Jury acquits illegal immigrant

[Farmer77]

Just now, susieice said:

The trial should have never happened. The killing should have never happened. If San Francisco wants to accept convicted criminals and give them sanctuary, that's up to them. But they also have the responsibility for the consequences. I don't care about political agendas. Let's try common sense and decency. If you can't comprehend this I can see why everyone is upset with the left. It's written plainly and in language that is understandable. I don't need words put into my mouth for me.

And yet youre on here quite upset about the immigrant rather than about the gov. official who left his weapon unattended. How in the hell is San Francisco any more responsible than the federal government? It is the federal government who allowed the illegal immigration to take place in the first place and it is the federal government who allowed a weapon to be stolen which would eventually kill. 

 

[+susieice]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

And yet youre on here quite upset about the immigrant rather than about the gov. official who left his weapon unattended. How in the hell is San Francisco any more responsible than the federal government? It is the federal government who allowed the illegal immigration to take place in the first place and it is the federal government who allowed a weapon to be stolen which would eventually kill. 

 

You aren't reading either. This is just baiting as I made myself perfectly clear. What part of the gun being stolen from a car days before did you not understand? No wonder things like this happen.

[SHaYap]

I dunno ... I'm hearing a lot of whispers about 'entrapment' gone wrong ...

~

anyhow ... its a sad sad situation ... and I think its about time for a music clip intermission ...

~

 

[00.07:52]

~

[aztek]

if any of us was caught with a gun stolen from a cop we'd be slapped with a felony charge and jury would take exactly 5 seconds to reach the guilty verdict.  no one would believe us if we said we found it.  this trial is nothing but political F U trump. at our expense. wall off komifornia

[Gromdor]

13 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Thanks for that. "Innocent" and "not guilty" are 2 different things entirely, as I cringed when reading that. Obviously somebody doesn't have personal experience of the US justice system.

The rest of your post I don't agree with however. San Francisco bears responsibility IMO.

Innocent until proven guilty.  Not guilty=innocent in America. 

[+susieice]

Just now, aztek said:

if any of us was caught with a gun stolen from a cop we'd be slapped with a felony charge and jury would take exactly 5 seconds to reach the guilty verdict.  no one would believe us if we said we found it.  this trial is nothing but political F U trump. at our expense. wall off komifornia

The key word that has them going off is responsibility! San Francisco can empty all the prisons and take in whomever they wish, including our poster friends. That's up to them. But they are also responsible for anything those people do. No one else.

[aztek]

Just now, Gromdor said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  

not when it comes to civil forfeiture. 

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

not when it comes to civil forfeiture. 

Hah, innocence or guilt really has no meaning when big brother is looking for an excuse to grab your money or property.  Civil forfeiture and eminent domain.  Two peas in a pod.

[.ZZ.]

8 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  Not guilty=innocent in America. 

Quote

Not guilty is a verdict or formal finding by the legal system that a defendant is not culpable for the crime with which the defendant was charged.

If someone charges you with a certain crime, the judge/jury are there to decide whether you are guilty, or not guilty of the crime in question. Stating that you are innocent would technically generally speak about your life and personality in a way that you've never done anything bad in life. Not guilty, on the other hand, can and is used to express specifically what you are not guilty of, for example not guilty of killing my workmate.

Link

[Essan]

Whether he was in the country illegally is as relevant to the case as his pant size, his star sign and when he last cut his toenails

Do you convict people on the colour of their eyes?  Or empirical evidence?   And if not the latter, you live in a country I never want to visit

 

[aztek]

prior criminal  records absolutely matter in us justice system, unless it is a political statement trial, when you learn a thing or two about USJS come back, for now stay away from topics you are clueless about. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by aztek

[+susieice]

3 minutes ago, Essan said:

Whether he was in the country illegally is as relevant to the case as his pant size, his star sign and when he last cut his toenails

Do you convict people on the colour of their eyes?  Or empirical evidence?   And if not the latter, you live in a country I never want to visit

 

No. But the fact that he was here illegally because he was a criminal and removed numerous times does. He just got out of prison and he's wanted now for felony drug charges. Immigration is going to deport him again for his crimes, not including this case. If San Francisco wishes to protect him, they need to take the responsibility for him. Outside of the city, he is illegal and wanted. There's that word again.

