- 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 4:03 pm to DelU249
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:03 pm to DelU249
Homicide and manslaughter in Cali
Example: Michael Jackson's doctor was charged with involuntary manslaughter after the singer's death.
Oh, Cali
Example: Michael Jackson's doctor was charged with involuntary manslaughter after the singer's death.
Oh, Cali
0
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:03 pm to ocelot4ark
yes it does. are you serious? 
in fact the last guy i expect to put his hands on a gun he just found on a bench (allegedly, pffft) is a 7 time felon. you don't know who was shot with that gun, you're not allowed to touch a gun, and even if you somehow make you're way past those two, you don't face it forward from you and put your finger on the trigger.
his defense is...i'm a fricking retard
the prosecution's case...well, i won't try to prove otherwise.
guarantee you, if that's you or me, we're in fricking jail right now.
in fact the last guy i expect to put his hands on a gun he just found on a bench (allegedly, pffft) is a 7 time felon. you don't know who was shot with that gun, you're not allowed to touch a gun, and even if you somehow make you're way past those two, you don't face it forward from you and put your finger on the trigger.
his defense is...i'm a fricking retard
the prosecution's case...well, i won't try to prove otherwise.
guarantee you, if that's you or me, we're in fricking jail right now.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:05 pm to TigersInParis
quote:
The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
Well, right there he should be charged with manslaughter or is he not ordinary? Did they prove he was mentally challenged?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:05 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence
Based on that I can go out in public, shoot a gun, have the bullet hit someone unintentionally, they die, and im innocent?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:06 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
screw the felonies, the whole ballgame would be different and you'd be in jail
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:10 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:Yep
Based on that I can go out in public, shoot a gun, have the bullet hit someone unintentionally, they die, and im innocent?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:10 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? and this...
They should have gone with felon in possession instead of brandishing.
The again we are talking about prosecutors in SF. No doubt they are just as prog as the rest. Maybe they meant to pick one that didn't fit
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:11 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
No you just happen to find a stolen gun left on bench in a crowded area and then had the poor judgment to even fricking touch it let alone grip it and put your finger on the trigger
And it’s not relevant that you’re a 7 time felon
and the prosecutor will just take your word for it. Ok let’s start from when you found the gun.
And it’s not relevant that you’re a 7 time felon
and the prosecutor will just take your word for it. Ok let’s start from when you found the gun.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:23 pm to DelU249
quote:
And it’s not relevant that you’re a 7 time felon
Especially if one of the felonies could be, oh I don't know theft.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:23 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I hate when people who know nothing about guns preach to people about gun specs and features
Two different experts, who know a lot more about guns than you, testified at the trial.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:25 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
Good thing he wasn't on trial for colluding with the Russians. They would have convicted without any evidence.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:33 pm to Aristo
here's something that's relevant...mr Zarate, you're a 7 time felon, did you know that picking up the gun was illegal?
if yes, then upon finding a gun lying on a bench that you had no clue whether it was stolen, had been used to kill someone, etc. would you pick up?
if no, oh really? so it wasn't explained to you this was against the law? (hey maybe it wasn't, but like the prosecutor is going to waste time with those details) he'd been out of prison for all of a second.
prosecutor mailed this one in, everyone did. they directed the flow of water to the jury to produce only one outcome..."not guilty"
dude gave his story, the prosecutor didn't push back on anything, mailed it in, chose a higher standard, and he walked just like he was intended to...again, how can the victim's family live with this? i'm not one for feels, but my god that's a shite sandwich i couldn't eat. i think i would snap and i would need psychiatric treatment because i would be worried i'm going to kill someone that i feel bears any amount of responsibility.
if yes, then upon finding a gun lying on a bench that you had no clue whether it was stolen, had been used to kill someone, etc. would you pick up?
if no, oh really? so it wasn't explained to you this was against the law? (hey maybe it wasn't, but like the prosecutor is going to waste time with those details) he'd been out of prison for all of a second.
prosecutor mailed this one in, everyone did. they directed the flow of water to the jury to produce only one outcome..."not guilty"
dude gave his story, the prosecutor didn't push back on anything, mailed it in, chose a higher standard, and he walked just like he was intended to...again, how can the victim's family live with this? i'm not one for feels, but my god that's a shite sandwich i couldn't eat. i think i would snap and i would need psychiatric treatment because i would be worried i'm going to kill someone that i feel bears any amount of responsibility.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:36 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
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.
