- 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
re: I Saw the Kate Steinle Murder Trial Up Close. The Jury Didn’t Botch It.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:52 pm to FT
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:52 pm to FT
quote:Has nothing to do with the crime.
Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence.
quote:
The shot he fired from his chair
quote:
hit Steinle
You just admitted negligent homicide.
I guess I can walk down the street in San Fran firing off rounds as long as I don't mean to hit anyone, I'm ok. No matter how many people I kill with my negligence because I'm not a convicted felon
Second thougt, I am white so....
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 2:53 pm
0
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:52 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
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.
With full knowledge that there is a gun wrapped in the cloth, causing it to fire while picking it up isn't negligent?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:53 pm to MSMHater
quote:
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?
Did he not commit a criminal act and was found guilty of it in this same exact instance by being a felon carrying an illegal weapon?
That is the stupidity of it. Brandishing it means absolutely nothing by that definition.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:54 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
The article says the weapon was wrapped in a cloth. His claim is as he was handling it / unwrapping it(?)...it went off.
Again, he was committing a crime just by handling the gun. In that case by the very description of the involuntary manslaughter crime, he is guilty. No questions asked.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:54 pm to tiggerthetooth
Here’s his story which is totally suspect
He’s in possession of a stolen weapon
Fires it
Kills girl
He has a lengthy record
His story is it was just laying there, played with it, it kills her, oh shite and it just turns out it was stolen...that wasn’t me.
His record is relevant because he’s in possession of a stolen gun at the very least.
They were never going to let this guy go to prison because it confirmed a political narrative they were fighting against.
If I were the father or brother I’d have a hit list ready
My daughter was murdered because of this stupid shite and on top of it a politically relevant one therefore the killer walks.
He’s in possession of a stolen weapon
Fires it
Kills girl
He has a lengthy record
His story is it was just laying there, played with it, it kills her, oh shite and it just turns out it was stolen...that wasn’t me.
His record is relevant because he’s in possession of a stolen gun at the very least.
They were never going to let this guy go to prison because it confirmed a political narrative they were fighting against.
If I were the father or brother I’d have a hit list ready
My daughter was murdered because of this stupid shite and on top of it a politically relevant one therefore the killer walks.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:55 pm to sicboy
How many felonies do you have???
How many people in this country even have 1??? Just 1.
But 7 felonies is fine.....
Which 7 felonies that you listed would you be fine with this POS executing on your loved ones?
Stupid fricking moron.
How many people in this country even have 1??? Just 1.
But 7 felonies is fine.....
Which 7 felonies that you listed would you be fine with this POS executing on your loved ones?
Stupid fricking moron.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:55 pm to L.A.
quote:
His analysis is bullshite. Zarate caused a death by his actions, albeit unintentionally. He should have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
Dubious....but what I would like to see come out of this is that an illegal alien who repeatedly breaks the law by violating our immigration laws, gets enhanced punishment in a case like this. I.E. the fact that he is here illegally and has repeatedly flouted the law is an aggravating circumstance.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:56 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:That reminds me of an old anecdote where a defendant is on trial for stabbing someone to death.
1) Not every dead person is a result of a criminal act
2) The burden is on the prosecution.
He gets on the stand and says, "It was an accident. I was just standing on the corner leaning on that building whittling on a piece of wood with my pocket knife and this guy ran around the corner of the building real fast and ran right into my knife."
The prosecutor asks him, "Seventeen times?!?"
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:57 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
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?
The article explains that the jury instructions defined "brandishing" as 'waving with menace, a weapon'. That is very different from the simple act of KNOWING it is a firearm.
Had the prosecution selected 'felon in possession of a firearm' as the underlying criminal act, the jury would have convicted him of manslaughter. The prosecution decided on "brandishing" (and it was defined for the jury). Once they chose THAT...the jury could not use the other as the reason for conviction.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:58 pm to MSMHater
quote:
The "brandishing" angle of explanation is pretty weak, IMO. What legal/police terminology is more applicable and could have been used as the crime?
