Post:Arrest Made in Mollie Tibbetts Murder...An Illegal Alien

[Pop23]

What does not letting crazy people have guns have to do with this? Mollie was stabbed multiple times.

1. How you going to keep "crazy people" from having anything that can be used to stab?

2. Had she been carrying a gun, which the left derides, she is alive today.

Next Joe?

First, no, she probably wouldn't be, since she was out jogging...

second, I was referring to reducing murders overall, not this specific murder... but since I didn't make that clear to retards, that's my bad.

She wouldn’t be alive? Because she was jogging? So jogging would have killed her? No, that can’t be it. Or is it they don’t make holsters for joggers? I have at least two such that would work very well while jogging.

As for reducing the overall murder rate, since you brought guns into this conversation. Death by gun is 66% suicide. 80% of the rest is gang/drug related. Hmmmmm, guess closing the border reduced both gangs and drugs. And you resist closing the boarders?

I’ll let PoliticalChic bring you up to speed on the number of illegals jailed for murder. I just read her post on the subject and was stunned. I won’t steal her thunder.

 

[Pop23]

I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand a simple concept, but had we not had such an easy border to get over, the employer could not have hired the bastard in the first place.

sure he would have. The guy just would have found another way to get in. As long as there is something on this side of the border people want, they'll get in.

So, we know that murderes will sometime escape. So your answer is to not attempt to recapture them or just not try to improve the prison to make it harder on them to escape?

Sounds like you are trying to defend a position that is indefensible.

 

[Pop23]

Don't be so quick. He may have thought it was already done (not sure this is true in this case though.)

There are criminal rings in this country, using corporations to provide stolen or "borrowed for a fee" I.D.s to get the illegal jobs. Here is one recent example:

Guy, every company that hires illegals KNOWS they are hiring illegals.

I worked for a company 10 years ago where were had these "Day Laborers". Same guys, for six years... we knew they were here without papers, but the temp company vouched for them.

Well, after I left, this company got bought out by another company, who insisted on making sure all the guys they had doing the scrub work had papers.

What they ended up with were a bunch of scarier than shit white meth-heads who usually only lasted a week before they got high and forgot where they worked.

No they don’t. I’ve outlined several times just how companies act as employment agencies to get illegals documentation that pass e-verify.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You need reading lessons because what you posted does not support your argument at all. Try again after having someone else read it and explain it to you.

You are failing at the realizing the difference in an immigrant alien and and an illegal immigrant. You cannot discriminate against the former, but you can against the latter.

I think you're the one struggling with this son. I'm pretty sure your "ideology" about it, based on military practices (which have /never ever/ been the same as "civilian" business [or even government] practices,) interferes with /your/ ability to bother reading the evidence I provided. Hell one of the articles I posted even discusses (the Denver police case) that the Fed's were allowed to demand US citizen only applications and complains that there's a ridiculous double standard, not even just between government and private business, but between ******* fed government and local government. To wit:

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”​

Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute —- and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”

Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explainsunder key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”​

Look ART, if want to run about like a dumb ass start a business and ask your potential employee's if they're a US citizen, or put out an job posting that only US citizen's can apply, then you go right on with your bad self

- I'll be more than happy to add your "I know better than the federal EEOC, Judges, AND everyone who's done this shit for a living" loss in court to the above examples, no problem.


To any of you folks that run a private business, it is /very/ important that you ignore this dumb ass, alright? He's a sheltered government peon - and we know damned ******* well the military and feds and private business all play by different rules. I encourage you to talk to your lawyer if you don't want to take my word for it. Go read what the EEOC site says (EEOC.gov > "Employers/Small Business" drop down > "National Origin",) Read what the judges in the cases rule. Look at the other cases too - google "illegal alien hiring discrimination."

I reiterate - It is illegal for an employer to base hiring upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. As a business you /cannot/ demand that only US citizen's apply for a position. You cannot ask a potential hire if they are a US citizen (be that in an interview, on a job application, etc. You also cannot ask them to fill out an I-9 prior to actually hiring them either.)

[The head of the EEOC was a ******* MALDEF member for like a decade; illegal aliens are a "protected class", the case law is set, you /will/ lose in court.]

I am so sorry! You didn't tell me you rode the short bus to school.

The police department got smacked for only hiring US citizens and discriminating against legal immigrant aliens. Why are you such a dumbass?

Again, read the ******* EEOC website, it's a ******* government website, not me "making shit up"

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract.

