Airliners.net

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42190455

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/30/k ... s-verdict/



This jury just handed Trump an early Christmas present. RIP DACA.

My FB posting from a few hours ago... There was no voluntary manslaughter charge. Prosecutors had murder one, murder two, and involuntary manslaughter. The fact that a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally killed an innocent woman could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter is an absolute travesty of justice.

Jetsgo wrote:

My FB posting from a few hours ago... There was no voluntary manslaughter charge. Prosecutors had murder one, murder two, and involuntary manslaughter. The fact that a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally killed an innocent woman could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter is an absolute travesty of justice.

It was a San Francisco jury...

The article I read said the guy had already been deported five times, which begs another huge question like how was he getting back in the country the third, fourth, fifth times...

Airstud wrote:

Jetsgo wrote:

My FB posting from a few hours ago... There was no voluntary manslaughter charge. Prosecutors had murder one, murder two, and involuntary manslaughter. The fact that a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally killed an innocent woman could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter is an absolute travesty of justice.

It was a San Francisco jury...

.... and that makes it a less impartial jury how?

Oh, yeah.... we are in the world where the jury system is awesome when it acquits cops or George Zimmerman, but never ever when it does a drug dealing, raping Mexican.

best regards
Thomas

George Zimmerman never saw a jury. For Stand Your Ground, it is a judge that rules.

I agree with the SF jury comment for a couple of reasons. One was because the analysis that LA juries are too full of engineering types that need real concrete proof of something happening, otherwise they have reasonable doubts. For SF, the IT types (and I am one but not the Silicon Valley type) would have that same burden of proof. Not to say they are all engineers, but the engineers can take over a discussion. Arguing with a nerd who is sure they know something that you don't know can be frustrating.

For all the engineering background, the big city environment can also lead to a lack of knowledge of guns. An urban jury might believe that a gun just goes off when you drop it, or sneeze near it. This defended had a few alternatives of what caused the gun to fire, none of which were him pulling the trigger. On a normal gun the first shot requires the trigger pull to move the hammer back before it fires, which is something that takes some effort to do. I am not saying it takes loads of strength, but instead that you can't make that motion by accident.

Given the political climate up north, the jury may have wanted to believe guns fire themselves without human intervention.

Beardown91737 wrote:

One was because the analysis that LA juries are too full of engineering types that need real concrete proof of something happening, otherwise they have reasonable doubts

Which is reasonable and if more Juries where competent like that, you would probably not have murdered so many innocent people in your prisons.

The assumption is also nonsense at its best, Engineers, like pretty much all scientists, understand probabilities and life in a world where absolute proof doesn´t exist. Prosecutors also know how to weed out people that understand what "evidence" really is or how unreliable eye witnesses are.
There is a nice interview piece from Neil deGrasse Tyson how he got out of Jury duty by simply pointing out what evidence is.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

One was because the analysis that LA juries are too full of engineering types that need real concrete proof of something happening, otherwise they have reasonable doubts

Which is reasonable and if more Juries where competent like that, you would probably not have murdered so many innocent people in your prisons.

The assumption is also nonsense at its best, Engineers, like pretty much all scientists, understand probabilities and life in a world where absolute proof doesn´t exist. Prosecutors also know how to weed out people that understand what "evidence" really is or how unreliable eye witnesses are.
There is a nice interview piece from Neil deGrasse Tyson how he got out of Jury duty by simply pointing out what evidence is.

Best regards
Thomas

I got out of jury duty (drug dealing) by informing the judge that I was biased against all drug dealers for selling my kids marijuana. I'd have voted to fry the perp.

BobPatterson wrote:

drug dealers for selling my kids marijuana. I'd have voted to fry the perp.

I "hope" they where minors at the time or to see burn down liqueur and tabacco stores as well ......

On the topic, if you injure or kill someone outside of a clear and present danger to life or health of yourself of people around you should have consequences, but looking at California Penal Code Sections 187ff, i wouldn´t be surprised there where simply enough people on the jury that don´t think firing a gun is reckless, unless you point it at someone, and that would make it an accidental death, if the lethal injury was caused by a ricocheting shot.
Seems to be one of those cases where a ruling is correct from a technical legal viewpoint, but not by gut feeling.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

Jetsgo wrote:

My FB posting from a few hours ago... There was no voluntary manslaughter charge. Prosecutors had murder one, murder two, and involuntary manslaughter. The fact that a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally killed an innocent woman could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter is an absolute travesty of justice.

It was a San Francisco jury...

