Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 171
Thanks Tree89Thanks

Thread: Alternate Juror on Steinle Murder Trial

  1. #31
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    33,312
    Thanks
    30711

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Precedent has been set?
    Precedent has been set by thousands of similar cases that preceded this one, but didn't inspire quite so much public interest because they didn't involve Mexican defendants.
    Thanks from Dr Sampson Simpson

  2. #32
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,830
    Thanks
    33541

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    In most places it is illegal. In all of CA it is.

    https://www.shouselaw.com/pc246-3.html
    Have you actually read that link? It's the same link on which I made my argument here. It directly contradicts your assertion.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Ian Jeffrey

  3. #33
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    65,342
    Thanks
    45951

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    he was shooting at a sea lion sea lions are protected in CA.. Marine Mammal Protection Act

    He was trying to kill a protected species,
    Whut?

  4. #34
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    65,342
    Thanks
    45951

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    And yet he did. Which means he would have had to put pressure on the trigger. You can't fire a gun by stepping on it.
    These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.

    There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.
    This is what the jury was told and that's all they can use to make their decision. They can only use the evidence as presented.
    Thanks from Friday13 and jacobfitcher

  5. #35
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,830
    Thanks
    33541

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    It should be. Any adult should be responsible when they pick up a gun. If I am speeding and run over a kid, I would most definitely be charged with manslaughter.
    Sorry, but that's a poor analogy. Speeding is an illegal act in itself. There's no defense that you were accidentally speeding because you are required to maintain control of your vehicle. You didn't pick up a car that wasn't yours and suddenly speed with it. The gun in question didn't belong to the defendant--he found it.

    Again, I'm not defending the decision that the discharge of the weapon was accidental--I didn't hear the evidence. But it is what juries do.
    Thanks from Friday13

  6. #36
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,830
    Thanks
    33541

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    Not yet, I imagine, but for future cases a silver tongued lawyer could pull the case for a defense.
    I don't see how. The decision here rests on a jury's interpretation of a particular set of testimony and evidence. The law hasn't changed here.

  7. #37
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,614
    Thanks
    11905

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    So it's your contention that anytime a weapon is discharged, it's intentional? That would seem to eliminate a lot of defenses against this charge.

    I don't know exactly what evidence the jury heard, but determining if his action was willful is certainly a decision the jury would make.
    Only when the person is a person of color or an illegal and someone can use it for political purposes

    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Precedent has been set by thousands of similar cases that preceded this one, but didn't inspire quite so much public interest because they didn't involve Mexican defendants.
    Yup
    Last edited by Dr Sampson Simpson; 6th December 2017 at 02:28 PM.
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #38
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    17,180
    Thanks
    9253

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Juries are SUPPOSED to make determinations that are subjective. They decide who is telling the truth and who is lying, for example. In this case, it appears that the jury did not believe that this person willfully discharged the firearm. I don't know, I wasn't there. I don't know what the jury heard to make them decide it wasn't intentional. But it is absolutely the sort of thing that a jury would decide, based on the testimony and other evidence in the case.

    I don't think that qualifies as a "technicality." It might be bad judgment on the part of 12 people, but I see no evidence that it's "political bullshit." It would be hard to find 12 jurors who all took the same, extreme, political viewpoint via a typical selection process.
    Everyone uses the defense.."I didn't know any better" or "I didn't mean it" IMO, when a person picks up a gun, which they said they found, picks it up, and kills someone...there should be consequences. Maybe in the future, no one will pick up a gun they know nothing about. I am assuming the gun was a Glock or Beretta, since it belonged to someone in law enforcement. With a semi auto, you still have to pull the trigger. I have a hard time believing that gun discharged by accident 3 times. The first time would startle someone big time...even if they are experienced. A jury is made up of human beings and even tho they go through a selection process, they still can manipulate their interview...just like they do when they don't want to sit on a jury.

  9. #39
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    65,342
    Thanks
    45951

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    Everyone uses the defense.."I didn't know any better" or "I didn't mean it" IMO, when a person picks up a gun, which they said they found, picks it up, and kills someone...there should be consequences. Maybe in the future, no one will pick up a gun they know nothing about. I am assuming the gun was a Glock or Beretta, since it belonged to someone in law enforcement. With a semi auto, you still have to pull the trigger. I have a hard time believing that gun discharged by accident 3 times. The first time would startle someone big time...even if they are experienced. A jury is made up of human beings and even tho they go through a selection process, they still can manipulate their interview...just like they do when they don't want to sit on a jury.
    See post #34.

  10. #40
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    17,180
    Thanks
    9253

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Sorry, but that's a poor analogy. Speeding is an illegal act in itself. There's no defense that you were accidentally speeding because you are required to maintain control of your vehicle. You didn't pick up a car that wasn't yours and suddenly speed with it. The gun in question didn't belong to the defendant--he found it.

    Again, I'm not defending the decision that the discharge of the weapon was accidental--I didn't hear the evidence. But it is what juries do.
    Even if a person was not speeding, you still are responsible for controlling your car. I believe this was a accident...most likely, BUT there should be consequences if a person dies or is disabled, accident or not. Would you pick up a gun that you knew nothing about or who it belonged or would you call the police and tell them you found a gun on the pier? Would you shoot at sea lions on a public pier?

Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Kate Steinle Murder and the Scum Sheriff
    By excalibur in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20th July 2015, 08:05 AM
  2. Why Is Obama Ignoring Murder Of Katie Steinle?
    By meridian5455 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 389
    Last Post: 16th July 2015, 07:58 AM
  3. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 21st February 2014, 06:49 AM
  4. Exclusive: Juror pushes for new laws following Zimmerman trial
    By Stefan Bandera in forum Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17th July 2013, 10:04 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed