Kate Steinle Killer Found Not Guilty

[Ben]

Not guilty of murder or even manslaughter. Only guilty verdict was possession of a firearm. San Francisco jury. While I wouldn't have expected a murder verdict given the circumstances, I think people have been convicted of manslaughter for lesser incidents.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/11/30/infuriating-illegal-alien-acquitted-of-murder-manslaughter-in-shooting-death-of-kate-steinle/

[Andiron]

My thoughts violate several codes of conduct.

[Sindawe]

As a member of another forum I'm a member of said.

This is how you get Law Abiding Citizen.

[HeroHog]

I'm not allowed to post my thoughts and feelings here.

I loved the old Charles Bronson movie series, didn't you?

[RoadKingLarry]

You take away all a man has to live for sometimes bad thing happen.

I really wonder if Americans are civilized tamed enough to take all the *expletive deleted*it the liberals want to feed us.

[Hawkmoon]

I suspect the jury vote was nothing more than a repudiation of Trump's stance on illegal "immigration."

[dogmush]

At the risk of standing in a tide of righteous outrage:

Does anyone know CA law on manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter?

My understanding  is that the illegal is claiming it was an ND, and he didn't intend to fire on anyone. I find that story credible based on what I've read, he doesn't seem to have had any motive for killing Ms. Steinle. The twitchy link in the OP has input from a lawyer saying CA manslaughter requires intent to harm.

Does anyone know if the jury was even allowed to consider "lesser included charges"? It would seem that involuntary manslaughter would be the best fit here, but I don't know CA's implementation of that law.

Back to your regularly scheduled lynching.

[Ben]

At the risk of standing in a tide of righteous outrage:

Does anyone know CA law on manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter?

My understanding  is that the illegal is claiming it was an ND, and he didn't intend to fire on anyone. I find that story credible based on what I've read, he doesn't seem to have had any motive for killing Ms. Steinle. The twitchy link in the OP has input from a lawyer saying CA manslaughter requires intent to harm.

Does anyone know if the jury was even allowed to consider "lesser included charges"? It would seem that involuntary manslaughter would be the best fit here, but I don't know CA's implementation of that law.

Back to your regularly scheduled lynching.

As I mentioned in the OP, I thought murder was out of reach. I was actually kind of surprised to see that added, especially by San Fran prosecutors. I don't know the CA law on manslaughter, but i just heard a liberal CA attorney on the news suggesting that if it were a simple involuntary manslaughter charge, things would likely have gone down differently, as involuntary manslaughter only requires negligence and/or recklessness, which this seems to fall under.

I don't know that I buy the guy's whole story about "finding the gun under the bench". Or that he was trying to shoot a seal. While he may not have meant to shoot a person, he was recklessly playing with a firearm that he probably got somewhere other than "under a bench" in a very high traffic area.

Obviously most of the outrage here is in the fact that a five time deported multiple felon was walking around free as a bird because San Fran set him free after his last arrest. Had they contacted the feds, None of this would have happened (at least this time). The San Francisco government should actually have been a co-defendent IMO in a fair world. I'm curious if they could be sued by the family in civil court.

Also, in CA (and San Francisco), I can't help but wonder what would have happened to the gun's owner if he were not LE. Or if the perpetrator was a white male citizen.

[Brad Johnson]

What's the difference between manslaughter and negligent homicide?

Brad

[p12]

I suspect the jury vote was nothing more than a repudiation of Trump's stance on illegal "immigration."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This in spades!

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

As I mentioned in the OP, I thought murder was out of reach. I was actually kind of surprised to see that added, especially by San Fran prosecutors. I don't know the CA law on manslaughter, but i just heard a liberal CA attorney on the news suggesting that if it were a simple involuntary manslaughter charge, things would likely have gone down differently, as involuntary manslaughter only requires negligence and/or recklessness, which this seems to fall under.

I suspect this is another example of what we saw here in FL for Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman, i.e. the prosecutor going for a big win/big charge on a high profile case regardless of what the statute and evidence supports.

I don't know that I buy the guy's whole story about "finding the gun under the bench". Or that he was trying to shoot a seal. While he may not have meant to shoot a person, he was recklessly playing with a firearm that he probably got somewhere other than "under a bench" in a very high traffic area.

I should have mentioned that the ONLY thing about this guy's story I find credible is that he didn't mean to shoot the young lady.  Where he got the gun, and the seal "coming right at me" are all very fishy.