.... and that makes it a less impartial jury how?

Oh, yeah.... we are in the world where the jury system is awesome when it acquits cops or George Zimmerman, but never ever when it does a drug dealing, raping Mexican.

best regards
Thomas

When in the hell did I ever say that Zimmerman's acquittal was "awesome?"

Airstud wrote:

When in the hell did I ever say that Zimmerman's acquittal was "awesome?"

where did i say you did?

best regards
Thomas

alberchico wrote:

This jury just handed Trump an early Christmas present. RIP DACA.

I think that has long been a foregone conclusion. Trump hates anything Obama has done and immigrants, legal or illegal, so DACA has always been on death row.

Beardown91737 wrote:

For SF, the IT types (and I am one but not the Silicon Valley type) would have that same burden of proof. Not to say they are all engineers, but the engineers can take over a discussion. Arguing with a nerd who is sure they know something that you don't know can be frustrating

You know for a fact that the jury was composed of IT types?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that he urged "the leaders of the nation's communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers".

So what are they saying here? Would they like to have no functioning courts? It is okay for the executive branch to condemn people and no trail is needed?

Dutchy wrote:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that he urged "the leaders of the nation's communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers".

So what are they saying here? Would they like to have no functioning courts? It is okay for the executive branch to condemn people and no trail is needed?

Not "condemn people." It has always been the function of the executive branch to implement the laws authored by Congress.

Jetsgo wrote:

The fact that a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally killed an innocent woman could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter is an absolute travesty of justice.

Were you in court for the whole trial and heard all the evidence and legal arguments?

Airstud wrote:

It was a San Francisco jury...

And?

Airstud wrote:

The article I read said the guy had already been deported five times, which begs another huge question like how was he getting back in the country the third, fourth, fifth times...

I really don't understand why America doesn't build a huge, beautiful wall, the best wall, to keep all the Mexicans out. Here's an idea - you could get Mexico to pay for it!

Airstud wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that he urged "the leaders of the nation's communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers".

So what are they saying here? Would they like to have no functioning courts? It is okay for the executive branch to condemn people and no trail is needed?

Not "condemn people." It has always been the function of the executive branch to implement the laws authored by Congress.

Yes, but not to judge in individual cases and thus invalidating the courts like they do here. They say they do not accept the court's decision, just because they don't like it and that is quite dangerous for a democracy and the rule of law.

scbriml wrote:

Jetsgo wrote:

The fact that a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally killed an innocent woman could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter is an absolute travesty of justice.

Were you in court for the whole trial and heard all the evidence and legal arguments?

Airstud wrote:

It was a San Francisco jury...

And?

Airstud wrote:

The article I read said the guy had already been deported five times, which begs another huge question like how was he getting back in the country the third, fourth, fifth times...

I really don't understand why America doesn't build a huge, beautiful wall, the best wall, to keep all the Mexicans out. Here's an idea - you could get Mexico to pay for it!

Trump's wall isn't going to fix anything. Most of the people here illegally are overstaying their visas; illegal border crossings happen just as often via tunneling or fatal, or by being smuggled masked as cargo such as in that unventilated truck they found in San Antonio. And in any case the aim isn't to "keep Mexicans out" it's to enforce existing immigration laws.

How many innocents were killed by natives using legal weapons since Trumps tweat? 20? 30?

Some blond beauties too. (Because that is really important these days)

How much longer are you going to give this guy ? He's ripping your country apart.

Remove & elect a decent, uniting, respected one.

Airstud wrote:

Trump's wall isn't going to fix anything. .

or rather nothing.... funding Border Patrol enough to have always two people on patrol would probably accomplish much more, the idea of having law enforcement officers work alone is a silly non-starter in any case if you ask me, but the way things are, one bad apple can pretty much undo any wall-ish scheme with easy.

best regards
Thomas

keesje wrote:

How many innocents were killed by natives using legal weapons since Trumps tweat? 20? 30?

twenty or thirty gunshot victims takes a couple of hours on average and it would be an extremely good day if just that many get shot dead in 24 hours.

best regards
Thomas

The tried person could face up to 20 years in CA for a previous conviction for dealing in pot. If he ends up there I wouldn't be surprised if some of he jailhouse White Supremacists kill him. I also wonder if Pres. Trump will demand his AG call for a Federal trial in California, but in a conservative district 'due to the publicity' of it on grounds of civil rights violations. For sure there was a massive failure to keep this guy from entering the USA illegally several times, but the INS is overwhelmed with their job and facing political pressures from across the political spectrum in how they do it means every illegal arrested cannot be taken in by the INS.

