NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter BudE
- Start date
- Replies 79
- Views 4,302
Yeah I’d be doing some hunting in Central America
He probably won’t have travel that far.......
It really does.
Slappy McTrigger
My Own Safe Space
If only it had a safety for that 14 pound “hair” trigger.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
Wait. I thought they did convict him of possession of a firearm by a felon. Let's see how he lasts in the California Penile System. Might not have to deport him at all.
Oh, and I found it interesting that the gun was stolen from a BLM rangers' vehicle. BLM Rangers lead the way!
You know, it's so hard to secure a firearm in a vehicle nowadays with a gun vault that your employer would pay for
Oh, and I found it interesting that the gun was stolen from a BLM rangers' vehicle. BLM Rangers lead the way!
You know, it's so hard to secure a firearm in a vehicle nowadays with a gun vault that your employer would pay for
OverMountainMan
Cryogenically Hardened Member
Sanctuary City means the deviant and criminal classes are the protected classes, for whom the "law" is a perverted and unrecognizable thing. Justice will be served only when good people are ready to serve it.
Wonder if the jury in NY will be like the one in SF and find this guy not guilty? Of course, I don't think he is an illegal so he's probably going to jail, as he should.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/hunter-sa...slaughter-021205140--abc-news-topstories.html
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/hunter-sa...slaughter-021205140--abc-news-topstories.html
Fox News reports that theUS DOJ working on charges for this illegal alien, after his prison term they will deport him.
Last edited:
Heck no, illegals are a protected species.
California has a two for one policy, while you are in jail waiting for your trial,
you get two days credit for each day of jail time. This man has five years credit and
most likely will walk out the door a free man after sentencing.
DOJ plans to charge him, if convicted he gets about ten years in prison before deporting.
you get two days credit for each day of jail time. This man has five years credit and
most likely will walk out the door a free man after sentencing.
DOJ plans to charge him, if convicted he gets about ten years in prison before deporting.
Last edited:
His only crime was possessing the gun, not sure why anyone on the inside would give him any trouble over that. Sure, he killed a white chick, but that's not even a crime anymore apparently.
Meh, he knows the laws don't apply to him. If caught, you just have to go back to GO and start your turn over.
Just further proof that being a US Citizen is pretty meaningless now. When non-citizens have more rights than the citizen trouble will eventually follow. When citizens are forced to obey every law and tax while non-citizens are not, trouble will follow. It's just a matter of time. Would anybody here vote to cnvict Mr. Steinle if he committed an act of revenge or justice?
Last edited:
The Sheriff's Dept. that released the illegal alien is responsible, if the man was held for ICE he would not have 'found' that stolen handgun and Ms. Steinle would be alive.
US AG Sessions should file charges against the Governor, Mayor,. City Council and Sheriff for releasing a known felon on the streets, per their Sanctuary Laws.
The city has reclassified felonies to misdemeanors, instead of an arrest you are issued a summons. Car break-ins, store thefts if under $900 result in no arrests only a citation.
Steal a gun from a car, you will not be arrested if it is under $899 in value. These cities use taxpayer funds, specific for 'immigrants' to pay for their legal defense.
California drivers licenses issued like candy bars, they want to make it 'easier' for illegals, oh my bad, immigrants.
US AG Sessions should file charges against the Governor, Mayor,. City Council and Sheriff for releasing a known felon on the streets, per their Sanctuary Laws.
The city has reclassified felonies to misdemeanors, instead of an arrest you are issued a summons. Car break-ins, store thefts if under $900 result in no arrests only a citation.
Steal a gun from a car, you will not be arrested if it is under $899 in value. These cities use taxpayer funds, specific for 'immigrants' to pay for their legal defense.
California drivers licenses issued like candy bars, they want to make it 'easier' for illegals, oh my bad, immigrants.
Last edited:
I normally celebrate the fact that I'm a simpleton, but with something like this, I get frustrated.
Why was he being judged by 12 of his peers? Isn't that right reserved for citizens or is that a God given right protected by the Constitution?
You answered you own question in what you quoted.
"When non-citizens have more rights than the citizen trouble will eventually follow."
Yeah, I realize that.
What I would have like to seen was this guy sent to prison, at the very least, when he was arrested for the death. Then, let Mexico beg for/demand his release like the US does when one of our citizens is detained in a high profile situation.
Nice thought but highly unlikely. Mexico probably doesn't want him in the first place and if he is deported will probably help the poor soul return here.
As an after thought we probably negotiate in the wrong way to get our citizens back. Best way would be to tell Mexico we get ours back or you get 100 of yours back.
Last edited:
While I am not a legal expert I am pretty sure illegal aliens get jury trials unless it ends up in a military court somehow. And I have no problem with a proper jury trial for this guy. Let SF live with what they have sown.