Can we all just come over to yours if we want?

Edited December 1, 2017 by susieice

[Farmer77]

 

12 minutes ago, susieice said:

The key word that has them going off is responsibility! San Francisco can empty all the prisons and take in whomever they wish, including our poster friends. That's up to them. But they are also responsible for anything those people do. No one else.

 San Francisco has more responsibility in this than the federal agent who left his weapon unattended?  

[pallidin]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567625700/jury-in-san-francisco-finds-accused-killer-of-kate-steinle-not-guilty-of-murder

 

The jury of six women and six men acquitted the 45-year-old Garcia Zarate of murder in the first and second degrees, and the alternate charge of involuntary manslaughter.

He was convicted on the lesser charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Steinle was killed on July 1, 2015, while walking along a San Francisco pier arm-in-arm with her father.

The basic question the jury had to decide was whether Garcia Zarate intentionally and willfully fired the single shot that killed Kate Steinle. The prosecution said that Garcia Zarate fired a handgun deliberately in Steinle's direction, seeking to harm her or others. The defense argued that the shooting was unintentional, that the defendant found the gun wrapped in a cloth under his seat at the pier and that it accidentally discharged. The defense also offered expert witnesses who testified that the bullet ricocheted off of the ground and traveled about 78 feet before striking Steinle.

----------------

This is why the murder charges were acquitted. Based on supposed multiple witness testimony, even "involuntary manslaughter" would not legally fit in this particular scenario because the defense apparently successfully argued that the gun discharge itself was accidental.

If the gun discharge was NOT accidental, a ricochet bullet (as in this case) would be such to convict on involuntary manslaughter. That aspect is legally critical.

Apparently, the jury believed 4 things:

- He was illegally in possession of a firearm.

- The firearm accidentally discharged.

- The firearm was not pointed at an individual.

- The discharged bullet ricocheted on the pavement, vectored up and fatally struck the woman.

 

[+susieice]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

 San Francisco has more responsibility in this than the federal agent who left his weapon unattended?  

This is baiting Farmer. Read!! Done. Make up crap on someone else's time. Hope a mod comes in.

[Michelle]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

 San Francisco has more responsibility in this than the federal agent who left his weapon unattended?  

You are aware off duty police officers are not allowed to carry in various places just like any other citizen. What makes him culpable for the gun being stolen from his car on a stop on his way to or from work?

[+susieice]

18 minutes ago, aztek said:

prior criminal  records absolutely matter in us justice system, unless it is a political statement trial, when you learn a thing or two about USJS come back, for now stay away from topics you are clueless about. 

 

Just now, Michelle said:

You are aware off duty police officers are not allowed to carry in various places just like any other citizen. What makes him culpable for the gun being stolen from his car on a stop on his way to or from work?

He can't read. He just argues.

Edited December 1, 2017 by susieice

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, Michelle said:

You are aware off duty police officers are not allowed to carry in various places just like any other citizen. What makes him culpable for the gun being stolen from his car on a stop on his way to or from work?

Well he stopped to have dinner and that's when it was stolen so he could have had it with him, he also could have responsibly locked it in the trunk or a safe in the vehicle. 

My overall point is that the outrage over this has nothing to do with a dead woman and everything to do with political ideology, as evidenced by the singular focus on the man rather than on the other factors which could have saved her life. 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Farmer77

[+susieice]

This is about people using politics and not looking at who the man was and why he was there.

[.ZZ.]

I heard that his immigration status and past crimes were not given to the jury for consideration.