tommy1808 wrote:

keesje wrote:

How many innocents were killed by natives using legal weapons since Trumps tweat? 20? 30?

twenty or thirty gunshot victims takes a couple of hours on average and it would be an extremely good day if just that many get shot dead in 24 hours.

best regards
Thomas

I wouldn’t be surprised if more people are killed accidentally by guns than by illegal immigrants.

tommy1808 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

Jetsgo wrote:

My FB posting from a few hours ago... There was no voluntary manslaughter charge. Prosecutors had murder one, murder two, and involuntary manslaughter. The fact that a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally killed an innocent woman could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter is an absolute travesty of justice.

It was a San Francisco jury...

.... and that makes it a less impartial jury how?

Oh, yeah.... we are in the world where the jury system is awesome when it acquits cops or George Zimmerman, but never ever when it does a drug dealing, raping Mexican.

best regards
Thomas

He means that San Francisco you know the city that keeps electing Nancy Pelosi to office is often sympathetic to defendants. How this could not be at least involuntary manslaughter is beyond me but really the death of this woman falls at the feet of San Francisco and their sanctuary city policies. This guy was a felon deported 5 previous times keeps getting back in so ICE puts a detainer on him and the SF law enforcement kick him loose again. If the city had done it's job that guy would not have been on that pier and this woman would be alive today. So again the Steinle family is the loser here. So what happens now is he has already served 2 years they will probably sentence him to time already served and deport him (OH AND HE WILL BE BACK) if history serves. I hope they (Steinle) sue the hell out of anyone and everyone they can and take them all to the cleaners. I also hope that Trump gets to congress ASAP to get them to stop the funds to any city that supports sanctuary laws in violation of Federal law. I think this is personal loss for the Steinle family but I hope this keeps the fuel on the fire of illegal immigration issue. Watch out dreamers this may drop the hammer on you all next.

stratosphere wrote:

How this could not be at least involuntary manslaughter is beyond me

because shooting a gun apparently isn´t reckless. If involuntary manslaughter requires the action to be reckless, it just doesn´t fit the bill.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

but not by gut feeling.

Which highlights the value of the average redneck's "gut feelings". Zero.

Does changing the immigration status of a known criminal change anything about him being a criminal?

Airstud wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Jetsgo wrote:

The fact that a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally killed an innocent woman could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter is an absolute travesty of justice.

Were you in court for the whole trial and heard all the evidence and legal arguments?

Airstud wrote:

It was a San Francisco jury...

And?

Airstud wrote:

The article I read said the guy had already been deported five times, which begs another huge question like how was he getting back in the country the third, fourth, fifth times...

I really don't understand why America doesn't build a huge, beautiful wall, the best wall, to keep all the Mexicans out. Here's an idea - you could get Mexico to pay for it!

Trump's wall isn't going to fix anything. Most of the people here illegally are overstaying their visas; illegal border crossings happen just as often via tunneling or fatal, or by being smuggled masked as cargo such as in that unventilated truck they found in San Antonio. And in any case the aim isn't to "keep Mexicans out" it's to enforce existing immigration laws.

Actually I would like to see a wall around California and a separate wall within a wall around San Francisco. I swear the land of fruit and nuts and felons. So sorry Kate maybe you will get justice eventually but not there. Hope her parents are smart enough to move the hell out of that liberal wasteland.

stratosphere wrote:

Airstud wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Were you in court for the whole trial and heard all the evidence and legal arguments?



And?



I really don't understand why America doesn't build a huge, beautiful wall, the best wall, to keep all the Mexicans out. Here's an idea - you could get Mexico to pay for it!

Trump's wall isn't going to fix anything. Most of the people here illegally are overstaying their visas; illegal border crossings happen just as often via tunneling or fatal, or by being smuggled masked as cargo such as in that unventilated truck they found in San Antonio. And in any case the aim isn't to "keep Mexicans out" it's to enforce existing immigration laws.

Actually I would like to see a wall around California and a separate wall within a wall around San Francisco. I swear the land of fruit and nuts and felons. So sorry Kate maybe you will get justice eventually but not there. Hope her parents are smart enough to move the hell out of that liberal wasteland.

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/07/wh ... -or-texas/



Best regards
Thomas

stratosphere wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

It was a San Francisco jury...

.... and that makes it a less impartial jury how?