Juries are dumb sometimes. I had a jury in Louisiana fail to convict a DWI third. After the trial The jury foreman told me "well, you proved he was drunk at the time and you proved he was driving at the time, but you never proved he was drinking WHILE driving".
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 2:59 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Again, he was committing a crime just by handling the gun. In that case by the very description of the involuntary manslaughter crime, he is guilty. No questions asked.
No. The prosecution gets to decide the underlying crime. It is not just ANY crime. The prosecutor decides WHICH one the jury must use as the one
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:00 pm to BBONDS25
They say if you are innocent, you want a judge. If you are guilty, you want a jury.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:00 pm to Geauxgurt
It's San Francisco were they believe that guns are evil and are to blame and not people.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:01 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
this isn't on the jury, as far as I know
the whole thing was politics. the city law, the national debate about the city's law, the extra attention due to this case.
honestly, if that guy were white, black or had not been an illegal who the city cut lose as part of their sanctuary city policy, is he in jail? frick yes. you and I sure as shite would be.
the whole thing was politics. the city law, the national debate about the city's law, the extra attention due to this case.
honestly, if that guy were white, black or had not been an illegal who the city cut lose as part of their sanctuary city policy, is he in jail? frick yes. you and I sure as shite would be.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:02 pm to Balloon Huffer
Nice emotional strawman you built.
In not saying any of the felonies are excusable, but none of them warrants and automatic murder charge stamp. No, he should not be in the country, but his immigration status has nothing to do with the charge.
Fixing immigration is not done by wrongful sentences.
In not saying any of the felonies are excusable, but none of them warrants and automatic murder charge stamp. No, he should not be in the country, but his immigration status has nothing to do with the charge.
Fixing immigration is not done by wrongful sentences.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:02 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
Had the prosecution selected 'felon in possession of a firearm' as the underlying criminal act, the jury would have convicted him of manslaughter. The prosecution decided on "brandishing" (and it was defined for the jury). Once they chose THAT...the jury could not use the other as the reason for conviction.
This is where stupidity and agendas clearly cloud one's ability to think critically. You don't have to convict them based on what the prosecution is selling you if you can clear as day make the connection. Instead, they tried to intentionally find a loophole and play the "we did exactly as asked" card.
The opposite happens all of the time. The person is clearly guilty and the evidence shows it, but the prosecution themselves didn't do a great job showing it. Do you then ignore common sense and just free a clearly guilty by the evidence person, or do you do your job as a juror and convict them based on the obvious evidence of a crime they committed.
In the end, it is said when someone that has broken that many laws including entering the US illegally multiple times isn't just marooned on some uninhabited island to fend for themselves.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:06 pm to Geauxgurt
I would like to say at this point that 12 Angry Men is a great movie, and I encourage others to go watch it.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:08 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
This is where stupidity and agendas clearly cloud one's ability to think critically. You don't have to convict them based on what the prosecution is selling you if you can clear as day make the connection.
Were you sitting on the jury in THIS case? The instructions to them clearly were different:
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,"
quote:
Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:08 pm to dantes69
quote:precisely. our policies didn't let a criminal go free to murder someone. he was a good boy, this is all a big misunderstanding...it was the gun (stolen from a federal fricking agent) guns are bad.
t's San Francisco were they believe that guns are evil and are to blame and not people.
gun was just lying on the pier...horse, shite. and who says he was going to shoot steinle. even a fricking 911 or revolver in single action, triggers don't pull themselves. he pulled too hard and the barrel dipped. he stole the gun, no one steals a gun from a fed and places it neatly on the pier and the guy who happens to see it is a 7 time felon, picks it up and whoops shoots someone.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:09 pm to FT
If that information is truthful , it sounds like the verdict was right according to the law. This would not have happened if he had not been allowed to legally enter the country, Or at least illegally remain in the country. However he was not on trial for that.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News