quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:



“I have handled this very firearm — the trigger pull is extremely light,” defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said. “That’s why I’m so confident that I would like the jury to be able to handle it. And anybody who believes this gun cannot fire accidentally — I have no doubt that would settle it. There would be no issue.”

quote:

Gonzalez asked Smith if he was aware of accidental discharges by city police officers involving their Sig Sauer handguns.

"No, I am not aware of any. However, I am aware of unintended discharges as a result of negligence."

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Judge Jeanine on Fox just talked about the P239 used in the murder. Unfortunately, the stock gun photo was...

...a Glock.

But it was the gun's fault!:


In a detailed write-up of the verdict, the San Francisco Chronicle describes many details that have rarely or never been mentioned in the vast majority of the media coverage of this case. The main issue is that the defense was able to present a credible case that the shooting was an accident, and the prosecution aggressively overplayed their hand.

The Chronicle also notes that Steinle was not hit directly, but rather the bullet hit the concrete ground and then ricocheted up to hit her. The gun was a SIG Sauer pistol that had been stolen four days prior to Steinle’s death from a federal ranger’s car parked in the area.

The defense also presented evidence regarding the SIG Sauer’s propensity to accidentally fire. One of Garcia Zarate’s attorneys detailed the issues in a San Francisco Examiner article:

It’s an elite handgun intended for law enforcement and military personnel who may need to fire it with split second notice. Hence, it has a hair trigger in single-action mode. Even among well-trained users, it has a lengthy history of accidental discharges.

Most police agencies don’t make records public, but those that do reveal disturbing data. In a four-year period (2012-2015), the New York City Police Department reported 54 accidental firearm discharges, 10 involving SIG Sauers. Los Angeles County reported more than 80 accidental discharges between 2010 and 2015, five involving SIG Sauers. From 2005 to January 2011, the San Francisco Police Department reported 29 accidental discharges (a time when it issued SIG Sauers as its primary sidearm)…

The SIG Sauer in Lopez Sanchez’s case has three features prone to accidents:

1. No safety lever, making it perpetually ready for firing.
2. Manufacturer-issued trigger pull of 4.4 pounds of force (in single-action mode), which is among the lightest on the market.
3. An unlabeled decocking lever despite being essential to disengage the single-action mode. (The SIG Sauer safety manual urges “DO NOT THUMB THE HAMMER DOWN the consequences can be serious injury or death — only and ALWAYS use the decocking lever.”)

New York City requires officers using SIG Sauers to disable its single-action function because the hair trigger is too dangerous. Those using the gun can only do so in double-action mode, which has a 10-pound trigger pull.

Still capable of accidentally discharging, it provides some modicum of greater safety. However, single-action was not disabled on the handgun involved in this case, which Lopez Sanchez says he found wrapped in a T-shirt, thereby concealing its danger.

Well now I'm scared. I have several SIGs with exact same manual of arms. I could at any moment have one of them go off and kill an innocent woman.

What horse shit. A P-series SIG does not fire without pulling the trigger period. Someone pulled the trigger, there was no trigger fairy or malfunction. End of discussion.

At a minimum he made a grave error and someone lost their life because of his negligence. I don't see how any jury could find differently.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the prosecutors went to the Marcia Clarke and Richard School of Prosecution

they graduated with low honors

I have several friends in the SF Sheriff, those who worked the bailiff detail have said to a man, that Assistant DA Diana Garcia, who was the lead prosecutor of this case, should not have been assigned the case. Stating she was severely outclassed by the Public Defender's Office, who rolled-out their 'dream team' of lawyers, chief among them Gonzalez, who's well known far-left positions allowed him to pull on the ignorant heart-strings of a largely pathetic jury. Given the high-profile of this case, city DA Gascon should've been handling the case from the start.

If this is the outcome the mayor, chief and da wanted, then the right person was chosen.

Let them suffer the outrage of the people.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the prosecutors went to the Marcia Clarke and Richard School of Prosecution

they graduated with low honors

I have several friends in the SF Sheriff, those who worked the bailiff detail have said to a man, that Assistant DA Diana Garcia, who was the lead prosecutor of this case, should not have been assigned the case. Stating she was severely outclassed by the Public Defender's Office, who rolled-out their 'dream team' of lawyers, chief among them Gonzalez, who's well known far-left positions allowed him to pull on the ignorant heart-strings of a largely pathetic jury. Given the high-profile of this case, city DA Gascon should've been handling the case from the start.

