It's a terrible result. Prosecutors erred in overcharging the case. Pushing first degree murder was a mistake because the evidence supporting that charge was iffy, at best. They may have hurt their credibility with the jury by doing so, causing them to reject the manslaughter charge.
Of course, San Fran being San Fran, the jury may have been inclined to acquit in part to spite Trump. Lots of anti-Trump gloating on social media over this.
Good, insightful assessment.
shareManslaughter is not the same as an accident, and this case was a sad stupid accident. One thing that people seem to never be told or know is that not all 3 shots hit this poor woman, and that the one shot that did both hit her and kill her traveled along the ground and ricocheted off it to hit her. Clearly and accident. Your right about the prosecutorial overreach, and now California has to live with the hate this verdict is going to create in a country that doesn't have the facts and thinks they know everything.
It is a total myth that Californians are soft on crime or all Liberals for that matter. Liberals are just as willing to convict if the case is made.
This jury deliberated for 6 days. They all have jobs and lives and wanted to do the best job they could. Our news media on these politically hot issues seems to love to stir the pot, in this case especially the right-wing media, and especially Trump who I doubt could give you two facts about the case.
An accident that results in someone's death and is caused by reckless behavior like firing a weapon in a public area is basically the definition of involuntary manslaughter.
shareAccording to the facts as the jury saw them, this action was not negligent or reckless.
shareYes and that's the part that utterly defies logic, which leads me to believe that the jury was comprised of people who allowed their politics and emotions to overrule reason.
shareAgain, you do not understand the law and I have to spoon feed you like a pouty baby.
In a trial, if there are two equally likely explanations for a fact, the jurors must give precedence to the one which exonerates the defendant.
So, for example, if the defense said it was an accident, and the prosecution said it was carelessness or negligence, and there is not other evidence either way, juries must, under the presumption of innocence clause, give preference to the interpretation which benefits the defendant.
Since there as no indication that this was anything other than an accident, and the bullets fired were not specifically aimed at anything, what other conclusion could they reach but that it was an accident?
This had nothing at all to do with politics, and they deliberated for 6 days over this.
I understand the law and the facts. With "pouty baby", I now also understand you and you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
shareAn accident that results in someone's death and is caused by reckless behavior like firing a weapon in a public area is basically the definition of involuntary manslaughter.
The weapon was not fired, in the sense that someone loaded, cocked it, aimed it and deliberately pulled the trigger. Read my last comments above.
share"like firing a weapon in a public area is basically the definition of involuntary manslaughter"
Yes, and if the D.A. had charged him with involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, the defendant would have likely been found guilty, since that's what all the evidence points to.
Instead, the D.A. seems to have bowed to public pressure from right-wingers and did it as a murder charge, which obviously failed. A murder case was doomed from the start, legal experts agreed on that.
I've been working in law for nearly 20 years and it was almost unthinkable that the D.A. would pursue the case as a murder. It's my suspicion that the D.A. wanted to score points with conservatives (by doing it as murder) while simultaneously poisoning the case (by avoiding manslaughter/negligence) possibly because the D.A. sympathized with the defendant.
Either way, the D.A. wasn't doing his job properly. Even non-attorneys can see that.
Involuntary manslaughter was also presented to the jury. They acquitted him of that charge.
shareAh, thanks.
Now I see why manslaughter didn't stick: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016
The gun being hair-triggered with no safety is a major element there, and the ricochet.
Even in this topic, the main complaint is about him being an illegal immigrant. That backs up my view that a white homeless veteran wouldn't be demonized in the same circumstances.
The gun does not have a hair trigger. Iβve fired the SIG P229 myself.
shareOops, I missed a word: "light trigger mode"
Also it may just be a typo in your post, but it's the P239. I find it odd that the article states it has no safety. That just doesn't sound... safe!
Itβs a law enforcement model. When police agencies first migrated from revolvers, which never had safetys to semiautomatics, there were a number of incidents where officers forgot to disengage the safety in combat situations. So generally they do not have safetys on their weapons. Like the weapon in this case, they also generally do not have an exposed hammer that can be cocked. If you donβt know what that means just think of every movie that youβve ever seen where the cop points the gun and gives an order (βdrop itβ βget on the groundβ, etc). The criminal doesnβt comply so then he pulls back the lever (the hammer) on the back of the gun making a clicking noise and repeats the order. That action does create a hair trigger, which is why most police agencies did away with them. Too many accidents.
