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

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And we’ll conveniently ignore that it was the defense that asked the judge to let jurors handle the gun, not the prosecution.

Can you provide proof of that?
Not saying you are wrong but from what I know, it was the jury that asked to handle the firearm.

ETA: This case stinks, and everyone knows it.
Defend all you want, the majority of rational minded people do not think Justice was served in any way shape or form.
If this had still been the Obama era, it would have been the end of it.
The Trump admin is not letting this go, and rightfully so.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

4-D chess, obviously.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
4-D chess, obviously.

Just like Mister Spork in Battlestar Galactica.

Maybe the judge was in on it afterall, 'Hey, dumb dumb, you dont want the jury handling that thing, it could blow your whole defense. Request denied!'

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I think I'm going with Shamrock6 on the gun issue here , since he's a Cop and ex-military his opinion is worth listening to. He also rightfully points out the prosecutor didn't do a great job in this case. God only knows why the jury made the decision it did, and I can tell you it was a HOTLY debated subject here in CA. , most people here are NOT in favor of letting murders go free just to screw Trump, in fact many of us "hippies" are supporting and praying for Trump.

I think you do a disservice to denying ignorance to imply that S.F. is some sort of "sanctuary" city that is easy on illegal immigrants, that's just not true. Zarate was arrested 5 times and deported, the scumbag was obviously on the cops radar. For all we know CA authority's have worked in conjunction with the Fed. Marshall's to insure this serial criminal faces more charges to keep him locked up this time !

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
God only knows why the jury made the decision it did, and I can tell you it was a HOTLY debated subject here in CA.

An alternate juror said the main reason was the first charge which was 'brandishing' and that they didn't see evidence of this which automatically voided the manslaughter charge. So, prosecutorial incompetence.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I think I'm going with Shamrock6 on the gun issue here , since he's a Cop and ex-military his opinion is worth listening to.

What part of the gun issue are you referring to that you are 'going with him'.

I don't really care who Shamrock is, he's trying to complicate the issue with stupid talk about decocking levers which have no bearing on this case.

It's really really simple.

There is no way to discharge a Sig P239 without pulling the trigger.

There is NO confusion over that.

The Jury should have got to handle the weapon to feel for themselves the force required to make it discharge.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
God only knows why the jury made the decision it did, and I can tell you it was a HOTLY debated subject here in CA.

An alternate juror said the main reason was the first charge which was 'brandishing' and that they didn't see evidence of this which automatically voided the manslaughter charge. So, prosecutorial incompetence.

Yeah, the "all or nothing" was a BIG Fail in this case. Prosecutor seemed to be incompetent, although I do wonder if he knew that Zarate was going to charged by the Federal Marshall's too ? ....RIP Kate Steinle , your death was mourned.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
Prosecutor seemed to be incompetent, although I do wonder if he knew that Zarate was going to charged by the Federal Marshall's too ? ....RIP Kate Steinle , your death was mourned.

I tend to think he didn't since it was so far down the road and the charges were originally filed in 2015.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

What exactly am I defending here? That justice was served somehow?

Right. That must be why I said way back on page 3 or 4 that the federal charges “is not justice served for the deceased nor her family.” Because obviously what I really meant is this is justice.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I think I'm going with Shamrock6 on the gun issue here , since he's a Cop and ex-military his opinion is worth listening to.

What part of the gun issue are you referring to that you are 'going with him'.

I don't really care who Shamrock is, he's trying to complicate the issue with stupid talk about decocking levers which have no bearing on this case.

It's really really simple.

There is no way to discharge a Sig P239 without pulling the trigger.

There is NO confusion over that.

The Jury should have got to handle the weapon to feel for themselves the force required to make it discharge.

I don't think he complicated the issue at all, he showed the manual that the jury likely saw too and showed you how reasonable doubt could be proven of how that gun might accidentally go off, REGARDLESS if whether he actually did pull the trigger the jury was convinced otherwise and he showed you a possible reason how they came to that conclusion.

It's horrible that poor girl died and to imply that CA "lib-tards" let him go is a false narrative. They may not always automatically deport illegal immigrants in CA, and that's another issue, but they absolutely arrest, jail and fine them if they don't follow the laws. Zarate is a scumbag, probably a murderer and he's going back to jail on Federal charges so why all the hating on CA in general, we don't all live if LaLa Land !

a reply to: MountainLaurel

he showed the manual that the jury likely saw too and showed you how reasonable doubt could be proven of how that gun might accidentally go off, REGARDLESS if whether he actually did pull the trigger

Says nothing of the sort in the manual.
I cannot believe how such a simple concept as having to pull the trigger to make the gun go bang can become so complicated to some people.

