Contributors to this thread:
Youve got to be kidding !! .... a jury found the ILLEGAL Not Guilty of murder in the shooting/killing of Kate Steinle .....see link
BK, you got any insight how this miscarriage of justice could happen ?? .... was it bad prosecution or just brain dead jurors ??
100 foot shot that bounces off the concrete walkway before hitting her. Is he a twisted evil sharpshooter or a stupid illegal immigrant? Murder must show intent.
Sounds like a horrible case of manslaughter from a person who should have never been there in the first place!
I wonder if I, as a legal American with a CC permit, had to fire my weapon in self defense and it ricocheted off something and killed a bystander if I'd get the same walk away card?
I can understand a not guilty of murder verdict, but certainly manslaughter seems to be in order.
I feel for her family.
Consider the venue. The Defense Attorney probably stacked the deck with Snowflakes and hippies, or other "victim mentality" candidates. No shortage of these in the Bay Area.
WW, you’d be screwed. Especially if you were in California.
Kate Steinle was just posthumously raped by Obama's liberals in addition to being killed by an illegal alien.
Ya and the prep is saying isn’t this a Great County or what! I care how many times deported he is coming back for sure now.
so in san fran, illegals can bounce all the bullets they want off concrete and kill all the people they want and not get punished. hell of a precedent to set here. fire away!!!!!!!
Today we had a 5.1 earthquake not far from my house. I was saying, wrong coast God, send it to California. Recently I have lost a lot of respect for the law. The FBI is crooked, The IRS is crooked, The CIA is crooked. The judges and lawyers are crooked, what the hell are we supposed to do? I am damn glad I was born when I was 75 years ago. I saw America at it's greatest. I just hope Trump can bring it back but every damn democrat is trying to screw the whole country.
The ricochet apparently is the issue. I don't know if the prosecution thought to have an expert witness to explain how that happens if you yank the trigger. I hadn't been following the trial so that's just what I got from the article. FYI, I watched a fellow in Arapahoe County try a smilar defense in an armed robbery of a Taco Bell. He got 65 years to think of a better story.
Perp said he didn't know it was a gun.....UFB!
Convicted him as a five time felon in possession of a firearm ????. Not guilty of manslaughter because he doesn't know its a gun, but convicts him as a felon in possession of a firearm, total fubar!
Here's the truth about trials. Every once in a while you will win the unwinnable case. And every once in a while you will also lose the unloseable case.
It happens. Not very often. But it does happen. I've been on the winning end of when where the prosecutor went to the DA annual meetings and told everyone how stupid we were. He didn't even get ketchup on the crow sandwich he had to eat after the acquittal.
It's stuff like this that push this country closer to people taking the law into their own hands. That's not a good thing and I do NOT want to see that but when the authorities do not do their job and in fact do the OPPOSITE (like sanctuary cities and illegals getting literally REWARDED for their noncompliance of our laws), then the people will step in and start doing it for them.
This just took us one step closer.
Wonder how her parents are feeling tonight ? He shouldn't have been here and he shouldn't of had a firearm. Blood on liberals hands . California used to be great but look what liberals have done to it now. It is a forigen country. Innocent my ass.
His being deported 5 previous times was not aloud as evidence. The gun was stolen out of a BLM vehicle. I hope the family sues San Francisco for being a sanctuary city and allowing him to be there. ICE was looking for him to deport. They interviewed different attorneys and DAs said had he been tried in any other city he would have been found guilty of manslaughter. There isn’t an adult around that doesn’t know what a revolver is and what it can do. This is just ridiculous.
Oh man did those prosecutors screw up....or were they purposely inept?
Bullet was shot into the concrete and ricocheted. Instead of arguing murder...why not go with the facts and nail that felon directly for Involuntary manslaughter? The stupidity of the prosecutors in this case is beyond belief.