Oh, yeah.... we are in the world where the jury system is awesome when it acquits cops or George Zimmerman, but never ever when it does a drug dealing, raping Mexican.

best regards
Thomas

He means that San Francisco you know the city that keeps electing Nancy Pelosi to office is often sympathetic to defendants. How this could not be at least involuntary manslaughter is beyond me but really the death of this woman falls at the feet of San Francisco and their sanctuary city policies. This guy was a felon deported 5 previous times keeps getting back in so ICE puts a detainer on him and the SF law enforcement kick him loose again. If the city had done it's job that guy would not have been on that pier and this woman would be alive today. So again the Steinle family is the loser here. So what happens now is he has already served 2 years they will probably sentence him to time already served and deport him (OH AND HE WILL BE BACK) if history serves. I hope they (Steinle) sue the hell out of anyone and everyone they can and take them all to the cleaners. I also hope that Trump gets to congress ASAP to get them to stop the funds to any city that supports sanctuary laws in violation of Federal law. I think this is personal loss for the Steinle family but I hope this keeps the fuel on the fire of illegal immigration issue. Watch out dreamers this may drop the hammer on you all next.

What do you mean "watch out dreamers?" You mean the ones currently protected by DACA? DACA protection was never available to individuals with felony convictions (or more than two misdemeanors).

WIederling wrote:

Does changing the immigration status of a known criminal change anything about him being a criminal?

Another interesting bit:

Accidental death by gun is probably the most shrugged off termination of life in the US.
( only $gook/$raghead/.. killed abroad by the US military creates even less compassion.)

But put the gun in a latino hand and voila : it is the skies falling ...

Beardown91737 wrote:

George Zimmerman never saw a jury. For Stand Your Ground, it is a judge that rules.

That is not true. Zimmerman's case went to trial and he was found not guilty by a jury:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/ge ... artin.html

stratosphere wrote:

How this could not be at least involuntary manslaughter is beyond me

It was prosecutor overreach. From what I've read, I agree with the verdict. The fact that the fatal gunshot wound was from a ricochet and the particular Sig handgun is known for an extremely light trigger pull (<4 lbs) would introduce reasonable doubt that Zarate fired the gun accidentally. Involuntary manslaughter should have been a slam dunk given the facts stipulated by the defense.

I would also like to see criminal negligence charges for the San Francisco officials who released Zarate from custody.

tommy1808 wrote:

because shooting a gun apparently isn´t reckless. If involuntary manslaughter requires the action to be reckless, it just doesn´t fit the bill.

Indiscriminately firing a gun into a crowd is absolutely reckless. Unfortunately, that wasn't the question asked of the jury.

Here is an interesting writeup of what happened in the case. If you want to blame anyone . read this first, and think whether the
"Libs" were responsible, or a rather incompetent prosecutor for the light sentence.

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/20 ... D=ref_fark
It seems to me that the prosecutor spent far too much time trying to prove 1st and 2nd degree murder where massive amounts or reasonable doubt existed, and then they never bothered to push a case for manslaughter.

DfwRevolution wrote:

The fact that the fatal gunshot wound was from a ricochet and the particular Sig handgun is known for an extremely light trigger pull (<4 lbs) would introduce reasonable doubt that Zarate fired the gun accidentally.

Wrong. The P239 is a DA/SA gun with the first pull of around 10lbs. You never carry a gun with the hammer already cocked. Even then, it's in the 4-5lb range. Its trigger pull weight isn't any different than any of the other Sig P220/225/226/227/229 series. If he handcocked it, he was trying to shoot somebody.

Just another example of how California will protect criminals. It's sad that open border anarchy for the sake of votes has reached this level of insanity. I hope the DOJ does the right thing.

NIKV69 wrote:

Just another example of how California will protect criminals. It's sad that open border anarchy for the sake of votes has reached this level of insanity. I hope the DOJ does the right thing.

This has nothing to do with your statement that California will protect criminals. Apparently you don't believe in the presumption of innocence and beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard? The bottom line is the defense's expert was able to articulate his theory about what happened better than the prosecution and was able to sway the 12 men and women on the jury. Being an illegal immigrant had nothing to do with this; and but rather the Ranger from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management that didn't secure the weapon in his car set in motion the steps that ended up with this tragic ending.

NIKV69 wrote:

Just another example of how California will protect criminals......................

You claim that, in spite of the obvious fact that the reason he wasn't convicted of murder was because the prosecution needlessly tried to overcharge the case. They spent their time trying to prove premeditation when there was no evidence of that and no way to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/20 ... D=ref_fark

DfwRevolution wrote:

It was prosecutor overreach.....Involuntary manslaughter should have been a slam dunk given the facts stipulated by the defense.

