View in: Desktop
Copyright @2024 TigerDroppings.com. All rights reserved.
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Posted by
Message
Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.
Posted by MajorTaylor on 12/9/17 at 8:14 pm782
Some pertinent information from the trial:
* The gun was fired from a low position ( lap-level ), struck the pavement 12 ft from Zarate, and traveled another 78 ft whereupon it hit Steinle.
* There is no evidence that Zarate was "brandishing" the weapon, waving it around irresponsibly, pointing it at anyone in a deliberate manner, or even gripping the weapon in a firing position / manner.
* security camera video shows the gun go off in "less than two seconds. maybe less than one second", according to the alternate jurist who saw the video, after Zarate picked up the wrapped bundle containing the gun. He wasn't brandishing it, playing with it, or pointing it at anyone.
* the amount of gunpowder residue on Zarate's hand was minuscule, in the range of the lowest amount detectable. Thus indicating that he wasn't gripping the gun as one grips a handgun to shoot it. And also indicating that the weapon was to some extent still wrapped in the cloth when it fired.
* evidence suggests that Zarate wasn't aware that anyone was struck by the bullet. As he throws the gun into the bay Zarate never looks in Steinle's direction ( Steinle is 30 yards away on what has been characterized as a "crowded" pier ) and 15 minutes later he is seen on security camera footage calmly digging through garbage cans nearby. The behavior suggests that:
A) he was unaware that anyone was struck as a result of the weapon discharging
B) it was routine for Zarate, being homeless, to pick up and investigate litter / items discarded by others. He would regularly unwrap found refuse / items as the homeless typically do.
* video shows a group of 6 individuals hanging out on the same bench for 30 minutes prior to Zarate, picking up items and placing items on the ground near the feet of the bench. The event raising the possibility that one of those individuals deposited the firearm there and Zarate then "found" it when he sat on the bench, as he claims, and he didn't bring the firearm to the location. It undermines the narrative that Zarate went to the pier looking to shoot someone or, as some have suggested, went there "to kill Americans". This going to forethought of malice.
* The prosecution was unable to establish any motive on the part of Zarate and Zarate no recorded history of violence.
* the prosecution was unable to establish that the firing of the weapon was intentional.
* The prosecution was unable to establish reckless disregard.
The alternate jurist said that the evidence / video evidence suggests to him that Zarate was surprised when the weapon discharged, had no idea that anyone was injured as a result of the discharge, and rather calmly threw the weapon into the water and continued on his routine of rummaging through garbage cans / investigating discarded items. Zarate told police that he threw the firearm into the water so that no one would be hurt by the firearm- and he told police this before he was made aware that Steinle had been shot. This supports the defense's position that Zarate was not attempting to get rid of the evidence of his crime because he was unaware that anyone was struck by the bullet and his intent in throwing the gun into the water was to prevent injury to any innocent.
The editorial from the alternate jurist:
I Saw the Kate Steinle Murder Trial Up Close. The Jury Didn't Botch It.
* The gun was fired from a low position ( lap-level ), struck the pavement 12 ft from Zarate, and traveled another 78 ft whereupon it hit Steinle.
* There is no evidence that Zarate was "brandishing" the weapon, waving it around irresponsibly, pointing it at anyone in a deliberate manner, or even gripping the weapon in a firing position / manner.
* security camera video shows the gun go off in "less than two seconds. maybe less than one second", according to the alternate jurist who saw the video, after Zarate picked up the wrapped bundle containing the gun. He wasn't brandishing it, playing with it, or pointing it at anyone.
* the amount of gunpowder residue on Zarate's hand was minuscule, in the range of the lowest amount detectable. Thus indicating that he wasn't gripping the gun as one grips a handgun to shoot it. And also indicating that the weapon was to some extent still wrapped in the cloth when it fired.
* evidence suggests that Zarate wasn't aware that anyone was struck by the bullet. As he throws the gun into the bay Zarate never looks in Steinle's direction ( Steinle is 30 yards away on what has been characterized as a "crowded" pier ) and 15 minutes later he is seen on security camera footage calmly digging through garbage cans nearby. The behavior suggests that:
A) he was unaware that anyone was struck as a result of the weapon discharging
B) it was routine for Zarate, being homeless, to pick up and investigate litter / items discarded by others. He would regularly unwrap found refuse / items as the homeless typically do.
* video shows a group of 6 individuals hanging out on the same bench for 30 minutes prior to Zarate, picking up items and placing items on the ground near the feet of the bench. The event raising the possibility that one of those individuals deposited the firearm there and Zarate then "found" it when he sat on the bench, as he claims, and he didn't bring the firearm to the location. It undermines the narrative that Zarate went to the pier looking to shoot someone or, as some have suggested, went there "to kill Americans". This going to forethought of malice.
* The prosecution was unable to establish any motive on the part of Zarate and Zarate no recorded history of violence.
* the prosecution was unable to establish that the firing of the weapon was intentional.
* The prosecution was unable to establish reckless disregard.
The alternate jurist said that the evidence / video evidence suggests to him that Zarate was surprised when the weapon discharged, had no idea that anyone was injured as a result of the discharge, and rather calmly threw the weapon into the water and continued on his routine of rummaging through garbage cans / investigating discarded items. Zarate told police that he threw the firearm into the water so that no one would be hurt by the firearm- and he told police this before he was made aware that Steinle had been shot. This supports the defense's position that Zarate was not attempting to get rid of the evidence of his crime because he was unaware that anyone was struck by the bullet and his intent in throwing the gun into the water was to prevent injury to any innocent.
The editorial from the alternate jurist:
I Saw the Kate Steinle Murder Trial Up Close. The Jury Didn't Botch It.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by HailHailtoMichigan! on 12/9/17 at 8:21 pm to MajorTaylor
1) Germans
2) Why are you guys rallying around this case? Regardless of the verdict, it was a tragedy that didn't need to happen. Why is it important for you guys to defend the mexican?
2) Why are you guys rallying around this case? Regardless of the verdict, it was a tragedy that didn't need to happen. Why is it important for you guys to defend the mexican?
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by gthog61 on 12/9/17 at 8:22 pm to MajorTaylor
didn't make it clear last week when it was posted either.
The woman would not be dead it not for shitass leftist immigration policies. Live with it.
The woman would not be dead it not for shitass leftist immigration policies. Live with it.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by Lsupimp on 12/9/17 at 8:24 pm to MajorTaylor
The moral , intellectual and civilizational decay is strong with this one.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by starsandstripes on 12/9/17 at 8:25 pm to gthog61
The only headline I want to see is "Zarate abducted, tortured, killed"
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by SoulGlo on 12/9/17 at 8:26 pm to MajorTaylor
All of that makes sense…
But WHY THE frick WAS THE GUY IN THIS COUNTRY?
That is the issue.
But WHY THE frick WAS THE GUY IN THIS COUNTRY?
That is the issue.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by RCDfan1950 on 12/9/17 at 8:27 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
1) Germans 2) Why are you guys rallying around this case? Regardless of the verdict, it was a tragedy that didn't need to happen. Why is it important for you guys to defend the mexican?
It's an indirect defense of Open Border Policy, HH. If Zarate is indeed not guilty of any negligence...then so be it. Justice served. But we all know that it don't stop there. For every one that is not guilty...the costs of the burden we all bear from an open Border is STAGGERING.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by Bunk Moreland on 12/9/17 at 8:33 pm to MajorTaylor
Yeah, I never understood why Trump rallied around this one. Some dude here illegally killed someone accidentally. So what? Find some illegal thug who intentionally murdered a couple people and zero in on that.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by LSU92 on 12/9/17 at 8:37 pm to MajorTaylor
quote:
Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right
I hope the libs are ready to defend this hill...The Donald is going to beat you guys on the fricking head with it....Donald will win because Donald always wins.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by MajorTaylor on 12/9/17 at 8:46 pm to gthog61
"The woman would not be dead it not for shitass leftist immigration policies. Live with it."
Because if the city had turned him over and he'd been deported he would not have been able to return as he had previously done FIVE times already. lmao
When a legal immigrant kills someone is it true that the victim would still be alive were it nor for "shitass" legal immigration? And is anyone who supports legal immigration to blame for the murder of an innocent by a legal immigrant?
