Jose Zarate Found Not Guilty of Murder In Kate Steinle Shooting

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Then why was not manslaughter charges added? Or as i've seen in cases before the judge says to the jury "SO you can convict of murder, OR the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter"??

What did he intend to do with regard to discharge of the pistol?

And I mean based upon the FACTS YOU KNOW!

Not from speculation or "imputed" guilt because he's an illegal alien!

[grean]

Trumps big loud mouth, yet again, caused trouble, here.

Had he stayed the hell out of it, there almost definitely would have been a involuntary manslaughter charge added and it would have stuck.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by grean

..... there almost definitely would have been a involuntary manslaughter charge added and it would have stuck.

.. .and been reversed on appeal.

Just out of curiosity (academic and rhetorical question) do you have a clue what the elements of an "involuntary manslaughter charge" are in California and the burden of proof necessary on those elements (and don't give me that "you look it up" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" bullshit .... YOU ARE THE ONE GIVING YOUR UNQUALIFIED LEGAL OPINION!).

Given your dumbass statement: I'll answer for you! NO!!!!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by grean

Trumps big loud mouth, yet again, caused trouble, here.

Had he stayed the hell out of it, there almost definitely would have been a involuntary manslaughter charge added and it would have stuck.

LL is correct.

Trump just raised expectations...

....many of his followers will be disappointed with his propensity for raising expectations and not coming through as promised . Especially the middle class after the tax reform mess.

[LexusLover]

Obaminable "raised expectations" also, ...

... and in fact makes Trump look like an amateur in the "expectation raising" category! In just about everything else Trump makes Obaminable look like the amateur Obaminable is, and was!

The POTUS needs to refrain from becoming involved in local matters.

[grean]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.. .and been reversed on appeal.

Just out of curiosity (academic and rhetorical question) do you have a clue what the elements of an "involuntary manslaughter charge" are in California and the burden of proof necessary on those elements (and don't give me that "you look it up" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" bullshit .... YOU ARE THE ONE GIVING YOUR UNQUALIFIED LEGAL OPINION!).

Given your dumbass statement: I'll answer for you! NO!!!!

California

Penal Code 192 (a) PC
Penal Code 192 (b) PC

Voluntary (a) would not apply because there was no malice intent.

However, if they didn't feel murder would stick, involuntary (b) would.

His possession of a weapon was illegal, California PC 29800. So during his commission of an illegal act, and the possession of a firearm alone isn't inherently dangerous, he caused the death of another person. That's textbook involuntary manslaughter.

Further, let's say he was twirling the gun around, as the prosecutor claimed. That's against Cal penal code 417. That's brandishing a weapon. That is dangerous. The defence cannot say it was an accident because there client was acting negligently. California PC says that's murder.

How he isn't in jail on one of those, I have no idea.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Obaminable "raised expectations" also, ...



The POTUS needs to refrain from becoming involved in local matters.

I agree with both your statements. although the second is kinda hard for all Presidents to do.

But I was trying to explain to green how maybe Trump raised expectations that there was more of a crime than there actually was.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

I agree with both your statements. although the second is kinda hard for all Presidents to do.

But I was trying to explain to green how maybe Trump raised expectations that there was more of a crime than there actually was.

There’s a dead 32yr old women shot by a guy who never should have been here in the in the first place. But it wasn’t a big crime. Try to convince the Steinle family.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by grean

California

Penal Code 192 (a) PC
Penal Code 192 (b) PC

Voluntary (a) would not apply because there was no malice intent.

However, if they didn't feel murder would stick, involuntary (b) would.

His possession of a weapon was illegal, California PC 29800. So during his commission of an illegal act, and the possession of a firearm alone isn't inherently dangerous, he caused the death of another person. That's textbook involuntary manslaughter.

Further, let's say he was twirling the gun around, as the prosecutor claimed. That's against Cal penal code 417. That's brandishing a weapon. That is dangerous. The defence cannot say it was an accident because there client was acting negligently. California PC says that's murder.

How he isn't in jail on one of those, I have no idea.

Nice try. The problem is his "intent" to commit the act that resulted in the death. Possession of a firearm wasn't "an act" he intended to cause the death. You are attempting to use civil law principles of "simple negligence" to hold him criminally liable for a crime that requires an "intent" to do an act that causes the death. There was no evidence that he INTENDED to discharge the firearm, which is what caused the death.

I would rather doubt you wish to go there with respect to "possession of a weapon" being sufficient to cause the death of someone ... but if you wish ... then perhaps you want to make a special case because someone is in this country illegally.

A California appellate case frequently cited and relatively recent in vintage, which is: People v. Butler, 187 Cal. App. 4th 998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) California Court of Appeal

Opins:

Criminal negligence has been defined in a variety of ways. In People v. Penny, supra, 44 Cal.2d at page 879, the court explained: "`[C]riminal negligence'" exists when the defendant engages in conduct that is "`aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless'"; i.e., conduct that is "`such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful man under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life, or, in other words, a disregard of human life or an indifference to consequences.'" Similarly, in People v. Rodriguez (1960) 186 Cal. App. 2d 433, 440 [8 Cal. Rptr. 863], the court stated that criminal negligence exists "when a man of ordinary prudence would foresee that the act would cause a high degree of risk of death or great bodily harm."