- National Origin Discrimination


Now, I'm done with you on this subject, no business in their right mind is going to blow off EEOC guidelines because /you/ "know better" than what the EEOC tells businesses.

"Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."

Aye and they can't demand specific documentation either (like a green card or birth certificate). There's a list on the back of the I-9; there's a few documents that cover both residency and eligibility for employment OR they can show one piece of document to show residency and one piece to show eligibility for employment from two lists. (Like a drivers license shows residency and a certified birth certificate from any state shows eligibility.) As long as the documents look legit you have to accept them, even if you think their fraudulent, else you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits.

So, if the documents look questionable, you still can't refuse them ?

I don't believe that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think you're the one struggling with this son. I'm pretty sure your "ideology" about it, based on military practices (which have /never ever/ been the same as "civilian" business [or even government] practices,) interferes with /your/ ability to bother reading the evidence I provided. Hell one of the articles I posted even discusses (the Denver police case) that the Fed's were allowed to demand US citizen only applications and complains that there's a ridiculous double standard, not even just between government and private business, but between ******* fed government and local government. To wit:

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”​

Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute —- and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”

Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explainsunder key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”​

Look ART, if want to run about like a dumb ass start a business and ask your potential employee's if they're a US citizen, or put out an job posting that only US citizen's can apply, then you go right on with your bad self

- I'll be more than happy to add your "I know better than the federal EEOC, Judges, AND everyone who's done this shit for a living" loss in court to the above examples, no problem.


To any of you folks that run a private business, it is /very/ important that you ignore this dumb ass, alright? He's a sheltered government peon - and we know damned ******* well the military and feds and private business all play by different rules. I encourage you to talk to your lawyer if you don't want to take my word for it. Go read what the EEOC site says (EEOC.gov > "Employers/Small Business" drop down > "National Origin",) Read what the judges in the cases rule. Look at the other cases too - google "illegal alien hiring discrimination."

I reiterate - It is illegal for an employer to base hiring upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. As a business you /cannot/ demand that only US citizen's apply for a position. You cannot ask a potential hire if they are a US citizen (be that in an interview, on a job application, etc. You also cannot ask them to fill out an I-9 prior to actually hiring them either.)

[The head of the EEOC was a ******* MALDEF member for like a decade; illegal aliens are a "protected class", the case law is set, you /will/ lose in court.]

I am so sorry! You didn't tell me you rode the short bus to school.

The police department got smacked for only hiring US citizens and discriminating against legal immigrant aliens. Why are you such a dumbass?

Again, read the ******* EEOC website, it's a ******* government website, not me "making shit up"

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract.

- National Origin Discrimination


Now, I'm done with you on this subject, no business in their right mind is going to blow off EEOC guidelines because /you/ "know better" than what the EEOC tells businesses.

"Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."

Aye and they can't demand specific documentation either (like a green card or birth certificate). There's a list on the back of the I-9; there's a few documents that cover both residency and eligibility for employment OR they can show one piece of document to show residency and one piece to show eligibility for employment from two lists. (Like a drivers license shows residency and a certified birth certificate from any state shows eligibility.) As long as the documents look legit you have to accept them, even if you think their fraudulent, else you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits.

So, if the documents look questionable, you still can't refuse them ?

I don't believe that.

Give the retard a minute and he will prove himself wrong like he has with everything he posts.

 

[EverCurious]

I think you're the one struggling with this son. I'm pretty sure your "ideology" about it, based on military practices (which have /never ever/ been the same as "civilian" business [or even government] practices,) interferes with /your/ ability to bother reading the evidence I provided. Hell one of the articles I posted even discusses (the Denver police case) that the Fed's were allowed to demand US citizen only applications and complains that there's a ridiculous double standard, not even just between government and private business, but between ******* fed government and local government. To wit:

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”​

Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute —- and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”

Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explainsunder key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”​

Look ART, if want to run about like a dumb ass start a business and ask your potential employee's if they're a US citizen, or put out an job posting that only US citizen's can apply, then you go right on with your bad self

- I'll be more than happy to add your "I know better than the federal EEOC, Judges, AND everyone who's done this shit for a living" loss in court to the above examples, no problem.


