"
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.
The manner in which she died was a violent death and it was preventable, had the deportation laws actually been enforced. Why he was allowed to return to the country six times and walk free, despite dealing and using drugs, is yet another example of California failing miserably.
Still in the alpha stage, but at least build diversity isn't an issue: https://wolcengame.com/home/
|
Posted byJNFon Dec 2, 2017, 11:17:50 PM
|
|
Why wouldn't he come back though? He would be killed in a Mexican jail if he stayed home and did the same things. He comes here, deals, shoots, whatever and they deport him and he returns. Absolutely no consequences for any actions.
Censored.
|
Posted bykolyabooon Dec 2, 2017, 11:38:22 PM
|
The reason why the GEOTUS is so thicc:
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
Posted byXavderionon Dec 2, 2017, 11:52:01 PM
|
"
"
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.
It isn't so close either. 28 meters away could be the length of a building. Since the victim is with her father at the time of her death, there is plausible reason to believe the victim and the accused did not have a line of sight with each other. No one witnessed the shooting.
Last edited by deathflower on Dec 3, 2017, 12:07:15 AM
|
Posted bydeathfloweron Dec 3, 2017, 12:02:34 AM
|
"
It isn't so close either. 28 meters away could be the length of a building. Since the victim is with her father at the time of her death, there is plausible reason to believe the victim and the accused did not have a line of sight with each other. No one witnessed the shooting.
What difference does that make? Sure, he may not have intentionally shot her, but a manslaughter charge doesn't require intent to kill the person. It's basically reckless abandon with a gun. You don't fire off a weapon in a public area. Period. He should be in jail. Period.
California penal code:
192.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.
Comes with a charge of between 3 and 11 years in a state prison, unless you're this guy.
Still in the alpha stage, but at least build diversity isn't an issue: https://wolcengame.com/home/
|
Posted byJNFon Dec 3, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
|
"
"
It isn't so close either. 28 meters away could be the length of a building. Since the victim is with her father at the time of her death, there is plausible reason to believe the victim and the accused did not have a line of sight with each other. No one witnessed the shooting.
What difference does that make? Sure, he may not have intentionally shot her, but a manslaughter charge doesn't require intent to kill the person. It's basically reckless abandon with a gun. You don't fire off a weapon in a public area. Period. He should be in jail. Period.
How can you prove, without any witness, that the shot that killed the victim was shot intentionally? I personally find it hard to believe that you'd shoot the ground 12 feet in front of you on purpose.
And that's the whole thing. You can't convince someone of manslaughter if there's a reasonable doubt that the shot was entirely accidental and without mishandling from the accused.
The accused was obviously unable to answer any question properly considering he was changing his story constantly and returning over and over to his original statement despite agreeing with every questions asked by the inspectors. His testimony couldn't be trusted at all.
Now, blaming immigration is ridiculous here. If he's not the one that stole the gun, then anyone could have found the weapon and the exact same scenario could have happened with different people implied (assuming weapon misfire).
Should he have been deported? Yes
Does that matter in the case? No
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwinon Dec 3, 2017, 3:06:35 AMAlpha Member
|
|
Atleast now i understand what ill Kim Young Ung is trying to do,
he´s firing off rockets in hope he finds a weird angle that bounces off of Japan inorder to hit the USA,
whole world will be left in guessing if he intentionally tried to hit someone or if it was just an accidental nuke.
And yes i once shot the ground 12 feet infront of me inorder to hit a leaf of grass, horrible inaccurate these toys, its like aiming at someone and accidently hitting the ground infront.
[filed under: things you do in unpopulated areas]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcKqhDFhNHI
|
Posted byLachdananon Dec 3, 2017, 7:41:10 AM
|
"
Should he have been deported? Yes
Does that matter in the case? No
Say that to Jim Steinle's face.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon Dec 3, 2017, 9:11:56 AM
|
"
"
"
It isn't so close either. 28 meters away could be the length of a building. Since the victim is with her father at the time of her death, there is plausible reason to believe the victim and the accused did not have a line of sight with each other. No one witnessed the shooting.
What difference does that make? Sure, he may not have intentionally shot her, but a manslaughter charge doesn't require intent to kill the person. It's basically reckless abandon with a gun. You don't fire off a weapon in a public area. Period. He should be in jail. Period.
How can you prove, without any witness, that the shot that killed the victim was shot intentionally? I personally find it hard to believe that you'd shoot the ground 12 feet in front of you on purpose.
And that's the whole thing. You can't convince someone of manslaughter if there's a reasonable doubt that the shot was entirely accidental and without mishandling from the accused.
The accused was obviously unable to answer any question properly considering he was changing his story constantly and returning over and over to his original statement despite agreeing with every questions asked by the inspectors. His testimony couldn't be trusted at all.
Now, blaming immigration is ridiculous here. If he's not the one that stole the gun, then anyone could have found the weapon and the exact same scenario could have happened with different people implied (assuming weapon misfire).
Should he have been deported? Yes
Does that matter in the case? No
You don't need to prove he shot the victim intentionally. You need to prove that he should have been more careful while holding a deadly weapon. There must be some facts missing that I'm unaware of or some serious incompetence involved in the investigation/prosecution because from what I've seen this should have been an easy slam dunk case.
|
Posted byDurianMcgregoron Dec 3, 2017, 10:51:01 AM
|
|
|
Posted bytotalbacklineon Dec 3, 2017, 11:02:26 AM
|