But this case was so well publicized, unless the jury was hiding in their SF "safe place" pretrial, cowering in fear of POTUS, surely each of them knew that. But they had to come to a verdict on evidence that was presented in court only.

 

[Gromdor]

2 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

I heard that his immigration status and past crimes were not given to the jury for consideration.

But this case was so well publicized, unless the jury was hiding in their SF "safe place" pretrial, cowering in fear of POTUS, surely each of them knew that. But they had to come to a verdict on evidence that was presented in court only.

 

Yeah, it would be pretty naive to think that they didn't have some inkling about the guys past.  That's the primary reason I think there was enough evidence presented in court to actually render the non-guilty verdict.  A jury of twelve or so letting a proven murderer go just because San Fransisco is a sanctuary city seems really remote to me.  

[Bendy Demon]

At one point the article claims this gun was stolen from a ranger then tossed onto a beach or something.

Why would a person pick up a weapon that is obviously stolen, shoot at some animals then suddenly get scared of its sound because it accidentally went off? (so he dropped it and steps on it THEN it just goes off?)

I am assuming this man has been around long enough to know to leave strange objects alone and just go have a snow cone instead. Much safer (and tastier)

If the bullet from the misfired gun really did ricochet then I would think that finding that point where it happened shouldn't be too hard a task for investigators, right? The story changed so many times I am not sure what is the truth on this.

Just asking...kindly refrain from flaming me please.

[aztek]

Just now, Michelle said:

You are aware off duty police officers are not allowed to carry in various places just like any other citizen. What makes him culpable for the gun being stolen from his car on a stop on his way to or from work?

well if we go by how it should be, it makes no difference, he lost a gun, it is his fault, regardless where,

Quote

 According to the NYPD Patrol Guide, “loss of Department property” is a “Schedule ‘B’ violation” punishable at the precinct level and can result in the forfeiture of up to 10 vacation days or accrued time.

 but in reality, no one will ever go after a cop for that even if he left a loaded gun on a hood of his car and walked away. that actually has happened many times, guns stolen from police cars is a common occurrence. 

something like that happened recently in Brooklyn, a cop left everything in her car, and all of it was stolen, gun, vest radio, ..... she was suspended. but no criminal charges. believe me if someone kills someone with her gun, she will not be punished in any way, but you would if you lose yours.  however this is the first time i hear of cops being punished for it like that.  my childhood friend is now nypd lieutenant, he had his car broken in and vest was stolen, lucky for him he did not have weapons in the car.  he did not even get as little as a slap on the wrist, and he was simple patrolman back than . 

[+susieice]

1 minute ago, .ZZ. said:

I heard that his immigration status and past crimes were not given to the jury for consideration.

But this case was so well publicized, unless the jury was hiding in their SF "safe place" pretrial, cowering in fear of POTUS, surely each of them knew that. But they had to come to a verdict on evidence that was presented in court only.

 

I know. I wondered how this man attracted the attention of Immigration so many times. Most illegal immigrants don't. That's when I started looking at his deportation records. He was deported for consistently committing crimes in the US. He is wanted again now on felony drug charges and was just released from jail for another offense. The jury should have just been presented with the evidence of this case. That is correct. But Immigration had approached San Francisco earlier and they refused to co-operate. Immigration is going to try and deport him again, for the 6th time. He should not be here, but I'll bet he comes back again. 

[Michelle]

14 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Well he stopped to have dinner and that's when it was stolen so he could have had it with him, he also could have responsibly locked it in the trunk or a safe in the vehicle. 

My overall point is that the outrage over this has nothing to do with a dead woman and everything to do with political ideology, as evidenced by the singular focus on the man. 

 

It is illegal in most states to carry a weapon into a place that even sells alcohol. That leaves basically only fast food joints.

Now, this guy is not only allowed to walk free again, but there is still a warrant for his arrest on other charges. Does that make sense to you? Why not hold him and try him before he can disappear again?