View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 755 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 7:46 pm ::: San Francisco court exonerates Kate Steinle murderer |
Reply |
|
In a huge win for advocates of illegal immigrants who engage in criminal activity, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate has been acquitted of murder in the greatest judicial travesty since the O.J. Simpson trial. Details unfolding currently on national news...
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 755 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 8:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CNN just punked me. They carried the story for all of 5 minutes (an hour after everyone else broke the story) and then moved back to Trump bashing.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 21045
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 9:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This will not be helpful.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 755 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 9:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This guy's lawyer is running his mouth at a press conference. Unbelievable.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 755 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 2:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
By the way I'm fairly certain that applies to citizens. |
You're batting .1000.
Once again you are totally, completely,100% wrong in your statement of the law.
You can go back over 100 years to the Supreme Court's decision in Wong Wing v US where the Court held
"Applying this reasoning to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
It's never been in doubt that the 5th and 6th amendments apply to everyone within the US, citizen or non-citizen, whether here legally or illegally. There are many consistent decisions over the centuries.
I suggest you expand your reading beyond Newsmax and Wikipedia. Madison's Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1800) would be a good place to start.
I'm glad that without hearing any of the evidence you are certain of his guilt despite the contrary unanimous verdict of a jury.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 3:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
I'm glad that without hearing any of the evidence you are certain of his guilt despite the contrary unanimous verdict of a jury. |
Seriously. This is a poor, brown man in the country illegally who directly caused the death of a young, white woman. Even in a city as liberal as San Francisco, that is not someone who is going to "get away with it".
The fact that 12 people unanimously voted "not guilty" should say it all about the reality of this case when it is not being politicized by the disgusting waste of cheeto-stained flesh currently defiling the oval office (who, as the true wannabe despot he is, tweeted out about the "disgraceful verdict" without having a clue about the actual circumstances).
Here is an excellent breakdown of why the verdict came out the way it did:
https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/
And it's even from a conservative site!
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
sambista
Joined: 25 Sep 2004 Posts: 16951 Location: way station of life
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 6:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
this case strikes me as an example of two wrongs (letting an expelled foreigner slip back into the country - five times! - and finding him guilty on any of the specific murder charges presented) not making a right. tragic, yes. unfortunate, yeah. regrettable, of course. all of that. but still.
_________________ no justice, no peace.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16346 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 10:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
I'm glad that without hearing any of the evidence you are certain of his guilt despite the contrary unanimous verdict of a jury. |
Seriously. This is a poor, brown man in the country illegally who directly caused the death of a young, white woman. Even in a city as liberal as San Francisco, that is not someone who is going to "get away with it".
The fact that 12 people unanimously voted "not guilty" should say it all about the reality of this case when it is not being politicized by the disgusting waste of cheeto-stained flesh currently defiling the oval office (who, as the true wannabe despot he is, tweeted out about the "disgraceful verdict" without having a clue about the actual circumstances).
Here is an excellent breakdown of why the verdict came out the way it did:
https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/
And it's even from a conservative site! |
I haven't followed this closely, but from reading this morning, it seems like a clear case of prosecutorial overreach.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 11:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Instead of going after the easy, politically popular target, maybe the police should have gotten off their asses and found whoever abandoned a load Siig in a public spot where anyone - child, criminal, vagrant, anyone - could find it and do harm to someone.
That would have required some actual detective work. Much easier to prosecute a homeless illegal alien with a rap sheet.
I'm reminded of Claude Rains/Captain Renault:
"Round up the usual suspects."
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 240
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 12:27 pm ::: Verdict |
Reply |
|
I was once on a jury that heard a minor case that was strange enough to be picked up as news by all the local papers. Everyone who read about it thought slam dunk guilty. We on the jury all voted not guilty and it was an easy call. I have no idea whether the jurors on this case got it right or not, but without hearing the evidence, all of it, and the jury instructions, there is no way we can say they necessarily got it wrong.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 21045
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 1:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
Instead of going after the easy, politically popular target, maybe the police should have gotten off their asses and found whoever abandoned a load Siig in a public spot where anyone - child, criminal, vagrant, anyone - could find it and do harm to someone.
That would have required some actual detective work. Much easier to prosecute a homeless illegal alien with a rap sheet.
I'm reminded of Claude Rains/Captain Renault:
"Round up the usual suspects." |
Eh. He was holding the gun. He knows what a gun is, what it can do. And in his hands the gun did kill a woman.
I totally agree, however, that this was a case of prosecutorial overreach and, honestly, incompetence. And I don't know if or why it wouldn't be illegal for a prosecution team to try to prove things they know to be false, or charge someone for something that the evidence would tell anyone would be impossible to bring home a conviction on. For instance, how could you even ask for a first degree conviction when the bullet ricocheted. (is that how do you spell the past tense of ricochet?) No offense to any present company here, because everyone here is obviously among the most brilliant minds on Earth , but there is and always has been a serious IQ problem with prosecutors in this country. This case seemed to indicate the tradition lives on.
