Kate Steinle killer found not guilty of murder

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Also..........
**ALL MEMBERS** The recent surge in Hatred, Racism, and Sheer Stupidity STOPS NOW
The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

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
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.

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

That is an excellent comparison!

The thought didn't even occur to us, even those that are outraged to the max at this total lack of justice.

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
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!

Would he have to be tried in California though?

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!

I don't think that's how the double jeopardy law works. You can't just charge him with different charges for the same crime. Once you're acquitted on whatever charges the chosen jurisdiction sought, they can't just re-rack em and try it again on different charges. And the question of whether to try him in state or federal court was worked out before the trial.

If ever I'd like to see a case re-tried, this would be it but that sets a very dangerous precedent. We have protection from that for a very good reason.

Can the Steinle family sue San Francisco?

originally posted by: queenofswords
Can the Steinle family sue San Francisco?

They already did. A liberal judge threw the case out.

The #ed up part is the same people who will defend this guy because "it was an accident" want lawful gun owners to do jail-time if their gun gets stolen.

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.

Yes, just read the Justice Department may prosecute.

That adds a new dimension to this...since I think corrupt state prosecutors totally threw this case on purpose.

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.

What?

First off, the jury isn't responsible for the charges, that would be the DA. Secondly, 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: 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?

Do you have a link to that comment? I don't see it.

What a great place to live.

If only we could all be shot by an illegal pos.

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?

I seldom agree with you on much but I'm 100% behind you here.

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.

Yeah a no-brainer but it's San Fran.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I agree with you there. Prosecutors bear the blame for this verdict, not the jury.

I didn't agree with the OJ verdict either, but it wasn't the jury's fault. Mark Fuhrman had no business participating in criminal investigations when he knew he had been recorded making highly racially discriminatory comments. Every investigation and prosecution involving a black defendant, that he participated in, was jeopardized because of that reckless disregard.

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?

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?

I believe Constitutional law is what's applicable here. Even though it was tried in California, everyone in the US is subject to the Constitution (even illegal immigrants, like it or not, that's already been adjudicated by the SCOTUS). The Constitution says you can't be tried twice for the same "offense". This has been interpreted through the years that as long as the charges were appropriate to the offense, you can't be retried under different charges because it's still the same offense. They would have to try to prove that the charges were inappropriate before they could get a new trial on new charges. I really don't see this getting retried. They might make an attempt but it'll get tied up in court for years and nothing will wind up happening.