- 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
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:45 pm to FT
After the verdict, I was not jumping to judgement because I remember how people reacted after the Trayvon Martin and Casey Anthony cases.
I watched both trials in full and thought the jury made the right decision in both cases.
Yet the general public lost their minds both times. I felt like those who actually watched the trial in full agreed with the jury, and those who only got their information filtered through the media or video snippets did not get the full picture.
I suspect the same thing happened in this case.
I watched both trials in full and thought the jury made the right decision in both cases.
Yet the general public lost their minds both times. I felt like those who actually watched the trial in full agreed with the jury, and those who only got their information filtered through the media or video snippets did not get the full picture.
I suspect the same thing happened in this case.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:45 pm to LSURussian
Did anyone ask him if it was his first kill?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:45 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Okay, so he's an illegal immigrant thats in the country ILLEGALLY and he has 7 felonies, then he accidentally kills a girl.
What am I missing here?
His immigration status is a different issue from the murder charge, and most can't separate that.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:45 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Probably not about violence.
Possibly, but why was the defense able to inform the jury of his docile nature, but the prosecution unable to inform them of his felonial one?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:45 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
If you accidentally kill someone, you are still responsible for involuntary manslaughter. That is what is driving people mad. Ricochet or not, accident or not, there is absolutely no way to justify a man firing a gun that accidentally killed a person in a park.
Also, I still am trying to understand how someone randomly finds a federal agents gun on a park bench. I find it very hard to believe.
Also, I still am trying to understand how someone randomly finds a federal agents gun on a park bench. I find it very hard to believe.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:46 pm to FT
Find an illegal gun.
Play with it.
Accidentally kill someone.
That's felony manslaughter and should get you years and years in prison.
Play with it.
Accidentally kill someone.
That's felony manslaughter and should get you years and years in prison.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:46 pm to FT
That's still negligent homicide.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:47 pm to FT
quote:
FT
You probably believe this bullshite too.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:47 pm to LSURussian
quote:
"There is absolutely no evidence a crime was committed here!" "Uh, do you mean except for the young woman's dead body?"
I was on the side of George Zimmerman even though a very dead Trayvon Martin existed.
Don't conflate the cases...I certainly am not. But, there are two things:
1) Not every dead person is a result of a criminal act
2) The burden is on the prosecution.
I read that article and learned some things. I understand how this verdict happened.
I don't LIKE it. I understand it.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:47 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Also, I still am trying to understand how someone randomly finds a federal agents gun on a park bench. I find it very hard to believe.
still dont know that one.
but the illegal says he didnt "mean" to do it.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:49 pm to IAmReality
quote:
Find an illegal gun.
Play with it.
Accidentally kill someone.
That's felony manslaughter and should get you years and years in prison.
Agreed, and the FBI has filed federal charges against him so hopefully justice will be served there. Sounds like going after a murder charge was too ambitious and there wasn't the evidence to support it.
ETA After a search, his felony charges are drug related, non violent.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:49 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
Possibly, but why was the defense able to inform the jury of his docile nature, but the prosecution unable to inform them of his felonial one?
IDK, I was just being a wise arse. I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to this case.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:49 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
It
does
not
change
the
fact
that
he
shouldn't
have
been
in
the
country
!
!
!
I’m sorry, for a moment I thought this was a thread about the trial of the death of Kate Steinle.
If Quinn Nordin was able to move goal posts like you, he wouldn’t of missed a kick all season!
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:49 pm to FT
Anyone know what "chairs" they are referring to?
Are they on the pier or something?
quote:
The shot he fired from his chair
Are they on the pier or something?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:49 pm to FT
quote:
The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
quote:
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury.
The "brandishing" angle of explanation is pretty weak, IMO. What legal/police terminology is more applicable and could have been used as the crime?
and this...
quote:
The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was.
So, per the jury, the guy knew it was a gun that he was picking up, but b/c his hand motions with the gun were not, to their subjective opinion, defined as "brandishing", then the manslaughter charge can't apply?
Super flimsy, IMO.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:49 pm to FT
that just reinforced my rightful outrage
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:50 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
there is absolutely no way to justify a man firing a gun that accidentally killed a person in a park.
The article says the weapon was wrapped in a cloth. His claim is as he was handling it / unwrapping it(?)...it went off.
Not the same as waving a firearm around negligently.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:50 pm to McLemore
quote:
that just reinforced my rightful outrage
how?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:51 pm to FT
His analysis is bullshite. Zarate caused a death by his actions, albeit unintentionally. He should have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News