Obviously most of the outrage here is in the fact that a five time deported multiple felon was walking around free as a bird because San Fran set him free after his last arrest. Had they contacted the feds, None of this would have happened (at least this time). The San Francisco government should actually have been a co-defendent IMO in a fair world. I'm curious if they could be sued by the family in civil court.

Also, in CA (and San Francisco), I can't help but wonder what would have happened to the gun's owner if he were not LE. Or if the perpetrator was a white male citizen.

I agree completely, but convicting a guy for murder because you feel he shouldn't have been there is a no-go.  His immigration status shouldn't have any bearing on his guilt for murder (or manslaughter, or whatever)

[Ben]

I agree completely, but convicting a guy for murder because you feel he shouldn't have been there is a no-go.  His immigration status shouldn't have any bearing on his guilt for murder (or manslaughter, or whatever)

I agree with that, though it also applies to not giving him a break because of immigration status (which, not to speak for you, I suspect you also believe). The immigration status is a separate issue, which I blame much of on the local government.

From what I've been seeing in the news, there are just as many people who are happy that "social justice" prevailed and "Trump failed" as there are people furious that he wasn't handed a murder wrap. I think emotion and agenda contributed highly to the failure of the legal system here, and again, wish that San Francisco was held at least partially liable in this for much of what led up to the incident.

Also, my tinfoil hat firmly in place, I can't help but wonder if the San Francisco political machine added the last minute murder charges precisely to force the jury away from what otherwise would have been a sensible involuntary manslaughter verdict.

[Pb]

Felon in possesion of a stolen gun, illegal carrying stolen gun, negligently shooting an innocent person.... sounds like a texbook involutary manslaughter to me:

"Elements of the Offense

Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others."

Charges of involuntary manslaughter often come in the wake of a deadly car crash caused by a motorist under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. While the motorist never intended to kill anyone, his or her negligence in operating a car while impaired is enough to meet the requirements of the charge."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html

[dogmush]

Ben, You're correct I would not give him a break for being undocumented either.  And it's plausible that a San Fran jury did, and they shouldn't have.  I was commenting on our little corner of the internet frothing about the murder acquittal.  I five comments before mine two implied they'd kill him, and one mentioned vigilante retribution (in a movie,but still).  A cursory googling of CA penal codes on murder seems like the jurywas correct not to convict for murder.  We should hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse than a lynch mob or SJW jury.

BTR, that definition isn't CA's.  I'm always amazed at how much the details of laws change from state to state.  Here's some discussion of CA Penal Code 192(b):

There may be circumstances in which someone kills another without intent or without premeditation. In some circumstances, a death may be completely accidental and there may be no criminal liability at all. However, if the death occurred as the result of the defendant’s unlawful or dangerous conduct, charges of involuntary manslaughter under California Penal Code 192(b) PC may be considered.

To prove a charge of involuntary manslaughter, a prosecutor must establish the following factors:

The defendant committed a crime or a lawful act in an unlawful manner.
The defendant committed the crime or act with criminal negligence
The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person

Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake of judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:

He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury
AND
A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.
Involuntary manslaughter does not apply to acts committed while driving a vehicle. Those offenses are charged separately as vehicular manslaughter.

It would appear to me, a layman, that his actions fit that crime very nicely.  Does anyone actually know if a jury in CA can consider a lesser offence?  The whole "lesser included offense" thing is not universal.  Murder in CA requires the intent to kill the person you killed.  That would be VERY difficult to prove in this case, even were it being tried in Jackson, MS.

[HankB]

 

It's been a number of years - were any of O.J. Simpson's original jurors called to jury duty again?

Was Judge Ito presiding?

I'm not allowed to post my thoughts and feelings here.

I loved the old Charles Bronson movie series, didn't you?

I believe Bruce Willis is starring in a remake . . .

[230RN]

I do agree with the not guity verdict for murder, but doesn't California have a three strikes you're out and you get a life sentence law?  So why is he only getting the sentence for gun possession?

Another question:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jose-ines-garcia-zarate-san-francisco-pier-killing-suspect-found-n823351

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate also used the name Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez.

Makes you wonder how many people named Garcia, Lopez, Rodriquez, Gonzales, and Sanchez the system can keep track of?

I ask this not with malice, but with a desire for understanding.  How can they tell who's been here illegally more than once?

