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.

 

The Real Reason Kate Steinle's Killer Walked

page: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
you're saying all this only because you're a trumpster and would come up with mental theories to paint him a martyr.

in any other context, specifically if the perp was not an illegal and felon and a minority , i bet the verdict would have been viewed as rational and accurate..

that's the most outrageous piece of utter nonsense i have ever heard..
so the entire justice system, with every expert involved, all the oversight possibly by Trumps cabinet's various outlets monitoring the case, the jury, the prosecutors, the police department's forensic teams, etc. all decided to let the man walk just for operation 'get back at poor Trump'




posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Yeah, no.

He was charged with first degree murder, which requires premeditation. The prosecutor couldn't convince the jury of that charge, or the lesser murder in the second degree charge.

Had they charged him with manslaughter, we wouldn't even be having the conversation.

The prosecutor is stupid.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Jesus, you guys are getting nuttier.



And yet the claim of accidentally firing a weapon he wasn't legal to carry, you know, being a multi-offense felon, worked for him. Not unlike OJ and the glove.

At some point all common sense went out the window. This is probably the best explanation I've heard.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Funny I would call stealing a firearm premeditation.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: neo96


Yeah, no.

He was charged with first degree murder, which requires premeditation. The prosecutor couldn't convince the jury of that charge, or the lesser murder in the second degree charge.

Had they charged him with manslaughter, we wouldn't even be having the conversation.

The prosecutor is stupid.


The big questions here then would be:

Who was his attorney and what connections did he have?

Who was the prosecutor and what of his/her connections?

What, if any of those connections pertain to Trump?

I suspect that is how one could prove or disprove OP's claim.
edit on 1-12-2017 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


If he stole it, absolutely.

Too bad the prosecutor overreached and couldn't convince the jury of it.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
The defenses argument was simple:

He "found" the gun under a chair and -- in retrieving it -- accidentally discharged it. The jury believed that over what the prosecutor was selling. Jurists are funny like that.

In the end, it all came down to who was selling the best lemonade. Had the prosecutor charged the guy with manslaughter, none of that would have mattered. Prosecutorial overreach is a B like that.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Thorneblood

Soon as they know he is going to walk for something they get the book thrown at them for, that's it. Someone in there will do it. Someone who has nothing to lose. He has gotten lucky so far. Guys in there don't like a guy murdering a beautiful innocent girl and going free.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

I'm fairly certain that you are wrong about that.....beautiful, innocent women get murdered all the time with little retaliation.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Jesus, you guys are getting nuttier.



Defense Lawyer in Kate Steinle Murder Case Warns Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pence: You’re ‘Under Investigation’


Matt Gonzalez, a lawyer for defendant Jose Garcia Zarate, addressed reporters in the moments after verdict was read in the case of the murder of Kate Steinle.

After taking a moment to address Zarate being found “not guilty” of murder, Gonzalez launched into a warning for Trump, Pence, and Sessions:

"For those who might criticize this verdict, there are a number of people that have commented on this case in the last couple years, the Attorney General of the United States, the President and Vice President of the United States. Let me just remind them that they are themselves under investigation by a special prosecutor in Washington, DC and they may themselves soon avail themselves of the presumption of innocence and beyond a reasonable doubt standard. And so I would ask them to reflect on that before they comment or disparaged the result in this case."


The defense lawyer gave a public speech making the trial about Trump. It doesn't get much nuttier than that.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

Well, because Trump made it personal, the jury simply voted against Trump. All they needed to know was that Trump didn't like this one particular immigrant, and that he exploited this case for his own political gain and that it probably helped him land safely in the white house.


The deal is Trump wasn't wrong, but it was Trump and CA would let this scumbag walk in a "we will show him" in a show of force move. It is just crazy how far the left will go.

There is no good ending to this for either the family or CA...enjoy the repercussions. Not like they can afford the 10 million illegals already in CA, but hey I don't live there for a reason, so enjoy.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   
This was definately a liberal ruse of sorts the liberal bay area,are endlessly showing how ignorant they are to prove a point,why Calif is in such a mess,a few mess it up for others,no wonder liberals don't get invited to partys



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: neo96


Yeah, no.

He was charged with first degree murder, which requires premeditation. The prosecutor couldn't convince the jury of that charge, or the lesser murder in the second degree charge.

Had they charged him with manslaughter, we wouldn't even be having the conversation.

The prosecutor is stupid.


The big questions here then would be:

Who was his attorney and what connections did he have?

Who was the prosecutor and what of his/her connections?

What, if any of those connections pertain to Trump?

I suspect that is how one could prove or disprove OP's claim.


No, the big question is who was on the jury.
If it had any anti-Trump lunatics, as I suspect, then they just sided with a murderer and left Kate Steinle's family shattered - all so they could play politics.