Total travesty. The family was very quick to distance themselves from Bill O 'Reilly &Trump when they were pushing Kate's Law. Maybe they thought they didn't need their help to get a conviction, but I think that was a mistake. A mockery and miscarriage of justice. Another O.J. jury..DONT CONFUSE THEM W FACTS....THEY WENT IN KNOWING THEIR POSITION. THEY SHOULD BE PROUD...LOSERS! Rest in Peace Kate. Mad Dog
There is no question in my mind that he should have been convicted of manslaughter at the very minimum.
Also, this was/is being used as a promotional piece for the anti-gunners by virtue of the claim that this mean, nasty gun "just went off".
See it now: "Of course guns are dangerous! Look what happened to that poor undocumented immigrant! He found one, didn't know what it was, and it just went off and killed that girl! They even tried to put him in prison for life! Good thing we are a sanctuary city and our enlightened people saw through all that and released him!"
For the record, not saying he did, but, I think it would be pretty easy to center punch a B-27 at 100 feet on purpose while bouncing the bullet off cement. Not sayin', just sayin'.
First we had Bergdahl walking away and now this illegal piece of murdering sh*t. The rule of law is rapidly deteriorating right before our eyes.
Just a question, honestly, what do you think would have happened to that POS if he did the exact same thing while in Mexico?
I believe they would have just found his body a few days later.
Or better yet if he were an American in Mexico ILLEGALLY! He wouldn't be IN jail, he'd be UNDER it.
That is, AFTER they milk his family for every cent they have.
Spike Bull 's Link
"The family was very quick to distance themselves from Bill O 'Reilly &Trump when they were pushing Kate's Law."
Huh? I remember watching the family on O'Reilly several times - they seemed grateful. Maybe something happened after words I wasn't aware of - I guess it wouldn't surprise me given where they live.
Very interesting comment from a five month old article at the link. (I can personally verify the accuracy of this information about the P226.)
"FMarion > Guest • 5 months ago You are spot on. The Sig P226 has a firing pin safety that will not allow the pistol to fire unless the trigger bar moves rearward to lift the safety.
In other words, it cannot fire unless someone is pulling the trigger. Those "accidental discharges" occurred when someone had his or her finger on the trigger when it shouldn't have been there.
It is a well-made, inherently safe, pistol. It did not fire three times on its own; it fired three times because Sanchez pulled the trigger three times. Now, it is possible that the recoil from the .40 caliber cartridge (which is a fairly snappy cartridge) surprised him, which caused him to flinch and pull the second shot down, making it hit the ground before if hit Kate, but that is no excuse.
I suppose Sanchez's defense lawyer has to come up with a bizarre explanation for why the killing wasn't Sanchez's fault, but the notion that the 226 fires on its own accord--whether in single or double action mode--is simply mechanical nonsense. It only fired here because Sanchez was pulling the trigger."
Spike Bull 's Link
That guy will spend a long long time in Federal prison. The Feds have him now and say they have other serious charges on him. I don't think he will be walking the streets anytime soon.
Spike Bull 's Link
"When Defense Attorney Matt Gonzalez and Public Defender Jeff Adachi chose to make the exoneration of their client Jose Ines Garcia Zarate in the death of Kate Steinle an opportunity to attack the president, vice president and attorney general, my immediate thought was these two young lawyers are fools. They should learn when to keep their mouths shut.
But no matter -- because the real villains in the Kate Steinle story are the San Francisco politicians who made the rules that prevented ICE from removing the already five-time deported criminal Zarate from the country.
These SF pols already had Kate's murder forever on their consciences, what they have of them anyway. Now they will also have to deal with the growing disgust of the American public and an administration that loathes these politicians, backed up by a Supreme Court that will ultimately be on the side of that administration for most actions it might take.
So the appalling Steinle decision will have unintended consequences that I will now predict:"
(See the link.)
To your point, WW:
"Auwtsnae • 9 hours ago When the state apparatus for protection of rights is so corrupt and ineffective that it's no longer capable of carrying out justice, the rise of the vigilante becomes an unfortunate inevitability."