Except involuntary manslaughter was one of the charges he was acquitted of...

salttee wrote:

You claim that, in spite of the obvious fact that the reason he wasn't convicted of murder was because the prosecution needlessly tried to overcharge the case. They spent their time trying to prove premeditation when there was no evidence of that and no way to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Irrelevant since trying involuntary manslaughter neither requires premeditation or intent.

Jetsgo wrote:

Irrelevant since trying involuntary manslaughter neither requires premeditation or intent.

That's exactly the point. The prosecution hung their case on the premise of premeditation which was easy for the defense to rebut. Had they focused on manslaughter they most likely would have gotten a guilty verdict.

And the point I was making is that NIKV69 is completely backwards in his claim that California is soft on crime. California is currently holding a prison population of 218,800; they are not soft on crime at all.

stratosphere wrote:

Actually I would like to see a wall around California and a separate wall within a wall around San Francisco. I swear the land of fruit and nuts and felons. So sorry Kate maybe you will get justice eventually but not there. Hope her parents are smart enough to move the hell out of that liberal wasteland.

I'm sure they'd love to keep their taxes too, and let the bible belt go tits up

salttee wrote:

That's exactly the point. The prosecution hung their case on the premise of premeditation which was easy for the defense to rebut. Had they focused on manslaughter they most likely would have gotten a guilty verdict.

He was charged with involuntary manslaughter. It's one of the three charges he was acquitted of. The prosecutions focus is ultimately irrelevant given this entire scenario is a textbook example of involuntary manslaughter.

salttee wrote:

Jetsgo wrote:

Irrelevant since trying involuntary manslaughter neither requires premeditation or intent.

That's exactly the point. The prosecution hung their case on the premise of premeditation which was easy for the defense to rebut. Had they focused on manslaughter they most likely would have gotten a guilty verdict.

And the point I was making is that NIKV69 is completely backwards in his claim that California is soft on crime. California is currently holding a prison population of 218,800; they are not soft on crime at all.

One guy is not immediately given the chair and California is soft on crime. What the actual heck is that about??? You do know, with your extensive, first-hand knowledge of California, prisons are over crowded here.

salttee wrote:

Jetsgo wrote:

Irrelevant since trying involuntary manslaughter neither requires premeditation or intent.

That's exactly the point. The prosecution hung their case on the premise of premeditation which was easy for the defense to rebut. Had they focused on manslaughter they most likely would have gotten a guilty verdict.

And the point I was making is that NIKV69 is completely backwards in his claim that California is soft on crime. California is currently holding a prison population of 218,800; they are not soft on crime at all.

They are a large state and maybe more inclined to commit crimes that does not mean they are not soft on crime. They are a liberal state they have a death penalty not they hardly ever use it. I think I have only seen them use it once and that was Tookie. OJ walked and so did this guy. Case could be argued that the prosecution didn't do a good enough job. But fact is San Francisco juries have been known to show sympathy to defendants that is a fact. Although I will say they didn't know about this guys previous history that is a shame.

Jetsgo wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

It was prosecutor overreach.....Involuntary manslaughter should have been a slam dunk given the facts stipulated by the defense.

Except involuntary manslaughter was one of the charges he was acquitted of...

Yep those pesky little things called facts.

I just hope the DOJ's arrest warrant leads to him paying for this crime. So sick of these sanctuary cities protecting these criminals.

Airstud wrote:

It was a San Francisco jury...

I find it laughable that you are such expert on what a San Francisco jury is like. Have you sat on a jury in San Francisco? No, you haven't.

But I have.

'Tis better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

NIKV69 wrote:

Jetsgo wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

It was prosecutor overreach.....Involuntary manslaughter should have been a slam dunk given the facts stipulated by the defense.

Except involuntary manslaughter was one of the charges he was acquitted of...

Yep those pesky little things called facts.

I just hope the DOJ's arrest warrant leads to him paying for this crime. So sick of these sanctuary cities protecting these criminals.

Yah the sanctuary city was the problem, just like in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs and wherever the next mass shooting will be shortly

Too much politicizing issues leads to unintended consequences, you push too much in one direction, and that leads others to push back too much in the other direction. The middle ground disappears.

Arpaio treats illegal immigrants like subhumans and Trump praises him, then he's surprised sanctuary cities exist.

