- 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 3:12 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:12 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:it's not the jury.
Were you sitting on the jury in THIS case? The instructions to them clearly were different:
it's the judge, the prosecutor...the scales of justice were tipped to get him off the hook. in the wrong circumstances, they could be tipped to make sure he goes away. man o man did he do something politically relevant in the right city.
I can't speak to the motives of the jurors, it's not like OJ where the dude was giving him the black power sign.
1
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:14 pm to TheMidasTouch
quote:no, it was right based on what the jurors were presented.
the verdict was right according to the law
that dude was black and you bet your arse his rap sheet is relevant. it wasn't even argued whether or not he stole the gun...which is relevant as frick. the prosecutor took a dive.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:14 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
The person is clearly guilty and the evidence shows it, but the prosecution themselves didn't do a great job showing it.
Well, then who presented this clear evidence?
Look...I am not "soft on crime" OR "soft on minorities".
frick this a-hole ILLEGAL jackass.
But, I am fair minded. I did not know the information provided by this juror. I do understand that they followed the law, as charged to them, and this verdict is unsettling...but, I do get it.
I am willing to be educated beyond my preconceived ideas. That has happened here.
I opened this thread on "your side". I learned I was wrong.
The jackass STILL sickens me. The jury no longer does.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:15 pm to DelU249
quote:
it's not the jury.
My response was to another poster and that statement was clearly a "jury" concept.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:18 pm to FT
quote:
The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle
This always sounded fishy to me. If the shooter was sitting, the gun was maybe 3’ off the ground when he fired. The bullet travels 12’ and ricochets. Then the bullet travels 78’ and it hits a woman (5’5”?, 5’7”?) In the middle of the back (which we’d guess is about 4’ off the ground?).
Explain to me why a bullet, shot from 3’ off the ground, travels 12’ to the point where it ricochets, wouldn’t be about ~3’ off the ground 12’ past the ricochet, ~6’ off the ground 24’ past the ricochet, and so on. It seems to me, at that glance angle, the bullet would have been over 19’ off the ground 78’ past the place it ricocheted.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:19 pm to sicboy
quote:7 felonies is relevant in any murder trial
In not saying any of the felonies are excusable, but none of them warrants and automatic murder charge stamp.
especially one where you claim you didn't steal the stolen gun, found it on a pier and just so happen to shoot someone.
7 time felons who don't want to go to prison, double digit IQ or not, don't pick up guns just lying on piers and triggers don't pull themselves. I could see if they were arguing that he was a complete retard, but the gun was facing forward from him. he was just sitting there inspecting it and said "hey what's this do"
I don't care, but god damn that has to be brutal for the family. no shite, i'd kill him.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:23 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.
A jury has a responsibility to subjectively analyze the evidence presented to them to decide a verdict. Ignoring said evidence, and choosing to take cover behind the literal interpretation of the most applicable term for the situation seems...cowardly. Not noble. And certainly doesn't equate to "justice".
By the letter of the law, the technicality means they may have done the legal (not right) thing. And have plenty of cover to hide behind.
But as a jury of human beings and peers, I think they failed spectacularly.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:24 pm to HonoraryCoonass
quote:
Explain to me why a bullet, shot from 3’ off the ground, travels 12’ to the point where it ricochets, wouldn’t be about ~3’ off the ground 12’ past the ricochet, ~6’ off the ground 24’ past the ricochet, and so on. It seems to me, at that glance angle, the bullet would have been over 19’ off the ground 78’ past the place it ricocheted.
Well, certainly some energy is dissipated as it strikes the ground. Also, I would imagine the round is disfigured upon impact and the aerodynamics is fricked.
The ballistics and behavior would not necessarily follow an ideal "textbook" word problem scenario.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:24 pm to FT
Those “facts” are dubious at best. The whole ricochet thing is not a fact.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:25 pm to FT
quote:
The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height.
I did not know this. To listen to Fox News, you'd have thought the dude went on a drug induced murder spree. Turns out he's just some dipshit that picked up a gun off the ground like any of us would have done.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:25 pm to HonoraryCoonass
bullet goes down and to the left, he was gripping that thing tight as frick, he flinched due to muzzle flash and or noise.
his story sounds like complete bullshite.
his story sounds like complete bullshite.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:25 pm to MSMHater
quote:
A jury has a responsibility to subjectively analyze the evidence presented to them to decide a verdict. Ignoring said evidence, and choosing to take cover behind the literal interpretation of the most applicable term for the situation seems...cowardly.
ugh
The law dictated this. The judge instructed them. I understand what happened here.
That is all.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:27 pm to FT
Motive isn’t an element of the crime, frickstick author
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:28 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
She would not be dead of immigration law was enforced properly at all levels
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:28 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.
The fact that the jury was not given these facts?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:28 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:maybe you're a retard, but don't go speaking for the rest of us
like any of us would have done
i'm not putting my prints on a gun lying on a pier in san Francisco. you'd think a 7 time felon would know that...of course he did. he stole the gun, he didn't find it. prosecution didn't even bother...but you can't say a 7 time felon. that's insensitive, not relevant.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:30 pm to gthog61
quote:
She would not be dead of immigration law was enforced properly at all levels
I'm on your side.
Build the wall...frick the illegals...I have ZERO sympathy for them (especially this fricker in this case). My point is that I understand what happened and I'm not angry at the jury.
I am willing to change my mind when facts point me to the other view. THAT occurred here.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:31 pm to Proximo
quote:yes it is, but it was never argued Zarate didn't pull the trigger. you can establish he intentionally did so using forensics, eye witnesses, common fricking sense, the physics of firing a gun.
Motive isn’t an element of the crime
random acts of violence all the time, motive isn't really a big part of it, it just makes it more senseless.
prosecutor took a dive. this man was never getting convicted. we only let in good ones.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:33 pm to PuddinPopPharmacist
quote:
Those “facts” are dubious at best. The whole ricochet thing is not a fact.
Holy crap everyone here knows absolutely NOTHING about this. We are so adamant we know more about this case than the people who were in the courtroom.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:33 pm to sicboy
See everyone else's posts saying this is bullshite. I copy those posts.
This is pretty self-evident. The "reasonable" is in "reasonable doubt" for a reason.
This is pretty self-evident. The "reasonable" is in "reasonable doubt" for a reason.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News