When you can type 120-130 wpm, it's about 2-3 minutes for 7 paragraphs. Sorry you're still pecking away with your index fingers.
Kate Steinle's murderer found Not Guilty in San Francisco
- Thread starter Wall Knight Teague
- Start date
I step away for a couple of days and it is amazing just how incredibly stupid the arguments surrounding this case become. So to sum up:
1. Somehow this person is my 'hero' despite me never saying anything about any personal feelings about this dude. My comments have always been about how ridiculous it is this case was moved forward and that it has become a national sensation. It's amazing how no one appears to want to discuss this logically. Again, there is plenty of non-biased reporting on just the facts of the case. Take away any mention of the nationality of the defendant it quickly becomes cut and dry.
2. This case is somehow the same as the mass shooting in Vegas. Despite the fact that there is no evidence he ever shot into a crowd, some of you somehow want to connect the two. If you can't tell the difference between a man in a fixed and fortified position firing thousands of rounds into a crowd from a homeless man who finds a gun and then has it discharge towards the ground then you are dumb as hell. Period. The forensic evidence showed that the bullet struck the ground 12 feet in front of the gun and, bounced and traveled an additional 78 feet before it hit the victim.
3. Somehow this guy was transferred from a federal prison to a county lockup for the purpose of deporting him. Once again, this whole thought process is so stupid its almost impossible to believe someone actually typed it. Mainly because the Feds are the only ones who CAN deport him. Transferring him out of the Federal system works against that goal! The actual timeline of what happened was that this guy was in a federal prison for being here illegally. This was the third time this had happened for him. The two previous times he had been deported immediately after his sentenced was served. This time, for reason that have yet to be explained, he was transferred to the San Francisco Sheriffs office to stand trial for a 20 year old Marijuana possession charge. The local DA immediately said they had no interest in prosecuting a 20 year old possession charge, and the local Sheriff's office immediately reached out to the Federal Deputies to ask if he had already completed his sentence with them. Over two weeks later it was confirmed that he has served his time so the Sheriff's office released him. The reason he was released is because the local authorities do not have the authority to detain him for a federal charge and because of the 4th Amendment they could be sued if they didn't release him.
This case isn't a good argument for any of the causes that have taken it up because 1) He was already in Federal Custody and should have been deported; 2) Local authorities were in possession of him for over two weeks and in contact with Federal Authorities asking what to do with him. Feds could have picked him up for deportation at any point. Once they confirmed to local authorities he had served his sentence, then they had no recourse but to release him. He had already been held two weeks longer than he should have been; 3) None of the evidence points towards this being anything but an accidental killing so the whole 'illegal immigrant murdering an innocent America' narrative gets thrown out the window and 4) the court system did exactly what it was supposed to. This was never a murder case and it shouldn't have been tried as one. The verdict would have been the same regardless of where it was tried.
1. Somehow this person is my 'hero' despite me never saying anything about any personal feelings about this dude. My comments have always been about how ridiculous it is this case was moved forward and that it has become a national sensation. It's amazing how no one appears to want to discuss this logically. Again, there is plenty of non-biased reporting on just the facts of the case. Take away any mention of the nationality of the defendant it quickly becomes cut and dry.
2. This case is somehow the same as the mass shooting in Vegas. Despite the fact that there is no evidence he ever shot into a crowd, some of you somehow want to connect the two. If you can't tell the difference between a man in a fixed and fortified position firing thousands of rounds into a crowd from a homeless man who finds a gun and then has it discharge towards the ground then you are dumb as hell. Period. The forensic evidence showed that the bullet struck the ground 12 feet in front of the gun and, bounced and traveled an additional 78 feet before it hit the victim.
3. Somehow this guy was transferred from a federal prison to a county lockup for the purpose of deporting him. Once again, this whole thought process is so stupid its almost impossible to believe someone actually typed it. Mainly because the Feds are the only ones who CAN deport him. Transferring him out of the Federal system works against that goal! The actual timeline of what happened was that this guy was in a federal prison for being here illegally. This was the third time this had happened for him. The two previous times he had been deported immediately after his sentenced was served. This time, for reason that have yet to be explained, he was transferred to the San Francisco Sheriffs office to stand trial for a 20 year old Marijuana possession charge. The local DA immediately said they had no interest in prosecuting a 20 year old possession charge, and the local Sheriff's office immediately reached out to the Federal Deputies to ask if he had already completed his sentence with them. Over two weeks later it was confirmed that he has served his time so the Sheriff's office released him. The reason he was released is because the local authorities do not have the authority to detain him for a federal charge and because of the 4th Amendment they could be sued if they didn't release him.
This case isn't a good argument for any of the causes that have taken it up because 1) He was already in Federal Custody and should have been deported; 2) Local authorities were in possession of him for over two weeks and in contact with Federal Authorities asking what to do with him. Feds could have picked him up for deportation at any point. Once they confirmed to local authorities he had served his sentence, then they had no recourse but to release him. He had already been held two weeks longer than he should have been; 3) None of the evidence points towards this being anything but an accidental killing so the whole 'illegal immigrant murdering an innocent America' narrative gets thrown out the window and 4) the court system did exactly what it was supposed to. This was never a murder case and it shouldn't have been tried as one. The verdict would have been the same regardless of where it was tried.
