quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:


He admitted firing the shot from the gun as charged.

Until you know, you don’t know.

Your first quote Completely negates your second sentence. He ADMITTED HIS GUILT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't care as much exactly which murder charge he's convicted on. He is responsible for her death. He should pay for his crime. Those MF'ers let him off. It's evil.

Look at another paradigm.

If the illegal alien had stolen car and was driving recklessly down the highway had a tire blowout from his reckless driving and plowed into another car killing the other cars driver wouldn't the person that stole the car be responsible for killing another person? They didn't mean to have a blowout. They didn't mean to kill that exact other driver.........

It's the same BS. The FELON had an ILLEGAL, STOLEN GUN. And ADMITTED that it killed someone. Not paying for his ADMITTED CRIME is a Travesty.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
...All the hooyahing about immigration and this guy’s 6 or 7 illegal entries was, and should have been, inadmissible. Those “facts” have no relevance to guilt or inocence of homocide...

I thought that a death that was a direct result of a criminal act, even if unintended, was First Degree Murder. The usual example is a member of a team of bank robbers getting killed during the robbery, the rest of the team would be charged with Murder One.

In this case, illegally in the country, previous felony convictions making the asshole ineligible to possess a firearm, takes possession of the Sig and, accidentally or not, kills Kate Steinle, should add up to the same Murder One charge.

Can you help with this one, Jim? I realize it could vary from state-to-state.

Well...I'll add this...

The next fucking time the good ol' boy who has been convicted of a half dozen DUIs (and received the usual short jail times, revoking his DL, community service) bullshit and sits at the bar he drove to (with no license) for that one last beer/shot/whatever after the 5-6-7-8-10 (fill in the amount) he's downed...leaves the bar in his uninsured vehicle he ain't supposed to be driving (after all he's been caught and punished 6 times) and hits the road and then head-ons a family out for a fun day and kills (fill in the number and ages)...just remember...HE REALLY DIDNT LEAVE THAT BAR WITH THE INTENT TO KILL THAT FAMILY...HE WAS NOT INTENDING TO KILL
THAT FAMILY WHEN HE DRAINED THAT GLASS OF BEER/LIQUER/OR WHATEVER...he just didn't mean to...it just happened...IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT FUCK HIM...FUCK THE ATTORNEYS AND TRIPLE FUCK THE IGNORANT JURY AND ESPECIALLY FUCK SAN FRANSCIO AND CALIFORNIA IN GENERAL

I'm all out of fucks ...somebody loan me bunch of blue fucks and help me to give them out

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
...All the hooyahing about immigration and this guy’s 6 or 7 illegal entries was, and should have been, inadmissible. Those “facts” have no relevance to guilt or inocence of homocide...

I thought that a death that was a direct result of a criminal act, even if unintended, was First Degree Murder. The usual example is a member of a team of bank robbers getting killed during the robbery, the rest of the team would be charged with Murder One.

In this case, illegally in the country, previous felony convictions making the asshole ineligible to possess a firearm, takes possession of the Sig and, accidentally or not, kills Kate Steinle, should add up to the same Murder One charge.

Can you help with this one, Jim? I realize it could vary from state-to-state.

The first situation you describe is felony murder which when enacted allows all who participate in the commission of a violent felony to be guilty of murder if anyone is killed in the commission of the felony. It imposes vicarious liability on others who did not do the murder.

The whackyland statute is PC 192

quote:

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:

(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.

(c) Vehicular— (not relevant here)

Without the details of the evidence, it is impossible to see what the jury had to work with. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” can be tough to meet.

quote:

Originally posted by Bisleyblackhawk:
Well...I'll add this...

The next fucking time the good ol' boy who has been convicted of a half dozen DUIs (and received the usual short jail times, revoking his DL, community service) bullshit and sits at the bar he drove to (with no license) for that one last beer/shot/whatever after the 5-6-7-8-10 (fill in the amount) he's downed...leaves the bar in his uninsured vehicle he ain't supposed to be driving (after all he's been caught and punished 6 times) and hits the road and then head-ons a family out for a fun day and kills (fill in the number and ages)...just remember...HE REALLY DIDNT LEAVE THAT BAR WITH THE INTENT TO KILL THAT FAMILY...HE WAS NOT INTENDING TO KILL
THAT FAMILY WHEN HE DRAINED THAT GLASS OF BEER/LIQUER/OR WHATEVER...he just didn't mean to...it just happened...IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT FUCK HIM...FUCK THE ATTORNEYS AND TRIPLE FUCK THE IGNORANT JURY AND ESPECIALLY FUCK SAN FRANSCIO AND CALIFORNIA IN GENERAL

I'm all out of fucks

EXACTLY!

