Kate Steinle's murderer found Not Guilty in San Francisco

[BKH34]

Seems to me like there was some really crappy lawyering going on too. I understand California and especially San Francisco are all RESIST DRUMPF all the time, but how does a guy with 7 felonies and 5 deportations not even get popped for manslaughter?

F'n tribalist losers. You'd think in the ongoing struggle of "my team vs. your team" that both sides could come to an agreement on murder being bad and illegal and punishable. Or not. Whatever. To hell with people.

 

[Crushgroove]

More info that was, clearly, not allowed to jurors...

 

[Perrin75]

The defense built a lot of their case around an accidental discharge of the weapon. At no point did the DA have experts come in to test the weapon. That whole defense could have been blown apart but it wasn't. So either their was something wrong with the weapon, or the DA was a moron. However, once arguments were concluded, the judge could not legally allow the Jury to inspect the weapon. That is not how our system works.

 

[cardkilla_rivals379685]

I guess this is what it feels like when a cop gets off scott free for killing an unarmed American.

****, I'm moving to California. Killing is legal.

or just become a cop.

 

[TortElvisII]

I guess this is what it feels like when a cop gets off scott free for killing an unarmed American.

or just become a cop.

You are comparing an innocent woman standing on a pier to a honor student turning his life around minutes after robbing a store.

You are truly demented.

 

[TortElvisII]

The defense built a lot of their case around an accidental discharge of the weapon. At no point did the DA have experts come in to test the weapon. That whole defense could have been blown apart but it wasn't. So either their was something wrong with the weapon, or the DA was a moron. However, once arguments were concluded, the judge could not legally allow the Jury to inspect the weapon. That is not how our system works.

No the jurors were morons. They agree with you though.

 

[qwesley]

Very nice of the city to assign the chief public defender and activist to the case...nothing but the very best for Mr. Zapata.

Manslaughter was an easy case.

 

[mdlUK.1]

Very nice of the city to assign the chief public defender and activist to the case...nothing but the very best for Mr. Zapata.

Manslaughter was an easy case.

It will not surprise me if California was to sue the Steinle family to reimburse the state of the cost of the trial.

 

[GonzoCat90]

What a circus. Just really poorly handled all the way around. And of course it's a political pawn too. When has that ever not fixed a problem?

It's disgusting the way we throw real lives and real people and real families into a game of chess.

 

[-Mav-]

The defense built a lot of their case around an accidental discharge of the weapon. At no point did the DA have experts come in to test the weapon. That whole defense could have been blown apart but it wasn't. So either their was something wrong with the weapon, or the DA was a moron. However, once arguments were concluded, the judge could not legally allow the Jury to inspect the weapon. That is not how our system works.

Ask any gun person and they'll say the same thing: there is no such thing as an "accidental" discharge. There are only negligent discharges. While in possession of a gun, if the gun discharges and someone dies then that is involuntary manslaughter at a bare minimum.

 

[TortElvisII]

San Francisco had no interest in prosecuting this murdering piece of ****. If prosecuted, Trump would be correct.

 

[ScrewDuke1]

7-time felon, kicked out and came back 5 times.

Build the wall.

It should be named Kates Wall.

 

[FtCampbellCat]

have to wonder.....where was all of this outrage when the mass shootings were going on? What was the huge difference that made no one so outraged here? Oooooooo right

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

have to wonder.....where was all of this outrage when the mass shootings were going on? What was the huge difference that made no one so outraged here? Oooooooo right

An illegal that had been deported numerous times killed an innocent American Citizen. It’s not that hard to understand.

 

[Perrin75]

The experts who were brought forward confirmed that the bullet was damaged significantly and that it ricocheted into the victim. Couple that with the four hour interview video that confirmed his state of mind and the defense has easily eliminated any concept of intent. Just these two things alone guarantee there was no murder conviction. The defense knew this, yet they pushed forward with an impossible theory of how the accused was playing some version of Russian Roulette.And it was all done because of politics. There was no chance this thing was going to be a winner in court, but it was certainly going to be a winner when it came to generating outrage.

Once again, this whole thing was, and is, a travesty.

 

[BigBlueDave_rivals76951]

I posted this earlier in the political thread, but this DA was hired by the SF mayor in 2009 because of his stance on illegals.

The prosecution and the defense were on the same team.



It was a half hearted prosecution. It was just going through the motions.

San Francisco DA Democrat George Gascón:

This is a good article from the San Francisco Chronicle on his background as a progressive reformer from 1 1/2 ago:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/D-A-Gasc-n-s-divide-with-law-enforcement-6880747.php


Tense relations between Gascón and police go back several years. The district attorney — a Cuban immigrant who served in the U.S. Army before rising through the ranks at the Los Angeles Police Department, with a detour to get his law degree — was named San Francisco police chief in 2009. He was brought in by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, after he made national headlines as the chief in Mesa, Ariz., by standing up to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio‘s crusade against illegal immigration.

