage of the punishment in the criminal engages in future crimes.

Rape & kidnapping would carry a 10% penalty. If the criminal commits one of these crimes during the time he was released but should still be in jail, then the judge/parole board members would be sentenced to 10% of the criminal's sentence. A 10-year sentence would net them 1 year.

Homicide would carry a 25% penalty. If a criminal commits murder while he's out early and his sentence is 40 years, the judge/parole board should get 10 years.

If you want to release criminals back into society, you should only be able to do so if you have some skin in the game.

Don't put all of us at risk while you can put it out of mind.

Then why even have bond, sentencing guidelines, and parole?

You can still have them. But the people making the decisions should bear some responsibility if their decision results in somebody being assaulted, raped or murdered.

But that would never happen. No legislature is going to open up their judges/parole board members/maybe prosecutors to criminal liability. They would simply do away with the above (which would create massive problems in its own right).

Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply, btw, busy day at work.

(12-03-2019 06:46 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:57 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 06:42 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 06:18 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wish some of these GOP states (like TN) would pass legislation which would effectively make judges & parole board members responsible for people they release back into society.


If a judge chooses not to give a maximum sentence then the judge should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal he lets reenter society.

If a parole board grants early release to a criminal then each member who voted in the affirmative should be responsible for the behavior of the criminal they let reenter society.


Instead of putting citizens at additional risk with no impunity, these officials should bear a percentage of the punishment in the criminal engages in future crimes.

Rape & kidnapping would carry a 10% penalty. If the criminal commits one of these crimes during the time he was released but should still be in jail, then the judge/parole board members would be sentenced to 10% of the criminal's sentence. A 10-year sentence would net them 1 year.

Homicide would carry a 25% penalty. If a criminal commits murder while he's out early and his sentence is 40 years, the judge/parole board should get 10 years.

If you want to release criminals back into society, you should only be able to do so if you have some skin in the game.

Don't put all of us at risk while you can put it out of mind.

Then why even have bond, sentencing guidelines, and parole?

You can still have them. But the people making the decisions should bear some responsibility if their decision results in somebody being assaulted, raped or murdered.

But that would never happen. No legislature is going to open up their judges/parole board members/maybe prosecutors to criminal liability. They would simply do away with the above (which would create massive problems in its own right).

Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply, btw, busy day at work.

I agree that it will never happen. I just think it should happen.