quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

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.

Would I be out of line thinking that the prosecution deliberately rolled over on this case? They seemed to go out of their way to give the jury absolutely no choice but to acquit.

quote:

“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.”

how many other firearms have you handled? Did you compare thsoe? Did you actually measure the trigger pull?

what is extremely light - a feather touch or 4.5 pounds...what is you competency in determining what constitutes 'light'

so full of fail and the slugs fell for it

So is that sunuvabitch outta my country yet?

SAO/Prosecutor offices are political. And cases like this expose that. Had they filed “the right charge” or no charge because the evidence was not there, the “mob” would had lit the touches. So they over charge to show they are “tough on crime”. Then blame the jurors for returning a verdict of NG.

Fact is, some cases are just bad, nasty cases but don’t rise to a crime. Proving a case “beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt” is an extremely high burden. But it is what our US Constitution requires. And jurors get it right most of the time.

Had this been Mister church attending, Trump supporting, NRA member, CWP holder who’s Sig fell out of this holster, went off and kill this girl, I would have like to seen the posts regarding the SAO filing the same charges as they did in this case.

This was a bad case all around, no one “wins” these. Some prosecutors have the balls not to succumb to the mob mentality and do the right thing regardless of the fall out. This case reminds me of the Freddie Gray prosecution of the cops in Baltimore.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

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.

Would I be out of line thinking that the prosecution deliberately rolled over on this case? They seemed to go out of their way to give the jury absolutely no choice but to acquit.

I don't think you're out of line. I think the prosecution, defense, and mayor got the result that they wanted.

The clear point is that the woman was killed because of San Francisco's sanctuary policy.

Prosecutors should be looking for ways to charge the officials who sustain "sanctuary" status when these crimes occur.

quote:

quote:

Would I be out of line thinking that the prosecution deliberately rolled over on this case? They seemed to go out of their way to give the jury absolutely no choice but to acquit.

I don't think you're out of line. I think the prosecution, defense, and mayor got the result that they wanted.

There may be something to that....

Of course, JALLEN is right to look at the evidence presented and the interview with an actual (alternate) juror who heard the evidence... but:

quote:

The clear point is that the woman was killed because of San Francisco's sanctuary policy.

and this won't happen because they are all "progressives":

quote:

Prosecutors should be looking for ways to charge the officials who sustain "sanctuary" status when these crimes occur.

It's going to be up to the federal government to:
1. Build a wall. Enforce the border.
2. END "sanctuary cities" by any means necessary, which won't be easy because the local officials are on the opposite side.

I need to get a P239. According to the Court, this gun will hit a target no-matter how poorly it is aimed, leap from concealment and attack without warning, and fire itself with no need for me to even be aware that I'm under attack.

The perfect self-defense protection, and on top of that, cheap enough that an unemployed illegal alien can steal one and nobody will care. Anyone have a spare?

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

Another picture that speaks volumes.

Now they're making noise about dropping the "felon in possession of a firearm" charge.

The fix was in from the start.

If you or I shot a firearm to the right and someone on the left got hit and killed by a ricochet, we'd get the involuntary manslaughter charge and it would be pursued mightily.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

Another picture that speaks volumes.

What's worse is that there are those in our number who are defending the verdict. Trying to play it off that we need to know more, despite we know all we need to. Illegal invader fired gun. Girl died. That comes from his own defense team who are practically laughing about it now. Sorry, I need nothing else to be able to see that justice wasn't done.

No one cares what the jury heard, who dropped the ball, whatever. This is a miscarriage of justice and it seems that more than a few can't fathom why people are angry. Or they attempt to explain it away with nonsense about "due process". Where is Kate Steinle's "Due Process". Oh, wait a minute, she's dead because she was killed by an illegal invader.

I don’t recall anyone defending the verdict. There was a good bit of uncertainty about how such a verdict was reached, in the absence of information from the MSM or the court, and attempting to get a rational link between the media stories about the killing and the verdict. Certain procedures were not known or understood by many laymen who in the absence of explanations reacted emotionally. How can one evaluate the outcome if it is not understood?

Now, with explanations of court procedures, and thanks to the info provided by the slternate juror, the picture is much clearer. Given the instructions, the jury came to a proper verdict. The mindless “get a rope” crowd will not be satiated by this, but those who value truth, justice and the American way will understand it and appreciate it, even while still wishing the perp had been thoroughly punished.

When my car is broken, I have it fixed. If the mechanic either can't or won't fix it, I don't care to hear how he followed all the proper procedures and precedents. I'm going to either get a new mechanic or a new car. Fixing it myself would be tantamount to vigilantism. And we can't have that.

Our justice system is clearly broken. The politicians/bureaucrats either can't or won't fix it. What to do?

Know any good mechanics?

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

Not much of a “Sanctuary City” for Ms. Steinle. RIP.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
...Given the instructions, the jury came to a proper verdict...

Denied the facts of the case and unable to understand the basic functions of a DA/SA pistol, the jury was deluded into an improper verdict.

Sound more like it?

Jim, I know you're defending the system that has worked nearly impeccably for us since the late 1700's, and I wholeheartedly agree with that defense, especially since my own minor experience a couple months ago.

The jury is off the hook in our minds, but the deception they were subjected to was what we expect from places like Crook County, IL. It's intolerable, as was the verdict.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
...Given the instructions, the jury came to a proper verdict...

Denied the facts of the case and unable to understand the basic functions of a DA/SA pistol, the jury was deluded into an improper verdict.

Sound more like it?

You still are not grasping that the so called “facts of the case” are irrelevant to determining guilt or innocence. Immigration status is inadmissible, as is evidence of criminal convictions usually.

Admitting such evidence is grounds for certain reversal on appeal.

I understand, I think, why the prosecution had to specify which crime the defendant committed to grt the involuntary manslaughter count, but I’m really mystified why they picked brandishing. Maybe the evidence didn’t really fit the other choices. Dunno.

Jose Zarate sentenced to... time served.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018...-to-time-served.html

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Jose Zarate sentenced to... time served.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018...-to-time-served.html

That makes we want to puke!
At least the Feds are going after him now...

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
...At least the Feds are going after him now...

Yeah, but will he be there when the Feds arrive? I doubt it.