2020 election and Kate Steinle

[dirtyhairy]

By not convicting this murderer of Kate the city of San Francisco has gone over the falls. To be able to walk away and not sentence this illegal murderer puts the spotlight firmly where it needs to be. We have cities and states disobeying federal law, we have murderers amongst us moving freely due to political correctness and liberalism and we now see judges and juries are so far left that they allow this horrendous verdict. The left is going to lose big and it's going to be these types of far-left goonery that is going to rule the elections moving forward. Drain the swamp and build the wall.

Edited December 1, 2017 by dirtyhairy

[BrockSamson]

Go on.

[Leon Troutsky]

I’m sure this is something people will be remembering three years from now.  

[Psychic Gibbon]

1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

 

[AF89]

Oh no! Did Seth Rich's body slip off the banner pole already? 

[dmo_dlo]

2 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

By not convicting this murderer of Kate the city of San Francisco has gone over the falls. To be able to walk away and not sentence this illegal murderer puts the spotlight firmly where it needs to be. We have cities and states disobeying federal law, we have murderers amongst us moving freely due to political correctness and liberalism and we now see judges and juries are so far left that they allow this horrendous verdict. The left is going to lose big and it's going to be these types of far-left goonery that is going to rule the elections moving forward. Drain the swamp and build the wall.

So if the guy was an American then his acquittal wouldn't have upset you? Do you realize that this is the definition of being a racist?

[dirtyhairy]

16 minutes ago, dmo_dlo said:

So if the guy was an American then his acquittal wouldn't have upset you? Do you realize that this is the definition of being a racist?

Number one. He was here illegally.  number 2 he stole the weapon. Number 3 he was here illegally and thrown out five different times. Number four he fired a weapon that killed a woman. Manslaughter is the very least he should have been charged with. The reason for the not convicting him certainly has to do with politics and the over zealous prosecutor who went for murder 1 was as bad as the da in Baltimore charging all of those cops with murder charges in the Freddie gray case.. This is a tragic tragic story and the sanctuary cities and policies are at fault. The city of San Francisco should be sued.

[dirtyhairy]

The wall is NOW a 100% go, and this case will have long lasting effects. RIP Kate, the city threw your death to the wind. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by dirtyhairy

[Mr. Hoopah!]

2 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

Number one. He was here illegally.  number 2 he stole the weapon. Number 3 he was here illegally and thrown out five different times. Number four he fired a weapon that killed a woman. Manslaughter is the very least he should have been charged with. The reason for the not convicting him certainly has to do with politics and the over zealous prosecutor who went for murder 1 was as bad as the da in Baltimore charging all of those cops with murder charges in the Freddie gray case.. This is a tragic tragic story and the sanctuary cities and policies are at fault. The city of San Francisco should be sued.

@WhenFalconsWin told us last night the jury failed Katie.  I happen to agree with you after reading into it that the prosecution failed Katie, not the jury.

[Mr. Hoopah!]

27 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Anyway you sliced the Steinle family was failed.  

Nice pivot.

[WalkingTheDawg]

I'm not sure what else the jury could do. The prosecution didn't really deal them a fair hand in this one. I don't know if I agree with some of the facts being withheld from the jury, either. The fact that the guy had already been deported and illegally re-entered the country 5 times may not be relevant to the case but I would have thought that the knowledge of his 7 previous felony charges would have been available to point to a pattern of behavior. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure how that works. It seems like about 80% of the folks on this board ARE lawyers, so maybe somebody can explain it to me. 

[Return of the Gaucho]

On 12/1/2017 at 10:37 AM, mdrake34 said:

@WhenFalconsWin told us last night the jury failed Katie.  I happen to agree with you after reading into it that the prosecution failed Katie, not the jury.

They both failed Katie.  The prosecution shouldn't have pushed for Murder.  They could never have proved intent without a witness.  There was never enough evidence to convict and it was an over-reach. 

They did include the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter, which the defense admitted to as part of their defense to the murder charge.  They said he found the gun, picked it up, and it went off (initially the defendant said he shot at a seal not a person).  California's involuntary manslaughter statue allows for conviction even when the death arises while committing a misdemeanor.  This defendant was a felon in possession of a handgun the moment he picked it up, and someone died.  The jury should be ashamed.  

[Return of the Gaucho]

20 hours ago, WalkingTheDawg said:

I'm not sure what else the jury could do. The prosecution didn't really deal them a fair hand in this one. I don't know if I agree with some of the facts being withheld from the jury, either. The fact that the guy had already been deported and illegally re-entered the country 5 times may not be relevant to the case but I would have thought that the knowledge of his 7 previous felony charges would have been available to point to a pattern of behavior. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure how that works. It seems like about 80% of the folks on this board ARE lawyers, so maybe somebody can explain it to me. 