The peer thing has always cracked me up though. It doesn't seem like anybody really gets convicted by their peers. Do we really think 12 illegal aliens from Central or So. America should be on a jury, or would convict him.
His punishment should be that he his forced by ball and chain to spend the rest of his life with Nancy Pelosi and be forced to listen to her drivel 24 hours a day.
OP
BudE
Hillsborough, NC
Death penalty would be preferable.
Not sure if it was a comedian or some other entertainer that asked where they were going to find 12 peers for Michael Jackson's trial in '05.
Well, our elected Reps care more about a voting block than our lives. Nothing new there. Tar and feathers. Repeat often. Until a large group of people show some serious rebellion things won't change. Sending a few emails, breaking a few windows and shouting in the streets doesn't phase these people. Now if a few thousand people show up at their house's late at night with pitchforks, tar and feathers they might start to get a little nervous. Things won't change until the suits and pantsuits in DC are made to feel very uncomfortable and afraid for their safety.
Actually, it shouldn't matter if it ricocheted off of anything or not, if you aim a firearm in a crowd full of people and the bullet ends up hitting someone, you should be found responsible. How about charges of discharging a firearm within city limits, or discharging a firearm while under the influence since he admitted to being high on drugs at the time. A whole laundry lists of reasons he should have found guilty of murder.
Try driving piss drunk or high on drugs then ricocheting off a couple of light poles or buildings before you smash into an innocent pedestrian or oncoming car and cause a death. Although you did not "intend to kill somebody" that day, there would be consequences. Especially if you were already a known POS that has been in trouble with the law already.
Last edited:
I don't disagree but when you look at the elements of a murder that have to be met this was not the proper charge.
But, if you look at the definition of "vehicular homicide", do you not agree that the differences in "Vehicular homicide" vs. "Vehicular Manslaughter" would be very comparable to this case/verdict?
I understand that the weapon(car vs. gun) is different, but I would think the definition of one could/should be interchangeable no matter what the tool/weapon used would be.
"Vehicular homicide is a crime that involves the death of a person other than the driver as a result of either criminally negligent or murderous operation of a motor vehicle.
In cases of criminal negligence, the defendant is commonly charged with unintentional vehicular manslaughter.
Vehicular homicide is similar to the offense, in some countries, of "dangerous driving causing death."
The victim may be either a person not in the car with the offending motorist (such as a pedestrian, cyclist, or another motorist), or a passenger in the vehicle with the offender."
I understand that the weapon(car vs. gun) is different, but I would think the definition of one could/should be interchangeable no matter what the tool/weapon used would be.
"Vehicular homicide is a crime that involves the death of a person other than the driver as a result of either criminally negligent or murderous operation of a motor vehicle.
In cases of criminal negligence, the defendant is commonly charged with unintentional vehicular manslaughter.
Vehicular homicide is similar to the offense, in some countries, of "dangerous driving causing death."
The victim may be either a person not in the car with the offending motorist (such as a pedestrian, cyclist, or another motorist), or a passenger in the vehicle with the offender."
Part of the problem is if the police / D A's HAD started with the proper charge they would have been crucified in the media.
Slappy McTrigger
My Own Safe Space
It’s looking more and more like the prosecution spiked the case.
https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/12/07/alternate-juror-kate-steinle-case-verdict-correct/
https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/12/07/alternate-juror-kate-steinle-case-verdict-correct/
I think they got focused on one charge and not anything else. Much like other cases we have seen where the charges are overkill and not reasonable. In this case as soon as they heard ricochet they should have went to any other charge. The reason in NC that you see so many charges of awdwitksi and not attempted murder is because of intent being really hard to establish and prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors do not like it when officers charge it as attempted murder and it usually gets changed.
Last edited:
Slappy McTrigger
My Own Safe Space
Overzealous, inept, or did they spike it? Seems like they not only failed to charge correctly they failed to make their case. Of course this is only one account and none of us were there on the pier or in the court room for that matter. Statements such as these are the reasoning behind me thinking this case was deliberately thrown:
“The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the ‘brandishing,’ or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word ‘brandishing’ until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial’s end.”
“Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.”
I agree that murder was not the correct charge and manslauter was a far more appropriate choice but they failed to make that case as well. This alternate juror seems to hint that they thought this guy was guilty of manslaughter but due to the prosecution’s case or lack there of and the jury’s instruction he would have found the defendant not guilty as well.
ETA: Maybe they just thought this was slam dunk and therefore didn’t put enough thought and/or effort into the case. Either way I would describe this as a miscarriage of justice. Just my humble opinion.
Last edited: