(12-01-2017 01:01 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:37 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 08:11 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Democrats killed her. They didn't hold the gun but killed her just the same.

Picking a bit of a nit, admittedly.

But this isn't so much a "democrats" killed her.

This is/was clearly the leftwing, uber-liberals that lead directly to this young womans death and her killing being somehow dismissed as a "mistake". Or what? A bad shot gone bad?!?

Can't discern between a 32 YO chick on a walk with her Father and poaching sealions? Or seals?

And these are the people the left want to offer "sanctuary" too?

Can someone, anyone 'splain this one to me?

7 time felon (In OUR courts), kicked this dumb ass dreg of society out of here 5 times, yet here he is. Defended on the peoples dime, for murdering this young lady on the last walk with her Father either one of them will ever have. Really?

Just build the F%^&ing wall. Chip this bastard before we helidrop his useless, shiftless ass back in mother country and if he comes within 50 miles of our border again, just shoot him. Or drone him, big-boomba. whatever.

I'll see your nit, and raise you some lint

the democrats in city hall that chose to defy federal law and put a clearly dangerous career criminal back on the streets literally and directly killed that poor young woman.

that was the most egregious case of jury nullification imaginable. the unfortunate truth is that the steinle family won't be able to get justice in any criminal or civil court in san francisco. that place is too far gone. and that means that the law has utterly broken down in that hell hole.

Was just saying, indirectly I guess, that I know plenty of poorly misguided Dims that wouldn't be on board with putting this murdering POS back on the street.

It's the insufferable Libs I know that back this kind of schit. And yup, they're out there, amazingly enough.

Time to clean them out too!

Shh! Be careful of what you say. You'll be called racist.

as the father of a daughter, I cannot put in print what I would physically do to that pos if I got my mitts on that sack of shite and his dixie dumpster diving lawyer......

trust me, it would it be at that point the horns would be out in full force in a medieval way.....it would make Law Abiding Citizen look like a G rated movie.....

#simplyfuckingdisgusting

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/201...inle-case/

Even Redstate of all sites admits the prosecution did a piss-poor job during the trial. Basically they pushed hard for a first degree murder verdict, which requires not only proving that the defendant killed the victim, but that he did it intentionally, and that it was premeditated (planned or thought out beforehand).

Focusing their strategy on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter would have allowed the prosecutors to simply argue that Garcia Zarate acted in a criminally negligent way that resulted in Steinle’s death: he knew the object was a gun, he knew guns are dangerous, he should have known not to point it in the direction of people, etc.

Much like the trayvon case, a prosecutor went for the grand slam instead of outting the ball in play.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-01-2017 07:06 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Much like the trayvon case, a prosecutor went for the grand slam instead of outting the ball in play.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

No it was nothing like the 'trayvon' case...

I don't believe this young girl was using the concert sidewalk to bang someone's head into. I don't believe this girl made it to a safe place like her home then turned around and went back to confront the guy that shot her.

No, this was nothing like that 'trayvon' case. Law backed a manslaughter verdict in this case. The 'trayvon' case was a case won on self defense. If manslaughter is a lesser offense and I believe it was in this case. It doesn't matter what the DA argued....it's up to the jury to do their job and go down the list of charges and use the law to each of the lesser charges

Quote: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.
Enlarge this image



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

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony

(12-01-2017 06:31 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/201...inle-case/

Even Redstate of all sites admits the prosecution did a piss-poor job during the trial. Basically they pushed hard for a first degree murder verdict, which requires not only proving that the defendant killed the victim, but that he did it intentionally, and that it was premeditated (planned or thought out beforehand).

Focusing their strategy on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter would have allowed the prosecutors to simply argue that Garcia Zarate acted in a criminally negligent way that resulted in Steinle’s death: he knew the object was a gun, he knew guns are dangerous, he should have known not to point it in the direction of people, etc.

Unfortunately that appears to be the case. I don't know why prosecution would have gone for 1st degree murder when it was know it was a ricocheted bullet that killed her from the start. Puzzling to me.

Personally I do think that any crime committed by someone here illegally, especially one that had been deported several times, should carry stiffer penalties. For instance in this case a manslaughter conviction would carry the same sentence as a murder charge.

