Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 152: Stop splitting the timeline.

(+) Yeah! (+)

FFDragon posted...

I have no idea what's going on on trump's twitter right now

he knows it's still like 25 days until xmas right?

Probably the tree lighting day

But he seems to have forgotten to continue whatever he was saying about the story of Jesus
---

Panthera posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/deathstarpr/status/936378791038877696

Yes, our new tax cuts will significantly raise taxes on the lower and middle classes so we can build a new Death Star but we will balance this by also blowing up a lot of lower and middle class people with our new Death Star.

Sounds like a perfectly good way to get rid of poor people to me!

Why not just use the neutron bomb? It's nice and it's quick and it's clean and it gets things done
---

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html

Illegal immigrant charged with homicide found not guilty

This case was a lynchpin of Trumps campaign against illegal immigrants as he had already convicted the killer in his mind.

Oh well.
---

if we didn't have any people in the country, there would be no deaths!
---

Hearing that a late night vote on the tax bill was scrapped because Senate GOP isn't sure they have the votes
---

yeah, no vote tonight
---

it apparently doesn't hurt enough people so they have to make some more changes before a vote tomorrow
---

Jakyl25 posted...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html

Illegal immigrant charged with homicide found not guilty

This case was a lynchpin of Trumps campaign against illegal immigrants as he had already convicted the killer in his mind.

Oh well.

Pretty clearly negligent homicide...
---

With McCain, Collins, and Murkowski all supporting it how is it possible to not have the votes
---

Why is it when its a cop who gets acquitted "well thats the justice system"

Im not even gonna finish this question I dont actually care about your answer.
---

My Immortal posted...

With McCain, Collins, and Murkowski all supporting it how is it possible to not have the votes

Johnson/Corker/Collins is the bloc being problematic apparently.
---

Yeah the Republicans haven't found a combination where at least 50/52 of them agree.
---

Eddv posted...

Why is it when its a cop who gets acquitted "well thats the justice system"

Im not even gonna finish this question I dont actually care about your answer.

Clearly got off because it's the Bay Area, and their rife Trump hate. Literally no other reason. You don't get much more negligent homicide than

"Discharged a firearm in a unsafe manner in a populated area, that led directly to a fatality"
---

FFDragon posted...

it apparently doesn't hurt enough people so they have to make some more changes before a vote tomorrow

I'm certain that is the exact logic they are using when talking to each other about it too, "how can we cause as much suffering as possible to no benefit?"
---

I did end up saying I didn't care what your reasons would be
---

Eddv posted...

I did end up saying I didn't care what your reasons would be

Please defend this as something that isn't "fuck Trump" go ahead, ill wait.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html

Illegal immigrant charged with homicide found not guilty

This case was a lynchpin of Trumps campaign against illegal immigrants as he had already convicted the killer in his mind.

Oh well.

I totally understand why he was innocent of first and second degree murder, because there was no basis to charge him with that.

I am not quite certain how he was able to get out of that involuntary manslaughter charge, though.
---

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14. But Garcia Zarate's defense attorney said the shooting was accidental and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.

Like perhaps I am completely ignorant of the law, but isn't his own defense attorney basically using "it was involuntary manslaughter!" as a defense here?
---

sounds like the prosecutors fucked up
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14. But Garcia Zarate's defense attorney said the shooting was accidental and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.

Like perhaps I am completely ignorant of the law, but isn't his own defense attorney basically using "it was involuntary manslaughter!" as a defense here?

Yes..... the attorney LITERALLY told the judge and jury that "yeah, he commited negligent homicide, but he didn't kill her on purpose so it's not murder" with what he was saying. The jury still found him not guilty.

We all KNOW why.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

sounds like the prosecutors fucked up

I'm what way?
---

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14. But Garcia Zarate's defense attorney said the shooting was accidental and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.

Like perhaps I am completely ignorant of the law, but isn't his own defense attorney basically using "it was involuntary manslaughter!" as a defense here?

Yes..... the attorney LITERALLY told the judge and jury that "yeah, he commited negligent homicide, but he didn't kill her on purpose so it's not murder" with what he was saying. The jury still found him not guilty.

We all KNOW why.

Because the prosecutor tried tacking on unnecessary First and Second Degree Homicide charges, tainting the ENTIRE case in the eyes of the jurors. Much like how Casey Anthony got acquitted.
---

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

sounds like the prosecutors fucked up

I'm what way?