This comment is in a thread in which the right are politicizing an awful accident to justify the construction of a 2,000' wall on our southern border, banish liberals from the country, and starting a civil war. Good stuff.
This is a sad story, and a good DA should have pushed for manslaughter as it was obviously unintentional. The people of SF are saddened by the events and feel for the family from the outcome of the trial.
MORE
LONG
PARAGRAPHS
BECAUSE
YOU
QUESTIONED
MY
SMARTS
LONG
PARAGRAPHS
BECAUSE
YOU
QUESTIONED
MY
SMARTS
Fact... Kate Steinle is dead.
Theory... the bullet ricocheted.
Fact... He was responsible for killing her.
Theory... He had no intent.
Facts are all that matters.
Theory... the bullet ricocheted.
Fact... He was responsible for killing her.
Theory... He had no intent.
Facts are all that matters.
Man, you are REALLY terrible at debating as TheDude73 and Perrin have literally made you and the others who have tried to debate them look like absolute idiots. Point after point has literally rushed right over your collective heads.
As TheDude so eloquently explained the presence of a wall in no way absolutely prevents anyone from entering the country any more than laws prevent firearms from getting into felon's hands or illicit drugs from being used.
BTW, the ricochet...that is actually a known fact.
It is also a fact that to prove a murder charge one must prove intent. No other facts matter if you cannot prove intent. Manslaughter does not require intent, only negligence which is why that should have been the charge brought forward.
But you and others cannot help yourself from trying to find a political angle and then once started, refuse to admit that you simply don't understand law and logic. I mean you just wrote..."Theory... He had no intent.". <-- your words, not mine. Without proof of intent you've lost your murder case. The difference of trying a case in a courtroom and on a message board.
Deal in facts.
Like the fact you don't pay your bets.
The theory came from your side. The facts do not have a side.
The dude did not eloquently explain anything. He theorized.
Last edited:
So i Haven't kept up with the case..but let me get this straight..he found a gun and just decided to pick it up and fire it...lol okay.
Also, he would have been kept in custody...hence prevented the murder if he wasn't in a sanctuary city...which permitted due process for all. I would assume since one has been deported multiple times and already had multiple felonies...it would be common sense to not give him this...hes not the little Hispanic girl who just cant help it and wants to go to US college to be a doctor that the left always paints a picture of on why we should keep them safe and in the US. He had nothing to provide to society, wasn't a US citizen, and should have been in detainment until he could have been thrown back over to his shithole again.
The left missed the point..the verdict is irrelevant when you realize it should have never occurred in the first place..sanctuary cities let it happen
Also, he would have been kept in custody...hence prevented the murder if he wasn't in a sanctuary city...which permitted due process for all. I would assume since one has been deported multiple times and already had multiple felonies...it would be common sense to not give him this...hes not the little Hispanic girl who just cant help it and wants to go to US college to be a doctor that the left always paints a picture of on why we should keep them safe and in the US. He had nothing to provide to society, wasn't a US citizen, and should have been in detainment until he could have been thrown back over to his shithole again.
The left missed the point..the verdict is irrelevant when you realize it should have never occurred in the first place..sanctuary cities let it happen
"My side"? I didn't know the law had a side. You're upset that he was found not guilty of murder. You've had it explained to you why the case was lost. A first year law student could have defended those murder charges.
Proving a ricochet is easily done. That wasn't theory.
That he had no intent? Not theory, it was part of his defense. It was the state's obligation to prove otherwise. If they couldn't, they should have never filed charges that needed to reach that bar.
He received a felony conviction. He'll do time and then be exported again.
I guess the ricochet is 'theory' like gravity is a 'theory'. But all evidence shows the bullet that struck Ms Steinle ricocheted off the pavement. Ballistics on bullet, strike mark on pier, entry angle in victim. The evidence of the ricochet was agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense after thoroughly reviewed.
So you guys are cool with deporting illegals now?
So Ricochet bullets from the Paddock guns were not murder?
Prosecution in this case is an oxymoron.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Not the same. I shouldn't even be responding, but It seems rather obvious that the bullets from LV shooter's weapon were meant to inflect harm. Even you could prove that in a court of law. Those prosecuting this case couldn't prove in any way that homeless undocumented immigrant meant to harm anyone.
Not the same. I shouldn't even be responding, but It seems rather obvious that the bullets from LV shooter's weapon were meant to inflect harm. Even you could prove that in a court of law. Those prosecuting this case couldn't prove in any way that homeless undocumented immigrant meant to harm anyone.
Seven time felons rarely intend to harm. Like Godzilla, they are misunderstood.
Last edited:
Paddock had intent. He expressed that intent by firing hundreds of rounds at a crowd of people. I realize that this is confusing to you but you'll have to just trust me.