There's a difference between a LEGAL system and a JUSTICE system. JALLEN is making LEGAL arguments for a result that had absolutely NO JUSTICE.

This is a HUGE part of all that's wrong with our Country............DJ

quote:

Originally posted by Bisleyblackhawk:
Well...I'll add this...

The next fucking time the good ol' boy who has been convicted of a half dozen DUIs (and received the usual short jail times, revoking his DL, community service) bullshit and sits at the bar he drove to (with no license) for that one last beer/shot/whatever after the 5-6-7-8-10 (fill in the amount) he's downed...leaves the bar in his uninsured vehicle he ain't supposed to be driving (after all he's been caught and punished 6 times) and hits the road and then head-ons a family out for a fun day and kills (fill in the number and ages)...just remember...HE REALLY DIDNT LEAVE THAT BAR WITH THE INTENT TO KILL THAT FAMILY...HE WAS NOT INTENDING TO KILL

As long as his car bounces off the guardrail first it doesn't count, right?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
...Without the details of the evidence, it is impossible to see what the jury had to work with. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” can be tough to meet.

I know. Last September I was Foreman for a DUI case in which the defendant (his lawyer, I suspect, actually) thought he'd get off if he demanded a jury trial. Eleven of us deliberated for about half-an-hour, considered carefully some witness testimony, and figured he was guilty as hell. The twelfth juror took another four hours to convince.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is reasonable. In fact, I'll say it's a most basic ingredient in a guilty verdict.

How about the Murder One thing, though? Kate Steinle's death was the consequence of a series of criminal acts, and lacking any one of them, would not have occurred.

I don't see Manslaughter in any variation, given the chain of events.

His POS defense attorney spouts off outside the courtroom that justice was served.

Best you can do is not spend any money is that shithole of a city.

In other news, the city will relocate some evil Columbus statue to a place yet to be determined.

ICE has also said they will work towards deporting this illegal POS once and for all. Well, ICE might find that a tall order to fill.

Who wants to bet the POS city officials will shield this turd from the evil ICE boys?

I say we give North Korea one free shot with a nuke.... as long as it’s that shit hole of a city, San Francisco!

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
Can this verdict be appealed or overturned by a higher court??? I don’t practice law, so I’m curious.

No lawyer here.
But Double Jeopardy, as I understand it, prevents one from being tried twice for the same crime unless new evidence is found, and that seems unlikely here. If, for example, someone unearths a video tape of him saying he did it on purpose, that might qualify..

Nope. You are right on the first part. Double Jeopardy prevents another trial of the same crime.
If you are found not guilty by a jury and video comes out that night showing you doing the crime, you are still not guilty and cannot be charged again for that crime.

I'm surprised so many on this board are surprised. It's Kommiefornia.
The very same state that would be HAPPY to throw you, a non-felon, in prison for just having a loaded gun in your car for protection. Nobody hurt, nobody threatened, just there if you need it like any other day in your gun carrying life...crossbar hotel for you my friend!
Anyone who dreams we have a "Justice System" hasn't been paying attention for the last 50 years.

Very sad the family had to go through this. This is a national news incident, if not world, incompetence for all to see.

Apparently the prosecution could not show the jury that guns do not just go off when you pick them up. Mine would be going off 4-5 times a day if that was true.

so a person convicted of 7 previous felonies... deported 5 times murdered someone with a STOLEN P226 (which by the way according to the expert has a history of just going off...I must be lucky because none of my 3 226's have ever gone off)...can walk scot free in my home state.

FUCK CALIFORNIA. I am so glad I am out of that hellhole.

quote:

Originally posted by qxsoup:
so a person convicted of 7 previous felonies... deported 5 times murdered someone with a STOLEN P226 (which by the way according to the expert has a history of just going off...I must be lucky because none of my 3 226's have ever gone off)...can walk scot free in my home state.

FUCK CALIFORNIA. I am so glad I am out of that hellhole.