Remember, this is the same state that let OJ walk.
How is it possible for a felon to not be convicted of murder/manslaughter/invol.man when he admits he pulled the trigger. Since he is a felon, once that gun was in his hands, anything that happens afterward, be it intentional or not, should be an additional felony..NO??
If I do something stupid and engage the police in a chase, anyone that dies from a result of the chase, be it a bystander or a PO, I would be charged with murder, even if it was the cop that hit someone. I could claim it was an unintentional accident until I was blue in the face and still would go to jail. I just don't get it.
A good read from conservative site redstate.com. Sounds more and more like prosecutorial overreach.
As much as I hate to say it, I think I tend to agree with the article BEG.
Murder requires intent, and it's pretty tough to prove intent on a ricochet. Involuntary manslaughter? Hell yes. Murder? Pretty tough to prove that one.
Sounds like they put all their eggs in that basket.
SGT. Tamorese (spelling) was imprisoned in Mexico simply because he had a gun in his pickup and could not find a place to turn around.
This guy is a political pawn of the left and gets off with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. No justice here. Politics. He was an easy conviction for involuntary manslaughter but a guaranteed loss for murder. I have to call this purposeful prosecutorial (coined word) politically motivated injustice. The killers lawyer immediately attacked Trump and actually compared Trump and his administration to this murderer. I pronounce guilty. CAlifornia, San Francisco and the entire Democrat party of the killing of Kate Steinly. Guilty of murder in the first degree. Guilty of reckless endangerment of the entire state of California.
God bless, Steve
And guys who think like you are the same kool-aid gulpers on the jury. Maybe when it happens to you, you'll learn. MD
I blame the Jury. Sacramento news has repeatedly said that from interviews with DAs as well as defense attorneys. The nitwits were revolting against the federal government’s stance on sanctuary cities.
I don’t know what you think you know about how I feel. I was making a comment towards Sixby’s statement that he has “to call this purposeful prosecutorial (coined word) politically motivated injustice.” One, prosecutorial is not a coined word. Two, is he suggesting the prosecutors focused on a charge they knew they couldn’t win in order to get an acquittal? Just looking for someone to translate that statement.
I think it’s a travesty this man did not get convicted on at least a manslaughter charge.
"??? I’m not following "
hahahhaha, such a smug little warrior
"??? I’m not following"
Join the club. I read it three times and still have no idea. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma.
This was a premeditated political statement by the state of California against the federal government. The prosecutor is being hammered as a dunce, and without a doubt colluded in the case never mentioning the past of the accused. He could have easily at least attempted but decided against it. The judge never had to rule. The jury asked to see and handle the gun as if they had the experience to know if this handgun could have possibly been discharged without the human element. They obviously believed it could have by simply picking it up without pulling the trigger. This is America, this is your grand daughter, your daughter, your mother, your sister and the protection they will get when a illegal immigrant 5 time felon shoots them dead. Involuntary manslaughter was sealed and delivered and met every word of the criteria to convict. Not one gray area. Who cares? Right?
Woods, ......and will win again if he so chooses which may be doubtful.
Annony Mouse's Link
I’m sure the jury wanted to see the gun because of the defense’s argument that the gun has a touchy trigger. The reason you make this argument is because you’re banking on the jury not having any experience with handguns. The argument wasn’t necessarily that the gun went off on its own, it was that in single action mode it doesn’t require much to fire the gun. I can just see a juror going “Wow, it really is easy to discharge the gun in single action” after dry firing the gun in double action.The fact that there is no external safety on the gun coupled with the perception of a light trigger helps build the case that the defense’s story holds some water. I still don’t know how this wouldn’t have resulted in a manslaughter conviction, but I can definitely understand why the defense would have argued this and it seemed to resonate with the jury.
That's disgusting Mouse. How long are we going to tolerate this sh*t????
