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: 8
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   

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?



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408
accident or not, the suspect was committing a felony crime when she was killed by his actions, and by California's own law, as I listed on page 6 or 7 I think, his possession of the firearm as a prohibited person in itself was a felony. Therefore, felony murder.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   

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.




That's not a very good example since the officers weren't retried for the same offense. First they were tried for beating king, then they were tried for violation of his civil rights, which encompassed more than just the beating. In this case they failed to convict him on charges of killing the girl, and they would be retrying him on charges of killing the girl. It's the same offense. The two different jurisdictions, I was not aware of. If that's the case, I guess they could and I stand corrected. Although that seems like blatantly trying to get around the Constitution.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

Yes yes. I was replying while walking past my phone on whim each time.
Sorry.

I thought I was replying to tempter in regards to this reply. (As I was being yelled at from all sorts got confusing).

"Trump 2020!

Kick the Mexicans out!".

I'm not debating. I haven't even expressed my opinion on the matter, I was asking questions and agreed that legals should stay. But people obviously assumed I'm for this or that or what ever it is they think I support.

My opinion on the case, well it does sound fishy, and he probably was guilty of murder. But I still stand to defend legal Mexicans.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   

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?


What I was actually saying was that certain people have different standards for holding lawful gun owners personally accountable than they do for a prohibited possessor. You said an awful lot to get that completely wrong. I admitted there may not have been enough evidence for a murder conviction. It's a slam dunk case for involuntary manslaughter though. 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. They obviously didn't believe that, since they convicted him of the felony possession charge. So they acknowledge he knew he had a gun. That means he was willfully negligent in his handling of the gun, and the shot that killed the girl is his fault. Even if it was an accident, it's still involuntary manslaughter.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think you're jumping to conclusions about the prosecution in the absence of information.

SF Examiner - Jurors hear confession of Kate Steinle’s alleged killer for first time


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.


The prosecution played portions of the interrogation. And it sounds like it was quite a mess. You've got a suspect who is homeless, apparently has a 2nd grade education and was being questioned for hours in the early morning. And of course there's an interpreter in the mix. The cops are lying to him about all manners of evidence they don't have, they're asking extremely leading questions and he's giving contradictory and sometimes bizarre answers.


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.


He told them he wasn't there. He told them he stepped on the gun and it went off. He told them he was trying to prevent the gun from firing. He told them he was aiming at a seal. He told them he was 5 feet from Kate Steinle when he was about 90 feet from her.

He apparently also tried to stop the interrogation more than once. There was also a cop slamming his fists on the table and demanding that Zarate tell them what he'd done.

His defense team tried to prevent the interrogation from being admitted as evidence as they argued that his statements were coerced and based on what I'm reading, in my opinion, they may have had a solid argument. Obviously it's not a well-informed opinion as we haven't got access to the video of the interrogation but there's a lot to indicate that it was problematic to say the least. More here.

I don't think the prosecution threw the case. I think the prosecution made an egregious mistake in trying to swing for the fences, attempting to cobble together a first degree murder case with a more than dubious and frankly nonsensical motive and compelling evidence in favor of an accident.

I believe that folks in this thread are looking at this with a whole lot of emotion, preconceived notions and biases and not considering the facts in a rational manner.

I think they may have gotten him on involuntary manslaughter (which carries a max sentence of 4 years IIRC) but I'm not even sure of that.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   

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.





You're forgetting he just got convicted of that charge. The double jeopardy clause protects you not just from being prosecuted again when you were acquitted, but also from being prosecuted again if you were convicted.
edit on 30 11 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I’m glad he wasn’t jailed. I need another illegal to cut my grass.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Sounded like he was just telling them what they wanted to hear until it fit their story.
I wonder how many times this happens to people a year.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
We live near San Francisco, and I can tell you first hand that a majority of the people there are getting very strange. I don't understand their train of thought. It makes no sense anymore, when they protect the criminals, and attack the victims. It is horrible that people could become like that. I thought people would always want to help those who have fallen, yet now they step over their body and go their busy way, while a family bleeds in pain, and a Moms, and a dads heart is eternally broken. How do we stop this nonsense, or do we just have to wait for God to step up and say ENOUGH!



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Firstly, I must apologise.

All I was trying to do was ask questions and elaborate my own opinions.
I didn’t intend to put words in your mouth.

I agree with you that certain people’s standards do change depending on the issue.


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.


I’m not going to argue the particulars of whether that is possible because I haven’t the slightest clue.
I will say that the expert the defence used to testify said it is possible.
His testimony is quoted a few pages back.

As for convicting him of felony possession, I admit that does seem to give plausibility to the idea that he knew what it was and recklessly discharged it.
But I do wonder, if instead of that, that the felony possession conviction is based on the fact that he threw the gun into the water, therefore it was deemed the gun was in his possession, yet still not an indication of recklessness to also go for the manslaughter conviction.

That’s just a theory of course. Maybe I’m way off.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   

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.


Went and looked,

California being generally anti-second amendment in its public stance seems very lenient on Felony firearm possession with 16 month to maybe three years penalty - it's not a wonder they have issues with revolving criminals.

The 3 strikes revised law says "conviction for serious or violent felony" gets double max sentence.

Does this rise to a California definition of "serious" just what the h does that mean anyway.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

That answers issues of double jeapordy in relation to State charges and Federal charges.

Ain't none.

Feds need get grand jury indictment and take him into custody for trial on felony murder and felony possession.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
hopefully 4chan does their job and finds all the jurors responsible for this horrible verdict



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
www.nmfs.noaa.gov... go after him for shooting at the sea lion comes with a 20k fine and make it so hes not even deported until he pays it off .

www.law.cornell.edu...

www.shermancriminallawyer.com... this may be relevant too more so if he had drug offenses on his reccord



new topics




 
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join