The jury is not allowed to decide on propensity.

If the defendant is found guilty, he must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime he is charged with, not the likelihood that he committed this crime because he previously committed other even similar or identical crimes.

As JALLEN said, we don't know what was shown to the jury at trial. Outsiders might think the jury as the same or more information than what's shown on the news. That may not be true--some evidence can be suppressed in pretrial hearings, including the defendant's prior convictions, possibly even his immigration status (his lawyers certainly made a case for that in the court of public opinion). For instance: if the defendant did not steal the gun himself, then there's a good argument from the defense side that the gun's status as stolen should be limited because it is irrelevant (as to the involuntary manslaughter charge) and the inclusion of that information could be unduly prejudicial against the defendant. In other words, the jury might not have been allowed to know of, or consider, the gun's status when determining if the defendant committed involuntary manslaughter. Bottom line is: just because we know it does not mean the jury knew it, and even if they did know of a certain fact, they may not have been allowed to consider it with regard to the particular charges where the defendant was found not guilty.

Also, juries are given instructions but they can make up their own minds. Jury nullification is not just a legal theory.

^^^^^^^
Following up on this, I'm guessing the State did a lousy job of preparing for this case, at least in that they did not trace the stolen pistol. If they found that the same guy who stole it murdered Kate Steinle, that would have shot to hell most of the defense.

Or, maybe they didn't really want a conviction, so ignored the pistol's lineage. We're talking California here, so I wouldn't doubt for a second that they sabotaged the case.

Guns just go off, guns shoot people, see guns are bad.

No one is responsible for gun, we can't trust guns.

There are more of these out there, therefore we need more gun control laws to get these off the streets.

We will be submitting the new CA Kate Steinle Gun Control Registration, Buyback and Confiscation Act.

DOJ weighing federal charges in Kate Steinle murder case, after not guilty verdict

The Justice Department is considering bringing federal charges against Jose Ines Garcia Zarate after his not guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial, department officials told Fox News on Friday.

A California jury acquitted Zarate of the more serious charges in the case, including murder, involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon -- only convicting him of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

U.S. immigration officials had said they would deport Garcia Zarate – also known as Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez -- who already had been deported five times and was wanted for a sixth deportation when Steinle was fatally shot in the back while walking with her father.

The undocumented felon could spend three years in prison for the firearm charge but has already been behind bars for over two years as the case has made its way through court.

The consideration of federal charges comes as President Trump calls the verdict “disgraceful” and uses the case to rally support for a border wall.

“The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!” he tweeted Friday.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions also lamented the verdict in a written statement.

“When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk. San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle,” he said. “While the State of California sought a murder charge for the man who caused Ms. Steinle’s death—a man who would not have been on the streets of San Francisco if the city simply honored an ICE detainer—the people ultimately convicted him of felon in possession of a firearm.”

Without making mention of any additional charges, he said the DOJ “will continue to ensure that all jurisdictions place the safety and security of their communities above the convenience of criminal aliens.”

The fatal shooting of 32-year-old Steinle – on a San Francisco pier in 2015 -- touched off a fierce national immigration debate, and was used by then-candidate Trump to push for a wall on the Mexican border.

The case spotlighted San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy, which limits local officials from cooperating with U.S. immigration authorities.

Defense attorneys, though, argued that Garcia Zarate was a hapless homeless man who killed Steinle in a freak accident. Prosecutors said he meant to shoot and kill her.

Garcia Zarate did not deny shooting Steinle and said it was an accident.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...-guilty-verdict.html

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
^^^^^^^
Following up on this, I'm guessing the State did a lousy job of preparing for this case, at least in that they did not trace the stolen pistol. If they found that the same guy who stole it murdered Kate Steinle, that would have shot to hell most of the defense.

Or, maybe they didn't really want a conviction, so ignored the pistol's lineage. We're talking California here, so I wouldn't doubt for a second that they sabotaged the case.

Apparently, they couldn’t. The pistol was stolen from the car of a Bureau of Land Management LEO. The perp claimed he “found it.”

This shit is making my blood boil. Fucking POS.

That verdict is not justice. It may be legal, according to the letter of the law, but it is not a just verdict.

Life is a bitch and her stripper name is Karma. The guy that shot her and his lawyer will answer for this, one way or the other.