Posted on 12/06/2017 10:35:57 PM PST by KJC1
An alternate juror in the Kate Steinle case said the jury made the right decision in acquitting the defendant of murder, manslaughter and assault charges after San Francisco prosecutors failed to prove he had intended to shoot anyone.
Phil Van Stockum, a 33-year-old San Francisco resident who is co-founder of a technology company in San Mateo, did not take part in deliberations as the jury weighed charges against Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a homeless undocumented immigrant whose attorneys argued an accident was behind the killing on Pier 14 on July 1, 2015.
(snip) Van Stockum said prosecutors presented no motive for a murder by a man with no record of violence. He noted that the fatal shot had bounced off the concrete ground, and that the gun, which had been stolen four days earlier from the nearby parked car of a federal ranger, could have been in a mode requiring a lighter pull of the trigger.
“The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us,” Van Stockum said in his Politico article.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
And the single action trigger on that Sig or any Sig for that matter is not a "hair trigger".
He is not a chimp like the one in Planet of the Apes with the AK.
He is a career criminal who knew what was in his hand and what would happen if he pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger.
Common sense also tells us that he stole the pistol.
If the average subject of the People's Republic of CA had a loaded pistol stolen from an unlocked vehicle that was later used in a homicide they would be up S*** Creek.
Not this fed though.
Based on the rapid and highly antagonistic in-your-face militant left wing “SOUND BITE” proclamation by the defendants lawyers immediately following the verdict, and the super weak public response of the prosecutor, YOU ASK A VERY LEGITIMATE QUESTION!
I think your theory has plausibility.
How dare you state the truth!
You must be rasis! /s
I hope one of his loved ones meets the same fate then. So sad too bad for you when that happens Phil Van Stockum.
An illegal alien could probably do both, and walk. 👎
Very interesting.
Liberals and liberal rags sung a different tune on Zimmerman for Trayvon, calling an end to presumption of innocence and lynching Zimmerman, gun owners and Florida Castle law
Funny how these mofos always ask for a change in the law when things do not go their way, but here the law to them seem that it should be non existent against illegals
The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
So, this juror says his instructions were that he had to find both negligence and behaving unlawfully at the time of the killing in order to convict of manslaughter; but, when I look up California law, I keep finding things like this:
Excusable Homicide & Justifiable Homicide in California Law Penal Code 195 - 199 PC...
There are two kinds of non-criminal homicide in California. These are:
California excusable homicide,3 and California justifiable homicide.4 Excusable homicide occurs when someone kills another person without meaning to, while engaged in legal behavior.
The accidental homicide finding seems to require both lack of negligence and engaging in lawful behavior at the time of the killing. Since Zarate was found to not be engaging in lawful behavior (felony posession of firearm), the killing could not legally be an accident, or so it seems to me: but I'm not a lawyer.
They flat out lied to the jury.
Based on CA law, it looks like that was a bad jury instruction since committing a crime is not required (excerpt and link below). The link provided includes an example of a farm owner making his laborers pick vegetables in record heat causing someone’s death. No crime per se. In any event, possessing the gun, brandishing the gun, discharging the gun in public are all crimes. The jury must have believed his ridiculous story that he found the gun wrapped up under a bench and the gun accidently discharged when he picked it up.
CA and many other states also have a form of “depraved heart”/implied malice murder where intent is implied from a reckless action likely to kill or seriously injure someone. If jury found he intentionally discharged the gun into the crowd even without any specific intent to kill, should be able to find him guilty of murder.
Involuntary manslaughter in California occurs when one person kills another unintentionally, either while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous California felony, OR
while committing a lawful act which might produce death, without due caution.1
Under California Penal Code 192(b), the key feature of California involuntary manslaughter is that it does not require intent to kill another person—unlike Penal Code 187 murder, which requires “malice aforethought.”2
https://www.shouselaw.com/involuntary_manslaughter.html
I believe the gun was recovered immediately.
DA’s always have an election coming up.
The problem when it comes to the reporting of decisions like these is in the reporting of what the Judges permit to be introduced or discussed in these trials.
The prosecutor took a dive.
I heard he threw it in the water - assumed they had recovered it since they claimed it was the gun stolen from some agency’s car....
The DA’s office prosecuted this to lose it. This wasn’t incompetence. It was deliberate.
He’s absolutely right, the murder charge was not possible, evidence didn’t back it up at all. But manslaughter was viable and he was charged with it as well... the guy committed manslaughter and the jury was negligent in its duty and acquitted him of it.
Murder requires intent or engagement of an act that shows wanton disregard for human life that ends up in someone’s death. Based on the testimony and evidence there is no way the state proved murder the gun fired hit the pavement and ricocheted into the victim... the accused claims it went off by accident. No eveidence was offered that showed anything to the contrary.
There was no shot at a murder conviction here, but the man was also charged with manslaughter and her death met the criteria for that.. the state overplayed its hand seeking murder and the jury failed in their duty to render a just verdict of manslaughter and acquitted the man of both murder and manslaughter charges.
Having served on criminal assault jury, I can tell you that your job is not just to determine guilt or innocence, it’s to determine guilt or innocence ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
Laws are usually very specific. They contain stipulations that are not common knowledge. While it may seem that someone is obviously guilty, the question is are they guilty of specific terms of law.
The jury in this case didn’t agree that the prosecution proved their case according to the laws they charged him with.
Remember, “unanimously”, and “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
This guy is another ghoul from SF. Watched his interview on TV. Proudly grinning at first. Dodged question about his personal feelings regarding the fact that the murderer was here illegally and protected by the Sanctuary City By The Bay like a junior high debate team wannabe. When (twice) thanked by the hostess for coming on the show, his response (twice) was “You’re welcome”. The correct response in such a setting is “Thank you for having me”. Very Creepy dude, but the norm in that part of California. Literally made my skin crawl, just like the first time I saw Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.