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

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

You seem to be taking this all very personally and I’m not really sure why. I’m sorry that the gun manufacturer says there’s a specific way to absolutely ensure one doesn’t have a negligent discharge, and that you don’t seem to share their thoughts on it, but there’s no need to take it so personally.

Continually attacking my intelligence and experience, while it is probably making you feel better about yourself, doesn’t really do anything to bolster your point. The witness is, as I’ve already said, correct if one assumes the weapon is properly decocked. If it was not properly decocked, there’s no guarantee that the pin block is in place and that the hammer is in the intercept notch.

No amount of attacking my intelligence, experience, or telling me to carry a gun changes that.




posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
This was an open and shut case of Involuntary Manslaughter. The Prosecutor never charged him with that. He charged him with Murder. The Jury was not allowed to find him guilty of lesser charges. It was Murder or nothing. They knew that they could not get a guilty verdict for Murder.


This ^^^. As I recall, ballistics experts for both sides testified that the bullet ricocheted before striking Steinle. Therefore the gun was not aimed at Steinle, and no murder charge was ever going to stick. Ever. And the prosecutors full well knew that.

But I'm not sure a manslaughter charge would have stuck, because I don't think the prosecution proved that Zarate knew it was a gun he was handling, therefore no recklessness or carelessness is proven. I suppose that would be a judgment call on the part of the jury. They could decide that he was reckless in handling it at all simply because he did not know. If not a gun, it could have been dirty needles or used condoms or Heaven only knows what else.


With the political views out there the reasons are not hard to figure out.


It's pretty darn sad how many prosecutors put politics before the law -- and that goes both ways.
edit on 7-1-2018 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
...there’s no guarantee that the pin block is in place and that the hammer is in the intercept notch.


That's some fancy gun jargon you're using there. So you're basically saying that if the freedom dispenser is not decocked that a little bit of freedom can possibly escape from the device under certain circumstances?



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Thanks for being a class act, Shamrock


I know next to nothing about guns... so help me understand here. Are you basically saying that the safety feature will not function properly if it is not used properly? In other words, it's not strictly an automatic safety feature that does what it does no matter what the user does, but rather one that must be engaged or otherwise manually activated?

Or am I completely misunderstanding?



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Obviously what I meant is that the poor, hard-working immigrant was just walking by when the gun magically went off without being touched by anybody and that the universe must be conspiring against him.

Not.

Weird how when somebody sticks to what I said rather than making up what I must really mean, it’s not all that confusing



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Lol, you're a funny guy with a limited understanding of firearms.
The only way you get to make a SIG P 239 go bang involves pulling the trigger.
No other way.
Keep up your mental gymnastics trying to prove yourself correct, I am enjoying this.
Now tell me please, whats the difference between single action and double action?
Hahaa, this outta be good !
I await your response.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Close.

If one thumbs the hammer down (slightly depressing the trigger and holding the hammer with your thumb to lower it) then the pin block MAY be in place, and the hammer MAY rest in the intercept notch.

If one decocks the gun using the decocking lever, the pin block IS in place and the hammer IS in the intercept notch.

That’s not to say that improperly decocking it guarantees a negligent discharge. The safety features may still be in place. But that’s a “may,” whereas using the decocker turns that “may” into a “definitely are.”
edit on 7-1-2018 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Here's some information on California Involuntary Manslaughter Laws:

Homicide, Murder, Manslaughter Distinctions

Homicide during the commission of a felony often results in a murder charge rather than a manslaughter charge. When a killing occurred during the commission of a crime that is not a felony, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit the underlying unlawful act. If the defendant did not intend to engage in the crime that resulted in homicide, the state may be unable to prove involuntary manslaughter. The defendant may be able to establish a lack of intent by showing a reasonable mistake or lack of knowledge.

