quote:

It seems to me that the jury did not accept the evidence as adequate to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the homicide charge, and concluded that it was entirely accidental, for which there was no criminal blame.

That right there is the answer. Wether that is due to the prosecution's case, the evidence, or the makeup of the jury, this is what caused the result.

Right? No. What we have to deal with? Yes. There is no "do over" for those charges. Curious what becomes of the federal charges. I'm sure the left will scream, but the Obama DOJ did the exact same thing when local charges did not satisfy them.

I was working in SF at the time and would run by the pier where she was shot and killed. SF is for sure, one whacky place where common sense isn't so common.

I wonder if I were charged with the same crime and same circumstances, how the verdict would go?

I know we don't have the facts and evidence, but you've got think there was significant evidence to convict for involuntary manslaughter.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

It seems to me that the jury did not accept the evidence as adequate to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the homicide charge, and concluded that it was entirely accidental, for which there was no criminal blame.

That right there is the answer. Wether that is due to the prosecution's case, the evidence, or the makeup of the jury, this is what caused the result.

That's the part I'm having a real hard time squaring. How can this be entirely accidental when he was prohibited from possessing a firearm in the first place? It was no accident that he was in possession of an illegal weapon, and therefore this whole tragedy was preventable had this piece of crap not been breaking the law. To believe that it was an accident would be to buy the absurd argument by the defense that he found the gun under a bench on a crowded pier. It seems that the jury did buy that bunch of horseapples. And if they believed that he just by accident picked up a gun and shot it, how can they justify then convicting him of felony possession of a firearm?

What a freakin' song and dance...

quote:

He was acquitted of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and found not guilty of assault with a semi-automatic weapon. He was found guilty of posessing a firearm by a felon.

Wait! It’s not “assault with a deadly weapon,” it’s a “semi-automatic weapon?!?”

WTF?

I thought after 24 hours, perhaps I would be less angry.

I was wrong. I am madder than ever.

Angry and disgusted.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

It seems to me that the jury did not accept the evidence as adequate to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the homicide charge, and concluded that it was entirely accidental, for which there was no criminal blame.

That right there is the answer. Wether that is due to the prosecution's case, the evidence, or the makeup of the jury, this is what caused the result.

That's the part I'm having a real hard time squaring. How can this be entirely accidental when he was prohibited from possessing a firearm in the first place? It was no accident that he was in possession of an illegal weapon, and therefore this whole tragedy was preventable had this piece of crap not been breaking the law. To believe that it was an accident would be to buy the absurd argument by the defense that he found the gun under a bench on a crowded pier. It seems that the jury did buy that bunch of horseapples. And if they believed that he just by accident picked up a gun and shot it, how can they justify then convicting him of felony possession of a firearm?

What a freakin' song and dance...

Same feelings here: From what I know of similar cases in my jurisdiction, this was an open and shut case of involuntary manslaughter. Now did the prosecution screw up the case? Was it jury nullification? Or was it the SF/Commiefornia anti-gun mindset that all guns are evil and go off all the time on their own? In other words, did the prosecution explain how different types of pistols operate. I don't know but I expect we will see some detailed examination of the trial transcripts and detailed reports from those who were in court everyday.

Regardless of what the left thinks, this asshole is now The Poster Child For A BIG FREAKING Wall (adjusted for profanity).

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

It seems to me that the jury did not accept the evidence as adequate to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the homicide charge, and concluded that it was entirely accidental, for which there was no criminal blame.

That right there is the answer. Wether that is due to the prosecution's case, the evidence, or the makeup of the jury, this is what caused the result.

That's the part I'm having a real hard time squaring. How can this be entirely accidental when he was prohibited from possessing a firearm in the first place? It was no accident that he was in possession of an illegal weapon, and therefore this whole tragedy was preventable had this piece of crap not been breaking the law. To believe that it was an accident would be to buy the absurd argument by the defense that he found the gun under a bench on a crowded pier. It seems that the jury did buy that bunch of horseapples. And if they believed that he just by accident picked up a gun and shot it, how can they justify then convicting him of felony possession of a firearm?

What a freakin' song and dance...

The jury doesn’t have to believe anything. They can merely conclude that there is reasonable doubt that the evidence showed criminal blame.

I’m struggling with what constitutes

quote:

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.

Being in the country illegally is a crime, is it not? Is someone in the country illegally always “in the commission of an unlawful act.” Possession of a firearm is a felony, so that isn’t it.

Is it true that every homicide is criminal? If not, then a death can be the result of accidental conduct.

I can ALMOST understand how OJ and all his money bought a not guilty verdict, given the social climate of that time. But how does a public defender out-duel the best and the brightest that the SF DA has to offer? Or were they something less, and if so, why? Maybe the jury did exactly as they should have with the evidence they were presented, but California juries are often regarded as laughingstocks, which clouds the outcome.
So deport the son of a bitch. And make it work for goddamned once.

"The jury doesn’t have to believe anything. They can merely conclude that there is reasonable doubt that the evidence showed criminal blame.

