The Real Reason Kate Steinle's Killer Walked

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?

The Sheriffs and the rest of the people in charge of releasing illegal felons back on the streets of their Sanctuary cities, need to start being arrested and put in federal prisons.

And stop the fed money going to these places.

The judge did not allow any of his background to be presented to the jury.

None of his convictions or deportations, etc.

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.

Yup, Nancy Pelosi's city.

Where is she on this? Hillary offer her 2 cents yet?

#boycottsanfran!

The red states should empty out their jails of illegals and drop them in cali, the sanctuary state.

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.

Don't forget it was San Fran let that dude off that killed the mayor and another guy, with the Twinkie Defence.

As good as the affluenza defence.

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.

Accident or not, it should have resulted in a murder conviction

The prosecutors office worked against itself. The verdict was clearly an FU to the Trump administration by the jury.

The people of California deserve any fallout that this fiasco creates.

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/

You haven't actually considered the possibility that I was being sarcastic, 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.

You are either simply misinformed or lying to promote an agenda. California is very specific about the felonies that will support a felony murder conviction. Felon in Possession is not one of them. They are listed in the California Penal Code and include only violent felonies like robbery, rape, arson, etc.

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).

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).

Hansen is clearly distinguishable. In Hansen, the defendant clearly confessed to intentionally aiming the gun at the residence. Steinle's killer denied aiming at anything. If the prosecutor wanted to torpedo the case, there were many earlier and easier ways to do it rather than take it all the way to a jury trial.