An involuntary manslaughter can also happen during lawful activities that occur recklessly, carelessly, or unreasonably. A prosecutor might prosecute a defendant for a homicide that occurred due to the defendant's careless behavior related to what would otherwise be a lawful activity. Example: Michael Jackson's doctor was charged with involuntary manslaughter after the singer's death. The state based its criminal charges on the doctor's prescription of sedative drugs taken by Michael Jackson. Prescribing drugs is generally a lawful activity. To prove involuntary manslaughter, the state only needs to show that the doctor acted recklessly or carelessly; the state does not need to prove that the doctor intended to kill.

Overview of California Involuntary Manslaughter Laws

The following chart provides an overview of the California involuntary manslaughter laws, defenses, and potential penalties resulting from a conviction:
Statute California Penal Code Sections 187-199
Defenses Self-defense
Accidental killing without reckless conduct
See Involuntary Manslaughter Defenses for more details.

Penalties and Sentences
California state laws include separate punishments for: voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and vehicular manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter generally leads to a felony conviction which may be punished by a term of imprisonment for two, three, or four years in county jail or state prison.

The state may consider the defendant's prior or current felony conviction record when determining the defendant's punishment.


If I'm reading this right, even if he had been convicted, the maximum sentence he could have received would have been four years, with two years time served.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

So no real rebuttal, just more of the same “my opinion matters more than the manufacturer’s own words” and trying to keep it personal.

Enjoy the wait



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Weird how when somebody sticks to what I said rather than making up what I must really mean, it’s not all that confusing


Obviously all that military and police academy training sorta made my hard spent tax money slightly more palatable to swallow.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

How firearms function is not opinion, sorry bruh.

Now tell me, say you have a P239. Whats the difference between single and double action operation?
I await your response.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Thank you... I still don't exactly understand except that apparently in certain conditions it may not function as intended.

That's enough for me. I won't ask you to explain again!



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Shamrock6

Thank you... I still don't exactly understand except that apparently in certain conditions it may not function as intended.

That's enough for me. I won't ask you to explain again!


Alls you need to know is that that firearm will not fire without having the trigger pulled in some way shape or form.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

You could likely find videos on YouTube that’ll put a picture to the words, that might help clear it up a little.

You’re welcome



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

My bank account thanks you.

That Mustang at 23% interest was a good investment, I promise!



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler


Alls you need to know is that that firearm will not fire without having the trigger pulled in some way shape or form.


Hmmm... maybe... maybe not. I'm old. And if there's anything I've learned it's to never say "never." And the Titanic was sinkable. Stuff happens. There's a good reason why we have words like "wrong" and "unexpected" and "outlier" in our vocabulary.

However, even if it's true that "that firearm will not fire without having the trigger pulled in some way shape of form," the defendant did admit to what the video showed, that he handled the gun but it was inside a bag or wrapped in a towel or something. So it's possible (even probable I'd say) that he did manually activate the trigger, but the pertinent question remains: Did he or should he have known that it was a gun he was handling? And did he knowingly or accidentally fire the weapon?

That was up to the prosecution to prove, and they obviously failed to do so, hence the jury's acquittal. Probably because they never wanted to and never intended to. Zarate was a martyr to them for their political cause. The jury may have decided differently if the involuntary manslaughter charge hadn't been tied in with the underlying felony charge. I don't know. But that was no doubt part of the prosecutions plan.

edit on 7-1-2018 by Boadicea because: changed "gun" to "bag," and "probably" to "probably"



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


It's interesting that you can drop fire the P320:




posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Different firearm.

Zero instances of a P239 behaving like this.

ZERO



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
Different firearm.


Is it? I didn't notice that when I said it was a P320. Maybe I should have said it was a P320 to help differentiate it from other firearms Stevearino.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Shamrock6


It's interesting that you can drop fire the P320:



That's a secret tactical feature that the SEALS had SIG put in. If you can't get a good shot on Bin Laden you just toss your pistol at him and it'll shoot him like an upper cut.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join