To any of you folks that run a private business, it is /very/ important that you ignore this dumb ass, alright? He's a sheltered government peon - and we know damned ******* well the military and feds and private business all play by different rules. I encourage you to talk to your lawyer if you don't want to take my word for it. Go read what the EEOC site says (EEOC.gov > "Employers/Small Business" drop down > "National Origin",) Read what the judges in the cases rule. Look at the other cases too - google "illegal alien hiring discrimination."

I reiterate - It is illegal for an employer to base hiring upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. As a business you /cannot/ demand that only US citizen's apply for a position. You cannot ask a potential hire if they are a US citizen (be that in an interview, on a job application, etc. You also cannot ask them to fill out an I-9 prior to actually hiring them either.)

[The head of the EEOC was a ******* MALDEF member for like a decade; illegal aliens are a "protected class", the case law is set, you /will/ lose in court.]

I am so sorry! You didn't tell me you rode the short bus to school.

The police department got smacked for only hiring US citizens and discriminating against legal immigrant aliens. Why are you such a dumbass?

Again, read the ******* EEOC website, it's a ******* government website, not me "making shit up"

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract.

- National Origin Discrimination


Now, I'm done with you on this subject, no business in their right mind is going to blow off EEOC guidelines because /you/ "know better" than what the EEOC tells businesses.

"Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."

Aye and they can't demand specific documentation either (like a green card or birth certificate). There's a list on the back of the I-9; there's a few documents that cover both residency and eligibility for employment OR they can show one piece of document to show residency and one piece to show eligibility for employment from two lists. (Like a drivers license shows residency and a certified birth certificate from any state shows eligibility.) As long as the documents look legit you have to accept them, even if you think their fraudulent, else you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits.

So, if the documents look questionable, you still can't refuse them ?

I don't believe that.

Opposite. You have to accept them if they look genuine. That's even if you suspect they're faked (like you /really/ think the person is an illegal and has a stolen ID) You have to accept it or you're opening yourself up to getting sued.

It is a little different than "other" areas where a person shows ID. Like if you go to a bar the bartender or waitress can reject your id, or demand specific id, for any reason they want, from a broken corner to a small scratch on the surface etc. That's in general allowed because if said cashier sells to you they're technically on the line legally for serving you, right?

Though you might think that a business would have every right to demand specific "proof" or reject documents they find fishy, since they are legally on the line if they hire someone who isn't legally allowed to work in the US, the reality is that the head of the EEOC was a MALDEF member for almost a decade and they've tweaked the **** out of discrimination laws to favor/protect illegals working in the nation. MALDEF with the cooperation of the EEOC has made it neigh impossible for a business owner to follow the federal law easily (meaning you can only employee folks who have the legal right to work in the country) by making damn near everything to do with finding out they are legally employable border line "discrimination." IF you ask for "specific" proof of their eligibility for employment (aka specific documents, proof of citizenship, a visa, green card, etc. etc.) MALDEF and the EEOC essentially claim you're a racist - even if your intention is only to follow the federal law.

Its kind of like the whole sanctuary city crap right? Look at CA, if a city or county in the state tries to help ICE the state ******* sues them - even though they're just following federal law. This is the exact same shit, for the exact same political agenda reasons too.

EDIT - just to note, don't ask for this shit before hire, you're just asking for a lawsuit. You used to have 30 days to get I-9s on file. I think this is changed since I retired though - now I believe you have 3 days to get them and send them in, but that might just be for states who have eVerify. Should ask your lawyer about the current laws (which are actually changing as I type with Sessions and Trump in office - also ask about the specifics for your state.

 

[EverCurious]

I am so sorry! You didn't tell me you rode the short bus to school.

The police department got smacked for only hiring US citizens and discriminating against legal immigrant aliens. Why are you such a dumbass?

Again, read the ******* EEOC website, it's a ******* government website, not me "making shit up"

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract.

- National Origin Discrimination


Now, I'm done with you on this subject, no business in their right mind is going to blow off EEOC guidelines because /you/ "know better" than what the EEOC tells businesses.

"Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."

Aye and they can't demand specific documentation either (like a green card or birth certificate). There's a list on the back of the I-9; there's a few documents that cover both residency and eligibility for employment OR they can show one piece of document to show residency and one piece to show eligibility for employment from two lists. (Like a drivers license shows residency and a certified birth certificate from any state shows eligibility.) As long as the documents look legit you have to accept them, even if you think their fraudulent, else you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits.

So, if the documents look questionable, you still can't refuse them ?

I don't believe that.

Give the retard a minute and he will prove himself wrong like he has with everything he posts.

