Were you in the courtroom? Did you hear the testimony? Are you sure the prosecution proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
As a lawyer, I don't always agree with jury verdicts, but I always respect them. The idea that the Government could lock someone up without presenting its evidence in open court to 12 citizens, scares me much more than an occasional quirky acquittal.
I agree with you.
Are we sure he really tried? Or did he take a dive for his political masters?
Were you in the courtroom? Did you hear the testimony?
There wasn't much dispute about the facts in this case. The defense admitted to the killing of Kate Steinle and claimed it was an accident.
I found this definition of an accidental homicide in California:
2.2. The killing was an accident
If.at the time you kill someone.you had no criminal intent to do harm, were not acting negligently, and were otherwise engaged in lawful activity at the time of the killing,
So, as far as I can see there is no way to reasonably find that this killing was an accident. By definition, this guy was guilty of some type of criminal homicide (not 1st degree murder, though).
I am no expert on California law by any stretch of the imagination, but I think a reasonable person would have to believe that the jury ruled incorrectly. I can understand that you are comfortable with some amount of jury nullification because you think the alternative would be worse, but that's no reason to attack a poster for saying, "These jurors must be on drugs."
IS KATE STEINLE DEAD? WERE YOU THERE WHEN THIS MAGGOT KILLED HER? GEEZ. YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET THAT BLEEDING HEART CHECKED?!!!!