I’m struggling with what constitutes"

quote:

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.

Being in the country illegally is a crime, is it not? Is someone in the country illegally always “in the commission of an unlawful act.” Possession of a firearm is a felony, so that isn’t it.

Is it true that every homicide is criminal? If not, then a death can be the result of accidental conduct.[/QUOTE]

California penal code 541A, Felony Murder 2nd Degree, has the same elements as their manslaughter statute, except that the crime resulting in death was a felony, rather than a misdemeanor.
The following seems to make it pretty simple:

quote:

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.

In the commission of an unlawful act.

Felon in possession of a firearm!
CA penal code 29800(a) (1) Any person who has been convicted of, or has an outstanding warrant for, a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or of an offense enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 23515, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony.

Discharging a firearm within the city limits!
San Francisco Police Code 1290.1
No person or persons, firm company or corporation, shall discharge any firearm of any kind or description, within the city and county of San Francisco.

Present in the United States illegally!
8USC1326 1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter
(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.



Reckless discharge of a firearm!
Under California Penal Code 246.3 PC, you commit the crime of “negligent discharge of a firearm” if you:
1.Willfully discharge a firearm,
2.In a grossly negligent manner,
3.Which could result in someone's injury or death.1


There are probably more statutes he violoated that would also satisfy the element "in the commission of an unlawful act.

In Phoenix some years back, an illegal was firing in the air during a Cinco de mayo celebration and the bullet struck some random girl, blocks away, in the head and killed her.

He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter because while committing the crime of "discharging a firearm within city limits" and reckless discharge of a firearm", he killed someone.

But, AZ and CA are very different states.

quote:

There is no "do over" for those charges.

Unless the prosecution evidences jury tampering. Then there is.

And one more issue which I can't remember now. As rare as hen's teeth.

quote:

Originally posted by FrankMoses:
I can ALMOST understand how OJ and all his money bought a not guilty verdict, given the social climate of that time. But how does a public defender out-duel the best and the brightest that the SF DA has to offer? Or were they something less, and if so, why? Maybe the jury did exactly as they should have with the evidence they were presented, but California juries are often regarded as laughingstocks, which clouds the outcome.
So deport the son of a bitch. And make it work for goddamned once.

You need to look no further than the SF DA, who is a total criminal sympathizing POS. During this ahole's tenure, he has led the charge to change many felonies into misdemeanors, while letting thousands of shitbags out of the jails. This POS has made SF one of the highest property crime cities in the nation.

Not too long ago this DA turd had a campaign party, and I think the SF public defender idiot threw it for him. Their jobs are interchangeable, since they're apparently good buddies. This DA Assclown also used to be the SFPD police chief.

quote:

Originally posted by rsd1220:

quote:

Originally posted by FrankMoses:
I can ALMOST understand how OJ and all his money bought a not guilty verdict, given the social climate of that time. But how does a public defender out-duel the best and the brightest that the SF DA has to offer? Or were they something less, and if so, why? Maybe the jury did exactly as they should have with the evidence they were presented, but California juries are often regarded as laughingstocks, which clouds the outcome.
So deport the son of a bitch. And make it work for goddamned once.

You need to look no further than the SF DA, who is a total criminal sympathizing POS. During this ahole's tenure, he has led the charge to change many felonies into misdemeanors, while letting thousands of shitbags out of the jails. This POS has made SF one of the highest property crime cities in the nation.

Not too long ago this DA turd had a campaign party, and I think the SF public defender idiot threw it for him. Their jobs are interchangeable, since they're apparently good buddies. This DA Assclown also used to be the SFPD police chief.

Then I’m surprised they even bothered to prosecute. I mean, why waste all that money if You’re just bowing to public pressure?
Slam dunk my ass.

It's becoming clear to me what (who) the problem here is, and I'm not so sure it's the jury...

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:


The following seems to make it pretty simple:

quote:

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.

In the commission of an unlawful act.

Felon in possession of a firearm!
CA penal code 29800(a) (1) Any person who has been convicted of, or has an outstanding warrant for, a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or of an offense enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 23515, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony.

Discharging a firearm within the city limits!
San Francisco Police Code 1290.1
No person or persons, firm company or corporation, shall discharge any firearm of any kind or description, within the city and county of San Francisco.

So every discharge of a firearm is a crime in SF? What about cops? Self defense? I carried with a permit, but it’s a crime if I use it?

quote:

Present in the United States illegally!

8USC1326 1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter
(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

This applies to every illegal in the country 24/7. That’s why they call them illegals. I don’t think, but do not know, that a status crime applies for this ststute. That is one of the questions.

quote:

Reckless discharge of a firearm!
Under California Penal Code 246.3 PC, you commit the crime of “negligent discharge of a firearm” if you:
1.Willfully discharge a firearm,
2.In a grossly negligent manner,
3.Which could result in someone's injury or death.1

“Willfully” may be a problem.

quote:

There are probably more statutes he violoated that would also satisfy the element "in the commission of an unlawful act.

