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.
Jeopardy only attaches to prosecutions of the same criminal acts by the same sovereign. 43 Thus a state may prosecute individuals for a crime which they stood trial for in federal court. Federal authorities may also prosecute individuals for crimes they stood trial for in state court. The double jeopardy defense does not apply to either of these actions.
Example: Officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, were tried and found not guilty of assault on Rodney King in Ventura County Superior Court in 1991.
Some of those same officers were later charged and convicted in federal court for violating Rodney King's civil rights.
The federal charges and convictions arose out of the same incident as the previous state case in Ventura County Superior Court. However, because the state of California and the federal government are separate sovereigns, double jeopardy did not bar the prosecution of those officers in federal court.
originally posted by: face23785
The #ed up part is the same people who will defend this guy because "it was an accident" want lawful gun owners to do jail-time if their gun gets stolen.
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: face23785
because I have a couple minutes left ...
Jeopardy only attaches to prosecutions of the same criminal acts by the same sovereign. 43 Thus a state may prosecute individuals for a crime which they stood trial for in federal court. Federal authorities may also prosecute individuals for crimes they stood trial for in state court. The double jeopardy defense does not apply to either of these actions.
Example: Officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, were tried and found not guilty of assault on Rodney King in Ventura County Superior Court in 1991.
Some of those same officers were later charged and convicted in federal court for violating Rodney King's civil rights.
The federal charges and convictions arose out of the same incident as the previous state case in Ventura County Superior Court. However, because the state of California and the federal government are separate sovereigns, double jeopardy did not bar the prosecution of those officers in federal court.
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
originally posted by: face23785
The #ed up part is the same people who will defend this guy because "it was an accident" want lawful gun owners to do jail-time if their gun gets stolen.
I’ll ignore the strawman and play along with your assertion...
Firstly, what’s wrong with “defending” someone for what was ruled (and likely was) an accident?
Let’s be honest here, there would be nothing to “defend”, at least in a debate setting, if there wasn’t also a metaphorical lynch mob out for the blood of someone who by a jury of his peers was cleared of wrongdoing (at least in the case of murder or manslaughter).
It’s also a bit of an emotionally manipulative way of saying things...
Kind of suggesting that if people defend a person who killed someone in a tragic accident that there must be something wrong with their moral compass.
I’m not saying that is what you’re doing, just that it can be perceived that way.
Ok...
Let’s get into the second part of your assertion.
I really don’t see the comparison between a person unintentionally taking another person’s life, and a gun owner’s firearm being stolen (which could either be unavoidable or due to carelessness on the gun owners part).
As to the jailing a gun owner whose firearm is stolen, I’d say that in a civilised and just society, that would be dealt with on a case by case basis.
When a gun is stolen, and subsequently a crime is committed with the weapon, it should be determined if it was stolen due to recklessness on the part of the owner.
& I believe that anyone who is a vocal advocate of “responsible gun ownership” would agree with that, right?
Prosecutor Diana Garcia played a portion of the recorded police interrogation of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a Mexican citizen charged with second-degree murder for allegedly firing a single bullet that ricocheted off a San Francisco pier and struck Steinle in the back July 1, 2015.
Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez told reporters after court that police pushed and led Garcia Zarate into his answers during the interrogation that lasted until nearly 6 a.m.
“The fact that very skilled and experienced and educated interrogators can get a second-grade [educated] Mexican immigrant to adopt what they are saying, like that Kate Steinle was five-feet away when the gun discharged, that doesn’t make it true,” Gonzalez said.
Ravano said in court that investigators lied to Garcia Zarate about witnesses who saw the shooting, gunshot residue recovered from his hands, the handgun they pulled from the water and a DNA match connecting him to the weapon.
“It was just another tactic to help motivate him or elicit a more truthful response,” Ravano said in court.
Police had not yet recovered the handgun that Garcia Zarate admitted to throwing into the San Francisco Bay and had not yet tested the gunshot residue swabbed from his hand.
Police still have no witnesses who saw the shooter open fire and never matched Garcia Zarate’s DNA to the weapon.
He also told police that he was born Sept. 1, 1863.
originally posted by: Phoenix
Being it was decided by jury trial that this illegal alian was innocent of murder (reasons not fathomable to me) I agree it'd be double jeapordy to try him again on same charge even at Federal level.
However,
Now is appropriate time for BATF to arrest the known felon on violation of USC18-922g Federal charge of felon in possession of firearm or ammunition.
Mere possession is violation and carries up to 10 year term in Federal prison.
Should be an easy conviction, let him serve 10 years then give him the boot out of country.
I believe that 10 year Federal term would probably exceed a state manslaughter term anyway.
Besides BATF can actually serve a public need rather than child killing, church burning, gunrunning and roadside ambushes. Help reform the image a bit there.
Don't forget, they convicted him of felonious possession of a firearm. If they believe the nonsense story that it was wrapped in a shirt and he picked it up not knowing what it was and it "just went off" (which by the way, doesn't happen in real life), they would have acquitted him of that too.
originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: face23785
Ok, what's the California State sentence for conviction on Felony firearm possession ?
Since he's convicted of that specific crime.