Kate Steinle killer Zarate will be taken into custody by federal authorities on two new charges

a reply to: daskakik

There is no supporting evidence to say the P239 has any issues whatsoever with it's firing pin block setup.

Perhaps he accidentally stole the gun from a car, pointed it at a person, put his finger on the trigger, and pulled back.

Next thing you're going to tell me is that he accidentally entered the country illegally.

This is the point I'm shocked the Prosecutors didn't argue and it's likely because they're liberals from SF so they've never handled a gun. That model has 4 internal safeties, you could throw it, shake it, run it over, whatever and that thing will not fire unless the trigger is pulled.

Which means it's physically impossible for it to just randomly "go off"

Maybe it identifies as a sig 320.

The prosecutors threw the case. They need to be investigated by the DOJ, removed from office, and disbarred from practicing law ever again.

That gun absolutely will not fire unless someone pulls the trigger.

I picked up a gun and it shot itself.

Lamest defense ever. Who couldn't use this in a trial?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

That is what I said, only circumstantial.

Who cares? The guy stood trial and was let off. Nothing is 100%.

a reply to: daskakik

Who cares? The guy stood trial and was let off.

I care.
And many others like me care.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

So?

a reply to: daskakik

Justice will be served, this murdering illegal alien isn't getting away with it this time.

No more Obama admin to coddle and pander to illegals.

New sherrif in town.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Not really, justice will not be served.

He might get time for other crimes but not for the death of Steinle.

That ship has come and gone and it wasn't Obama's or Trump's call.

a reply to: Gothmog

Boy, you and the OP sure like to do the whole “so are you really saying...” routine, eh?

Another member claimed that its impossible for the weapon to have had an negligent discharge. Rebutting that claim is not any more off topic than the claim itself.

As for what you think you’re reading? Given that you seem to be reading far beyond what I’ve actually said, I’m not surprised at all that you’ve come up with something to suit your own narrative.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Where did I say that’s my theory?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I’m gonna go with what Sig puts in their own manuals about their own firearms over your opinion.

And yes, I know that’s what he testified. And he’s absolutely correct, assuming the firearm was properly decocked.

a reply to: Hewhowaits

I do know, yes.

And I know the decocking lever always works. Which is why Sig says to always use it.

And that’s why my initial comment on the matter revolves around whether it was properly done or not.

Do try and keep up

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gothmog

Boy, you and the OP sure like to do the whole “so are you really saying...” routine, eh?

Another member claimed that its impossible for the weapon to have had an negligent discharge. Rebutting that claim is not any more off topic than the claim itself.

As for what you think you’re reading? Given that you seem to be reading far beyond what I’ve actually said, I’m not surprised at all that you’ve come up with something to suit your own narrative.

No , we just know what we read in your posts. Evidently someone else doesn't

It ends now...

a reply to: Gothmog

What ends now...?

ETA: Guess it was the thread.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Gothmog

What ends now...?

ETA: Guess it was the thread.

How about the frivolity of off-topic posts?
Be my guess
Now , run along....

a reply to: Gothmog

Right on! The guy was acquitted and will now be handed over to the feds on two new charges.

What else is there to say?

a reply to: Shamrock6

You are not comprehending what the Sig manual says.

That gun CANNOT fire unless the trigger is pulled.

The accidental discharge they are talking about is if you are pulling the trigger and letting the hammer down with your thumb. Thumb slips and kaboom.

That is called a negligent discharge and I did it ONCE with a open hammer shotgun when I was 14 years old. But you know what? Nothing came of it cause i followed a rather common sense rule of controlling muzzle direction.

The Mex pulled the trigger, no ifs ands or buts.

You think you are a firearm expert because you read the manual? haha, you are a joke.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I thought the important part of the warning was:

Manually lowering the hammer is dangerous and prevents full application of the pistol’s safety features.

Which means "might not work as advertised". In the end it doesn't matter. He was acquitted.

a reply to: daskakik

Fun fact for the firearm challenged...

Manually lowering the hammer involves pulling the trigger.

Do you get it now?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Nobody said it didn't.

I'm pointing out that the warning says that manually lowering the hammer (by pulling the trigger and lowering it with the thumb) might not engage all the guns safety features which means that if you manually lower the hammer and then drop it, it might go off.

None of that matters because even if he aimed to kill and pulled the trigger while yelling obscenities at the poor girl, he was acquitted.

a reply to: daskakik

Funny how it works that way eh?

You pull the trigger like the Mex did and the gun goes bang?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

You are missing the point. The warning says that if you lower the hammer manually all the safeties might not engage which might leave a gun that isn't going to work as expected.

That is why the warning is there. Nobody needs to be told that if the hammer slips while trying to manually lower it that it will fire.