Terry, 230RN

[Ben]

Charges of involuntary manslaughter often come in the wake of a deadly car crash caused by a motorist under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. While the motorist never intended to kill anyone, his or her negligence in operating a car while impaired is enough to meet the requirements of the charge."

I was going to drop that example myself. I think there are tons of examples of manslaughter convictions(all degrees) for drunk driving involving a death. Also, another thought: Would a drunk driving conviction involving a death be more severe if the drunk driver were in a stolen vehicle? Because here we have someone who was not only being negligent, but doing so with a stolen weapon.

Had they gone with manslaughter, a felon in possession of a stolen weapon should have kicked in some additional penalty (I think).

[MikeB]

If he wasn’t guilty because it was an accident and he didn’t know it was a gun wrapped in a towel or whatever then how can he be guilty of possession of a firearm? It appears that the prosecution didn’t really make a good case, but there seems to be issues with the logic of the jury too. Firing a firearm indiscriminately would be negligent homicide I would think. So either he knew he had the gun and fired it and should be guilty of more than just possession of a firearm or he didn’t know he had a firearm and shouldn’t be guilty of that either.

And the other thing I’m scratching my head about is he was charged with assault or some such with a semi-automatic firearm? Does CA really consider that to be worse than assault with a revolver?

[dogmush]

And the other thing I’m scratching my head about is he was charged with assault or some such with a semi-automatic firearm? Does CA really consider that to be worse than assault with a revolver?

You're mistaking the legal definition in CA with the definition in English.  You're also assuming that a reporter can correctly communicate the specific charge under CA law.

[Hawkmoon]

I do agree with the not guity verdict for murder, but doesn't California have a three strikes you're out and you get a life sentence law?  So why is he only getting the sentence for gun possession?

Another question:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jose-ines-garcia-zarate-san-francisco-pier-killing-suspect-found-n823351

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate also used the name Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez.

Makes you wonder how many people named Garcia, Lopez, Rodriquez, Gonzales, and Sanchez the system can keep track of?

I ask this not with malice, but with a desire for understanding.  How can they tell who's been here illegally more than once?

Not a murder case, but a number of years ago a gentleman of Arabic extraction (Egyptian, I believe, but I'm not certain) was hauled into housing court on a charge of failing to provide heat during the winter in a tenement house he owned. (One of many flop houses he owned, in fact.) His defense was that he wasn't him. Correct -- he told the judge that the arrest warrant was issued for Abdul Mohamed, and that on the day he was standing in court he was using the name Mohamed Achmed. The judge was not amused.

I knew the chief building inspector in that municipality. The building department referred to him as "Abdul of the thousand names."

Back to the case -- there's such a thing as double jeopardy, but that only says you can't be tried twice for the same offense. If a finding of negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter wasn't available to the jury -- then he wasn't tried for that offense and he could be tried for it now.

[Angel Eyes]

Back to the case -- there's such a thing as double jeopardy, but that only says you can't be tried twice for the same offense. If a finding of negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter wasn't available to the jury -- then he wasn't tried for that offense and he could be tried for it now.

There is also talk from Sessions about possibly prosecuting the defendant at the Federal level, along the lines of what happened to those officers in the Rodney King case.

[BobR]

Back to the case -- there's such a thing as double jeopardy, but that only says you can't be tried twice for the same offense. If a finding of negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter wasn't available to the jury -- then he wasn't tried for that offense and he could be tried for it now.

IIRC there was an uproar after OJ was acquitted of the murders of his ex and her friend. There was grumbling he should have been charged and tried separately for each person rather than the two for one. But because they did the all or nothing, the city was left with nothing.

bob

[HankB]

. . .
Makes you wonder how many people named Garcia, Lopez, Rodriquez, Gonzales, and Sanchez the system can keep track of?

I ask this not with malice, but with a desire for understanding.  How can they tell who's been here illegally more than once?

They track the illegals by their social security numbers. (Or maybe driver's license numbers? EBT card numbers?)

[lupinus]

We have a legal system not a justice system.

We have a legal system not a justice system.

We have a legal system not a justice system.

I think I'll be in the corner muttering that to myself for awhile...

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[TommyGunn]

We have a legal system not a justice system.

We have a legal system not a justice system.

We have a legal system not a justice system.

I think I'll be in the corner muttering that to myself for awhile...

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Let's   change the Dept. of Justice tp the Dept. of Legal Systems.