So basically you end up with a gun that cannot be fired unless someone deliberately pulls the trigger with something more than a trivial amount of force.
Well if someone is handling a heavy object wrapped in cloth, as the gun supposedly was, it seems it could be easy to accidentally squeeze the trigger while fumbling with it to see what it is.
I was reading up on the different modes that these guns have, so if it was in the light trigger mode (single-action mode? I think that's it) then it would be even easier.
Small children accidentally fire guns on a somewhat regular basis, guns kept at home that should have an active safety, so obviously there are some pretty light triggers out there.
Disgusting, shameful and disgraceful, but not unexpected. After all it is the People's Republic of San Francisco, a veritable cesspool of sleaze.
π
If you think that verdict was disgusting, you have no idea of the law, and no idea of the facts of the case.
shareyou're right, the law states that as long as you're an illegal you can fire a gun into a crowd of people, nothing will happen to you, unless you happen to kill someone then you will be deported (for the 4th time) and if you happen to come back this way again, just make sure you live in a city that welcomes you, such as San Francisco.
Thank you attorney brux.
Published on Jul 13, 2017
Federal data from the Obama administration reveals that illegal immigrants are much more likely to commit serious crimes than U.S. citizens. All facts in this video are thoroughly documented at:
http://www.justfacts.com/immigration
"Federal data from the Obama administration reveals that illegal immigrants are much more likely to commit serious crimes than U.S. citizens."
From the page you linked to (though your link was incomplete):
* Based on data from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Congressional Research Service determined in 2016 that:
Until recently, the proportion of noncitizens incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails corresponded closely to that of noncitizens in the U.S. population, but unreported incarceration data since 2013 has hindered such comparisons.[736]
Okay, so 2013 and afterward is shaky data. Thus, they went back to 2010 (yes this immediately follows the data above):
Based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Bureau of Investigation, during 2010, non-citizens who remained in the U.S. accounted for:
7.1% of the U.S. population.[737]
6.9% of crime-related arrests.[738] This figure does not include civil traffic offenses and arrests for living illegally in the U.S.[739] [740]
So, your own link shows that illegal immigrants are NOT more likely than citizens to commit a crime and get arrested for it.
=)
"So, your own link shows that illegal immigrants are NOT more likely than citizens to commit a crime and get arrested for it."
maybe, but that one did, stupid
Mass statistics of this type going either way are not going to cut down on crime. You don't cut down on crime significantly by getting rid of broad groups of people. It's a foolish argument either way. And the statistics are not good at all. Ironically they are probably better though in CA where there are sanctuary cities and people who might be illegal or who might be frightened or prejudice are more likely to report it because the atmosphere is more conducive to working with the police.
What a pointless sarcastic reply. You would be more accurate if you just left it at "you're right". Thank you.
sharebrux, if you're not a criminal lawyer, stop citing law to me and everyone else, it's just makes you look foolish.
was that sarcastic enough?
So you think explaining the law is irrelevant to this legal matter? Dude you are just dumb. You don't understand the law, you will not listen to the explanation of the law, and you don't seem to know what sarcasm is either.
shareyou? explain the law?, lol, do you know how many people there are in prison for accidently killing someone?
the man got away with it because the entire jury was on drugs, it's San Francisco, you moron.
"do you know how many people there are in prison for accidently killing someone?"
DO YOU?
> man got away with it because the entire jury was on drugs,
I'm the moron? LOL You're very funny and entertaining. You sound very familiar with drugs yourself though.
> the man got away with it
What did he get away with? What did he gain? How did he get whatever it is you think he got by shooting the ground and having it ricochet up and kill someone?
Seriously though, people in prison generally got there because they did do something that was recognized through the legal system as a serious crime. There are plenty of prisons around San Francisco, and plenty of criminal in them because they were convicted of a crimem even in San Francisco. SF is every bit as hard on real crime as any other place ... even places like where you live, probably in the deep South where they just lock people up for being black. I guess that's the kind of law enforcement you are happier with?
But, if you keep replying and getting sillier and sillier at least keep it comedic or I will just have to put you on ignore.
What did he get away with? What did he gain? How did he get whatever it is you think he got by shooting the ground and having it ricochet up and kill someone?
____________________________________________________________
sorry but, if you really believe that drool, than this conversation is over, and you are now on ignore and I reported you to the MC police and the San Francisco police dept.
LOL, you are really stupid !!!
I think it was pretty disgusting that so many Reich-Wingers wanted the guy convicted of murder solely because he was an illegal immigrant.
If it was a homeless veteran who found the gun and everything else was the same, they'd be sympathizing with him.
The prosecution fell into this public opinion trap and charged murder instead of manslaughter. It clearly wasn't murder.
I'm sorry, I thought the girl died
shareNot every death is murder
sharethat's deep, you must have been on the jury
shareThe jurors who found him "not guilty" were on the jury.
The bullet bounced off the ground and hit her, that says it was not intentional, plus there is a distinct lack of motive.
If the D.A. wanted a good case, then it should have been a manslaughter charge. The mistake was making it into a murder case. That much is obvious and it's why the murder case was lost.
The bullet bounced off the ground and hit her, that says it was not intentional, plus there is a distinct lack of motive
_______________________________________________________
A couple of weeks ago a man fired a machine gun into a crowd of people at a concert, killing many people,
what was the lack of motive there?
______________________________________________________________
If the D.A. wanted a good case, then it should have been a manslaughter charge.
The manslaughter charge was on the menu,
"A couple of weeks ago a man fired a machine gun into a crowd of people at a concert, killing many people,
what was the lack of motive there?"
He intentionally fired for 10 minutes, that's very different from one accidental bullet.
Is this how honest you are? Seriously? Now your posts make sense, because you're clearly out of touch with reality.
We're done here, don't bother with any more bullshit because I won't respond to any further idiocy from you.
Once again, AMEN and TOUCHE, Yawkee! Keep destroying the bleeding heart Libtards with cold hard logic and facts.
π
frog knows because he must have been there, and if he believes the bullshit story about the bouncing
bullet then he's got to be more of an idiot than the jury, at least they have an excuse, they are all lefty scumbags, but, let's deport the killer so he can come back as the model citizen people think he is.
people like him and frog make me want to vomit (on them)
AMEN, Yawkee! He's a Libtard idiot!
π
> A couple of weeks ago a man fired a machine gun into a
> crowd of people at a concert, killing many people,
> what was the lack of motive there?
With the intent to murder people ... what is it about you that can't grasp the law or what murder is?
there was a man, who is an illegal, who had been deported at least 3 times before, he is a known criminal, he had a gun, he fired that gun, a girl died because he fired that gun, and he get's a plane ride home, and you grasp the law?
shareNo, he is still on the hook for other real crimes.
You seem to think that a criminal cannot have an accident, or that if a criminal does have an accident it must be their fault. You keep coming back with the same nonsense. I get that it somehow through defective or dogmatic thinking is your opinion, but you are not going to convince me to be wrong because you are wrong. Just let it drop and quit trying to be right ... you are not right on this.
"You keep coming back with the same nonsense."
and you don't?
Frogarama------ Well there IS a difference!
Left wingers are all happy to find an illegal alien and lawbreaker innocent because they fear being called "racist". Right wingers, as you said, would absolve a veteran!
There we have it in a nutshell. The left wants to protect those who enter our country illegally (and vote Democrat) and the right wants to protect veterans!
Thanks for clearing that up!!
How is this guy a viable voter? Non-citizen who is being deported. So, that half of your logic makes no sense.
shareWell then, "half of my logic" does make sense then according to you! I'll take half then, so many people disagree with me totally.
However, Kate Steinle's killer was in this country illegally and sent away three times. He was a multiple law breaker!!!
Seriously, putting aside sarcasm and insults, you are probably a nice person. Does it NOT bother you that people can enter our country illegally over and over and kill us?
How is it a solution to call people who want the rule of law to be followed "Reich Wingers", what??? I don't want people entering my country illegally over and over and over again (and committing crimes). So that makes me a Nazi???
I seriously don't know what you are trying to get at. Could you please explain yourself to me? I will listen, sincerely, I just don't get it.
"Does it NOT bother you that people can enter our country illegally over and over and kill us?"
Well, citizens kill citizens pretty regularly, so being a citizen is no guarantee that someone is a good person, or safe to be around.
"How is it a solution to call people who want the rule of law to be followed "Reich Wingers", what???"
You're wrong.
I said Reich-Wingers wanted this guy convicted of murder SOLELY BECAUSE he is an illegal immigrant. They don't care if it was an accident, they want to make an example of him REGARDLESS of the law and REGARDLESS of the circumstances. THEY WANT TO LYNCH HIM, basically.
Unfortunately for them, the law states that a murder conviction has requirements that this guy's case did not meet. EVERYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN ALREADY KNEW THAT.
Legal experts were in full agreement: This should have been charged as a negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc. It should NOT have been a murder charge because it was NOT murder.
Now we have Reich-Wingers who are angry because a case that was CLEARLY NOT MURDER ended up going before a jury and FAILING TO CONVICT FOR MURDER.
That right there is the law doing what it's supposed to be doing, but the Reich-Wingers wanted to make an example, wanted to lynch this guy, etc. They don't care about the law, they don't care about the reality and the facts behind the case.
They don't care. They just want to pretend that manslaughter and murder are the same thing when it suits them.
And yes, if this guy had been a WHITE HOMELESS VETERAN, with the same circumstances, the Reich-Wingers would have said "it was clearly an accident."
I never criticized right-wingers for wanting the law enforced, I called them Reich-Wingers for wanting the law cast aside so that an illegal immigrant can be locked up for life for an accident.
That's what I said, I made it very clear, and you even responded to it and THEN later you decided to change what I said. VERY DISHONEST.
Amen, PJ! He's being an idiot and a jerk for calling you a "Reich Winger". Some Libtards are too STUPID to realize that only the Nazis were Nazis. It's an old Saul Alinksy trick. If you can't win the argument with logic, SMEAR your opponent and try to destroy him.
π
I never called pj a Reich winger. Not bothering to read? Ignorance is an old right wing trick, so Im not surprised.
Look at my original response he replied to. It was to the OP and was a vague reference, not direct.
Okay, but you seemed to imply it. And ignorance is even more of an old left wing trick.
π
>> Left wingers are all happy to find an illegal alien and lawbreaker innocent because they fear being called "racist".
So, by your principle of "stupid as can be", Right-wingers are happy to find blacks in the South guilty because they love being racist? In fact they are happier when the case is solved and adjudicated right in the street with a police back-shooting?
I just read it.So he picked up a gun and "accidentaly" go off? I found it hard to believe.
share
Amen!
π
So, you think what then? What is your explanation to replace the accident theory?
shareHe fired a weapon in a crowded place,i don't say that he targeted
that poor woman,but after i read his...how do i say...crime past,it's hard to believe that he couldn't tell if the weapon is loaded or not.
Whatever he could tell he said the fired the gun by accident.
The main problem in this trial was that the judge would not let the jurors examine the gun to see for themselves if they thought the gun could be accidentally fired. But that was covered by expert testimony presumably on both sides.
I was thinking on this case the whole time i was on my way to my house.The inner "detective" can't let go...even his lawiers and his testimony doesn't fit...as Kate's family said : justice was not served.
shareObviously not murder given that the bullets ricocheted and there's no motive/evidence that he intended to kill. Manslaughter is debatable, but for the charge the prosecutor was pursuing it would have had to be committed in the commission of another crime, and there's no evidence that one occurred. The prosecutor tried to argue that he was threateningly pointed the weapon, but that's unlikely given that the shots were fired from a low angle not pointing at the person, and again, the shots ricocheted.
This is just conservatives taking on the lynch mob mentality like liberals did for Travyon Martin/Ferguson and basing their opinion on identity politics rather than the law and facts.