Never been against deporting people. But the man's status as an illegal alien has zero to do with his trial. He was accused of murder, not illegal entry into the US.
Complex thought escapes you.
His priors of drug possession and illegal entry into the US were not relevant to the charges of 1st or 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter.
There's a video of the instance that the jury was allowed to watch. Malicious intent still wasn't proven.
The ricochet is irrelevant. Next time a murder happens just say was there a richocet that happened...oh all good. Or in a shooting if an intended target was shot at but a child was hit by a stray bullet....all good guys...not intended for them. Just get them on the gun charge. If he wasnt an illegal and not a felon I have a feeling your stance would be different. Gun control! Why are these guns available! Something like that.
First, counselor, explain to me how you reconcile your theory of intent being a necessary element to sustain a second degree murder conviction in California, with the California Penal Code and California case law. Please carefully review that definition of "implied malice" in particular, Fuzz R.Q. Arnold, Esquire, and explain to me how the necessary mens rea therein equals your definition of intent.
Second, counselor, since you are apparently an experienced California attorney (and, surely, you are, to have such strong opinions of the criminal justice system there), riddle me this. Explain to me how Katie Steinle is dead, that the identity of the perp is unquestioned, and that there is apparently not a single theory of any homicide under which this man could have been convicted? He was convicted of a weapons charge- but that conviction could have just as easily occured if Katie Steinle had never been shot in the first place, if he was found with the same gun in this case on a different day. In other words, her death itself resulted in no conviction whatsoever- it indirectly led to a conviction on a weapons charge, but her death itself resulted in a big, fat exoneration. Since you are such a legal scholar to an extent that you can accurately tell what kind of murder trials first year law students can easily win, why don't you present me with a thorough and detailed list of all California criminal statutes relating to homicide, and explain to me how the State would have lost a trial to a first year law student as to each one? Thanks in advance, legal beagle Fuzz.
Last edited:
Oh, it's 1000% relevant to your emotional and irrational reaction to this case, but it's not relevant to the actual charges of 1st or 2nd degree murder, or that of manslaughter.
Neither does the average drunk driver who plows the family SUV head on. Look, I don't know whether the State proved its case or not. Let's forget about red herrings about intent. The lack of proof of intent, assuming that the State failed to prove intent, is relevant to one charge that he faced. There were other charges.
Not the same. I shouldn't even be responding, but It seems rather obvious that the bullets from LV shooter's weapon were meant to inflect harm. Even you could prove that in a court of law. Those prosecuting this case couldn't prove in any way that homeless undocumented immigrant meant to harm anyone.
Um.....there has to be evidence of a ricochet, which was proven in this instance. And it's extremely relevant to the intent of the shooting.
My stance is the same no matter who pulled the trigger. The last part of statement is an unintelligible rant.
That's gross vehicular manslaughter, which can be proven given the events.
The state didn't prove it's case. The verdict given tells us that.
"Intent" is a red herring in a murder 1 or 2 charge??
She is dead. He is to blame. The only irrational thought is your defense based on "undocumented".
Yep, agree with the first part, that's why I backed a lesser manslaughter charge.
You, like many, only have a loose handle and irrational view of this case.
My suggestion is that you review the California statute relating to murder of the second degree, paying careful attention to the definition of "implied malice". I'll give you a hint- it's not the same thing as "actual malice", or, intent. Then, I would suggest that you either start reviewing relevant California case law to see exactly how courts in that state interpret the definition of implied malice- or, since it's easier, you can just consult Fuzz the Fuzzy Legal Bear for an alternative opinion. Your choice.That's gross vehicular manslaughter, which can be proven given the events.
The state didn't prove it's case. The verdict given tells us that.
"Intent" is a red herring in a murder 1 or 2 charge??
this was a white girl shot by an illegal alien mexican multi felon in California. and acquitted. no surprise Fuzzynuts and Mime have showed up defending the criminal and forgetting the whole damn point. this worthless human being should have never been here in the position to have murdered this girl.
and yet no white people rioting, looting, burning down businesses. difference in the cultures i suppose.
and yet no white people rioting, looting, burning down businesses. difference in the cultures i suppose.
Mime, is it true that the illegal immigrant was a islamaphobe, nazi, whit supremacist?
You present yourself as quite objective here, and I'll grant that you do make a few good points, but you kind of give yourself away as having an agenda, as opposed to being a rational, and objective, legal analyst, when you make characterizations such as "(the defendant) finds a gun and then has it discharge to the ground". Yeah, it's possible that he just "found" this stolen gun. There are also....other possibilities. We don't know. "Has it discharge" sounds like a diplomatic way of describing an absolute idiot committing an act of reckless idiocy of the first order, but I guess that kind of idiocy in California is insufficient for any kind of a homicide conviction, even when it involves an innocent victim who did nothing to provoke it. But let me make sure I understand your position. In your view, is it or is it not proper, under the best case circumstance of person who "finds a gun" and "has it discharge" and kills an absolutely innocent victim, to be completely exonerated of any homicide charge? Or are you suggesting that the State did not apply charges that could have been brought, but were not?
Last edited:
