ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

deathflower wrote:

"

kolyaboo wrote:

How do we know whether it was intentional or not? If he is a serial liar why believe him?

I'm sorry but the verdict has got to be politically motivated. Also isn't it against the law to shoot sea lions in CA? If so, I'm pretty sure if I went there and did it (not that I would as I have nothing against these animals) I would get 20 years +

I believe in the bullet. The bullet say I hit the concrete and ricochet. I am sure shooting at sea lions is a lesser crime than shooting at human beings.

It doesn't really matter what 'you believe', because the fact is that he fired a weapon in a public place and it hit an innocent bystander. He should have received a manslaughter charge at the least. It was very obvious that the verdict was politically motivated. He outright admitted that he was firing the weapon at 'sea lions', allegedly, then changed his tune when he realized how guilty that sounded to 'having stepped on the weapon and it accidentally discharged'. The whole thing is so preposterous. If you honestly believe he 'stepped on the weapon, it discharged, and just happened to ricochet and hit Kate Steinle', then I don't know what else to say.

"

Deathflower wrote
Gun owners are not hold responsible in accidental shootings. Many people accidentally shoot themselves, a friend or loved one in the US every year. Why are they not charged?

You sure about that? At the very least you get illegal discharge of a firearm. In TX, a gun state, it is a felony to pull a gun on someone even if you don't shoot. It's considered a threat, duh.

I read all the time about people accidentally shooting someone and getting charged with manslaughter or at the very least discharge of a firearm.

Give me your source please! Prove no one in US is charged with anything for accidental shooting.

Again, let me reiterate, CA is not a gun state. It is not permissible to own a gun there let alone discharge one in city limits unless you have a permit which are not easily obtainable.

Edited to add: there are 3 things they look at when they decide whether or not to charge and what charge. 1) the incident itself 2) record if any 3)character (meaning steady job, pay taxes, credit, etc.)

This guy has a rap sheet, and he obviously could not have credit. Also he was in country illegally which is considered NOT of good character.

In order for an involuntary manslaughter charge not to apply to Zarate — and he was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter — it would not be enough for Zarate to have accidentally killed Steinle. To be innocent of manslaughter, either you didn't kill the person at all, or you accidentally triggered a person's death in a way in which no neglegence on your part can be established. The whole point of the charge of manslaughter is to punish people who recklessly cause accidental death.

Zarate's story fits the qualifications for innocence of manslaughter. If you stumble onto a gun you've never seen before and didn't know was there, then somehow it goes off on its own (even if that's because you drop it in shock and it fires as it lands), then that isn't any neglegence on your part.

However, Zarate's story is literally incredible. Even ignoring his previous story about sea lions that contradicts it, the pistol would have needed to discharge on landing — a very rare occurrence — not just once but three times in rapid succession, at least one of those times pointed in a very specific direction to ricochet to Steinle. It's about as likely as getting struck by lightning three times consecutively, or your typical johnKeys QQ post actually being real.

If I was on that jury, it would have hung. I would have easily acquitted second degree — ricochet, tripping balls, etc — but there's no way Mexican johnKeys wouldn't have gotten manslaughter, at least as far as I'm concerned. Below a certain point of infinitesimal probability, doubt is no longer reasonable.

"

deathflower wrote:

It is accidental shooting or unintentional shooting. It seem he found a stolen gun randomly tried to shoot at something in the water, the bullet ricochet and hit the victim. The point wasn't that Garcia Zarate pull the trigger but the bullet change directions after hitting the concrete, which could support Garcia Zarate’s claim of an accident. The shooting wasn't intentional.

That's a textbook definition of involuntary manslaughter.

"

Waaaaa! People aren't talking about what I want them to talk about.

I liked this article discussing how Trump trolled the UK: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/01/delingpole-donald-trump-trolls-londonistan-like-boss/

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

In order for an involuntary manslaughter charge not to apply to Zarate — and he was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter — it would not be enough for Zarate to have accidentally killed Steinle. To be innocent of manslaughter, either you didn't kill the person at all, or you accidentally triggered a person's death in a way in which no neglegence on your part can be established. The whole point of the charge of manslaughter is to punish people who recklessly cause accidental death.

Zarate's story fits the qualifications for innocence of manslaughter. If you stumble onto a gun you've never seen before and didn't know was there, then somehow it goes off on its own (even if that's because you drop it in shock and it fires as it lands), then that isn't any neglegence on your part.

However, Zarate's story is literally incredible. Even ignoring his previous story about sea lions that contradicts it, the pistol would have needed to discharge on landing — a very rare occurrence — not just once but three times in rapid succession, at least one of those times pointed in a very specific direction to ricochet to Steinle. It's about as likely as getting struck by lightning three times consecutively, or your typical johnKeys QQ post actually being real.

If I was on that jury, it would have hung. I would have easily acquitted second degree — ricochet, tripping balls, etc — but there's no way Mexican johnKeys wouldn't have gotten manslaughter, at least as far as I'm concerned. Below a certain point of infinitesimal probability, doubt is no longer reasonable.

The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove murder and manslaughter. Let me remind you, you need evidences beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution had no witness and they can't prove criminal intent or motive.

In order for an involuntary manslaughter charge to apply, a shooting must show the standard of culpable negligence. Culpable negligence as in recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death or failing to do something with the same consequences.

The victim is some distance away. You have to prove he know firing that weapon might kill or cause injuries. If he doesn't see or know the victim is around and he fire a weapon, how can you say he is negligent? It is not foreseeable that he know he could kill the victim. You would have to conclude it is a unforeseeable accident. You would have to acquitted him.

"

@Scrotie. You posted a Breitbart link, bro.

Not an argument.

In other news, the dude who reported the nothingburger yesterday got suspended:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/02/abc-news-suspends-brian-ross-over-serious-error-in-trumpflynn-report.html

I could've found a different source but I won't :>

"

deathflower wrote:

You have to prove he know firing that weapon might kill or cause injuries. If he doesn't see or know the victim is around and he fire a weapon, how can you say he is negligent? It is not foreseeable that he know he could kill the victim. You would have to conclude it is a unforeseeable accident. You would have to acquitted him.

I wouldn't have. I tend to assume people aren't born yesterday, and thus would know that firing a handgun might kill or cause injuries, unless they take precautions that were not taken in this case. Steinle was about 90 feet (28 meters) away from Zarate when shot: the bullet hit the ground 12 feet from Zarate then traveled 78 more feet to Steinle. That is not so far away that we can credibly believe Zarate diligently surveyed the area and determined it was uninhabited. As I explained earlier, his story about the weapon accidentally discharging three times is also not credible, meaning that Zarate pulled the trigger beyond a reasonable doubt. Given his drug-addled state (not to mention his prior felonies), even holding the weapon in such a state constitutes the same wilfull disregard of human life that prosecutors demonstrate every day to convict drunk drivers of involuntary manslaughter.

For what it's worth, Trump referred to the Steinle shooting as a "senseless and totally preventable act of violence," which I'll admit is an odd way to talk about a death analogous to a drunk driving fatality. "Violence?" It was an accident. I mean, I still definitely want illegal aliens deported before they cause drunk driving fatalities, but let's not exaggerate Zarate here.

I don't think there was any solid case for second degree and I'm confused as to why the prosecution would even pursue it. I can imagine how presenting a case for second degree to the jury could have been a distraction that took the prosecution's case off course, diminished its focus, and perhaps even seemed like a witch hunt. Intentionally killing someone off a ricochet that began that close is an unbelievable stretch. As such, I am aware of how the prosecution may have failed this case and helped make such an acquittal possible.