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: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Hazardous1408
as I posted on the previous page, him being in possession of a firearm was a commission of a crime, a felony crime at that in the state of Cali. Therefore the accidental discharges of the two legal citizens applies, because they were not committing a felony crime by simply being in possession of a firearm as a felon, which this man was. When somebody dies during the commission of a felony, that is known as felony murder.
I noticed they did not go for felony murder, so he can still be tried for that if hypocrites in the California judicial system actually care about justice or something as double jeopardy would not apply as felony murder is a technical different charge.
originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: queenofswords
and here... lemme gin this conversation up a notch...
and no, throng of fools set out and rioted in the streets, destroying innocent shopkeepers stores, flipping over cars and beating up anyone that looked nominally like the excused assailant.
hmmm
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
So is there a way to like re-try this man under felony murder?? Could somebody please contact the family and let them know that justice could still be had if they try him with felony murder?? He would not be protected by Double Jeopardy because he was not originally charged with felony murder but 1st and 2nd degree and manslaughter. So I know that if somebody tries him for felony murder, California's own laws clearly state this man was committing a felony act when he killed the woman.
And then we sue the state for trying to play politics with justice!
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
So is there a way to like re-try this man under felony murder?? Could somebody please contact the family and let them know that justice could still be had if they try him with felony murder?? He would not be protected by Double Jeopardy because he was not originally charged with felony murder but 1st and 2nd degree and manslaughter. So I know that if somebody tries him for felony murder, California's own laws clearly state this man was committing a felony act when he killed the woman.
And then we sue the state for trying to play politics with justice!
originally posted by: queenofswords
Can the Steinle family sue San Francisco?
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Hazardous1408
as I posted on the previous page, him being in possession of a firearm was a commission of a crime, a felony crime at that in the state of Cali. Therefore the accidental discharges of the two legal citizens applies, because they were not committing a felony crime by simply being in possession of a firearm as a felon, which this man was. When somebody dies during the commission of a felony, that is known as felony murder.
I noticed they did not go for felony murder, so he can still be tried for that if hypocrites in the California judicial system actually care about justice or something as double jeopardy would not apply as felony murder is a technical different charge.
Yes, I heard the Feds can step in and prosecute if they want.
Maybe that's the next plan.
The courts literally ignored their own laws in this decision, and I hope that the members of that jury whos name are going to be public record are appropriately harassed for this derilection of duty.
originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: visitedbythem
So you as an immigrant can stay, but legal Mexicans need to go?
You did say on the first page that all Mexicans need to go. Implying legal or not.
I'm not trying to start an argument here. I am just asking why are Mexicans being singled out in this thread. Because this guy is from Mexico?
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: worldstarcountry
The courts literally ignored their own laws in this decision, and I hope that the members of that jury whos name are going to be public record are appropriately harassed for this derilection of duty.
the idea that jurors should be harassed because people are displeased with the verdict is beyond f'd up.
You think *that's* justice? An angry mob threatening jurors to deliver a verdict the mob wants or else?
originally posted by: face23785
I could see there not being enough evidence for a murder conviction, but for Christ's sake he admitted to firing the gun (in one of his 4 or 5 different stories he told throughout this). He said he was aiming at a seal. You still recklessly fired a gun in a public area and it resulted in someone's death. That's textbook involuntary manslaughter. That must have been the most gullible jury in history.
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Double Jeopardy in California Criminal Law
I'm calling it a night, but I will look it over tomorrow. But in the meantime, here is a video discussing it!
Everything I read and hear though refers to specific charges, not cases. So if he was not charged with felony murder, it sure sounds to me like DJ does not attach. However, again, we need legal experts to weigh in. Are there not legal experts on ATS?