Kate Steinle’s accused killer found not guilty

[J.Wilkins]

[

He was convicted of being a felon with a firearm in this court, you posted what it takes to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter which included what he was convicted of. Why are you lying about it after you posted what it would take to be convicted of "Involuntary manslaughter"? YOU posted it.

No you IDIOT, if he was robbing her and the gun accidentally went off then you'd be right but the crime and the shooting have to be associated.

 

[J.Wilkins]

wow.

It's true though, if this was an accident where a white guy had an accident with a gun there would be no debate, hell it wouldn't even be news and you KNOW THAT.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Posted this in another thread but I'm amused today so what the heck. In response to Trumps crap I posted this on his twitter account.

Hey Don, maybe they will arrest someone determined to be everything you hope for, proven rapists and all. Then you will have fitting company to be your prison husbands. Maybe you can trade MAGA caps for the anal lube you will surely be needing.

 

[fskimospy]

No you IDIOT, if he was robbing her and the gun accidentally went off then you'd be right but the crime and the shooting have to be associated.

Wait, you're trying to say that if I'm stone cold sober but have some weed in my pocket if I accidentally crash my car and someone dies I'm not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because I had weed on me? Gee, who would possibly have thought.

Usually it's easy to assume that Taj is lying, as he does that a lot. In this case though he might actually just be this stupid.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Wait, you're trying to say that if I'm stone cold sober but have some weed in my pocket if I accidentally crash my car and someone dies I'm not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because I had weed on me? Gee, who would possibly have thought.

Usually it's easy to assume that Taj is lying, as he does that a lot. In this case though he might actually just be this stupid.

Well, it helps that there are no exemptions for illegals in law, only in the minds of "some people" so anyone can read what you presented and understand it. (thank you for posting that)

I actually took the time to look through the entire section and I cannot for the world of me imagine how anyone could possibly come to the conclusions that some of the "justice warriors" of this thread have come to.

My conclusion is, they don't give a fuck about anything but the fact that the guy wasn't a white citizen and because of that fact he is guilty no matter what, of everything... always.

As per usual.

 

[OutHouse]

It's true though, if this was an accident where a white guy had an accident with a gun there would be no debate, hell it wouldn't even be news and you KNOW THAT.

if it was a illegal white guy that has been deported back to the UK 7 times and with a lengthy record. im pretty sure that the same arguments would be valid. but hey lets be assholes and throw race into this and ignore the actual details of the crime.

 

[brycejones]

if it was a illegal white guy that has been deported back to the UK 7 times and with a lengthy record. im pretty sure that the same arguments would be valid. but hey lets be assholes and throw race into this and ignore the actual details of the crime.

Projecting again? Since you and several other righties here seem to be determined to ignore the actual details.

 

[mect]

Why would you lie about whether or not that applies to involuntary manslaughter?

As to your novel legal theory, are you claiming if the gun had a defect that had it randomly go off and it killed someone that he should be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter simply for owning it? I've asked other people and nobody was willing to endorse an idea this dumb. Will you?

https://youtu.be/6jbn_kacmk8?t=29

 

[imported_tajmahal]

That is absolutely not the definition of involuntary manslaughter. Here's the California penal code on involuntary manslaughter:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=192.

"

192.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:

(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."


The bolded describes reckless conduct. Accidental killing without reckless or criminal conduct is not a crime at all.

H

Why are you lying about what I posted? You are a very dishonest individual. Simply illegally owning a firearm does not mean if any action you take leads to someone's death you have committed involuntary manslaughter. This is something a child could understand. You have to be committing a crime that causes the person to die.

By your logic any time someone died from the actions of someone carrying weed in their pocket they would be committing manslaughter. You are either stupid for believing this or you are a liar. Or both! I'll let you decide.

His actions got him convicted of one crime, he also fulfilled the parameters for being convicted of involuntary manslaughter which the jury refused to do. You were the one that posted those parameters, why deny them now?

The jury for political reasons saw fit to interject a little San Francisco street justice into the proceedings. It's their prerogative as a jury to nullify political actions they don't like, they did it. Nothing new.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

H

His actions got him convicted of one crime, he also fulfilled the parameters for being convicted of involuntary manslaughter which the jury refused to do. You were the one that posted those parameters, why deny them now?

The jury for political reasons saw fit to interject a little San Francisco street justice into the proceedings. It's their prerogative as a jury to nullify political actions they don't like, they did it. Nothing new.

So you were in the courtroom and in the room the jury was making verdict call, or are you talking out of your ass again tajjy?

 

[fskimospy]

H

His actions got him convicted of one crime, he also fulfilled the parameters for being convicted of involuntary manslaughter which the jury refused to do. You were the one that posted those parameters, why deny them now?

The jury for political reasons saw fit to interject a little San Francisco street justice into the proceedings. It's their prerogative as a jury to nullify political actions they don't like, they did it. Nothing new.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I notice how you won't explicitly address my example because it shows how stupid your position is.

By your logic, if you are 100% sober but have drugs on your person and you get in a car wreck where someone dies you are guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Do you believe this to be the case, yes or no? If the answer is yes, you're a moron. If the answer is no, then you're conceding my point.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Wait, you're trying to say that if I'm stone cold sober but have some weed in my pocket if I accidentally crash my car and someone dies I'm not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because I had weed on me? Gee, who would possibly have thought.

