S.F., feds liable in Kathryn Steinle killing, parents say

[alp227]

Last edited Wed Sep 2, 2015, 02:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The parents and brother of a woman gunned down on San Francisco’s waterfront in July, allegedly by an immigrant facing deportation, said Tuesday they were ready to go to court to force the city and federal government to take steps to prevent a repeat of the tragedy.

Jim Steinle and his wife, Liz Sullivan, of Livermore joined their son Brad Steinle on the steps of San Francisco City Hall as their attorneys announced they had filed legal claims in advance of expected lawsuits against the city and two federal agencies in the killing of Kathryn Steinle.

The 32-year-old San Francisco woman was walking with her father on Pier 14 when she was shot to death the evening of July 1. Accused of her murder is Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, 45 — a Mexican immigrant whom San Francisco sheriff’s officials released from jail in April despite a request by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that he be turned over for possible deportation. The gun used to kill Steinle had been stolen four days before the shooting from a federal Bureau of Land Management agent’s car in the city.

The Steinle family said all the agencies involved were culpable in her killing. They said they have seen plenty of finger-pointing in a case that focused national attention on San Francisco’s sanctuary-city policies, but that no one has taken responsibility.

Read more: http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/S-F-feds-liable-in-Kathryn-Steinle-killing-6478325.php?t=8635f4054900af33be&cmpid=twitter-premium

[yeoman6987]

1. Interesting case

We will see where it goes.

[Psephos]

2. Sounds triable according to the principles of tort law. n/t

[branford]

3. I believe it's a tough case for the plaintiffs as a legal matter,

but an absolute public relations disaster for San Francisco and political attempts at immigration reform, particularly with blowhards like Trump, and hence the entire Republic field, making it a campaign issue. Even worse, if the case survives a motion for summary judgment, discovery will likely occur during the height of the presidential campaign. I would not be surprised if there was some significant behind the scenes pressure for San Francisco to settle with the plaintiffs with public, but effectively cosmetic, changes to their sanctuary policies.

[thebighobgoblin]

4. I don't know about the merits of the case...

But this never should have happened. The feds never should have allowed this person out of their custody, but SF never should have accepted this violent thug if they weren't going to detain him.

I really don't give a toss too much about a lot of illegal aliens and I tend to think the issue is over-politicized. But that being said, I don't really agree with the concept of sanctuary cities. If a city like SF wants to make detention and reporting of undocumented immigrants less of a priority, that's fine, but they shouldn't have a blanket policy in which they welcome them with open arms in open defiance of US law. It doesn't seem to serve any interest other than just reinforcing the fact that SF is just 'different' from other cities.

[7962]

5. No difference between these "sanctuary cities" and that Clerk in Kentucky.

Both are ignoring federal laws. We are a country of laws and you dont get to choose which ones you like and which ones you dont.