Probably till CA falls into the Pacific ;o)
What is the difference between That and some Rich Old White Guy Slaughtering everything that moves in Africa????!!!
Quick, someone throw the over ripe bananas out!
FREEloader, the Cheerleader is back. Take a hike idiot.
"What is the difference between That and some Rich Old White Guy Slaughtering everything that moves in Africa????!!!"
So there is no difference between rape and murder and a guy that participates in a completely legal activity in Africa?
Wow..... don't even have the words.
Freejagoff, every time you type your BS on here, you continue to show why Trump won and why liberals are the fools we know they are ... those like you are a bane to society ... that last comment of yours really shows the ignorance and pure stupidity that makes you a joke around here....smh ... do you enjoy showing your ignorance on here.. really ... do you enjoy it or are your really that much of a dweeb ..
I'm not sure what is more foolish, the bait that the trolls lay out, or those that continue to bite on it.
the bird is circling this AM I see .... way to set everyone right there KPC... good going, I'm proud of ya ... lol ....
KPC. Remember, we ignored obama for eight years, and look at the disaster this Country is in now. I think it's foolish to ignore them. I see you are undecided, with your question, so you might want to take a long look at yourself. Only you can make the answer to satisfy your wants, not us.
Shaw II occurred on March 2, 2008, in Arlington Heights, Los Angeles, California. Shaw, a 17-year-old Los Angeles High School football player, was shot by two Hispanic men while returning home from the Beverly Center. Shaw was taken to a hospital, where he later died.
Murder of Jamiel Shaw, Jr. Location 2150 Fifth Avenue, Arlington Heights, Los Angeles, California, U.S. Date March 2, 2008 8:40 p.m. Victim Jamiel Shaw II Perpetrator Pedro Espinoza A gang member, Pedro Espinoza, was later apprehended and convicted of the murder. Because Espinoza was an illegal immigrant who had just been released from jail, the shooting sparked controversy and political debate over Los Angeles' status as a sanctuary city, and over Special Order 40.
Jamiel Shaw II Edit Jamiel "Jas" Andre Shaw, II (December 22, 1990 – March 2, 2008) was a junior at Los Angeles High School. He played football, basketball, baseball, the piano, and ran track. On the morning of his murder, he had participated in a weekend football training program, that prepares top high school football players for college football and for a possible career in the National Football League. Shaw was also being prospected by several colleges, including Rutgers University and Stanford University. Shaw's mother Anita was serving her second tour in Iraq at the time of his death.
Pedro Espinoza Edit Pedro Espinoza (born c. 1989) was a member of the 18th Street Gang and was residing in the U.S. illegally. He had previously been arrested in November 2007 on gun charges and assault on a police officer. He was given a four-month early release from jail on March 1, 2008. A day after Shaw's murder, Espinoza reported to his probation officer.
"the bird is circling this AM I see ...."
As long as there is carrion, the birds will circle.
"KPC. Remember, we ignored obama for eight years, and look at the disaster this Country is in now. I think it's foolish to ignore them."
First of all, if by "we" you mean the CF, we didn't ignore Obama in any way shape or form. Every single thing he did was sliced, diced, and pulverized here.
Second, it's one thing to take issue with or debate legitimately held beliefs or opinions. It's a whole other thing to take issue with an obvious troll, who exists for one reason and one reason only, to anger and offend people for sport. How many times is Charlie Brown going to fall for Lucy's football trick?
As long as people are willing to keep being offended, the trolls will keep offending. It's a symbiotic relationship. Some people just aren't smart enough to see it.
KPC. We have been down this road many times, and "YOU" keep coming back with the same reply. Do you need a boat ore to stir the $hit? It was quite comical to see you and GG get into it, the other day. Two guys, that never do wrong and have all the answers, that couldn't even come up with an answer, to what you two were whining about. Oh, but that was ok. "We", i was referring to was, AMERICA, ignored obama for eight years. There has been many times that i didn't agree with what you, and others, had to say, over the years, but i didn't come on here and stir the $hit, about it. I have three that i rip, and will probably continue to do so. I can disagree with you, and not have to whine to you about it, like you do. You know who the three are, so if you see me reply to them, you better not read it. I hate to see you so undecided, let alone AMAZED.
