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.
originally posted by: 3daysgone
Do you think that San Fran will try to protect him now, or will they give him up to the federal government?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.
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.
originally posted by: F4guy
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/
originally posted by: 200Plus
California's Felony-Murder Rule doesn't require "malice".
All that is required is that a death happens during the commission of a felony.
A felon in possession of a firearm is a felony. A direct result of that possession was Steinle's death, the (supposed) negligent discharge.
originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: F4guy
People v. Hansen - Discharging a firearm at a dwelling is considered Murder 2. I fail to see how firing a weapon at a crowded pier is much different, especially when the firearm is in the hands of a felon at the time. However, it wasn't argued as such because a conviction wasn't fought for in this case.
If a prosecutor couldn't get a conviction in this case he needs to be filing paperwork for the rest of his/her career (or fetching coffee).