A pivotal question is: was the act of carrying a firearm one that "would cause a high degree of risk of death or great bodily harm." and don't forget the standard is one of

"a man of ordinary prudence would foresee"

There are a lot of deaths caused by "accidents" as in "simple negligence" and it's a good thing that people can't be sent to prison for those "accidents," because the prisons are too full all ready.

I return to my original statement:

Given your dumbass statement: I'll answer for you! NO!!!!

As to your last musing ... the reason he's not in jail for "one of those" is he wasn't convicted and he is innocent of them.

And since you don't know what the FACTS are and you didn't hear ALL OF THE ADMITTED EVIDENCE offered in the case, you don't have a clue as to whether or not sufficient evidence was presented to convict him of a lesser included offense.

[grean]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nice try. The problem is his "intent" to commit the act that resulted in the death. Possession of a firearm wasn't "an act" he intended to cause the death. You are attempting to use civil law principles of "simple negligence" to hold him criminally liable for a crime that requires an "intent" to do an act that causes the death. There was no evidence that he INTENDED to discharge the firearm, which is what caused the death.

I would rather doubt you wish to go there with respect to "possession of a weapon" being sufficient to cause the death of someone ... but if you wish ... then perhaps you want to make a special case because someone is in this country illegally.

There are a lot of deaths caused by "accidents" as in "simple negligence" and it's a good thing that people can't be sent to prison for those "accidents," because the prisons are too full all ready.

I return to my original statement:

Given your dumbass statement: I'll answer for you! NO!!!!

As to your last musing ... the reason he's not in jail for "one of those" is he wasn't convicted and he is innocent of them.

That is the very essence of involuntary manslaughter. You were doing something illegal but had no intention of harming anyone, but you did.

[LexusLover]

You were a little too quick on your lame response.

"Essence"? In this case not "perfume," but your bullshit "essence"!

In criminal cases an "intent" to do an act is always required for culpability unless for some reason the statute specifically provides that actual "intent" is not required. It's the codified exception to the general rule. And the 2nd part is the act intended must have resulted in the crime for which one is being convicted and the "result" must have been foreseeable based upon that reasonable person standard for there to be "criminal negligence"!

It's not an "essence" ... it's black and white with the case law interpretation to direct the character of the behavior that satisfies the requirements of the statute. In this country we do not convict on "essence," and that's called "due process"! In this instance it's also "equal protection"!

Now ... please go entertain yourself. School is out!

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well I guess that's how the story goes. Without a doubt God will punish Zarate for ending Kate's life without just cause, and God will punish those in our Government who failed Kate.

Jim

We shouldn't have to wait for god to punish them though.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Over-charging" is a prosecutorial disease.

I will agree there, but i would rather Over charge, than under charge..

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Apparently the FACTS are that one round was discharged from a pistol held by the Defendant which bounced (ricocheted) off the concrete at or near his feet and traveled about 100 feet and struck the lady (who he did not know) in the back.

In some "circles" that would be called an "accidental discharge"!

Sorry but i call bupkis. Unless the GUN is faulty, there is no such thing as an accidental discharge.. NEGLIGENT discharge maybe, but that should still have brought up charges of Manslaughter (negligent killing which was not planned for)..

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What did he intend to do with regard to discharge of the pistol?

Well several sources claimed he fired it 'after stepping on a seal." another said it was cause he was shooting at the seal. Either to me sound like he INTENDED to fire the gun, just not into a human, so that's manslaughter, all the way.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

There’s a dead 32yr old women shot by a guy who never should have been here in the in the first place. But it wasn’t a big crime. Try to convince the Steinle family.

One of the charges was murder .... just because you are in a country illegally does not mean that you then can be charged with murder when in fact it was not. If you read wtf happened , it was a far cry from murder. A bullet bounces off a object and hits a innocent woman that you were not shooting at is not murder ....even if the person who did it was here illegally.

wtf is wrong with you? You can only be charged with a crime you committed.

Move to Russia you Putin lover if you want the State to be able to operate like that!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by garhkal

I will agree there, but i would rather Over charge, than under charge..

Well, you go ahead. You're less likely to get a conviction when you "over charge"! As for "no such thing" as an "accidental discharge" you are VERY INCORRECT.

Since you don't know the FACTS and didn't hear the EVIDENCE, it's impossible for you to credibly criticize the results determined by the Jury.

This is my point .. made by you!

Well several sources claimed he fired it 'after stepping on a seal." another said it was cause he was shooting at the seal. Either to me sound like he INTENDED to fire the gun, just not into a human, so that's manslaughter, all the way.

What's happening now is almost as bad as the OJ case, and I followed that one closely. People try to second case jury decisions when they didn't hear the evidence. They also know little, if anything, about juries and jury trials.

"manslaughter all the way"! Oh, come on!

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

One of the charges was murder .... just because you are in a country illegally does not mean that you then can be charged with murder when in fact it was not. If you read wtf happened , it was a far cry from murder. A bullet bounces off a object and hits a innocent woman that you were not shooting at is not murder ....even if the person who did it was here illegally.

wtf is wrong with you? You can only be charged with a crime you committed.

Move to Russia you Putin lover if you want the State to be able to operate like that!

You said it wasn’t a big crime. I said ask the Steinle family if it wasn’t a big crime. WTF don’t you understand about that? You fucking moron.