Play with the decocking lever all day long. Nothing gonna come of it.
Throw the gun against a brick wall, not gonna go off.
Do whatever you want to a Sig P239, it will not go off unless you pull the trigger.
You can't show me anything in that manual that shows me that other than pulling the trigger will make the gun go off.

You know what a decocking lever even is? It lowers the hammer, big deal, why is anyone talking about a decocking lever?
A decocking lever cannot make the gun go bang.
ONE MORE TIME>

ONLY TRIGGER MAKE GUN GO BANG. PERIOD.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: MountainLaurel

he showed the manual that the jury likely saw too and showed you how reasonable doubt could be proven of how that gun might accidentally go off, REGARDLESS if whether he actually did pull the trigger

Says nothing of the sort in the manual.
I cannot believe how such a simple concept as having to pull the trigger to make the gun go bang can become so complicated to some people.

Play with the decocking lever all day long. Nothing gonna come of it.
Throw the gun against a brick wall, not gonna go off.
Do whatever you want to a Sig P239, it will not go off unless you pull the trigger.
You can't show me anything in that manual that shows me that other than pulling the trigger will make the gun go off.

You know what a decocking lever even is? It lowers the hammer, big deal, why is anyone talking about a decocking lever?
A decocking lever cannot make the gun go bang.
ONE MORE TIME>

ONLY TRIGGER MAKE GUN GO BANG. PERIOD.

I'm not going to argue with you, MAYBE you're are even right, IDK ? The average person ( people on the jury ) are not gun experts, we hear about guns accidentally going off all the time, that's why you're supposed to keep them safely locked up and away from small children. The prosecutor did a terrible job, the jury decided on probably limited understanding of guns and you're right it Stinks !

I'm trying to explain to you that CA is generally pretty tough on gun laws whether you're an illegal or not, this case was an anomaly that had many people in CA very upset.

a reply to: MountainLaurel

we hear about guns accidentally going off all the time

Really?

How do guns 'accidently' go off?

Do you have any examples other than the drop test of the SIG P320?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Man you are dense. It doesn't matter if they can or can't accidentally go off. What mattered in this case is that the jury may have been made to believe that they could, even a P239.

What you "know" has no bearing in the case. You were not there to share your vast knowledge on the matter.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

sorry going to cuss WTF HE HAD GUN IN HIS DAMN HAND HOW COULD YOU NOT HAVE EVIDENCE HE WAS BRANDISHING IT ? SMMFH.

a reply to: proteus33

bran·dish, verb: wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

So, no, it isn't just holding.

a reply to: proteus33

the whole cocking decocking stuff doesn't matter what truly matters is HE CHOSE TO PICK UP THE GUN WHEN LEGALLY HE WAS NOT ALLOWED. if he like he said found gun i am no expert but i am pretty sure if he left it be gun would not have discharged. if i personally found a firearm in public i would call cops and report it. i definitely would not pick it up and put my fingerprints on a potential murder weapon.

a reply to: daskakik

sorry but in every town i have lived if you have a firearm in your hand in pubic it is considered brandishing a weapon. i know this because buddy was charged with this when he showed us his new revolver in parking lot of department store we worked at in 93. store security guards regular job was as sheriff deputy he saw the gun and arrested my buddy.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: proteus33

the whole cocking decocking stuff doesn't matter what truly matters is HE CHOSE TO PICK UP THE GUN WHEN LEGALLY HE WAS NOT ALLOWED. if he like he said found gun i am no expert but i am pretty sure if he left it be gun would not have discharged. if i personally found a firearm in public i would call cops and report it. i definitely would not pick it up and put my fingerprints on a potential murder weapon.

I think most people would agree with you, he was up to No Good to even pick up a gun, especially a cop's gun that didn't belong to him, that's why so many people were upset by how the whole case was handled and the incompetence of the prosecutor. I'm saying I don't think this had anything to do with libs trying to screw Trump as the OP implies.

a reply to: proteus33

In order to prove that you brandished a weapon under Penal Code 417 PC, the prosecutor must prove the following facts (otherwise known as “elements” of the crime): that you drew or exhibited a deadly weapon or firearm in the presence of another person, that either you did so in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or you did so unlawfully in a fight or quarrel, and that you were not acting in self-defense or in the defense of another person at the time.2 Let's take a closer look at some of these terms to gain a better understanding of their meanings.

Sorry, but it seems your towns have some draconian laws on the books. The California Penal Code specifies that you, apparently, have to not only draw the weapon but do so in a rude, angry, or threatening manner.

I don't think picking it up would qualify as drawing the weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner.