- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Started By
Message
re: How did they justify the Steinle verdict?
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:10 pm to winston318
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:10 pm to winston318
quote:
Remember when Chaney shot that guy. He didn't have a trial because it was an accident
Pretty sure they didn't have a trial because the guy he shot wasn't killed, and he was a friend who didn't press charges. Had he pressed charges I'm pretty sure there would have been a trial.
0
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:20 pm to Dale51
quote:
What about justice for the murderer??? Huh?? If the bitch wouldn't have been there in the first place, she would still be alive. It's her fault for being there!!
Racist!!!
quote:
Dale51
Did you miss a dose of Xanax?
This post was edited on 11/30/17 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:22 pm to winston318
Cheney was in a group that was hunting at the time of that real accident. It WAS investigated and the guy didn't die. In fact his deposition supported Cheney's and the other members of the hunting party on what happened.
What the f*ck was this POS hunting on a pier in downtown San Fran. A seagull?
B.S. Even if you believe the POS IT IS at least negligent homicide.
"ricochet"? So you ASSume he's a good marksman? Frickin idjit
What the f*ck was this POS hunting on a pier in downtown San Fran. A seagull?
B.S. Even if you believe the POS IT IS at least negligent homicide.
"ricochet"? So you ASSume he's a good marksman? Frickin idjit
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:24 pm to Jimbeaux
This was a POLITICAL verdict, not a lawful one.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:26 pm to tigress4life
Give us some facts to back that up. Thanks.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:37 pm to tigress4life
quote:
B.S. Even if you believe the POS IT IS at least negligent homicide. "ricochet"? So you ASSume he's a good marksman? Frickin idjit
You can easily find a 1000 cases where someone picked up a gun pulled the trigger not knowing it was loaded, injuring or killing a person and it is determined to be accidental, why is this any different?
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:40 pm to EA6B
Because he’s brown and from Mexico and reinforces their narrative that all illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers. Bad hombres and all that
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:40 pm to pwejr88
They tried to charge for too much. They would have been able to nail him for manslaughter.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:43 pm to FT
quote:
They tried to charge for too much. They would have been able to nail him for manslaughter.
Yea, if only they would have charged him with involuntary manslaughter, or even assault with a deadly weapon. If only.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:44 pm to FT
quote:
. They would have been able to nail him for manslaughter
He was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter.
From CNN.
quote:
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon.
CNN link
Posted on 11/30/17 at 10:44 pm to EA6B
quote:
You can easily find a 1000 cases where someone picked up a gun pulled the trigger not knowing it was loaded, injuring or killing a person and it is determined to be accidental, why is this any different?
The only ones I've seen where that happens involve family members. I've never personally seen that happen between 2 complete strangers.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 11:15 pm to EA6B
quote:
You can easily find a 1000 cases where someone picked up a gun pulled the trigger not knowing it was loaded, injuring or killing a person and it is determined to be accidental, why is this any different?
Mexican.
Type in "accidental shooting" here & the threads are short ( a few pages for the most part) & somewhat dismissive.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 11:22 pm to EA6B
quote:
You can easily find a 1000 cases where someone picked up a gun pulled the trigger not knowing it was loaded, injuring or killing a person and it is determined to be accidental, why is this any different?
Just looking at it from a safety perspective, no one has any business fooling around with a gun in that setting. It's sort of like running over someone with your car because you're texting.
Posted on 11/30/17 at 11:24 pm to pwejr88
it was an idiotic prosecutors fault.
The jury was to decide between Murder 1 and involuntary manslaughter.
California (no surprise here) has some bizarrely fricked up laws.
The following quote is not my opinion, it is from California Code and Findlaw:
if my understanding of the law in California is correct, and the Prosecutor chose to give the jury murder 1 or involuntary manslaughter then that prosecutor is a fricking retard and deserves all of the hatred and blame, and I wouldn't bat an eye if he dies. He basically picked two charges that require intent for a case that had a defendant with an easily provable lack of intent.
The problem is murder 1 requires malice and intent. A good defense attorney can get him out of murder 1. Involuntary manslaughter in California can be taken off the table if the defendant can show "a lack of knowledge or reasonable mistake" however I find it unbelievable that that stupid fricking jury all agreed that firing a gun into a crowded pier is a reasonable mistake or you lack the knowledge that firing a gun into a crowd can kill someone.
The jury was to decide between Murder 1 and involuntary manslaughter.
California (no surprise here) has some bizarrely fricked up laws.
The following quote is not my opinion, it is from California Code and Findlaw:
quote:
quote:
In California, Homicide during the commission of a felony often results in a murder charge rather than a manslaughter charge. Murder 1 requires intent and malice.