Happens every week somewhere,, and most of the time there is no indictment for anything, here are few of the hundreds of examples I found with a google search.
"A San Francisco man accidentally fired his gun as he was cleaning it Wednesday night, shooting his downstairs neighbor in the leg, officials said.
The 24-year-old weapon owner was not arrested — but he was issued a citation for unlawfully discharging a firearm, said Officer Giselle Talkoff, a police spokeswoman."
No charges will be filed against a Sarpy County man who authorities say accidentally shot his wife to death Oct. 5.
Afton Teague, 68, was struck in the head by a .22 caliber bullet fired from a handgun handled by Dennis Teague, 72, her husband of almost 49 years, authorities said.
Dennis Teague had just returned from a shooting range and was cleaning the gun he believed to be unloaded, officials said. Afton Teague was pronounced dead at the hospital.
Sarpy County Attorney Lee Polikov said Tuesday the investigation showed “neither the intent, nor reckless disregard which would be required for a criminal complaint.”
"William DeHayes told police that his .22 caliber handgun went off after he spun it around his finger. The bullet struck Katherine Hoover in the head, killing her. Her unborn son died soon after.
Florida State Attorney Brad King said that DeHayes' actions simply didn't rise to the level of a crime under Florida law.
"An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally," King wrote. "Just as it is my duty to prosecute those who violate the law, it is equally my duty to refrain from prosecuting those whose conduct, no matter how outrageous, does not constitute a crime. This is such a case."
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:42 pm to DelU249
quote:
I knew he was a 7 time felon...did the jury I knew he was fresh out of the pokey...did the jury mind blowing.
Has zero relevance to the what he was charged with why would the jury need to know?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:45 pm to DelU249
I agree, they botched this case. Whether or not from incompetence or purposely, we may never know.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:45 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:that's not what i'm talking about at all. is it a relevant question whether or not mr Zarate knew that putting the gun in his hands was against the law. is it relevant whether, as a 7 time felon, Zarate knew putting his prints on a gun he found on a bench could falsely implicate him in a crime. he threw the gun in the water after he shot her (which as it turns out isn't a crime, who knew)...why didn't he just drop it? it's like he was worried fingerprints (you know the ones they take when they book you...7 times) would be traced back to him. why wasn't he worried about that before? clearly that establishes some foundation of what this guy knows and doesn't...which is helpful when the defendant is pleading ignorance about anything and everything.
Don't listen to this guy...he's a 7 time felon."
give me a break, it's relevant
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:47 pm to texridder
quote:
Two different experts, who know a lot more about guns than you, testified at the trial.
Link?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:48 pm to PuddinPopPharmacist
quote:
Those “facts” are dubious at best. The whole ricochet thing is not a fact.
Forensics and ballistics experts testified that the condition of the bullet indicated it had struck a hard surface before hitting the victim, should their testimony just be ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative we would like?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:50 pm to FT
quote:
Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence
Posted on 12/6/17 at 4:50 pm to EA6B
quote:yeah, actually it does.
Has zero relevance to the what he was charged with why would the jury need to know?
hey, why weren't you worried about falsely implicating yourself in a crime by putting your prints on that gun
hey, did you know it was against the law for you to have possession of that firearm? (and his answer opens up a very relevant line of questioning)
i'm sorry, it's very relevant. i can see circumstances in which it's not, but not this one because a key component of this case is whether or not you stole the fricking gun...theft is a non violent crime. some people steal to pay for drugs...oh shite, that's a motive for stealing the gun...hey what were his felonies related to? wait, how was he paying for drugs? i'm sure he had a jo...oh he's homeless?
enough with the shite, it's relevant to bring up, the jury decides its relevance to the case.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 4:56 pm
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News