It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kate Steinle killer found not guilty of murder

page: 13
55
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It looks like the feds are going to do what the jurors could not - send the suspect to prison for possibly 10 years. He has multiple convictions for illegally entering the US. He will be charged again for illegally entering the US and because of his prior convictions the charge is now a felony with up to 10 years in prison.


Better than nothing. I'm still baffled how the jury couldn't see it was involuntary manslaughter.


It is entirely possible the jury instructions prevented them from considering a lesser offense / lesser included offense.


Every article I read on it said they acquitted him of involuntary manslaughter. They would've had to consider the charge to acquit him of it. What charges are going to be on the table are worked out before the trial.


Correct and how the jury considers the charges are given to them by the judge before deliberations when he / she issues jury instructions. That can include the ability to find a person guilty of a lesser charge / lesser included offense. It can also be a restriction where the jury can only consider the charges presented and nothing else.

Manslaughter and murder are completely different charges with murder requiring intent and manslaughter requiring gross negligence.

Charging the guy with murder would require the prosecution to prove he intended to kill the person in question. How do you do that without eyewitness testimony or incriminating evidence provided by the suspect himself? It is even harder when the defense says it went off accidentally.

The accidental part makes it difficult to prove a manslaughter charge when, again, there is no eyewitness testimony or incriminating evidence provided by the suspect? Prosecutors have to prove the suspect behaved in such a reckless / grossly negligent manner that caused the gun to discharge.

With no evidence and the suspect saying the gun discharged on its own either charge is difficult if not impossible to prove.

As we saw in this prosecution.

At least the feds are prosecuting for felony illegal entry into the US. Hopefully that one works.




posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It looks like the feds are going to do what the jurors could not - send the suspect to prison for possibly 10 years. He has multiple convictions for illegally entering the US. He will be charged again for illegally entering the US and because of his prior convictions the charge is now a felony with up to 10 years in prison.


Better than nothing. I'm still baffled how the jury couldn't see it was involuntary manslaughter.


It is entirely possible the jury instructions prevented them from considering a lesser offense / lesser included offense.


Every article I read on it said they acquitted him of involuntary manslaughter. They would've had to consider the charge to acquit him of it. What charges are going to be on the table are worked out before the trial.


Correct and how the jury considers the charges are given to them by the judge before deliberations when he / she issues jury instructions. That can include the ability to find a person guilty of a lesser charge / lesser included offense. It can also be a restriction where the jury can only consider the charges presented and nothing else.

Manslaughter and murder are completely different charges with murder requiring intent and manslaughter requiring gross negligence.

Charging the guy with murder would require the prosecution to prove he intended to kill the person in question. How do you do that without eyewitness testimony or incriminating evidence provided by the suspect himself? It is even harder when the defense says it went off accidentally.

The accidental part makes it difficult to prove a manslaughter charge when, again, there is no eyewitness testimony or incriminating evidence provided by the suspect? Prosecutors have to prove the suspect behaved in such a reckless / grossly negligent manner that caused the gun to discharge.

With no evidence and the suspect saying the gun discharged on its own either charge is difficult if not impossible to prove.

As we saw in this prosecution.

At least the feds are prosecuting for felony illegal entry into the US. Hopefully that one works.


I was agreeing with you up until you said the invol manslaughter would be nearly impossible to prove without a witness. It's not. As I've explained several times, the jury's decision to return a guilty verdict on the charge of him being a felon in illegal possession of a gun shows that they knew his story that he picked up a gun wrapped in a t shirt without knowing what it was was bogus. Also, guns don't go off on their own. So he knew he had a gun, and once you know you've got a gun in your hands, anything you do that causes it to go off is your responsibility. The fact they ruled guilty on the possession charge demonstrates that responsibility, therefore he should've been held accountable for the resulting death from his own negligence. It doesn't matter whether he intended to shoot her. If he intended to shoot her that'd be murder. If he didn't intend to shoot her, but shot her through his own negligence, that's involuntary manslaughter.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Illegal possession of a gun is easy to prove when the gun is linked to the person in question by possession. It is also a stand alone charge that doesnt require any other charges to accompany it.

As for manslaughter the prosecution has to prove the suspect acted in a way that discharged the weapon. Since they cant force the suspect to testify / incriminate himself / cooperate with an investigation / prosecution it means they have to explain what the suspect did that set the gun off.

Knowing the above answer this question -
Without a witness to that action, whether a real person or video surveillance, explain the actions the suspect took that resulted in the discharging of the firearm. Explain the series of events, from start to finish.

Because illegal possession of a firearm is a standalone charge you cant argue that illegal possession is related to the discharge of the weapon.

All it takes is doubt from one person. The goal of the prosecution (and its legal requirement under the law) is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did what they are being accused of. That requires the prosecution to present a theory and to support that theory with the evidence provided.

Simply being in illegal possession of a firearm does not prove the other charge / charges and if that's what the prosecution used as the basis for their argument its no wonder they lost the case.