Generally, you can't introduce evidence of prior bad acts to prove a defendant was likely to act similarly in the present case.  There are limited uses for that type of evidence, but none really applied in this case.

[WalkingTheDawg]

5 hours ago, Return of the Gaucho said:

Generally, you can't introduce evidence of prior bad acts to prove a defendant was likely to act similarly in the present case.  There are limited uses for that type of evidence, but none really applied in this case.

I got ya, thanks. I see in your previous post that the jury did have the ability and the justification to charge him with involuntary manslaughter. I can't imagine what their reasoning was for letting him walk on that one. I feel bad for the family. I can certainly see why they feel like they were let down by the process. 

[capologist]

On 12/1/2017 at 6:31 PM, WalkingTheDawg said:

I'm not sure what else the jury could do. The prosecution didn't really deal them a fair hand in this one. I don't know if I agree with some of the facts being withheld from the jury, either. The fact that the guy had already been deported and illegally re-entered the country 5 times may not be relevant to the case but I would have thought that the knowledge of his 7 previous felony charges would have been available to point to a pattern of behavior. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure how that works. It seems like about 80% of the folks on this board ARE lawyers, so maybe somebody can explain it to me. 

All I know is if that was a family member of mine there would be some vigilante justice occurring...

[dirtyhairy]

Change is a coming. LOCK THEM UP.

EXCLUSIVE –  A Republican congressman plans to introduce a bill Monday that would threaten huge fines and prison time for elected officials accused of sheltering illegal immigrant criminals from deportation, in the wake of the not-guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial. 

Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita’s bill is one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation to date aimed at sanctuary city policies, going beyond the Justice Department’s threat to cut off grants to those jurisdictions. 

“Politicians don’t get to pick and choose what laws to comply with,” Rokita told Fox News. “Americans are dying because politicians sworn to uphold the law refuse to do so.” 

His “Stopping Lawless Actions of Politicians (SLAP) Act” would hold state and local lawmakers criminally responsible for refusing to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts. The Republican’s bill would subject violators to a $1 million fine and up to five years in prison if they are convicted.

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

We should definitely embrace the judgment of a random message board user over the multiple days of deliberations of a jury exquisitely familiar with the evidence and testimony of the case in question. 

 

(no we shouldnt) 

[Mr. Hoopah!]

2 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

In all fairness, he didn't need a jury in SF.  He was going to get off as soon as he pulled the trigger.  You can blame the sanctuary city and politicians there as much as you can Zarate.  

This is an incredibly stupid post, even by your terrible standards. 

[lostone]

11 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

In all fairness, he didn't need a jury in SF.  He was going to get off as soon as he pulled the trigger.  You can blame the sanctuary city and politicians there as much as you can Zarate.  

Wow this argument sounds similar to the one that is made when cops do it.

[WOR]

Funny how yalls argument changes depending on who the shooter/victim is. 

[Psychic Gibbon]

12 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

In all fairness, he didn't need a jury in SF.  He was going to get off as soon as he pulled the trigger.  You can blame the sanctuary city and politicians there as much as you can Zarate.  

When are you going to renounce your citizenship to get these sweet perks?

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

13 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

In all fairness, he didn't need a jury in SF.  He was going to get off as soon as he pulled the trigger.  You can blame the sanctuary city and politicians there as much as you can Zarate.  

This is dumb. 

[dirtyhairy]

9 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

This is dumb. 

Larry, should the families of the victims be allowed to sue the cities and politicians who allow the sanctuary status and whom have allowed illegals to criminally prey on their citizens? Ie. Kate's family?

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

2 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

Larry, should the families of the victims be allowed to sue the cities and politicians who allow the sanctuary status and whom have allowed illegals to criminally prey on their citizens? Ie. Kate's family?

1) No.

2) This was not a situation of an "illegal criminally preying" on citizens

3) The suggestion of such a thing likely contributed to the jury's findings in that the framing is woefully inaccurate

4) Any such lawsuit would utterly fail at proving causation

5) Contribution would protect the government from any such action. 

[dirtyhairy]

15 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

1) No.

2) This was not a situation of an "illegal criminally preying" on citizens

3) The suggestion of such a thing likely contributed to the jury's findings in that the framing is woefully inaccurate

4) Any such lawsuit would utterly fail at proving causation

5) Contribution would protect the government from any such action. 

The mere fact that this Illegal Immigrant, who had multiple felonies, was released 5 times by the city, then shot and killed a citizen doesn't prove negligence or guilt by disobeying Federal law? OK, got it Larry.