That all said. There's always the surface of things, and that includes the entire legal record on something, that which is alleged, provable facts, etc. And the story that all that tells. And we tend to think of all of that legally established information as reality. We actually emphasize it as such. Insist on it being reality. The only reality. But then there's reality. Which is what actually happened. And reality very often has nothing at all to do with that which is provable etc. It's simply what happened. There's a comment after the piece that Justin linked to. It's harsh and, in our legal system, in a case like this, true justice that perfectly fits what actually happened wasn't ever going to happen anyway. But there's also a lot here that I agree with. It too is outside where legally established facts live.
The author seems to believe that the only conclusion to draw from this is that the poor innocent XXXXXXX found a pistol and accidentally discharged it? We're supposed to accept that he's spent most of his life behind bars, so he's going to tell the truth? The fact that he lied to the police multiple times means he must have been telling the truth that last time when he claimed it was all a mistake? The fact that he was a known criminal (arrested for crimes other than illegal immigration) isn't at all suspicious?
Someone else pointed out my first sentence up top. He knew it was a gun and that it was dangerous. The not understanding even the Spanish translator is, in my opinion, particularly rich. He was in a public area with people around. I believe he pulled the trigger and didn't sneeze or something like that. A woman died. Involuntary manslaughter. Should have been an easy case I think.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 1:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
jammerbirdi wrote: |
I believe he pulled the trigger and didn't sneeze or something like that. A woman died. Involuntary manslaughter. Should have been an easy case I think. |
Yeah. I think too often on cases like these (especially high profile ones) the prosecutors go for the Big Conviction, no matter what the strongest evidence is telling them. The thought, in my opinion as I don't actually know for a fact what they are thinking, is that the jury has the option to convict on a lesser charge so they might as well go for broke.
Except that leaves the prosecution making all sorts of really flimsy claims that aren't supported by the evidence, and that memory sticks with the jury. So when they go to tackle the evidence that supports the lesser charge the jury is already approaching it with skepticism. Add in the fact that this forces the prosecution to waste a ton of time on an easily refutable argument, while the defense just quickly points out the flaws and spends a ton of time focused on the actual danger to their client. The "throw it all against the wall and see what sticks" prosecutorial gameplan is a terrible, terrible idea that leads to results like these.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16346 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 1:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
jammerbirdi wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
Instead of going after the easy, politically popular target, maybe the police should have gotten off their asses and found whoever abandoned a load Siig in a public spot where anyone - child, criminal, vagrant, anyone - could find it and do harm to someone.
That would have required some actual detective work. Much easier to prosecute a homeless illegal alien with a rap sheet.
I'm reminded of Claude Rains/Captain Renault:
"Round up the usual suspects." |
Eh. He was holding the gun. He knows what a gun is, what it can do. And in his hands the gun did kill a woman.
I totally agree, however, that this was a case of prosecutorial overreach and, honestly, incompetence. And I don't know if or why it wouldn't be illegal for a prosecution team to try to prove things they know to be false, or charge someone for something that the evidence would tell anyone would be impossible to bring home a conviction on. For instance, how could you even ask for a first degree conviction when the bullet ricocheted. (is that how do you spell the past tense of ricochet?) No offense to any present company here, because everyone here is obviously among the most brilliant minds on Earth , but there is and always has been a serious IQ problem with prosecutors in this country. This case seemed to indicate the tradition lives on.
That all said. There's always the surface of things, and that includes the entire legal record on something, that which is alleged, provable facts, etc. And the story that all that tells. And we tend to think of all of that legally established information as reality. We actually emphasize it as such. Insist on it being reality. The only reality. But then there's reality. Which is what actually happened. And reality very often has nothing at all to do with that which is provable etc. It's simply what happened. There's a comment after the piece that Justin linked to. It's harsh and, in our legal system, in a case like this, true justice that perfectly fits what actually happened wasn't ever going to happen anyway. But there's also a lot here that I agree with. It too is outside where legally established facts live.
The author seems to believe that the only conclusion to draw from this is that the poor innocent XXXXXXX found a pistol and accidentally discharged it? We're supposed to accept that he's spent most of his life behind bars, so he's going to tell the truth? The fact that he lied to the police multiple times means he must have been telling the truth that last time when he claimed it was all a mistake? The fact that he was a known criminal (arrested for crimes other than illegal immigration) isn't at all suspicious?
Someone else pointed out my first sentence up top. He knew it was a gun and that it was dangerous. The not understanding even the Spanish translator is, in my opinion, particularly rich. He was in a public area with people around. I believe he pulled the trigger and didn't sneeze or something like that. A woman died. Involuntary manslaughter. Should have been an easy case I think. |
And if they had tried an involuntary manslaughter case, it probably would have been. But they tried a murder case, and, in doing so, argued against the possibility that it was involuntary. Can't expect the jury to convict for the thing the prosecutor is arguing an impossibility.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 21045
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 1:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Yeah, Justin, you don't want to introduce serious well-grounded 'skepticism' into the jury deliberation room. And they so often do exactly that. It's like they're really trying to pull the wool over juror's heads.
Good, point, Matty. Really wasn't thinking about that. Incredible. The one thing he very provably did do was the one thing the prosecutor could not allow for.
|
|
|
|