The DA in most larger offices isn’t a trial guy and is rarely the most qualified to handle a trial in addition to the other responsibilities, duties, etc. Trials are full time jobs, especially jury trials, especially if you intend to prevail.

Just to answer this one minor point...

I can say that the NYPD does not allow DA/SA SIGs. All the SIGs carried by patrol officers (I can't say if there ESU / Tactical officers are different) are factory DAO P226s.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Is any of it not true?

Does NYPD disable the single action?

Is the trigger pull SA 4.4 lbs? Is that among the lightest?

You get the ídea.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBMW:

That's the difference between a real justice system and the modern American kangaroo court system.

Our current system is no longer about justice, or determining whether the bad guy did it or not.

It's now about armies of lawyers justifying their own existence by picking apart every word, of every sentence, of every statute to find a way of twisting the meaning into something other than it's intent, in order to profit.

Noone in the legal system seems to care about simple right or wrong. A defense attorney who knows full well his shithead client is guilty would happily get his client acquitted of all charges if he found a way to fool a stupid jury.

So far, we know as a matter of fact that he met all of the elements for manslaughter.

But, because even though 'technically', being an illegal alien is illegal, a misdemeanor which satisfies the 'not amounting to a felony" wording, because it's one of those misdemeanors that we don't really want to enforce, well just ignore that as a technicality.

We won't be ingnoring any technicality that could get this dirtbag price of shit set free though.

With any luck, karma will catch up to him and everyone else involved with this fiasco as well.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the prosecutors went to the Marcia Clarke and Richard School of Prosecution

they graduated with low honors

I have several friends in the SF Sheriff, those who worked the bailiff detail have said to a man, that Assistant DA Diana Garcia, who was the lead prosecutor of this case, should not have been assigned the case. Stating she was severely outclassed by the Public Defender's Office, who rolled-out their 'dream team' of lawyers, chief among them Gonzalez, who's well known far-left positions allowed him to pull on the ignorant heart-strings of a largely pathetic jury. Given the high-profile of this case, city DA Gascon should've been handling the case from the start.

The DA in most larger offices isn’t a trial guy and is rarely the most qualified to handle a trial in addition to the other responsibilities, duties, etc. Trials are full time jobs, especially jury trials, especially if you intend to prevail.

Wasn't former and long-time NYC DA Morgenthau, the lead attorney in John Lennon's killer case?

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:


The DA in most larger offices isn’t a trial guy and is rarely the most qualified to handle a trial in addition to the other responsibilities, duties, etc. Trials are full time jobs, especially jury trials, especially if you intend to prevail.

Wasn't former and long-time NYC DA Morgenthau, the lead attorney in John Lennon's killer case?

I have no idea. Looking at Morganthau’s wiki page, it lists Mark David Chapman, Bernie Goetz, Robert Chmbers, the Central Park jogger, BCCI, Sante and Kimmie Kimes, Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Schwartz, and Tupac Shakur among his notable cases, but I doubt he was the attorney making the appearances. The DA is listed on all papers submitted with the deputy or assistants responsible, but doesn’t intend to show up in court and handle the presentation of evidence, etc.

It’s not impossible, which is why I said “rarely” instead of “always.”

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the prosecutors went to the Marcia Clarke and Richard School of Prosecution

they graduated with low honors

I have several friends in the SF Sheriff, those who worked the bailiff detail have said to a man, that Assistant DA Diana Garcia, who was the lead prosecutor of this case, should not have been assigned the case. Stating she was severely outclassed by the Public Defender's Office, who rolled-out their 'dream team' of lawyers, chief among them Gonzalez, who's well known far-left positions allowed him to pull on the ignorant heart-strings of a largely pathetic jury. Given the high-profile of this case, city DA Gascon should've been handling the case from the start.

"Stating she was severely outclassed by the Public Defender's Office,"

WTF?

An alternate juror just appeared on Fox with Martha McCallum.