Maybe. That has to be charged in the accusation.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:


The following seems to make it pretty simple:

quote:

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.

In the commission of an unlawful act.

Felon in possession of a firearm!
CA penal code 29800(a) (1) Any person who has been convicted of, or has an outstanding warrant for, a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or of an offense enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 23515, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony.

Discharging a firearm within the city limits!
San Francisco Police Code 1290.1
No person or persons, firm company or corporation, shall discharge any firearm of any kind or description, within the city and county of San Francisco.

So every discharge of a firearm is a crime in SF? What about cops? Self defense? I carried with a permit, but it’s a crime if I use it?

quote:

Present in the United States illegally!

8USC1326 1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter
(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

This applies to every illegal in the country 24/7. That’s why they call them illegals. I don’t think, but do not know, that a status crime applies for this ststute. That is one of the questions.

quote:

Reckless discharge of a firearm!
Under California Penal Code 246.3 PC, you commit the crime of “negligent discharge of a firearm” if you:
1.Willfully discharge a firearm,
2.In a grossly negligent manner,
3.Which could result in someone's injury or death.1

“Willfully” may be a problem.

quote:

There are probably more statutes he violoated that would also satisfy the element "in the commission of an unlawful act.

Maybe. That has to be charged in the accusation.

'So every discharge of a firearm is a crime in SF? What about cops? Self defense? I carried with a permit, but it’s a crime if I use it? "

In the absence of a statutory exception, perhaps the prosecutor uses discretion on who to charge. I've seen nothing to indicate the defendant fell under any of those categories.


Was not the 2nd option the jury had murder2:

From my post above:

California penal code 541A, Felony Murder 2nd Degree, has the same elements as their manslaughter statute, except that the crime resulting in death was a felony, rather than a misdemeanor.

Seems like he satisfied the elements of either murder2, felonies resulting in death, or manslaughter, misdemeanors resulting in death.

As per the question in the penal code (I tried to quote but I suck at it on my ipad).

Does that statute mean "and" or "or"? Meaning does one need to fulfill all three caveats, or only satisfy one? ("Or")

If all three are needed that is a higher bar for sure.

Got it!

quote:

Reckless discharge of a firearm!
Under California Penal Code 246.3 PC, you commit the crime of “negligent discharge of a firearm” if you:
1.Willfully discharge a firearm,
2.In a grossly negligent manner,
3.Which could result in someone's injury or death.

quote:

Originally posted by olfuzzy:
DOJ files arrest warrant for illegal immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle case:

The Department of Justice unsealed an arrest warrant Friday for Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, the illegal immigrant acquitted Thursday in Kate Steinle’s murder trial.

Zarate was found not guilty of murdering Steinle on a pier in San Francisco in July 2015. Steinle was walking with her father and a family friend when she was shot, collapsing into her father's arms.

Zarate had been released from a San Francisco jail about three months before the shooting, despite a request by federal immigration authorities to detain him for deportation. The case sparked a widespread national debate over illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

He was acquitted of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and found not guilty of assault with a semi-automatic weapon. He was found guilty of posessing a firearm by a felon.

The arrest warrant was originally drafted in 2015 and amended this week to include violations related to the charges of a felon in possession of a firearm, involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon, all of which were filed after the defendant's initial arrest, according to Friday's warrant.

Officials at the Department of Justice told Fox News that there is an existing federal detainer that requires Zarate to be remanded into the custody of the U.S. Marshals to be transported to the Western District of Texas pursuant to the arrest warrant.

After the verdict, U.S. immigration officials announced late Thursday that Zarate would be deported.

"Following the conclusion of this case, ICE will work to take custody of Mr. Garcia Zarate and ultimately remove him from the country," U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017...te-steinle-case.html

Trump to the rescue!

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
As per the question in the penal code (I tried to quote but I suck at it on my ipad).

Does that statute mean "and" or "or"? Meaning does one need to fulfill all three caveats, or only satisfy one? ("Or")

If all three are needed that is a higher bar for sure.

Got it!

quote:

Reckless discharge of a firearm!
Under California Penal Code 246.3 PC, you commit the crime of “negligent discharge of a firearm” if you:
1.Willfully discharge a firearm,
2.In a grossly negligent manner,
3.Which could result in someone's injury or death.

Bullet points like that, in the absence of and/or typically means that each is an element of the offense and must each have occurred.

Given the nature of the P239s internal mechanics, the trigger was pulled. It didn't fire from being dropped. He admitted to the "willfully discharged a firearm" part when he admitted to shooting at sealions.

quote:

It didn't fire from being dropped

I would argue that is true of every Sig. But I did not hear the testimony. People like you and I who know Sig's might say it is only possible with a P220 without a non-rebounding hammer, below serial number xxx,xxx, but impossible with any other modern Sig.

We were not on the jury. We have no idea what "experts" testified. I doubt one was Massad Ayoob.

Right. I was alluding to the shooting at sealions as evidence of will fully discharged.