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14.

by trying to convict him of intentional murder instead of the thing he actually did
---

They accused him of the wrong crime.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

sounds like the prosecutors fucked up

I'm what way?

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14.

by trying to convict him of intentional murder instead of the thing he actually did

But unless California is different than the midwest, usually when you get put on trial for first degree murder, you are also on for second, manslaughter, etc.

So I fully understand the prosecution overreached here considering there was no evidence for first degree murder. But how does the jury hear the defense attorney go "yeah it was involuntary manslaughter" and then not convict him of that? Again, I could be ignorant of the process here in some way, so if I am someone with more knowledge please feel free to correct me.
---

LMAO

consider the beehive poked. I haven't seen conservative twitter this united and focused on something since... well, last November.
---

Eddv posted...

They accused him of the wrong crime.

Are you not allowed in California to be convicted of a lower charge?
---

In murder cases, however, where a convicted defendant may face capital punishment, the United States Supreme Court has held that the court must instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense such as voluntary manslaughter.[1] The reasoning for this ruling is that when the jury is not given the ability to convict for a lesser offense, the jurors might opt to convict a less culpable defendant instead of letting defendant go free, essentially convicting of a more serious crime than the facts warrant. As the Court noted, the failure to give the jury the third option of convicting on a lesser included offense would seem inevitably to enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction. Such a risk cannot be tolerated in a case in which the defendants life is at stake.

Therefore, they must have at least one option that falls in between these extremes.

From Wikipedia, so perhaps not the best source, but that is what I was talking about.

So even thought he was on trial for murder 1, he should still have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Unless I am missing something.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14. But Garcia Zarate's defense attorney said the shooting was accidental and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.

Like perhaps I am completely ignorant of the law, but isn't his own defense attorney basically using "it was involuntary manslaughter!" as a defense here?

when the charge is murder, of fucking course
---

Actually, I just watched the video associated with the article. They claim the defense didn't argue "he shot her by accident" so much as "he picked up a cloth-wrapped package that he did not know contained a gun, and said gun went off in his hand". It's a STUPID and ridiculous defense, but when the prosecution overreaches and undermines their own credibility by trying for a CLEARLY not first degree murder charge, it looks bad for the prosecution in the eyes of the jury.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Kate Steinels murderer, an illegal immigrant who was deported 5 times, was acquitted. California is a complete and total hellhole.

what does the legality of his presence or he deportation have to do with the murdering

it seems like conservatives only care about this case so they can complain about illegal immigrants

Democrats just committed party suicide by supporting this trash.

is there public information about the jury? Was it 12 Democrats?
---

banananor posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco's Pier 14. But Garcia Zarate's defense attorney said the shooting was accidental and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.

Like perhaps I am completely ignorant of the law, but isn't his own defense attorney basically using "it was involuntary manslaughter!" as a defense here?

when the charge is murder, of fucking course

That doesn't matter because he was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter as well. It says so in the very first line of the thing you quoted.

Inviso posted...

Actually, I just watched the video associated with the article. They claim the defense didn't argue "he shot her by accident" so much as "he picked up a cloth-wrapped package that he did not know contained a gun, and said gun went off in his hand". It's a STUPID and ridiculous defense, but when the prosecution overreaches and undermines their own credibility by trying for a CLEARLY not first degree murder charge, it looks bad for the prosecution in the eyes of the jury.

Ohhh that makes slightly more sense and wasn't included in the article I read. That is a ridiculous defense, but at least provides some context for how they possibly could've acquitted him on involuntary manslaughter. Thanks!
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

LMAO

consider the beehive poked. I haven't seen conservative twitter this united and focused on something since... well, last November.

About what?

In order for an accidental discharge to be considered involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutors have to prove culpable negligence, which is to say the person has to be willfully negligent resulting in the accident, as opposed to an actual accident.
---

Yep.

GG 2018.

GG 2020.

Immigration reform just became THE issue and dems can't win on it now. "Ask Kate Steinle's family" is the next "You'd be in jail" debate moment.
---

Also, the killer's defense attorney literally talking about Trump before the verdict was read... such bad optics.
---

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Eddv posted...

They accused him of the wrong crime.

Are you not allowed in California to be convicted of a lower charge?

What I'd assume happened is that the prosecution basically poisoned the water by trying too hard for the highest charge and pushing all their evidence for that alone

Like, for instance, if they tried to insist he shot directly at her, but other evidence suggest the bullet ricocheted off the ground, then the jury's probably going to start questioning the prosecution on other things.