Aesma wrote:

... then he's surprised sanctuary cities exist.

legal construct underpinning "sanctuary cities" i the US was instantiated to get a grip on inner city "native" crime
and slummification.

alberchico wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42190455

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/30/k ... s-verdict/



This jury just handed Trump an early Christmas present. RIP DACA.

Nothing will change regarding this. Cooler heads will prevail on the fact that due process was done on somebody and the prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of this Jury.

stratosphere wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

It was a San Francisco jury...

.... and that makes it a less impartial jury how?

Oh, yeah.... we are in the world where the jury system is awesome when it acquits cops or George Zimmerman, but never ever when it does a drug dealing, raping Mexican.

best regards
Thomas

He means that San Francisco you know the city that keeps electing Nancy Pelosi to office is often sympathetic to defendants. How this could not be at least involuntary manslaughter is beyond me but really the death of this woman falls at the feet of San Francisco and their sanctuary city policies. This guy was a felon deported 5 previous times keeps getting back in so ICE puts a detainer on him and the SF law enforcement kick him loose again. If the city had done it's job that guy would not have been on that pier and this woman would be alive today. So again the Steinle family is the loser here. So what happens now is he has already served 2 years they will probably sentence him to time already served and deport him (OH AND HE WILL BE BACK) if history serves. I hope they (Steinle) sue the hell out of anyone and everyone they can and take them all to the cleaners. I also hope that Trump gets to congress ASAP to get them to stop the funds to any city that supports sanctuary laws in violation of Federal law. I think this is personal loss for the Steinle family but I hope this keeps the fuel on the fire of illegal immigration issue. Watch out dreamers this may drop the hammer on you all next.

They have a case in a civil trial (think the OJ case, acquitted in criminal court but deemed liable in civil court) because the burden of proof is much less. It goes like this in a civil trial if you believe 51% of the evidence indicates wrongdoing then rule in favour of the plaintiff. In a criminal case the jury has to be 99.9% certain.

From what I have heard about this is that this guy was using fake names to continuously enter the US, getting caught and deported 5 times looks good for the feds as I see it.

Regarding sanctuary cities they are in place for a few reasons. One is that when ICE asks for local law enforcement department to detain a suspected illegal until they face due process they do not provide the local law enforcement the resources to hold the suspected illegal, if the city is financially strained it is hard to justify that to your taxpayers. Also with sanctuary cities is gives illegals to piece of mind to report and be witnesses to crimes without the fear of deportation. Being illegal is a misdemeanor charge IIRC and it is a federal crime not a state or local one.

The reason for the sanctuary city is that it gives local law enforcement more tools to make their streets safer and since most illegals don't commit crimes that result in criminal charges (at worst they do it at the same rate as legal resident) it is seen as a decent trade off.

Jetsgo wrote:

My FB posting from a few hours ago... There was no voluntary manslaughter charge. Prosecutors had murder one, murder two, and involuntary manslaughter. The fact that a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally killed an innocent woman could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter is an absolute travesty of justice.

This is the fault of the prosecution and I have seen it before in US court cases such as the Casey Anthony case in 2011. She probably was guilty of something as well but the prosecution was so obsessed with making the case to prove the maximum charge (murder one) that they do not present to the jury evidence for voluntary or involuntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt and they suspect gets off.

I see the same thing here, a DA that bit off more than they could chew.

DocLightning wrote:

Airstud wrote:

It was a San Francisco jury...

I find it laughable that you are such expert on what a San Francisco jury is like. Have you sat on a jury in San Francisco? No, you haven't.

But I have.

'Tis better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

In consideration of the fact that I lived in San Francisco for thirteen years, and sat on two juries during that time, I have to ask what compels you to say, with regard to the question of whether I've sat on a jury in San Francisco, that I "haven't."

Airstud wrote:

In consideration of the fact that I lived in San Francisco for thirteen years, and sat on two juries during that time, I have to ask what compels you to say, with regard to the question of whether I've sat on a jury in San Francisco, that I "haven't."

Your characterization of what a San Francisco jury is like is so wildly inaccurate that your claim strains my credulity. Your juries must have been wildly different from my two (OK, one was Oakland...similar population).

I see a lot of people very angry over an accident. I suppose you would be singing his praises if he had stalked her in the night through an apartment complex to "stand his ground" against her thug like behavior?

Also, how is this country going to "build a wall" to prevent San Francisco from being when there are Asians in SFO who are illegal? If you have ever been to Chinatown, do you honestly believe that every last resident there is legal? Or do you believe that every last person who speaks Spanish is illegal?