If a resident of Baton Rouge kills someone outside the city limits, does that mean that anyone who supports Baton Rouge residents being allowed to travel outside the city limits is to BLAME for that death? I mean, were it NOT FOR their shitass support for allowing BR residents to leave the city, the person would STILL BE ALIVE!!!
Because if the city had turned him over and he'd been deported he would not have been able to return as he had previously done FIVE times already. lmao
When a legal immigrant kills someone is it true that the victim would still be alive were it nor for "shitass" legal immigration? And is anyone who supports legal immigration to blame for the murder of an innocent by a legal immigrant?
If a resident of Baton Rouge kills someone outside the city limits, does that mean that anyone who supports Baton Rouge residents being allowed to travel outside the city limits is to BLAME for that death? I mean, were it NOT FOR their shitass support for allowing BR residents to leave the city, the person would STILL BE ALIVE!!!
TD SponsorTD Fan
USA
Member since 2001
USA
Member since 2001
Thank you for supporting our sponsors Posted by Site Sponsor to Everyone
Advertisement
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by MajorTaylor on 12/9/17 at 8:49 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Yeah, I never understood why Trump rallied around this one. Some dude here illegally killed someone accidentally. So what? Find some illegal thug who intentionally murdered a couple people and zero in on that.
Exactly.
I speculate that he got it from Fox News and just glombed onto it without much thought. But that was fine because it doesn't matter to most people that the shooting was accidental and the purpose of riling up emotion over illegal immigration is served. The desire is to promote and tap into outrage, anger, hatred, nativism, and-yes- racism.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by MajorTaylor on 12/9/17 at 8:51 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
The only headline I want to see is "Zarate abducted, tortured, killed"
Well, that's a personal failing on your part.
Good thing that you exposed it anonymously!
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by texridder on 12/9/17 at 9:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Why are you guys rallying around this case? Regardless of the verdict, it was a tragedy that didn't need to happen. Why is it important for you guys to defend the mexican?
In my mind it wasn't defending the Mexican. Or saying he should be here.
After the verdict Trump tweeted that the jury should have known about Zarate's immigration and criminal record and implied that information should have been enough to convict him.
The point in defending him was that he should not be convicted and sentenced for murder or manslaughter because he was an illegal.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by RobbBobb on 12/9/17 at 9:33 pm to MajorTaylor
quote:
If a resident of Baton Rouge kills someone outside the city limits, does that mean that anyone who supports Baton Rouge residents being allowed to travel outside the city limits
I wondered what level of intelligence could defend the killing?
Thanks for confirming it for me
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by oldtimefootball on 12/9/17 at 9:47 pm to RobbBobb
Zarate was homeless and apparently without money since he was scavaging for food. Why would he throw a handgun he could sell for hundreds of dollars into the bay?
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by RollTide1987 on 12/9/17 at 9:51 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Yeah, I never understood why Trump rallied around this one. Some dude here illegally killed someone accidentally. So what?
So what? If he hadn't been here illegally, that woman is still alive today.
If someone armed with a gun ever sees that man on the street, hopefully they do the merciful thing and shoot him painlessly in the back of the head. It's a shame he hasn't yet been a casualty of natural selection.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by wookalar1013 on 12/9/17 at 10:13 pm to RollTide1987
the open calls for vigilante murder are pretty impressive melting
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by bencoleman on 12/9/17 at 10:47 pm to MajorTaylor
quote:
Because if the city had turned him over and he'd been deported he would not have been able to return as he had previously done FIVE times already. lmao
When a legal immigrant kills someone is it true that the victim would still be alive were it nor for "shitass" legal immigration? And is anyone who supports legal immigration to blame for the murder of an innocent by a legal immigrant
One thing's for sure if the city had held him for ice the last time the young lady would still be alive and yes people that support sanctuary cities are responsible for the victims of the illegals. Start locking up mayor's and police chiefs and sanctuary cities with disappear fast.
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by kcon70 on 12/9/17 at 10:56 pm to MajorTaylor
quote:
MajorTaylor
Go find God!
re: Editorial by Steinle Jurist makes it clear the jury got it right.Posted by MajorTaylor on 12/9/17 at 11:18 pm to kcon70
quote:
Go find God!
I'm a bit busy at the moment battling all the lack of Christianity of Conservatives.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News