She. You do realize that your coming off like a child having a tantrum when you butt into everything like this, right?

 

[JoeB131]

She wouldn’t be alive? Because she was jogging? So jogging would have killed her? No, that can’t be it. Or is it they don’t make holsters for joggers? I have at least two such that would work very well while jogging.

DGU's are a myth.... They never happen a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

IN short... the NRA lies to you, but you want to be lied to.

As for reducing the overall murder rate, since you brought guns into this conversation. Death by gun is 66% suicide. 80% of the rest is gang/drug related. Hmmmmm, guess closing the border reduced both gangs and drugs. And you resist closing the boarders?

Um, no, we have 11,000 gun homicides a year... only 2000 homicides by all methods are gang related. So it's not 80%.

Oh, yeah, most gangs are not undocumented immigrants.

I’ll let PoliticalChic bring you up to speed on the number of illegals jailed for murder. I just read her post on the subject and was stunned. I won’t steal her thunder.

If you are going with the Mail Order Bride from Hell as a source, there's not much to be said for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

She wouldn’t be alive? Because she was jogging? So jogging would have killed her? No, that can’t be it. Or is it they don’t make holsters for joggers? I have at least two such that would work very well while jogging.

DGU's are a myth.... They never happen a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

IN short... the NRA lies to you, but you want to be lied to.

As for reducing the overall murder rate, since you brought guns into this conversation. Death by gun is 66% suicide. 80% of the rest is gang/drug related. Hmmmmm, guess closing the border reduced both gangs and drugs. And you resist closing the boarders?

Um, no, we have 11,000 gun homicides a year... only 2000 homicides by all methods are gang related. So it's not 80%.

Oh, yeah, most gangs are not undocumented immigrants.

I’ll let PoliticalChic bring you up to speed on the number of illegals jailed for murder. I just read her post on the subject and was stunned. I won’t steal her thunder.

If you are going with the Mail Order Bride from Hell as a source, there's not much to be said for you.

"...the Mail Order Bride from Hell ..."

Wrong again, you dunce.

I can't go to Hell...Satan has a restraining order against me.

 

[JoeB131]

"...the Mail Order Bride from Hell ..."

Wrong again, you dunce.

I can't go to Hell...Satan has a restraining order against me.

I'm sure a lot of people have restraining orders against you, but that's a personal issue.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Again, read the ******* EEOC website, it's a ******* government website, not me "making shit up"

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract.

- National Origin Discrimination


Now, I'm done with you on this subject, no business in their right mind is going to blow off EEOC guidelines because /you/ "know better" than what the EEOC tells businesses.

"Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."

Aye and they can't demand specific documentation either (like a green card or birth certificate). There's a list on the back of the I-9; there's a few documents that cover both residency and eligibility for employment OR they can show one piece of document to show residency and one piece to show eligibility for employment from two lists. (Like a drivers license shows residency and a certified birth certificate from any state shows eligibility.) As long as the documents look legit you have to accept them, even if you think their fraudulent, else you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits.

So, if the documents look questionable, you still can't refuse them ?

I don't believe that.

Give the retard a minute and he will prove himself wrong like he has with everything he posts.

She. You do realize that your coming off like a child having a tantrum when you butt into everything like this, right?

You do realize that you come off like a complete and total moron, with an inability to read or comprehend the written language. STFU and you won't get your feelings hurt.

At least I know how to use word "you're".

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What does not letting crazy people have guns have to do with this? Mollie was stabbed multiple times.

1. How you going to keep "crazy people" from having anything that can be used to stab?

2. Had she been carrying a gun, which the left derides, she is alive today.

Next Joe?

First, no, she probably wouldn't be, since she was out jogging...

second, I was referring to reducing murders overall, not this specific murder... but since I didn't make that clear to retards, that's my bad.

She wouldn’t be alive? Because she was jogging? So jogging would have killed her? No, that can’t be it. Or is it they don’t make holsters for joggers? I have at least two such that would work very well while jogging.

As for reducing the overall murder rate, since you brought guns into this conversation. Death by gun is 66% suicide. 80% of the rest is gang/drug related. Hmmmmm, guess closing the border reduced both gangs and drugs. And you resist closing the boarders?

I’ll let PoliticalChic bring you up to speed on the number of illegals jailed for murder. I just read her post on the subject and was stunned. I won’t steal her thunder.

They make holsters specifically for runners and joggers. Active Pro Gear carries them