Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 171
Thanks Tree89Thanks

Thread: Alternate Juror on Steinle Murder Trial

  1. #51
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,830
    Thanks
    33541

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Considering he was a felon in possession of a fire arm (a crime) while in the act that caused Steinle's death then I don't see how it can't be manslaughter.
    Whether someone is a felon or not isn't a part of the elements of the crime of manslaughter.
    So basically this juror defeats their own argument with a comical attempt at logic by describing this isn't manslaughter because exactly what happened supposedly didn't happen.
    Our system empowers juries to decide what happened.

    So this jury either ignored the law to make a political statement or they are weak-minded fools who allowed the defense attorney to manipulate them. Neither possibility is a good one.
    Looks like you didn't read the OP. Nothing you've said here responds to it.
    Thanks from DebateDrone

  2. #52
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    17,180
    Thanks
    9253

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    So what change would you make to the law in order to bring about the legal situation you prefer? Make it illegal to pick up a gun you find? Make anyone who takes any action, intentional or not, legally responsible for whatever happens as a result of that action? I see some serious problems with either of those possible laws. The law makes us responsible for things that we intend to do and for the reasonably foreseeable results of our actions.

    The jury, for whatever reason, unanimously agreed that he didn't intend to fire the weapon. I can't say why, but determining the intentions of defendants is what juries do. I think George Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon Martin against the advice of police and emboldened by his possession of a firearm, and thus Zimmerman created the situation in which Martin attacked him, which I see as a reasonable response...but the jury disagreed with me. It happens.
    The law would be simple, if you discharge a gun in a public place, accident or not, you are accountable for your actions. Actually, the Zimmerman case was the start of just how idiotic our justice system has become. Too many are getting a pass on this. Check out this article....the parents were not charged and they lost a child to a gun accident. After this case, I am done with wringing my hands in angst when a mass shooting occurs or any other gun crime...our legal system has caused this problem. Buy a bullet proof vest to wear in public because 10 years from now, it will not be safe to walk the streets and we are helpless for any change to occur.


    Family says three-year-old boy found gun in glove box & shot himself in the head | FOX6Now.com

  3. #53
    New Member Mister B's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    686
    Thanks
    482

    From
    DS9
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Just as I suspected, the jury followed the law and got the verdict right. The prosecution tried to overreach.





    https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...t-botch-216016
    Of course they did. But in Trump's America there's no rule of law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    So wait...it's legal to fire a gun in San Francisco city limits?


    https://www.shouselaw.com/pc246-3.html

  4. #54
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    22,900
    Thanks
    3798

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Whether someone is a felon or not isn't a part of the elements of the crime of manslaughter. Our system empowers juries to decide what happened.
    Try reading my comment several times before responding.

    Because what I actually said is that he was a felon in possession of a fire arm - which is a crime - and this crime was occurring while the death took place. And our system also empowers me to have free speech and to criticize what was a stupid decision. So I'm not sure what your point is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Looks like you didn't read the OP. Nothing you've said here responds to it.
    Nah, looks like you didn't read my comment as nothing you've said here really addresses it.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 6th December 2017 at 09:26 PM.

  5. #55
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,830
    Thanks
    33541

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    It is a perfect analogy.
    I've already said...twice...why I think it's a poor analogy. You can either respond to my reasoning or not, but just making the assertion proves nothing.
    Say it was your car and you killed a kid...you are looking at involuntary manslaughter, no matter how much you cry in court. Guns always gets a pass.
    I don't know what this means.
    As far as being an illegal, he knew that as well and had been deported. This would be a weak defense, IMO.
    It's not a defense. It does explain his behavior, and the "reasonable person" standard still applies. A reasonable person who was an illegal alien wouldn't want to call the police.
    I have a little experience with guns and own a 9mm, and picking up a gun, where you do not know if a bullet is in the chamber...it is dangerous, especially if it has a soft trigger.
    All of which is information not available to everyone, so it's a poor basis for law.
    From where I stand, I just want to be able to walk around without the fear of getting shot.
    Me too. I'm very uncomfortable with the proliferation of guns and the lax ways in which we enforce gun laws.
    ..this is not acceptable to me at all, especially if justice was not served. This case has made the national news, everyone knows about it...and everyone knows that he basically walked on a manslaughter charge for whatever reason. It does not send a good message.
    Juries make decisions based on what happens in the courtroom. I'm glad of this, since I might be an innocent defendant one day. Can we even count the number of times we don't like a high-profile jury's decision?

  6. #56
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,666
    Thanks
    26738

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    The shooter fired a weapon on a populate walkway.

    .
    Is there different ordinances for where a firearm is fired

  7. #57
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    14,645
    Thanks
    11625

    From
    Houston, Texas
    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,
    If Zarate had admitted that he was trying to kill a sea lion and had succeeded he would indeed be in trouble. Just like if he had admitted that he was trying to kill Kate Steinle he would have been convicted of murder.

  8. #58
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    33,312
    Thanks
    30711

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly5 View Post
    If Zarate had admitted that he was trying to kill a sea lion and had succeeded he would indeed be in trouble. Just like if he had admitted that he was trying to kill Kate Steinle he would have been convicted of murder.
    Has he admitted to being Mexican?

  9. #59
    The Republican Agenda HadEnough2's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    13,523
    Thanks
    9766

    From
    Washington State
    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,
    You mean like Trump's Boys.
    Thanks from Dragonfly5 and Babba

  10. #60
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,830
    Thanks
    33541

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    The law would be simple, if you discharge a gun in a public place, accident or not, you are accountable for your actions.
    First, I'm not sure "accountable for your actions" is the kind of language that makes for good laws. It's too vague. And that kind of creates problems for the "good guy with the gun," right? Do you exempt someone who is preventing a crime? How about if they fire in self-defense? Do you think it's a good idea for people who find a gun in a public place to simply walk away, allowing it to be found by a child or a criminal or allowing any number of other problems to occur. You might discover that you've created a more dangerous situation than already existed. And I'm not sure you could hold someone criminally liable for a situation that doesn't arise from their own intentions--I think you'd find that leads to even greater injustice (and it might be unconstitutional).

    Actually, the Zimmerman case was the start of just how idiotic our justice system has become. Too many are getting a pass on this. Check out this article....the parents were not charged and they lost a child to a gun accident. After this case, I am done with wringing my hands in angst when a mass shooting occurs or any other gun crime...our legal system has caused this problem.
    That story is a terrible tragedy. I think people who own weapons should be legally responsible for keeping them locked away where a child can't find them. Own a gun? Buy a gun safe, especially if there are children in the house. When I was a boy, a distant relative (sister's brother-in-law) just a few years older than I was killed when he and a friend were playing with his father's gun. That was 45 years ago now. This sort of thing has been happening since the invention of firearms--it isn't the result of the law.

    But widening criminal liability to accidents isn't the way to prevent accidents. Accidents will happen anyway--they don't care about the law. Are nurses criminally liable for hospital events that are declared to be accidents? Heaven forbid!

    Buy a bullet proof vest to wear in public because 10 years from now, it will not be safe to walk the streets and we are helpless for any change to occur.
    No law will prevent accidents. I'm concerned about this scenario for other reasons. I'm worried that one day no one will feel safe unless they OWN a gun and carry it on their person at all times. That's what the Travon Martin case means to me.
    Thanks from Babba and Ian Jeffrey

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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