Not guilty verdict Kate Steinle

[jocko699]

DOJ has just issued a warrant for his arrest

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by jocko699

DOJ has just issued a warrant for his arrest

Do we have an extradition treaty with San Francisco?

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Clocker

This guy is an attorney who has tried murder cases. He is also an active conservative, and his web site is worth reading regularly.

In some detail, he explains why the jury may not have screwed up the verdict, and why the case was not handled well.

http://patterico.com/

I can see them not going with murder, but it’s obvious manslaughter.............

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I can see them not going with murder, but it’s obvious manslaughter.............

From the Patterico article I linked earlier:

In California, when you talk about “criminally negligent homicide” you’re talking about a crime called “involuntary manslaughter.” It’s the crime that Michael Jackson’s doctor was charged with, for administering a fatal dose of propofol. The crime requires that the defendant do a crime, or a lawful act in an unlawful manner, that caused someone’s death, with criminal negligence.

So what is criminal negligence in California? The instructions that a judge reads to jurors say, in part:

Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:
1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;
AND
2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.
In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.

We don't know the details of the case or the evidence. But looking at the bold text above, I have seen nothing to indicate that the guy did anything differently than the average not-too-bright person would do in the circumstances. Especially in California.

A lot of the "facts" don't make sense, but there is nothing to objectively contradict them. Like the gun. Who leaves a gun under a bench on a pier? If you want to get rid of it, you walk a couple of steps to the edge and drop it in the water.

And the gun was an unspecified Sig model, supposedly with a notoriously light single-action trigger. Which means it was cocked. Who walks around with a loaded and cocked Sig, and puts it under a bench? You could shoot yourself doing that.

On the other hand, where does such an obvious loser get a very expensive gun?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Do we have an extradition treaty with San Francisco?

Better to be safe than sorry.
A few hours of "shock and awe," then send in the troops.

No great loss there.

[Tom]

On the other hand, where does such an obvious loser get a very expensive gun?

Better to be safe than sorry - fry his ass.
Or a needle.

He was illegally - all sympathy for his life ended when he crossed the border.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by chadk66

This right here will ensure the wall gets built. And I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that suddenly the feds will find a reason to charge him in federal court.

Chad, I like you buddy, I love your enthusiasm, but you need to come back to reality. The Democrats do not give a damn about this murder. Hell, illegals could kill 1000 American citizens a day for decades and the Democrats will never support a wall. They have to look out for their base, not to mention, their dream of tens of millions of new citizens to vote overwhelmingly Democrat so they can wipe out the Republican party.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by zico20

Chad, I like you buddy, I love your enthusiasm, but you need to come back to reality.

The reality is that this is not going to change anyone's mind about anything.

I'm surprised that the gun grabbers aren't all over this one yet, calling for more laws against evil guns. If the guy didn't commit murder, then obviously the gun did all by itself, right?

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by zico20

Chad, I like you buddy, I love your enthusiasm, but you need to come back to reality. The Democrats do not give a damn about this murder. Hell, illegals could kill 1000 American citizens a day for decades and the Democrats will never support a wall. They have to look out for their base, not to mention, their dream of tens of millions of new citizens to vote overwhelmingly Democrat so they can wipe out the Republican party.

of course they don't care about the murder or the wall. But it will spark the rest of the country to force it to be built. And make Trump more damn determined. I'm pretty sure it was a done deal before this anyway but this will drive the final nail in the coffin. If the border patrols death the other day hadn't done it already

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I can see them not going with murder, but it’s obvious manslaughter.............

I agree... but the San Francisco leftist policymakers are probably butting a settlement package to offer Zarate for his inconvenience.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The reality is that this is not going to change anyone's mind about anything.

I'm surprised that the gun grabbers aren't all over this one yet, calling for more laws against evil guns. If the guy didn't commit murder, then obviously the gun did all by itself, right?

The gun cut a deal - it will testify that it was in a RUSSIAN'S pocket when he colluded with Trump.

[Inner Dirt]

I haven't read all the particulars, was he not going to serve time for the illegal possession of a gun? Can't you get 3-5 years on that charge? Or is that another gun law that isn't enforced unless it is paired with a conviction of a crime where the gun was used?

[RunForTheRoses]

NYT uses term Immigrant not Illegal in headline about the case, smh:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/3...der-trial.html

[Tom]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

NYT uses term Immigrant not Illegal in headline about the case, smh:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/3...der-trial.html

"All the news that fits our agenda."

NYT - 0 credibility.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

NYT uses term Immigrant not Illegal in headline about the case, smh:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/3...der-trial.html

NYT would say the Germans immigrated into France.
"All the news that fits our agenda."

NYT - 0 credibility.