"It was quite comical to see you and GG get into it, the other day. Two guys, that never do wrong and have all the answers, that couldn't even come up with an answer, to what you two were whining about. Oh, but that was ok."
There is a vast difference between two real people passionately debating legitimately held opinions, and one real person debating a fake person with fake opinions that are only posted to upset the other.
Yes, the fact that some seem incapable of differentiating between the two is amazing to me. It does however illustrate how easily people can be duped.
Yep KPC is such an easy mark ... comical at times aint it ...
KPC of course there is a vast difference, when YOU are involved. I already new that. It always is. If you noticed on that thread, i didn't mention one thing about either one of you. If you don't want to prove how Phony the three liars are, on here, than don't. No need to come on here and start your crap with me, because you ALREADY know, that i will. Thanks for admitting your double standard, when YOU are involved. I see you come on threads and spout off to someone you don't agree with, why? I have three, you have just about every thread. So who is worse? Let me guess. 8^) JTV hit the nail on the head, Like fly's to a dead fish, so, you are here.
"JTV hit the nail on the head, Like fly's to a dead fish, so, you are here."
I don't expect that you or JTV will understand this, but the difference is like flies to a dead fish, and flies to a picture of a dead fish. At some point, even the flies realize they are being duped by the picture.
Ah yes. The double standard. Wouldn't expect anything different from you, KPC. You are starting to sound like one of the three, with your double standard bull$hit. Glad we don't agree. Remember that, the next time you come on here, with the same reply as the last two. Obviously you won't UNDERSTAND, this. You missed the last one. 8^)
I've got some friends pretty close to this case.
The prosecution totally screwed up. They kept pushing hard on "Murder" though there was no motive or intent.
It was a ricochet that should have been prosecuted for Involuntary Manslaughter...but the prosecution was so inept...the jury wasn't buying their side.
Heres the Silver Lining; The Steinle Family will sue the city of SF and win a Huge $$$ award. In that Case 2 huge facts will come out; 1) the guys felony history that he was a danger to society, 2) SF just released the guy due to their silly politics defying the Federal gov.
San Francisco WILL be held accountable...and they will have to reconsider their silly politics. I hope the Steinle family Bankrupts SF....that will teach these liberal azzes.
"The prosecution totally screwed up. They kept pushing hard on "Murder" though there was no motive or intent.
It was a ricochet that should have been prosecuted for Involuntary Manslaughter..."
I suspect you are right Beendare. Sometimes a half loaf is better than no loaf at all. I don't know if it had ever been revealed before, but the first I heard of a ricochet was after the trial.
"Heres the Silver Lining; The Steinle Family will sue the city of SF and win a Huge $$$ award. In that Case 2 huge facts will come out; 1) the guys felony history that he was a danger to society, 2) SF just released the guy due to their silly politics defying the Federal gov. "
I hope you're right, but sadly if they do, it will still be the taxpayer that ends up footing bill. It's a shame politicians can't be held personally liable for stuff like this. Stuff like this would change rather quickly.
"and they will have to reconsider their silly politics"
San Francisco??? Not going to happen, ever.
bad karma's Link
as long as it is the tax payers of San Fran... they deserve every kick in the azz they get ... they vote the nitwits in, thay could vote them out... but it wont happen, to many lefties/dopers and fruits reside there...
A good article after an interview with an alternate juror, explaining why the jury may have voted as it did.
Interesting article/opinion BK, seems to make sense.
apparently the facts did not support the charges. jury trial has nothing to do with right and wrong that's for sure.
Sounds like the prosecuter should look for another line of work because he sucks at this one!