Gascón also faces discord in his own agency, where he took the reins as an outsider once again — an attorney who had never prosecuted a case becoming the top prosecutor in the city.

 

[IdaCat]

****, I'm moving to California. Killing is legal.

Only if you're an illegal alien felon ... or any other lib supported POS. They'd confine you to one of their homeless tent cities until you were full of worms (2 weeks max), then feed your wasted body to the sharks.

 

[FutureCityCats_rivals]

Only if you're an illegal alien felon ... or any other lib supported POS. They'd confine you to one of their homeless tent cities until you were full of worms (2 weeks max), then feed your wasted body to the sharks.

Hello to Ida. FCC.

 

[qwesley]

The experts who were brought forward confirmed that the bullet was damaged significantly and that it ricocheted into the victim. Couple that with the four hour interview video that confirmed his state of mind and the defense has easily eliminated any concept of intent. Just these two things alone guarantee there was no murder conviction. The defense knew this, yet they pushed forward with an impossible theory of how the accused was playing some version of Russian Roulette.And it was all done because of politics. There was no chance this thing was going to be a winner in court, but it was certainly going to be a winner when it came to generating outrage.

Once again, this whole thing was, and is, a travesty.

now explain no manslaughter

 

[TortElvisII]

have to wonder.....where was all of this outrage when the mass shootings were going on? What was the huge difference that made no one so outraged here? Oooooooo right

Why do you not care? Oooooooooo right.

 

[TheDude73]

Many of you are just plain idiots.

"Gun regulations won't stop criminals from getting guns, so it's pointless."

However, the same people spew this on a regular basis:

"Build a wall and deport, that'll keep all of 'em out and we'll never have Mexican crime again!"

See how stupid this sounds?

Note/disclaimer: Before the atypical responses labeling me as "libtard", "lefty", etc., I'm not for or against anything to do with guns, politics, or the like. I despise all politicians, regardless of which "side" they are on, as I think they are all corrupt and self-serving. I dislike discussing anything to do with politics, and regularly try to steer clear of any discussion even remotely related to "lefty/righty" banter. However, when I see some of the crap I see online from fellow Kentucky fans, I can't help but express my opinion on the contradictory positions people take on certain somewhat related topics - on one hand, blocking something (guns) is pointless, as criminals that want to get guns to kill will get them, regardless of how many roadblocks we put up. On the other hand, put up a big wall, deport all Mexicans, and all of that crime will just magically go away.

Note/disclaimer 2: I don't have all of the info on this case of what appears to be clear cut manslaughter, but if you're going to be angry at someone, be angry at the ****** prosecuting attorneys for failing to do their jobs - file the proper charges (manslaughter) and build your case around that (the guy, a prior felon, admits to having shot a gun in public that apparently inadvertently killed a woman, yet he walks). Or be angry at what appears to be a defense attorney who did his job and was apparently was able to convince a jury that the guy didn't do anything wrong. But to throw around "stupid Mexicans, kick 'em out and build that wall!" rhetoric is pretty racist and patently absurd given that his nationality / race has nothing to do with the case at hand (for every one of these crimes related to an illegal alien, I'm sure one could find 100 related to an American citizen), just like these same people would argue against gun laws as a reactionary response to some gun nut getting acquitted. Plus, as I stated above, it makes people look completely stupid when the same people chanting "build a wall" are those that say that regulating or taking guns away from Americans won't solve any of the gun problems.

 

[TortElvisII]

Many of you are just plain idiots.

"Gun regulations won't stop criminals from getting guns, so it's pointless."

However, the same people spew this on a regular basis:

"Build a wall and deport, that'll keep all of 'em out and we'll never have Mexican crime again!"

See how stupid this sounds?

Note/disclaimer: Before the atypical responses labeling me as "libtard", "lefty", etc., I'm not for or against anything to do with guns, politics, or the like. I despise all politicians, regardless of which "side" they are on, as I think they are all corrupt and self-serving. I dislike discussing anything to do with politics, and regularly try to steer clear of any discussion even remotely related to "lefty/righty" banter. However, when I see some of the crap I see online from fellow Kentucky fans, I can't help but express my opinion on the contradictory positions people take on certain somewhat related topics - on one hand, blocking something (guns) is pointless, as criminals that want to get guns to kill will get them, regardless of how many roadblocks we put up. On the other hand, put up a big wall, deport all Mexicans, and all of that crime will just magically go away.