American justice in California:
"You just shot someone in the face and have a long criminal record and are not even supposed to be in the country... what say you?"
"I didn't mean it and I accidentally stole the gun I used and it accidentally fired it at someone... but I hate Trump".
"OK, we believe you".
edit on 2/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   
When is America going to start dealing with all these traitors among us? They grow bolder and more confident in their treasonous actions and declarations every day, and it is tolerated. Why?

Of course he got away. Half the jury were probably illegals given amnesty with MS13 family members who murder people every day without blinking an eye.


Oh it was the prosecutions fault? So they were in on it too...
Just sever these cancerous cities from our Republic! Let them live out their utopian leftist fantasy and see how long it lasts before they're begging for help. But build a wall so they cannot infect our society with their poisonous ways... I'm sorry but, as a right winger, I care too much about All people, not just a select few elite chosen protected groups. I cannot stand by and allow these illegal alien criminals to oppress and steal the futures away from all the poor immigrants...the legal ones who are waiting in line and working hard to learn to speak a new language and learn our history and traditions.

I care too much about the poor immigrants to allow you Leftists to continue stomping on their hopes and dreams with such callous disregard, the same disregard their illegal beneficiaries show for American life and law! You guys are lucky IM not POTUS. My program would be "Deport an illegal, send a traitor with them. We will pay these nations a small fee to take our most dangerous criminals, as treason is the most dangerous crime, even worse than murder. What will they care? These folks likely won't survive long enough to cause any real headaches, and if they do, then they can have a great opportunity to learn how justice works in these nations. Their letters home to their family will be all we need to teach the rest of these ungrateful bums how fortunate they are to be here. It's a win win all around.
edit on 12/2/2017 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
The defenses argument was simple:

He "found" the gun under a chair and -- in retrieving it -- accidentally discharged it. The jury believed that over what the prosecutor was selling. Jurists are funny like that.

In the end, it all came down to who was selling the best lemonade. Had the prosecutor charged the guy with manslaughter, none of that would have mattered. Prosecutorial overreach is a B like that.


As a felon, he knew that he should not have touched or even been near that gun once he was made aware of it's presence. He could have reported it without touching it. There are many ways I could think of. He could keep an eye on it and holler at someone nearby to call dispatch and just wait there until authorities showed up. Or if he had a phone, and if he had any friends, family, or even just an acquaintance who ISN'T a convicted felon...ask them to come pick it up.


But, maybe the prosecution was not really trying? The jury could possibly have picked up on some



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

The San Fran Police Department had him in jail on a pot possession charge.

They let him go because he was an illegal and San Fran is a Sanctuary City.

They killed Kate Steinle.
edit on 2-12-2017 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimNasium
a reply to: ColdWisdom



So NOT the charging District Attorney reaching and trying to convict on 1st Degree Homicide?
See: California Penal Code section 187 P.C.- Homicide
192 P.C.- Manslaughter


Proud Member of LEAP-Law Enforcement Action Partnership (formerly known as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)



Everyone is blasting the Prosecutor for not going after a 1st Degree Murder charge. From my perspective as a retired attorney and judge, it would have been absolutely stupid to go after such a charge. There is no set of existing facts that would have supported a 1st Degree conviction. Go to trial on that charge and the defense would then successfully object to allowing the jury to consider any of the lesser included offenses such as 2nd degree or manslaughter, forcing the jury to make an "all or nothing choice" between an absolutely unsupportable !st degree verdict or outright acquittal. . It would be a slam dunk for the defense on a 1st degree charge, since there was no bomb or WMD used and the victim wasn't a cop, which is required under California's peculiar 1St Degree Murder statute. This is simply a case where a prosecutor failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not just an accident. Under California's peculiar Involuntary Manslaughter statute (PC 192), simple negligence alone is not enough to support an IM verdict.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

This is simply a case where a prosecutor failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not just an accident. Under California's peculiar Involuntary Manslaughter statute (PC 192), simple negligence alone is not enough to support an IM verdict.


But an admission of guilt to discharging a firearm into a woman who died as a result of her injuries would be felony manslaughter.

I know it's true guys! I heard it on NPR.





edit on 12/2/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/2/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom
Isn’t this OJ 2.0?



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

This is simply a case where a prosecutor failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not just an accident. Under California's peculiar Involuntary Manslaughter statute (PC 192), simple negligence alone is not enough to support an IM verdict.


But an admission of guilt to discharging a firearm into a woman who died as a result of her injuries would be felony manslaughter.

I know it's true guys! I heard it on NPR.






You haven't bothered to actually trad the California IM law, have you? Didn't think so/



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join