Manslaughter / involuntary manslaughter requires the suspect to act in a manner that is grossly negligent (intent is not a requirement for manslaughter). A defense that the gun discharged on its own does not meet that threshold of gross negligence. The prosecution has to show the gross negligence to overcome the threshold to make the charge stick and secure a conviction.
edit on 2-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
Oh wow! This reads like a Simpsons episode, reminds me of the one episode were snake goes to the hospital with a gunshot wound in his stomach, and when they ask what happened. And I quote " ya, I must have like tripped, and like fallen on a bullet"

I mean put aside this whole illegal immigrant thing, some dude finds a gun supposedly wrapped in cloth, which somehow discharges, ricochet of the ground from 70 feet and hits somebody else clear across the way. Ya, OK, it can happen and does happen.

I mean ricochets happen, I wouldn't count it out, just look at this lucky fella, now a bit to the right and he would be having a killer headache for the rest of his life, which would likely be the next few hours, or the next few weeks comatose in a hospital bead.

But. The whole changing the story from aiming at a seal, to stray bullet ricochet, to mysterious wrapped gun, just right in front of his bench, were he just happen to find it, and unwrap it, to firing itself accidentally, and the whole hot button topic behind this whole sanctuary cities and what not thing. Seems to scream, all kinds of nonsense.

Ya OK. Seems legit. But if, just if. This just was some guy, just random citizen who actually found a gun, and it actually fired off by accident, and happened to ricochet and hit and kill some random person ways off. Likely he still would be doing major time at the least.

But hey! I suppose being deported back to Mexico is as bad as a death sentence. Nah, just joking, I'm sure Mexico is a pretty cool country, just depends which part you go to I suppose. Oh ya, one bizarre and clear cut case of WTF, I mean sure it can happen, but then again? WTF.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Just sickening. California is an embarrassment to the rest of the nation ...That family deserved justice.

He "found a gun wrapped in a t-shirt that randomly went off when he picked it up". What bunk ...Are they really that gullible out there???



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubilation T Cornpone

They pulled an "OJ"...simple as that. 3 immigrants on the jury and a jury pool from San Francisco... Kate Steinle's family had no chance for justice. Does anyone actually think that those 3 immigrants weren't influenced by their own biases. If you are raised in America, you have it drilled into you that you must put aside personal bias when serving on a jury. They weren't raised in America. That idea is probably foreign to them.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
He lobbed it into the bay to make it stop. That's what his attorney said:
www.cbsnews.com - Kate Steinle murder trial: Video footage of suspect shown in court...

Matt Gonzalez, chief attorney for the public defender's office, said in opening statements that Garcia Zarate threw the gun in the water when it went off to make it stop and walked away without knowing that anyone had been hit.

Outside court Wednesday Gonzalez said the footage showed the "tremendous distance" between Garcia Zarate and Steinle at the time of the shooting.
Note: "Tremendous" is 75 feet.

Garcia said this in an interview:
www.usatoday.com - Reports: Federal agent's gun used in S.F. pier shooting...

In an interview Sunday with KGO, Lopez-Sanchez confessed to the shooting but said it was an accident. He said that he found the gun, wrapped in a T-shirt, under a bench and that it went off three times when he picked it up.

He said he then kicked the gun into San Francisco Bay and walked off, not knowing he had shot someone until police arrested him an hour later on a nearby street corner. He reportedly first told police he had been shooting at sea lions.

Lopez-Sanchez also told an interviewer he was high on sleeping pills and marijuana at the time.

It's news to me it went off 3 times according to Garcia.

There's footage of the event. Garcia's attorney says the defendant never raised his hand(s) to aim:
www.sfexaminer.com - Prosecutors show grainy footage of Kate Steinle’s killing on SF pier...

Matt Gonzalez, an attorney for Garcia Zarate, said he did not see the defendant raise his hand to point a gun at Steinle in the video.

edit on 12/5/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
He was found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm. That charge and guilty verdict coupled with the federal charges for felony reentering the country after previous convictions means this guy will get a decade + prison sentence.

Also the jury found him not guilty of 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.


Penal Code - PEN
PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )

TITLE 8. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON [187 - 248] ( Title 8 enacted 1872. )


CHAPTER 1. Homicide [187 - 199] ( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:

(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.


The 1st / 2nd degree murder requires an intent to kill another person.

All the prosecutor had to do was walk the jury from step A to step Z and describe / explain how the suspects actions met the criteria for murder / involuntary manslaughter.

Can anyone in this thread do that? Explain how the suspect violated the criteria for anyone of the 3 charges he was found not guilty on?


ETA -
A federal grand jury indicted the suspect of being in the country illegally as well as being a felon in possession of a fire arm.
edit on 5-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jubilation T Cornpone
Just sickening. California is an embarrassment to the rest of the nation ...That family deserved justice.

He "found a gun wrapped in a t-shirt that randomly went off when he picked it up". What bunk ...Are they really that gullible out there???


You are concentrating on the wrong thing.The jury can ignore every word he says on the stand and syill acquit. A defendant has the burden of proving nothing. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt. And under Calofornia's bizarre involuntary manslaughter law it must be an illegal act that is done in a grossly negligent manner. Shooting a gun is not, all by itself. illegal. If you drink and drive, which is illegal, and kill someone, involuntary manslaughter. Likewise, sell heroin and someone dies-IM. But if you are lowering a bank safe to the street, which is not icivil suitllegal (unless it's not your safe) and negligently drop it on someone, that's not IM, it's a great lawsuit.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join