Note/disclaimer 2: I don't have all of the info on this case of what appears to be clear cut manslaughter, but if you're going to be angry at someone, be angry at the ****** prosecuting attorneys for failing to do their jobs - file the proper charges (manslaughter) and build your case around that (the guy, a prior felon, admits to having shot a gun in public that apparently inadvertently killed a woman, yet he walks). Or be angry at what appears to be a defense attorney who did his job and was apparently was able to convince a jury that the guy didn't do anything wrong. But to throw around "stupid Mexicans, kick 'em out and build that wall!" rhetoric is pretty racist and patently absurd given that his nationality / race has nothing to do with the case at hand (for every one of these crimes related to an illegal alien, I'm sure one could find 100 related to an American citizen), just like these same people would argue against gun laws as a reactionary response to some gun nut getting acquitted. Plus, as I stated above, it makes people look completely stupid when the same people chanting "build a wall" are those that say that regulating or taking guns away from Americans won't solve any of the gun problems.

Nobody but you said what you claim.

 

[Perrin75]

now explain no manslaughter

In California, the Prosecution must prove three things in order to meet the requirements of Involuntary Manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

If they could not eliminate accidental discharge of the firearm as the reason for the death, then they had no leg to stand on. Once again, everything about this pointed towards an almost deliberate intention to not seek a conviction but to instead have some grandstanding moment at trial.

 

[santamaria78]

Where did you see someone say "stupid Mexicans" Please show me that.

 

[TheDude73]

Nobody but you said what you claim.

WayneDougan said: "Build the effing wall and kick every illegal immigrant out. Eff DACA now. I want those little twerps out first."

Perhaps no one said exactly what I said in the same post, but the same people that want a "wall" and think said "wall" will rid us of all of this atrocious Mexican illegals crime are the same people that would go down in a blaze of glory should someone try to take their guns away, or make it harder to get guns. I've seen the same people post on the Paddock arguing against the absurdity of increased gun regulations actually doing anything for gun crime (to which I agree - not much we can do about it now but deal with it), yet immediately bark around about tighter immigration and a wall as a perfect solution for stopping Mexican crime.

 

[santamaria78]

WayneDougan said: "Build the effing wall and kick every illegal immigrant out. Eff DACA now. I want those little twerps out first."

Perhaps no one said exactly what I said in the same post, but the same people that want a "wall" and think said "wall" will rid us of all of this atrocious Mexican illegals crime are the same people that would go down in a blaze of glory should someone try to take their guns away, or make it harder to get guns. I've seen the same people post on the Paddock arguing against the absurdity of increased gun regulations actually doing anything for gun crime (to which I agree - not much we can do about it now but deal with it), yet immediately bark around about tighter immigration and a wall as a perfect solution for stopping Mexican crime.

that's right you ******* misquoted. So get it right or shut the **** up with your ********

 

[TheDude73]

Where did you see someone say "stupid Mexicans" Please show me that.

Ok, sorry..."little twerps".

In the minds of people barking about Mexican illegals, they are most definitely thinking "stupid Mexicans". But leave it to some of you to jump on something to distract from my main point - that the same idiots chanting gun laws won't change a damned thing, are the same idiots chanting that a wall and tougher immigration laws will change the world.

 

[TheDude73]

that's right you ****ing misquoted. So get it right or shut the **** up with your ********

Mature. As expected.

 

[TortElvisII]

WayneDougan said: "Build the effing wall and kick every illegal immigrant out. Eff DACA now. I want those little twerps out first."

Perhaps no one said exactly what I said in the same post, but the same people that want a "wall" and think said "wall" will rid us of all of this atrocious Mexican illegals crime are the same people that would go down in a blaze of glory should someone try to take their guns away, or make it harder to get guns. I've seen the same people post on the Paddock arguing against the absurdity of increased gun regulations actually doing anything for gun crime (to which I agree - not much we can do about it now but deal with it), yet immediately bark around about tighter immigration and a wall as a perfect solution for stopping Mexican crime.

The US is a sovereign nation.

The truth of this case is a murdered woman is being ignored because San Francisco does not like the politics of the President.

 

[qwesley]

In California, the Prosecution must prove three things in order to meet the requirements of Involuntary Manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

If they could not eliminate accidental discharge of the firearm as the reason for the death, then they had no leg to stand on. Once again, everything about this pointed towards an almost deliberate intention to not seek a conviction but to instead have some grandstanding moment at trial.

Yeah the activist defense attorney and DA with a history of activism around immigration had nothing to do with anything.

So they (the prosecution) had to prove it was not just careless but also not completely accidental, not him?