Maybe that was the plan all along. It IS government after all. No honor, trust or integrity.
In some counties, it is common for the prosecution to over-charge the offenses. I think that's in part because their jury pools tend to convict, and they get a bit over-eager and complacent. From what the juror said, they had some problems, and didn't present any evidence on certain elements of the crime. And to convict, you have to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. I can't say justice was served, but it looks like the right result given what how the trial went.
"Maybe that was the plan all along."
Are you suggesting that the prosecutor purposely over-charged the defendant, knowing that the a jury would think it was an overreach, and therefore come back with a not guilty verdict for everything but the weapons charge?
It seems like Stalker and or Woods Walker are correct to me. From bk's link:
"The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with “criminal negligence”—he did something than an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone’s death.
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. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. 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."
Also, it disturbs me that we never heard the fact that the bullet ricocheted off the ground before hitting her until the trial began.
Yep....hang this one on the prosecuting atty. Zarate was guilty of man slaughter but the atty couldn't convict him in what should have been a slam dunk case.
"Are you suggesting that the prosecutor purposely over-charged the defendant, knowing that the a jury would think it was an overreach, and therefore come back with a not guilty verdict for everything but the weapons charge?"
I don't think prosecutors do that, WW. I think they get arrogant, believe they can convict anyone of anything, and don't give the facts the proper scrutiny when making a filing decision. I did criminal defense my first ten years of practice, including about 4 years full time. .
I didn't think they did either, but based on this and some other things I'm not so sure anymore.
So you think the prosecutor purposely lost ??? That is absurd........
So you're suggesting the prosecutor wanted him to be found not-guilty?
I know it's a reach to accuse the guy of being derelict in his duties. But that prosecutor absolutely had to see this coming. Or else he's just plain stupid.
In the fair(y) city of San Francisco, I wouldn't be a bit shocked to find out he was just following a directive from above. It's not like they're known for following the laws they've been sworn to uphold. Just look at their blatant stance against the laws on being a sanctuary city....
"So you're suggesting the prosecutor wanted him to be found not-guilty?"
It's either that or the prosecutor is a complete moron.
Seems to me that’s what some have been suggesting on this thread for quite some time. Sixby, Rocky, and the rest today.
"It's either that or the prosecutor is a complete moron."
Well, if the prosecutor secretly wanted him to be found not guilty, why bring charges at all. Just to make himself look incompetent?
Orders from higher ups? It IS a political job after all. In Chicago it's called "CLOUT". And it goes on here all the time.
Either way..... Someone thought they could win or they wouldn't have brought the charge....
Who knows, KPC & company? For all we know, they may have considered it to be a small sacrifice on the path for progress. That's been the track record of the progressive left.....
I never once saw a single comment from a member of the left that was aimed against that horrible 'killing'. In fact, if anything it was to the contrary.
Why didn't the left ever condemn the killing of that beautiful, innocent young woman? Instead, the leftists have fought every proposal made to stiffen the proposed laws aimed to curb such horrific acts from ever occurring again. As if that ever should've become necessary....sheesh.
“Instead, they fought every proposal made to stiffen the laws since proposed to curb such horrific acts from ever occurring again.”
And which laws are aimed at preventing someone from accidentally discharging a gun they find in a random public place?
This whole incident was a terrible tragedy and I, like most on here and on both sides of the aisle, find it to be a travesty that this individual will serve no time for the killing of Kate Steinle. That, however, appears to be the fault of the prosecution. What motivated the prosecution is still unanswered.
I find it funny (though not in the least bit surprising) that no one here has called out the folks that were screaming for a harsh punishment and swift justice, stemming from this individual’s history, as possibly pushing the prosecution to pursue charges that legally weren’t warranted.
Exactly Gator.... if the Prosecutor hadn't pursued murder charges.... then the thread would have been titled "Oh my God what a wussy prosecutor "....... I don't doubt that the prosecutor had influence to bring the most harsh charges..... But as Karma said.... Prosecutors (Elected)..... don't make it their business to charge folks if they think they are going to lose.....