Usually it's easy to assume that Taj is lying, as he does that a lot. In this case though he might actually just be this stupid.

If you'd read the same link you so thoughtfully provided you'd have seen that vehicles are exempt from that particular ruling. If you were under the influence of a narcotic and accidentally shot someone, then you'd be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. There's no doubt that Zarate killed Kate while committing a crime, the only difference is the jury refused to convict him of it.

 

[J.Wilkins]

if it was a illegal white guy that has been deported back to the UK 7 times and with a lengthy record. im pretty sure that the same arguments would be valid. but hey lets be assholes and throw race into this and ignore the actual details of the crime.

And if it was you, would the woman be any more or less alive? Would you be any more or less responsible?

You nazi twats are so fucking transparent and don't get me wrong on this, the nazi twat part is your "he's not one of ours, therefore he is guilty" not about what ethnicity the person in question belongs to.

 

[J.Wilkins]

If you'd read the same link you so thoughtfully provided you'd have seen that vehicles are exempt from that particular ruling. If you were under the influence of a narcotic and accidentally shot someone, then you'd be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. There's no doubt that Zarate killed Kate while committing a crime, the only difference is the jury refused to convict him of it.

No they are not, and his link does not say that.

 

[fskimospy]

If you'd read the same link you so thoughtfully provided you'd have seen that vehicles are exempt from that particular ruling. If you were under the influence of a narcotic and accidentally shot someone, then you'd be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. There's no doubt that Zarate killed Kate while committing a crime, the only difference is the jury refused to convict him of it.

Use any other activity you want then. If I'm walking down the street, trip over a rock, and fall into someone and they die.

Same question.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Use any other activity you want then. If I'm walking down the street, trip over a rock, and fall into someone and they die.

Same question.

If you are a convicted felon and find and then illegally pick up a firearm on a street or pier and then discharge that firearm causing the death of a young woman, then yes. You have committed involuntary manslaughter and should be held accountable. Unless of course the jury decides to nullify the law because they don't like it or don't like Trump.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Use any other activity you want then. If I'm walking down the street, trip over a rock, and fall into someone and they die.

Same question.

I'll try to help you by providing a real world example:

Back in 1978 me and a bunch of my friends were in a park in Bristol, we were having a hell of a time until some idiots started messing with one of the women there, now naturally a fight broke out and at some point I pushed a guy who fell backwards and landed neck first on a concrete table. He died pretty much instantly.

Now since I'm a native citizen of the nation this happened in I'm assuming that no one would say that this was anything but an accident but the idea here seems to be that if I was not then the illegality of my presence would mean it would be involuntary manslaughter and not an accident.

Isn't this pretty much exactly what is going on here?

 

[J.Wilkins]

If you are a convicted felon and find and then illegally pick up a firearm on a street or pier and then discharge that firearm causing the death of a young woman, then yes. You have committed involuntary manslaughter and should be held accountable. Unless of course the jury decides to nullify the law because they don't like it or don't like Trump.

No, that is not how the law works, at all...

Thankfully you can't just go "he's not one of us" and move directly to the gas chamber no matter how much you wish it was so.

 

[fskimospy]

If you are a convicted felon and find and then illegally pick up a firearm on a street or pier and then discharge that firearm causing the death of a young woman, then yes. You have committed involuntary manslaughter and should be held accountable. Unless of course the jury decides to nullify the law because they don't like it or don't like Trump.

Hahaha look at you dodge because you know you said something dumb. You should at least be mature enough to admit it.

You are both a very stupid person and a very dishonest one.

 

[brycejones]

If you are a convicted felon and find and then illegally pick up a firearm on a street or pier and then discharge that firearm causing the death of a young woman, then yes. You have committed involuntary manslaughter and should be held accountable. Unless of course the jury decides to nullify the law because they don't like it or don't like Trump.

Derp mode has been fully enabled on tajbot

 

[OutHouse]

And if it was you, would the woman be any more or less alive? Would you be any more or less responsible?

You nazi twats are so fucking transparent and don't get me wrong on this, the nazi twat part is your "he's not one of ours, therefore he is guilty" not about what ethnicity the person in question belongs to.

and there is the Nazi card. fuck off you piece of shit.

 

[J.Wilkins]

and there is the Nazi card. fuck off you piece of shit.

How about no?

The whole deal here is that he's not one of yours and that makes him guilty of a crime that would not otherwise be a crime. People here, you included have literally argued that.

That, kiddo, is exactly what Nazism is all about.

 

[OutHouse]

but the idea here seems to be that if I was not then the illegality of my presence would mean it would be involuntary manslaughter and not an accident.

Isn't this pretty much exactly what is going on here?

no, its not.

 

[OutHouse]

No, that is not how the law works, at all...

Thankfully you can't just go "he's not one of us" and move directly to the gas chamber no matter how much you wish it was so.

you really need banned. you are wrong on everything you fucking post about, from guns, to hunting to laws in the US. calling people nazis for no reason other than you have no argument. just STFU.

 

[deathBOB]

How about no?

The whole deal here is that he's not one of yours and that makes him guilty of a crime that would not otherwise be a crime. People here, you included have literally argued that.

That, kiddo, is exactly what Nazism is all about.

That’s not fair. He probably hates brown people like half as much as a real Nazi