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?!?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Since it happened in Kommiefornia, I'm not the least bit surprised.

Yup. Zero surprise here.

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?!?

Jesus, that didn't even occur to me. Unreal.

"Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as a DUI)."

Just posting for reference.

An aide rushed into the office of the prime minister of Israel:

Aide: “Sir, sir; I have the most incredible good news—and bad news.”
PM: “Well, what is the good news?”
Aide: “Adolph Hitler has been found alive. The Americans captured him in South America and are taking him to the U.S. for trial.”
PM: “Hitler? How is that possible?”
Aide: “It seems that the Nazi life-prolonging experiments had one success: Hitler’s.”
PM: “That’s amazing, and fantastic news if true. But you mentioned bad news; what could possibly be bad about capturing and trying Hitler for his enormous crimes?”
Aide: “The trial is going to be held in California.”

I don’t know enough about the case to offer any opinion on the verdict, but when I read the posts here I was reminded of a dark joke I first heard after the O.J. Simpson trial.

Having served on a jury across the bay in Oakland for a Spanish-speaking defendant charged with 3 offenses related to a DUI, I am not the least bit surprised at the verdict. The jury I was on had so much sympathy for the fact that he spoke Spanish, I believe he could have shot Cesar Chavez, Harvey Milk, Che Guerrero, and Hilary Clinton, point blank on live TV, and still walked.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

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 which can prove embarrassing when the real details are known.

BULLSHIT JALLEN.

FACT: Defendant was a 5 time felon requested to be held by ICE and was released by Sancutary City SF.

FACT: THAT SPECIFIC EXACT GUN Killed Kate Steinle

FACT: THAT SPECIFIC EXACT GUN Was admitted by defendant to be in his possession immediately before it Killed Kate Steinle.

He was responsible for her death, period. It's in the facts of the case. Whether it's murder 1-13, manslaughter or whatever other legal term normal people don't really care, she died because of him and that gun in his possession. That he somehow got off for mere possession of an illegal weapon is an absolute travesty and for you to suggest anything else is quite frankly disgusting.

He admitted firing the shot from the gun as charged. Being a 5 time felon, or an illegal alien or citizen, is all irrelevant to guilt or innocence of the homocide charges.

What we don’t know is what evidence was admitted for the jury to consider, what was the credibility of the witnesses if any on the homocide counts.

Before I lambast the jury, I want to know what they heard and saw and deliberated over on the manslaughter issues. The statute is not complicated. Each element must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. What was the evidence? Was there room for reasonable doubt?

Until you know, you don’t know.

The jury handed down a verdict of "we support illegal immigration".

The jury did not consider guilt or innocence of the defendant in making the ruling.

Given the locale and their positive bias toward illegals and against enforcement, I'd wager they didn't want to convict him of her death regardless of the evidence (simple ideologically based jury nullification).

How many other options are there really, to not at least find him guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter, especially given the gun charge he was convicted of?

Seriously, unless there was outright malpractice / incompetence by the prosecutor, there's NO way they don't convict on at least Involuntary Manslaughter!

Further, during deliberation the jury asked to see and received (and presumably handled/dry fired) the Sig P239 murder weapon. There's just NO way he didn't intentionally pull the trigger!

Honestly, I see jury nullification here....There is NO other logical conclusion! Disheartening to say the least!

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
I know where I want the comet to hit now.

Comet, Hell; Lil’ Kim could do the job and I would argue against a retaliatory strike as he’d be doing us a favor.

Fucking Liberals will do anything to promote the illegal invasion including allowing murder.

So coming from a bunch of SF flakes, I have to wonder if it just wasn’t a thumb in the eye toward Pres Trump, and a vote for sanctuary cities. We have seen lots of libs so some very irrational things in the last year. We don’t know what they were scheming when in a huddle.

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

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...

Someone else can probably explain the nuances and realities better.

Every single person on the jury should be brutally murdered tomorrow by an illegal. Every single one of them.

Jury of peers my ass. More like a jury of fucking diaper clad imbeciles.

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
So coming from a bunch of SF flakes, I have to wonder if it just wasn’t a thumb in the eye toward Pres Trump, and a vote for sanctuary cities.

This times 1000. A jury of snowflakes that wanted to send a message of tolerance against a racist and corrupt Trump administration.

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
So coming from a bunch of SF flakes, I have to wonder if it just wasn’t a thumb in the eye toward Pres Trump, and a vote for sanctuary cities. We have seen lots of libs so some very irrational things in the last year. We don’t know what they were scheming when in a huddle.

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

The state can’t appeal a verdict of not guilty.

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.

They are most certainly relevant to other issues in play, but not this fellow’s guilt. The Fox team is besides themselves hollering about this illegal alien, if he had not been here illegally Kate would be alive, etc.

Laura Ingraham is almost in need of medication over it, really surprising for someone who clerked for Clarence Thomas. She knows better.

I respect jallen here. Logic has to trump emotion, that's why we have law.
Howevaaaah, didn't we recharge the lapd in the King case for civil rights infringement?
Is that applicable here? It would be an AG in an admin that could win hearts and minds in a majority of the electorate.

This, today, as much as it hurts, does not surprise me in our Country. Everything is upside down. That verdict is disgusting.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
So coming from a bunch of SF flakes, I have to wonder if it just wasn’t a thumb in the eye toward Pres Trump, and a vote for sanctuary cities. We have seen lots of libs so some very irrational things in the last year. We don’t know what they were scheming when in a huddle.

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

The state can’t appeal a verdict of not guilty.

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.

They are most certainly relevant to other issues in play, but not this fellow’s guilt. The Fox team is besides themselves hollering about this illegal alien, if he had not been here illegally Kate would be alive, etc.

Laura Ingraham is almost in need of medication over it, really surprising for someone who clerked for Clarence Thomas. She knows better.

I think everyone is affected by the shame and injustice of it. The injustice I'm referring to is not that of a murderer escaping, but that the convergence of unjust factors that assembled the situation in the first place. It's very frustrating to examine and the understandable reflex is to lash out at the shooter and those who facilitated his presence in the first place. Regardless, I think your position here is the right one. I don't like it. I'm angry at the waste and seeming unaccountability, but I think you are right. As spectators, we don't know all of what the court room revealed. It pains me to say this, but I suspect they may have gotten it right. Had the projectile not ricocheted, had it hit her directly, there verdict should/would have been different.