So be it. This will be entertaining at least.

Just on your debate. I looked it up. A life sentence in California means 7 years and then you can apply for parole, at which time you have a hearing, and if deemed successfully rehabilitated then you will be released from prison. So, unless she is sentenced to life without chance of parole, it's not likely she is going to prison for life.

https://www.shouselaw.com/attempted-murder.html
First degree attempted murder is life sentence with a chance of parole in 7 years.
If it is gang related then a life sentence with a chance of parole in 15 years.
If it is a third felony strike, then life sentence with chance of parole in 25 years.
All other attempted murder charges are 5-9 years

I tried looking up maxinum life sentences in Cali but only found 7 to 15 min with possibility of parole. So I think they can go higher. Because of the victim's age and possible racial motivation, the judge would likely go for max sentencing if they go that route. There's also the elder abuse charge (adds 9 years) and the infliction of injury (3 to 8, could be more due to age of victim). I think they consider these final life sentences because of the high mortality rate of prisoners with similar sentences.

They could also sentence her to life without chance of parole as you mentioned.

She could also fail her parole hearings as well.

First of all, Hammurabi's Code is dead. You may like the concept of "an eye for an eye", but that just isn't how our legal system works.

Second, punishment isn't the sole purpose of the justice system. We do not send people to jail simply to punish them (or at least we shouldn't), we also send them to prison to prevent further crimes through incapacitation and rehabilitation. The prison system in the US is fundamentally flawed as it does not put enough stock into rehabilitation which creates a system where individuals who go to prison are more likely to offend again which causes further societal harm.

Next, it is worth noting that calling someone a "snowflake" or "racist" is a far cry from full scale dehumanization. Those terms are typically used to invalidate arguments, not invalidate rights. That is where the line is with dehumanization. As soon as you attempt to remove human rights from individuals or use language to justify these actions, you have likely crossed a line into dehumanization (That definition might need to be tightened up a bit, but the general idea is there). 

Finally, was Trump talking about illegals in general when speaking about "animals"? No, and I never said he was. What I said was that he uses MS-13 to justify his actions against a much larger population. He talks about MS-13 to scare people into thinking that they need to take away the rights of a much larger population to protect the country. Yes, MS-13 is bad, but they should almost never be brought up in a discussion of illegal immigration, because, like I said earlier, even if you assume every member of MS-13 is an illegal immigrant, less that 0.1% of illegal immigrants are part of MS-13. Trump brings them up to excuse violating the rights of all illegal immigrants (or generally, implementing large scale, heavy-handed policies) with the logic "if I hand you a bowl of M&Ms and I told you only a few were poisoned, what would you do?".

Agreed.