It's like if Little Timmy stole a cookie, and the prosecution has evidence that he stole the cookie... But instead of presenting that evidence, they instead try to make much more flimsy, questionable evidence to say Timmy stabbed his Grandma, then it's gonna make it harder to get the jury to even convict him of stealing the cookie since that evidence was ignored/called into question/whatever.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

And of course Inviso and Moogs are defending it.

This is LITERALLY why you people have no credibility.

I don't know anything about the details of this case, I wasn't in the courtroom and don't know what the jury heard that led them to their decision.

I find it more plausible that the prosecution did a poor job arguing their case than your theory that the twelve jurors just like it when illegal immigrants murder people (?).
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

And of course Inviso and Moogs are defending it.

This is LITERALLY why you people have no credibility.

Inviso posted...

It's a STUPID and ridiculous defense

???
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

And of course Inviso and Moogs are defending it.

This is LITERALLY why you people have no credibility.

They're not defending it so much as saying why the jury said it wasn't.... but realistically the prosecution pushing for a higher charge is not REMOTELY a good enough reason if said jury had morals... but they were in the Bay Area, so I do understand it would be hard to find 12 in the cities combined... let alone one jury.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Ohhh that makes slightly more sense and wasn't included in the article I read. That is a ridiculous defense, but at least provides some context for how they possibly could've acquitted him on involuntary manslaughter. Thanks!

But then they turned around and did convict of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which to be would indicate they don't buy that argument? Seems odd, but it may more come down to not believing the prosecution proved their case than actually buying the defense's argument.
---

More info from the article:

Surveillance video showed Garcia Zarate running away. After his arrest, investigators found gunshot residue on his right hand, prosecutor Diana Garcia told jurors.

Garcia Zarate faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors also were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions.

Prosecutors said Garcia Zarate was playing his own "secret version of Russian roulette" and deliberately fired into an unsuspecting crowd on the pier, killing Steinle.

Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier. He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged. But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.

The ol' "sorry I thought you were a seal" defense, eh?
---

Beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

And of course Inviso and Moogs are defending it.

This is LITERALLY why you people have no credibility.

I don't know anything about the details of this case, I wasn't in the courtroom and don't know what the jury heard that led them to their decision.

I find it more plausible that the prosecution did a poor job arguing their case than your theory that the twelve jurors just like it when illegal immigrants murder people (?).

Yeah, this. I think the guy should've been convicted or manslaughter, but blaming California liberals on the jury immediately assumes the prosecutor did nothing wrong. I'm sorry, but if you blew a slam dunk manslaughter case by getting greedy and trying to go for first degree murder, that's on you. I'm sorry, when Ulti become the guy saying "hold up, the it's the VOTERS' fault that this dumbass lost."
---

StealThisSheen posted...

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Eddv posted...

They accused him of the wrong crime.

Are you not allowed in California to be convicted of a lower charge?

What I'd assume happened is that the prosecution basically poisoned the water by trying too hard for the highest charge and pushing all their evidence for that alone

Like, for instance, if they tried to insist he shot directly at her, but other evidence suggest the bullet ricocheted off the ground, then the jury's probably going to start questioning the prosecution on other things.

It's like if Little Timmy stole a cookie, and the prosecution has evidence that he stole the cookie... But instead of presenting that evidence, they instead try to make much more flimsy, questionable evidence to say Timmy stabbed his Grandma, then it's gonna make it harder to get the jury to even convict him of stealing the cookie since that evidence was ignored/called into question/whatever.

That's not the jury's job to decide....

In fact I was just recently on the hell that is jury duty, and that right there is in fact one of the things they pointed out as NOT OUR PLACE....
---

kevwaffles posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Ohhh that makes slightly more sense and wasn't included in the article I read. That is a ridiculous defense, but at least provides some context for how they possibly could've acquitted him on involuntary manslaughter. Thanks!

But then they turned around and did convict of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which to be would indicate they don't buy that argument? Seems odd, but it may more come down to not believing the prosecution proved their case than actually buying the defense's argument.

Oh, huh, that's a great point, actually. They convicted him of being in possession of the firearm which means they didn't buy "he just happened upon a mysterious wrapped package at the pier that happened to be a gun and happened to go off when he picked it" up part of the story.

So I am confused again.
---

Fwiw, the prosecution focused their argument on second degree murder, not first. It was just on the table along with involuntary manslaughter.
---