 

[TheDude73]

you are the worst kind of coward. You say what you think people mean b/c you think you can read minds. Shut your mouth you little *****

Well aren't you cute with that extensive vocabulary...care to stick to the topic at hand? That the same people screaming for a wall to solve what is apparently some rampant influx of Mexican crime are those that think any type of law/regulation/roadblock for guns won't do a damned thing? How about that discussion...or you could continue down the path of Billy Bad *** picking at things that have nothing to do with my original point, upon which time I'll gladly exit the conversation.

 

[TortElvisII]

Well aren't you cute with that extensive vocabulary...care to stick to the topic at hand? That the same people screaming for a wall to solve what is apparently some rampant influx of Mexican crime are those that think any type of law/regulation/roadblock for guns won't do a damned thing? How about that discussion...or you could continue down the path of Billy Bad *** picking at things that have nothing to do with my original point, upon which time I'll gladly exit the conversation.

Your original point was untrue.

 

[TheDude73]

The US is a sovereign nation.

The truth of this case is a murdered woman is being ignored because San Francisco does not like the politics of the President.

Um, ok then. Shallow thinking is amazing around here. Rather than understand the legalities behind it, the politically-obsessed must always link everything in the US to some political agenda. I kinda feel sorry for people that can't let politics go and look at things in life through a different, more rational lens.

Oh well, continue to believe it's all because people hate some politician as to why they worked to convince a jury to acquit a Mexican felon. Bizarre, but not everyone has good gray matter up top...

 

[qwesley]

WayneDougan said: "Build the effing wall and kick every illegal immigrant out. Eff DACA now. I want those little twerps out first."

Perhaps no one said exactly what I said in the same post, but the same people that want a "wall" and think said "wall" will rid us of all of this atrocious Mexican illegals crime are the same people that would go down in a blaze of glory should someone try to take their guns away, or make it harder to get guns. I've seen the same people post on the Paddock arguing against the absurdity of increased gun regulations actually doing anything for gun crime (to which I agree - not much we can do about it now but deal with it), yet immediately bark around about tighter immigration and a wall as a perfect solution for stopping Mexican crime.

yeah it's almost like they are two separate very complicated issues

 

[TheDude73]

Your original point was untrue.

People that are calling for walls and tougher immigration to solve Mexican crime are the same ones that rail against tougher gun laws and getting rid of guns stating it won't do a damned thing. This is on record everywhere - even Trump himself has laughed at attempts to push stricter gun laws, yet is selling that a wall and tighter immigration will suddenly stop all terrorism and crime.

 

[qwesley]

Um, ok then. Shallow thinking is amazing around here. Rather than understand the legalities behind it, the politically-obsessed must always link everything in the US to some political agenda. I kinda feel sorry for people that can't let politics go and look at things in life through a different, more rational lens.

Oh well, continue to believe it's all because people hate some politician as to why they worked to convince a jury to acquit a Mexican felon. Bizarre, but not everyone has good gray matter up top...

The background of the DA and the chief counsel has been posted and very clear. You should read it.

 

[qwesley]

"You have to prove I did not kill that person accidentally" is one of more faux lawdog arguments I have seen on catpaw.

 

[TheDude73]

The background of the DA and the chief counsel has been posted and very clear. You should read it.

And people should read my original point - but oddly, they are more interested in picking out other things to haggle on rather than what on earth is different between keeping immigrants out to solve immigrant crime vs. keeping guns away to solve gun crime.

It really is an identical situation.

Gun nuts: Bah, tougher gun laws won't matter, crazy people will still find a way to kill people with guns.

Immigration nuts (who just happen to be gun nuts): Kick 'em all out, make it harder for them to get in, and build a wall, and that'll solve the problem!

 

[TortElvisII]

People that are calling for walls and tougher immigration to solve Mexican crime are the same ones that rail against tougher gun laws and getting rid of guns stating it won't do a damned thing. This is on record everywhere - even Trump himself has laughed at attempts to push stricter gun laws, yet is selling that a wall and tighter immigration will suddenly stop all terrorism and crime.

Had this criminal been deported he could not have killed Kate Steinle. Instead, he was given sanctuary and Carte Blanche to murder. Surely someone as level headed and intelligent as yourself can see that.

 

[TheDude73]

The background of the DA and the chief counsel has been posted and very clear. You should read it.

So now a background instantly proves that they operated in this trial due to some political motive? Is that your opinion, or do you have proof?

You bark about how absurd it was that this guy walked from a manslaughter charge (which I believe he should have gotten, at a minimum), yet you don't need any proof yourself to believe that the only reason he got off is because the DA had some background related to a political ideal that you despise. You do understand the definition of "fact" or "supporting evidence"? If so, why aren't you applying it to both scenarios (much like my gun/wall analogy)?