Check out this scumbag:

A simple term like Justice has no common meaning.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:

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...

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

And the State accepted this lie, since it was convenient to their agenda.

This isn't going to end here, I'm afraid. Government at every level was complicit, from lax border laws to liberal activism encouraging criminal activity. We elected Trump, now let's back him and demand action.

Of the four boxes of freedom, three have been in play, and the fourth is near that point.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
I wish California was not a part of the US.

Your wish was granted some time ago. New New Mexico is no longer part of the United States.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I commend to all of you to avoid reaching firm, especially intemperate, conclusions about verdicts unless you have had the opportunity to see the evidence, hear the testimony, listen to the presentations of counsel. I have adopted this practice in my years of dealing with trial outcomes, and find it helpful in avoiding unjustified, mostly uninformed opinions...

Now where's the fun in that?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
... which can prove embarrassing when the real details are known.

It's at that point those who've expressed uninformed opinion tend to simply abandon the field, with no further word, as if it all never happened.

N.B.: I had assumed, from the "news" coverage, that this case was a no-brainer. Apparently not.

quote:

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

I suspect you are correct.

But I only suspect it.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
JALLEN,
...
... if you don't grasp the righteous outrage in this verdict, you are missing the forest for the trees.

I'm sure he does, but basing justice on "righteous outrage" is how we end up with groups of vigilantes hanging innocent people from trees.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
So, if the jury believed that “found the gun.” If they believed that he “didn’t know what he found.” If they further believed that “the gun just went off by itself.” How the fuck did the same people come to convict him of felony possession of a firearm?!?

A dang good question, and my guess is the jury foreman kinda knew some of the implications of just cutting him completely loose and decided to "throw 'em a bone" by a relatively minor charge.

No, I did not read all of the responses, BUT I can well understand why the shooter did not get convicted. Any attempt to 'rationalize' the verdict is moot. The "Frisco" population does suffer from a massive case of 'white guilt' (it started in the '70's) and this is just a continuation of said guilt. It is not about Justice, it is about "feel good"!

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
JALLEN, you know the law better than anyone on this board. I respect your knowledge and expertise, and, generally speaking, I value the legal insights you share here. But if you don't grasp the righteous outrage in this verdict, you are missing the forest for the trees.

He is only trying to explain the letter of the law, how the system works and how this might have come about (they aren't necessarily the same as justice), not justify it. I'm sure he doesn't like it any better than the rest of us. We aren't always on the same page of the playbook, but we're on the same team.

quote:

Originally posted by trebor44:
No, I did not read all of the responses, BUT I can well understand why the shooter did not get convicted. Any attempt to 'rationalize' the verdict is moot. The "Frisco" population does suffer from a massive case of 'white guilt' (it started in the '70's) and this is just a continuation of said guilt. It is not about Justice, it is about "feel good"!

I heard yesterday that 4 of the jury are immigrants.

A woman is dead. The Man who pulled the trigger admitted to doing so. How is this not involuntary manslaughter?

And to JALLEN's point. No. It would make no difference if he was a Rotary Club president.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
JALLEN, you know the law better than anyone on this board. I respect your knowledge and expertise, and, generally speaking, I value the legal insights you share here. But if you don't grasp the righteous outrage in this verdict, you are missing the forest for the trees.

He is only trying to explain the letter of the law, how the system works and how this might have come about (they aren't necessarily the same as justice), not justify it. I'm sure he doesn't like it any better than the rest of us. We aren't always on the same page of the playbook, but we're on the same team.

I like when the laws are rationally and fairly applied by competent well prepared litigants, and the resulting decisions are respected and valued by citizens who have taken the trouble to inform themselves about the applicable rules and procedures which reflect the societal values we honor in form. I am distressed when unthinking, irrational, intemperate, emotional reactions interfere with accurate, knowledgeable assessments of these events.

In a sense, the anguish is the result of a media blitz yammering about the illegal alien removed 6 or 7 times, then something like this occurs. We are right, it seems to me, to demand that these illegals be dealt with according to law, but it is mistaken to believe that his immigration status makes him any more guilty. Every statement by hosts and guests in Fox last night started with something similar to “He shouldn't even have been here, this girl is dead, and now he is not guilty. Arrrrgh!!”

It’s too bad this wasn’t televised, like the OJ murder trial, so people could see the evidence, hear the testimony, the arguments of counsel, evaluate the hits and misses for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:


I like when the laws are rationally and fairly applied by competent well prepared litigants, and the resulting decisions are respected and valued by citizens who have taken the trouble to inform themselves about the applicable rules and procedures which reflect the societal values we honor in form. I am distressed when unthinking, irrational, intemperate, emotional reactions interfere with accurate, knowledgeable assessments of these events.

Typical lawyer legal Bullshit where "procedures" and rules completely overtake true justice.

Fact: He fired the gun 3!!! times. Not a dropped gun going off.

Any of his multiple excuses are ridiculous. Once he said he was firing at a sea lion. Another time he said that the gun accidentally went of, 3 times??? What kind of fool can't see past such ridiculous Bullshit? - Answer an immigrant jury in California.

What you seem to not be able to realize is that if the system allows this man to be set free the SYSTEM is wrong. Period.

The system failed at several junctures well before this poor girl was shot.

Addressing *those* failures, as they allow many more like him, is where our energy is best spent and where our outrage is best directed, IMO... Our border and immigration policies...

He shouldn't have been here at all, not after the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth deportation, or the first through seventh felony convictions. *Those* are the bigger problems, and ones we can actually do more to prevent.

There will always be singular court cases where shit goes wrong, always be singular sympathetic juries, but this instance wouldn't even have come to pass had we as a country done the correct things to rid ourselves of this vermin at several steps along the way.

You are undoubtedly correct, JALLEN. I had cases go badly wrong when I was a prosecutor many years ago, and you never really know what a jury will do. It also seems that there was some over charging here on the part of the prosecution.

But there is also seemingly a disease seeping into the jury system, aided and abetted by prosecution, defense and judges.

Judicial and prosecutorial incompetence doomed the OJ case. Defense lawyers playing politics with the result of a case like Steinle taint the job that they did for their client. Judges make incomprehensible decisions in large and small matters routinely, from the trial courts to the Supreme Court. I was tangentially involved in a case for a client where the judge found that my client's patent had been willfully and intentionally violated by another company, that the other company had made more than $150 million dollars from the violation, and then declined to award my client any damages. I still can't explain that one. Anyone want to revisit Bowe Bergdahl?

Frustration with the system is different from a seemingly anomalous result in any particular case, but frustration with the system is a growing problem for the system. That much is obvious from the angry discussion here.

Judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers seem to lack common sense, circumspection and respect for the system which is designed to protect society from both criminals and the anger evident here.

I predict that in he near future, judges will be shot for their arrogance, prosecutors will be shot for failing to deliver for the people, defense lawyers will be shot for coming off as pompous liars, and exonerated or under punished defendants will be shot for their perceived escape from the consequences of their crimes. I honestly don't feel we are too far from this, and it will be a disaster if it occurs.

But but but there is an explanation for it...

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

Fact: He fired the gun 3!!! times. Not a dropped gun going off.

The official account says the gun discharged once.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
I predict that in he near future, judges will be shot for their arrogance, prosecutors will be shot for failing to deliver for the people, defense lawyers will be shot for coming off as pompous liars, and exonerated or under punished defendants will be shot for their perceived escape from the consequences of their crimes. I honestly don't feel we are too far from this, and it will be a disaster if it occurs .

There are laws and trials, that thankfully follow particular rules and protocols, as JALLEN mentions. Something to be grateful for if one ever finds himself as a defendant. But there is also justice (in the non-legal sense) and it was not served here, at all. That is the maddening and outrageous part of this. I know what justice I would like to see meted out, but it won't happen.

quote:

Originally posted by PR64:
I heard yesterday that 4 of the jury are immigrants.

Three of the jurors were immigrants:
http://www.mercurynews.com/201...-jose-garcia-zarate/

Jurors were instructed to consider 2nd degree murder, but were allowed to go with 1st degree murder OR involuntary manslaughter. Those were the only allowable verdicts.
http://abc7news.com/jury-in-ka...s-for-judge/2701947/

It would appear to easily meet the requirements for involuntary manslaughter. In fact, I don't see how it couldn't meet these requirements:
California's Involuntary Manslaughter Law Penal Code 192 (b) PC

Involuntary manslaughter in California occurs when one person kills another unintentionally, either

while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous California felony, OR
while committing a lawful act which might produce death, without due caution.1
Under California Penal Code 192(b), the key feature of California involuntary manslaughter is that it does not require intent to kill another person—unlike Penal Code 187 murder, which requires “malice aforethought.”2

And California's involuntary manslaughter law does not include actions that fit the definition above but involve a car. Those will be charged under California's vehicular manslaughter laws.3

Dr. Conrad Murray , the pop star Michael Jackson's personal physician, is probably California's most famous involuntary manslaughter defendant in recent years.

Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for prescribing Jackson a surgical anesthetic that eventually killed him. He received a jail sentence of four (4) years—the maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter.4

Examples

Here are some additional examples of behavior that could lead to involuntary manslaughter charges in California:

A man steals a bicycle that has been left outside of a store (thus committing the California misdemeanor crime of petty theft). As he is riding away on the bicycle, he strikes a pedestrian who eventually dies of her injuries.
During a fight with her husband, a woman retrieves her gun and waves it at him to threaten him (thus violating Penal Code 417 PC, California's brandishing a weapon law). The gun accidentally fires, killing the husband.
A farm owner forces his workers to pick vegetables in record-breaking heat. One of them, a pregnant woman, collapses and dies of heatstroke.
A woman has a dog that has attacked people on several occasions. She lets the dog run off-leash at a dog park, and the dog mauls another dog owner who is at the park--leading to charges of both involuntary manslaughter and Penal Code 399 PC failing to control a dangerous animal.
Penalties

Involuntary manslaughter is a felony in California law. Potential penalties include

Two (2), three (3) or four (4) years in jail, and
A fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).5
Legal defenses

As a California homicide crime, involuntary manslaughter is punished harshly—and is a serious strike on someone's criminal record. It is worth fighting these charges with all you've got.

A California criminal defense lawyer could help you bring some of the following legal defenses against Penal Code 192(b) charges:

You acted in self-defense / defense of others;
The killing was an accident (and not a result of your criminal activity or negligence);
There is insufficient evidence to support your conviction; and
You were falsely accused.

In a state where the average citizen is inhibited in their ability for self defense, an illegal immigrant involved in a shooting death, including illegal possession of a stolen handgun, is a travesty of justice no matter how one might try to justify an acquittal.