"Orders from higher ups? It IS a political job after all. In Chicago it's called "CLOUT". And it goes on here all the time."
"I never once saw a single comment from a member of the left that was aimed against that horrible 'killing'. In fact, if anything it was to the contrary."
So again, why bother bringing charges at all?
BEG, why do you pretend to be so stupid? You know what a gun is, and you'd know if it was in your hand. You might even know if you're pulling the trigger...especially when it goes BANG. At least by the time it goes BANG 5 TIMES.....
If you were breaking the law to possess a gun, you'd know it.
This guy knew all of the above.
But you can keep playing stupid all you want to. I believe you....
KPC, why pretend to be so stupid, too? You also know better....
Kevin.... If I understand the conspiracy theory.... it goes something like this.... someone higher than the prosecutor.... orders the prosecutor to bring murder charges.... because they know the general public would be irate if no charges were brought.... so they intentionally overcharged knowing that he would be found not guilty..........
"I find it funny (though not in the least bit surprising) that no one here has called out the folks that were screaming for a harsh punishment and swift justice, stemming from this individual’s history, as possibly pushing the prosecution to pursue charges that legally weren’t warranted."
There is a certain amount of truth to that, however many, including myself (although I don't ever remember commenting on the specifics of the actual case) can only go by the facts known at the time. As I said before, I was not aware of a ricochet shot until after the verdict had been rendered.
I really do beleive that the Steinle family should go after the city of San Francisco with a suit of some sort. After all, they are inviting illegals there without vetting. They should be made to pay, and pay handsomly . I hope the Steinle's do this and go big. Hire the meanest frickin law-dog they can find and swing for the fences.
You might have it there, BB. We don't know. I'm sure that other theories are possible.
It's either that, or those unmentioned ones, or that prosecutor is an absolute idiot who's raked in a massive salary from the idiots that pay him....who don't seem to be complaining one iota about his work performance on this case.
Often times I've thought I should've been a weather man so I can screw up and get paid for it. Now I'm thinking I just should've worked for the City of San Fran.
Or maybe working for some of y'all would be just as good?
Right on, Jim!!!!
Or it could be as simple as it was a nationally publicized case involving lots of emotions and a lot of pressure on the prosecutor to get that son of a b..... with a murder charge......
"Kevin.... If I understand the conspiracy theory.... it goes something like this.... someone higher than the prosecutor.... orders the prosecutor to bring murder charges.... because they know the general public would be irate if no charges were brought.... so they intentionally overcharged knowing that he would be found not guilty.........."
If they gave a damn about what the "general public" thought, they wouldn't be a sanctuary city.
So, BB, your contention is that the prosecutor allowed his emotions to buffalo himself into pursuing charges that did not have chance at succeeding?
Not his emotions.... the emotions of a nation.... and the family of a dead young lady.... and maybe some political pressure to go for the murder charge....
Personally, I don't see that level of directive coming from the upper levels of San Fran government. But regardless, if this prosecutor was directed to act against what he knew to do, and what he knew would end up in a successful prosecution, and yet he obeyed such a directive anyway, then you just hit on what I was previously contending.
Yet you insinuated that I was proposing some wacky conspiracy theory.... :^)
You are assuming to know what was in the prosecutors mind... maybe he thought he could get a guilty verdict...... maybe that was a grave error... or maybe that thought was reinforced by all the outside pressures to go for the murder charge.... Maybe the prosecutor has or will release a statement as to why they went after the murder charge....
Nobody knows for certain what outcome will occur in a trial.... otherwise why have a trial ??
If he thought those things then either he is very inexperienced, or he's incompetent. The alternate juror has made this quite clear.
The bottom line on this whole travesty is that if the immigration laws would have been ENFORCED rather than IGNORED by San Francisco and others then this piece of sh*t wouldn't have BEEN at that park in the first place.