Responding to questions, he told Martha that the jury was told at the start that immigration status etc had nothing to do with the issues at trial and could not be considered in any way.

She asked why no involuntary manslaughter conviction, referring to the two elements. He said the instruction read to the jury was that to find guilt, the defendant had to have brandished the firearm, and there was no evidence on that whatsoever.

I’m paraphrasing the discussion, so don’t parse my version. Maybe the interview will show up on Fox News youtube.

quote:

She asked why no involuntary manslaughter conviction, referring to the two elements. He said the instruction read to the jury was that to find guilt, the defendant had to have brandished the firearm, and there was no evidence on that whatsoever.

Weird.

Looking forward to further explanation.

Watch the interview with the alternate here.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Just to answer this one minor point...

I can say that the NYPD does not allow DA/SA SIGs. All the SIGs carried by patrol officers (I can't say if there ESU / Tactical officers are different) are factory DAO P226s.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Is any of it not true?

Does NYPD disable the single action?

Is the trigger pull SA 4.4 lbs? Is that among the lightest?

You get the ídea.

The trigger pull is listed here as 4.4 pounds. Double action is 10 pound. My 226 is listed as 4.5 pounds with double action as 10 pounds.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.c...-p239-ccp-carry-gun/

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

She asked why no involuntary manslaughter conviction, referring to the two elements. He said the instruction read to the jury was that to find guilt, the defendant had to have brandished the firearm, and there was no evidence on that whatsoever.

Seriously? Just what is their definition of brandishing? So as long as I keep my firearm completely out of sight like under my jacket while I'm playing with it in a public place and unintentionally pull the trigger and kill someone, I'm all good because I wasn't "brandishing" it? It was just an "accident" in that case and I'm free to go? Absurd.

The evidence by the way is that he pulled the trigger which means he must've been holding the gun in some way.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

She asked why no involuntary manslaughter conviction, referring to the two elements. He said the instruction read to the jury was that to find guilt, the defendant had to have brandished the firearm, and there was no evidence on that whatsoever.

Seriously? Just what is their definition of brandishing? So as long as I keep my firearm completely out of sight like under my jacket while I'm playing with it in a public place and unintentionally pull the trigger and kill someone, I'm all good because I wasn't "brandishing" it? It was just an "accident" in that case and I'm free to go? Absurd.

The evidence by the way is that he pulled the trigger which means he must've been holding the gun in some way.

Did you watch the interview?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Did you watch the interview?

I did just now. I missed your link to it.

I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread. The problem here is becoming clear to me, and it wasn't the jury.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Did you watch the interview?

I just did and it was very helpful in understanding how the jury arrived at the verdict that they did

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Did you watch the interview?

I did just now. I missed your link to it.

I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread. The problem here is becoming clear to me, and it wasn't the jury.

See how much better off you are, to go through the process of understanding, as best you can, what happened and why, then forming an opinion as to good, proper, lousy, irresponsible, bad, etc. rather than just lashing out yea or nea based on whatever emotion happens to strike you, or worse, whatever happens to strike the crowd?

Regarding the alternate juror that JALLEN mentioned above, here are some of his comments:

https://hotair.com/archives/20...victed-manslaughter/

As an alternate juror, Phil Van Stockum didn’t get a vote in the outcome of the trial, but he did hear all of the evidence that was presented and says the jury reached the right decision.

Van Stockum quickly dispenses with the murder charges writing, “When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges.” He adds, “The evidence didn’t show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.”

According to Van Stockum, the fact that the bullet bounced off the pavement about 12 feet from Zarate and then traveled another 78 feet before striking Kate Steinle suggested this was not an intentional shooting. Also, Zarate claimed he found the gun at the scene meaning he hadn’t brought it there himself. Video showed other people near a bench where Zarate claimed he found the gun shortly before he arrived. His story was plausible even if it wasn’t verifiable.

what about the manslaughter charge

The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with “criminal negligence”—he did something than an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone’s death.

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,” or waving with menace, of a weapon.

As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial.

I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial’s end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it.

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.

Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.

The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was.

************

another summary:

https://www.politico.com/magaz...otch-216016?lo=ap_a1