When a killing occurred during the commission of a crime that is not a felony, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit the underlying unlawful act. If the defendant did not intend to engage in the crime that resulted in homicide, the state may be unable to prove involuntary manslaughter. The defendant may be able to establish a lack of intent by showing a reasonable mistake or lack of knowledge.
if my understanding of the law in California is correct, and the Prosecutor chose to give the jury murder 1 or involuntary manslaughter then that prosecutor is a fricking retard and deserves all of the hatred and blame, and I wouldn't bat an eye if he dies. He basically picked two charges that require intent for a case that had a defendant with an easily provable lack of intent.
The problem is murder 1 requires malice and intent. A good defense attorney can get him out of murder 1. Involuntary manslaughter in California can be taken off the table if the defendant can show "a lack of knowledge or reasonable mistake" however I find it unbelievable that that stupid fricking jury all agreed that firing a gun into a crowded pier is a reasonable mistake or you lack the knowledge that firing a gun into a crowd can kill someone.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 12:17 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Give us some facts to back that up. Thanks.
Question to me?
Frankly it fits well within Marcuse belief system which is modern political correctness.
Marcuse identified and promoted the idea of creating victim groups within a society, not because he cared for these proposed victims but to use these groups to create disorder, conflict, violence within society as a whole.
These "victim groups" become protected classes, again not for their benefit but to promote an in-equality which will promote strife within traditional society.
Marcuse specifically rejects logic, reason, objectivity as a means to determine truth. Like most ideologues his truth is relative or basically what one can convince of is truth, there are no acceptable objective measures.
Everything is political to Marcuse.
And in phraseology he is mostly opposite from it appears as a meaning.
MLK's nonviolence per Marcuse was actually violence, Black Panther violence is actually non violence, and so on.
"liberating" Tolerance according to Marcuse is:
Anything a Leftist does is ok, one should never criticize a leftist.
Nothing a non Leftist does is ok, particularly any action of a conservative.
If a leftist commits any vile act or if a Leftist POLICY destroys the economy, even if a leftist policy leads to the deaths of millions of people.
That's OK, that's acceptable because Marcuse's intent is to destroy traditional society here in the U.S. Nothing within Marcusean belief system would create a civil society because that's not its intent.
But back to Liberating tolerance (actual the intolerance of the left)
If a non leftist particularly a conservative creates millions of jobs, stimulates a booming economy, that is a bad thing because that would not further the leftist goal. Even if someone cures cancer, that's bad because it would create a positive view of society, and Marcuse promoted only a negative view, any positive view of traditional society could not be tolerated.
Political correctness is the fruition of Marcuse intent for every individual's action to be viewed only through a political lense.
The only important education is indoctrination according to him.
How does this fit in Steinle's case?
Marcuse would identify Zarata as part of a "victim" group and therefore a protected class.
Not because he thought he was a victim but simply because traditionalist, conservatives object to illegal immigration, particularly criminal illegal immigrants.
As a individual victimized by "hate" speech, by inequality endemic in our racist, zenophobic society, he is simply a product of society, (per Marcuse) though his action killed a women, he cannot be held responsible for his actions.
Of course I don't agree at all. Marcuse was nuts and his followers equally so but their influence in institutions are considerable.
And of course Open borders is an essential leftist policy because it creates constant destabilization of mainstream society, and the whole intent of Marcusean Neo Libs is to destroy what is considered to be the traditional American society.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 1:43 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The jury was stacked with a bunch of people named ghanesh patel and chi xi wu.
From a picture on the news showing the jury walking down a hallway, it looked liked a bunch of overweight white people to me, mostly middle age.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 2:02 am to pwejr88
you people do know the bullet bounced off the ground and traveled 80 ft and hit an artery, right. You do know that a ballistics/firearm expert testify that the best marksmen on the planet would not be able to duplicate the tragic shot even under lab conditions.
yes the guy was illegal, and should have been deported
no this was not murder
yes the guy was illegal, and should have been deported
no this was not murder
Posted on 12/1/17 at 2:06 am to Breesus
the jury was instructed to consider 3 tiers of criminality, murder, 2nd degree murder and involutary manslaughter.
from one of many articles
Garcia Zarate faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors also were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions.
from one of many articles
Garcia Zarate faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors also were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 2:07 am to Hetfield
quote:
If I am Kate's family I am going out for blood. If they don't they are better people than I am.
They are huge libtards, so probably not
Posted on 12/1/17 at 2:26 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
you people do know the bullet bounced off the ground and traveled 80 ft and hit an artery, right.
After being fired at a crowded pier.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News