(12-01-2017 09:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:31 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/201...inle-case/

Even Redstate of all sites admits the prosecution did a piss-poor job during the trial. Basically they pushed hard for a first degree murder verdict, which requires not only proving that the defendant killed the victim, but that he did it intentionally, and that it was premeditated (planned or thought out beforehand).

Focusing their strategy on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter would have allowed the prosecutors to simply argue that Garcia Zarate acted in a criminally negligent way that resulted in Steinle’s death: he knew the object was a gun, he knew guns are dangerous, he should have known not to point it in the direction of people, etc.

Unfortunately that appears to be the case. I don't know why prosecution would have gone for 1st degree murder when it was know it was a ricocheted bullet that killed her from the start. Puzzling to me.

Personally I do think that any crime committed by someone here illegally, especially one that had been deported several times, should carry stiffer penalties. For instance in this case a manslaughter conviction would carry the same sentence as a murder charge.

this case is going to force many a change.....some that may likely pass in front of the SCOTUS one day....

(12-01-2017 09:25 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 09:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:31 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/201...inle-case/

Even Redstate of all sites admits the prosecution did a piss-poor job during the trial. Basically they pushed hard for a first degree murder verdict, which requires not only proving that the defendant killed the victim, but that he did it intentionally, and that it was premeditated (planned or thought out beforehand).

Focusing their strategy on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter would have allowed the prosecutors to simply argue that Garcia Zarate acted in a criminally negligent way that resulted in Steinle’s death: he knew the object was a gun, he knew guns are dangerous, he should have known not to point it in the direction of people, etc.

Unfortunately that appears to be the case. I don't know why prosecution would have gone for 1st degree murder when it was know it was a ricocheted bullet that killed her from the start. Puzzling to me.

Personally I do think that any crime committed by someone here illegally, especially one that had been deported several times, should carry stiffer penalties. For instance in this case a manslaughter conviction would carry the same sentence as a murder charge.

this case is going to force many a change.....some that may likely pass in front of the SCOTUS one day....

They don't have the stomach and this will be forgotten with the next sex scandal.

(12-01-2017 06:31 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/201...inle-case/

Even Redstate of all sites admits the prosecution did a piss-poor job during the trial. Basically they pushed hard for a first degree murder verdict, which requires not only proving that the defendant killed the victim, but that he did it intentionally, and that it was premeditated (planned or thought out beforehand).

Focusing their strategy on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter would have allowed the prosecutors to simply argue that Garcia Zarate acted in a criminally negligent way that resulted in Steinle’s death: he knew the object was a gun, he knew guns are dangerous, he should have known not to point it in the direction of people, etc.

Exactly.

I'm surprised no one has suggested yet that the liberal SF prosecutors intentionally charged him with a crime they knew would result in a not guilty plea...even with him having a lowly public defender.

(11-30-2017 10:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 10:05 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 09:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 09:08 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  From what I'm to understand, he was playing with the gun, the gun accidentally goes off, the bullet strikes a concrete pier, ricochets off, and kills the young lady. Are those the facts? If so, charging him with murder was a reach beyond belief. He should have been charged with a lesser crime. No jury in their right mind would convict someone on a murder charge based on that evidence. No way in hell would I have found him guilty of murder either. Reckless endangerment causing the death of or something similar.

You know how I know that you don't know anything about guns?

If the safety is off and he was twirling the gun old west style, then yes it can accidentally go off. Unless he purposely shot the concrete knowing the ricochet would hit her? That would kinda make him the male version of Annie Oakley.
Here is the link to the story:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/11...der-trial/

That's not an accident. At best that is just plain old recklessness with wanton disregard. No accident.

Yep, even in that case the "gun didn't accidentally go off". To think it did is just asinine.

(12-01-2017 09:26 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 09:25 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 09:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:31 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/201...inle-case/

Even Redstate of all sites admits the prosecution did a piss-poor job during the trial. Basically they pushed hard for a first degree murder verdict, which requires not only proving that the defendant killed the victim, but that he did it intentionally, and that it was premeditated (planned or thought out beforehand).

Focusing their strategy on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter would have allowed the prosecutors to simply argue that Garcia Zarate acted in a criminally negligent way that resulted in Steinle’s death: he knew the object was a gun, he knew guns are dangerous, he should have known not to point it in the direction of people, etc.

Unfortunately that appears to be the case. I don't know why prosecution would have gone for 1st degree murder when it was know it was a ricocheted bullet that killed her from the start. Puzzling to me.

Personally I do think that any crime committed by someone here illegally, especially one that had been deported several times, should carry stiffer penalties. For instance in this case a manslaughter conviction would carry the same sentence as a murder charge.

this case is going to force many a change.....some that may likely pass in front of the SCOTUS one day....

They don't have the stomach and this will be forgotten with the next sex scandal.

doubtful. this case was one of the things that got trump elected president. it exposes the hysterical extremes of the democrat's position on crime and immigration; as such, it's something of a twofer.

in fact, as trump rather brilliantly anticipated ("they don't send us their best"), immigration is becoming a crime and punishment issue.

That write up admits he lied at least once about how the bullet was fired. He stepped on it while under a shirt or he was shooting at something in the ocean. It also states Garcia Zarate was so scared from the noise of the gun going off he threw it into the ocean.....

Well now we know he did not step on it and the gun went off. If so it would not have been in his hands to throw away.

So once that gun is in his hands..he owns any bullet that comes out of it. If it's a once in a lifetime bullet that hits the water and skips up and hits someone...he owns it.

If he had no experience with a gun as the article says. e should have never picked it up and it does not excuse him of....

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.

I haven't looked up the law but with the gun in his hands and him being a convicted felon....he was committing a felony so at that point in the commission of a felony it could be bumped up to more than Involuntary Manslaughter.

As we see when someone breaks into a home and one of the people committing the felony gets shot by the home owner and dies. The other person committing the break in/felony is charged with the death of his partner in crime.

Holy Smokes! Just read that he was also acquitted of involuntary manslaughter. Is that correct?

(11-30-2017 07:45 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Only in California can a repeat felon go free after killing someone.

As someone said on the radio... if it had been a native California citizen (or even an American)... California would have already applied the three strikes rule on this illegal.

But lib-tuck California has two set of rules... one for Americans, one for non-Americans.

Yes, the prosecutors screwed up in the charge.. a manslaughter case should have been a slam dunk

what a ******* **** show, thank you liberals. Her blood is in your hands. Yall killed that woman.

(12-01-2017 10:02 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 07:45 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Only in California can a repeat felon go free after killing someone.

As someone said on the radio... if it had been a native California citizen (or even an American)... California would have already applied the three strikes rule on this illegal.

But lib-tuck California has two set of rules... one for Americans, one for non-Americans.

Yes, the prosecutors screwed up in the charge.. a manslaughter case should have been a slam dunk

manslaughter was one of the lesser charges. The jury screwed up or the judge if he did not explain the charge to the jury. I lay my money on the jury

(12-01-2017 09:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Personally I do think that any crime committed by someone here illegally, especially one that had been deported several times, should carry stiffer penalties. For instance in this case a manslaughter conviction would carry the same sentence as a murder charge.

Disagree 200... I mean manslaughter is still manslaughter

Now you can tack on extra penalties for other crimes, such as his being in the country illegal.

But you cannot and should not adjust a crime's level of punishment just because of who caused it.

(12-01-2017 10:07 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 09:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Personally I do think that any crime committed by someone here illegally, especially one that had been deported several times, should carry stiffer penalties. For instance in this case a manslaughter conviction would carry the same sentence as a murder charge.

Disagree 200... I mean manslaughter is still manslaughter

Now you can tack on extra penalties for other crimes, such as his being in the country illegal.

But you cannot and should not adjust a crime's level of punishment just because of who caused it.

It's done all the time for someone committing a felony. By picking up the gun this guy committed a felony. He was a convicted felon in prepossession of a firearm.

How is that different than you and I breaking into a home and the homeowner shoots and kills you. Then I get charged with your dead? Or someone getting a DUI and the level of the charge goes up with each one you commit? Or getting another 10 years added to you time for a felony charge and conviction because you have 2 other convictions before this one?

To me it's the same...

(12-01-2017 10:03 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  what a ******* **** show, thank you liberals. Her blood is in your hands. Yall killed that woman.

Drama queen.

(12-01-2017 10:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 10:03 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  what a ******* **** show, thank you liberals. Her blood is in your hands. Yall killed that woman.

Drama queen.

hey look, a personal attack... how original!