Ethnic background certainly doesnt, but immigration status certainly does; especially if the jury is sympathetic to illegals. He was deported what, 5 times prior to that and had a felony conviction? The jury didnt even have to convict on 1st degree murder, they had the option to consider convictions for 2nd degree murder and involuntary manslaughter and didnt. The idea that having an enforced immigration policy for convicted felons is somehow "racist" is completely absurd and this is a direct result of it. (Not saying anyone here is saying that, but as a rant). The San Francisco City Council has blood on its hands over this one. The jury's argument was that he had no intention of killing her. Right. He accidentally fired the gun three times and then accidentally threw it in the water after he realized what happened. Im sure drunk drivers that kill someone have no intention of doing that either.
I feel like men sexually harassing the women who work for them has nothing to do with Facebook, but to be fair I kinda stopped watching Mad Men in season one. Did Don invent Facebook?
I'm not saying that your immigration policies shouldn't be enforced, but I don't really think that enforcing your immigration policies would have helped in this case. The guy WAS deported 5 times... and each time he came back. Sanctuary city or not, he came back. I haven't heard a single thing about SF being a sanctuary city having any bearing on his intention of shooting... as in, he didn't say, "well, it's a sanctuary city, so therefore I can shoot this person and get away with it". That's like blaming the lack of enforcement of driving ages for an underage driver who goes out and gets in a wreck and kills a car full of nuns... he doesn't get off because of it, and the lack of enforcement didn't cause it, because it's almost impossible to enforce. He's to blame, period. What I do blame for it is the fucked up jury pool. Show me a jury and I'll show you a bunch of people probably too stupid to get out of it. Never mind the SF mentality. In this particular case I think it's too easy to say, "well, if he was deported it wouldn't have happened", and I don't think that's right. You could just as easily say that it was the fault of the federal officer who had his gun stolen out of his car. So yeah, I get that immigration is an issue, but I don't think it's the cause of this verdict... nor should it be the focus.
At least they're going to deport him, Again. It worked so well the other 5 times. I'd lay money that within 6 months he's back in a California sanctuary city which will welcome him with open arms. Except for the fact that law enforcement had this guy, knew he had repeatedly illegally re-entered this country, and that ICE had requested they hold him. They didn't, because fuck the law, it's not as enlightened and progressive as their city. I hope the Steinle family sues that shit hole of a city into bankruptcy.
Who knows, its impossible to speak to the decision making of the entire jury as so far they havent discussed it, at least not all of them. But its hard to grasp what other factors may have contributed to an acquittal other than their perspective on immigration, considering how clear-cut the facts of the case were. My argument isnt hat him being an illegal is the direct cause of the shooting, but the policies of the state of CA and city of SF on their refusals to comply with Federal immigration laws, particularly when it comes to handling of convicted felons, is certainly a factor here. They knew he was back in the city prior to the shooting. Jury selection of morons is another major failure.
It's hard to say... I generally reserve judgment on this kind of stuff because I find that there us inevitably some detail that is overlooked by the media because it would make things less clickable and sensationalist... but I have to admit that I'm having a hard time imagining such a thing in this case. As to the jury selection... I read a very interesting article from a Netflix exec a while ago that kind of relates. He said that they had to totally rethink and re-implement how they did focus groups for content. The typical Hollywood focus group is what causes the stupid drivel to show up on TV and get cancelled after 3 episodes, leaving people wondering how in the ever-loving hell did that ever see the light of day? Well, it turns out that people with nothing better to do on a Tuesday than to sit in line all day and hope they get picked to go watch a TV show, get a free lunch, and provide their opinions, aren't really the best demographic to take advice from. Who knew? Same with jury pools... those that are not able to get out of it probably aren't the best people deciding the outcome.
Were you in the courtroom listening to the trial? Maybe they had the same shit prosecution that the OJ trial had? without knowing that then the argument being made is that because he was here illegally he is automatically guilty of murder. Which obviously is not the case, he is guilty of illegally entering the country and whatever crimes are assocciated with that. Nursery not being one of them
Right. A friend of mine is an ADA here and he's said multiple times that the vast majority of jury candidates that make it to the courtroom for the interviews for selection are actively trying to be on a jury, for one reason or another. Either to satisfy some weird bias or feel important, or whatever their bizarre motivation may be. I cant imagine a less fun time than spending weeks on end with complete strangers, debating minutiae and deciding whether or not someone is going to spend their life in prison; which makes it stranger that there are people out there that do. Who is making that argument? He was a convicted felon that illegally had a firearm and killed some one. That alone makes it a miscarriage of justice. On another note, Michael Flynn is going to jail (probably).
The big point in that is the statement that Flynn has decided to help investigators. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Trump offices right now.
I am so sick of people saying stupid shit like this. You don't have to agree with other people, but stop telling yourself bullshit to make you feel like you're oh such a good person and they're all so, so bad. Grow up. I think people have seen this coming for awhile. Whether he will actually go to jail might depend on if he has incriminating dirt on Trump. I'm pretty sure prosecutors would cut a generous deal if that were the case.
This is tangential, but why is this such a common sentiment? I got called to jury duty and served for a domestic violence trial. I didn't try to get out of it either. Does that make me some idiotic rube who got played by the government? Why does everyone look down on jury duty?
I think he already did give up the goods on Trump or others high up. He plead out ONLY to making false statements to the FBI, which means they probably had him dead to rights on other way worse stuff. Knowing what we know about lying about being a foreign agent, the Turkish kidnapping plot, and other crazy shit, he got a good deal.
I haven't followed this case really at all, but do you have a solid source on him firing three shots? Maybe I'm missing something but nothing I have found except the Wikipedia says three shots specifically and this article from 2015 says the prosecutors specifically say one shot was fired. Actually in the time it has taken to create this post the wiki has been updated with the article I just linked. Is the three shot information anywhere else?
It was on an news report last night (CBS), so it looks like more info came out that corrected it, and maybe they were quoting the same source. The first report said he was aiming at a seal but that also looks like it may or not be the actual case?
No idea. Here is an interesting read from Red State (a conservative website) that makes the argument that prosecutors fucked this one up pressing too hard for murder and inadvertently leaving room for reasonable doubt. Have We Been Lied To About The Kate Steinle Case?
If I remember correctly, the 3 shots and the idea that he was shooting at a seal came from his original confession to the police which was disallowed because it's possible he didn't understand the police translator.
Maybe that happened, but what the fuck did they expect him to say? "Yeah, I totally did it on purpose." You can't convict on 'what's likelier' but I find it much more probable he tossed it in because he realized he shot someone rather than 'the noise scared him'. Also, I don't see how you can blame multiple stories on translation errors. That's pretty suspicious. How do you give multiple different accounts of what you did with the gun based on translation errors? The fuck? Anyway, it looks like it's a mix of a gullible jury and the prosecution dropping the ball, trying to get a conviction that was harsher than warranted. My impression is that he should have went down for at least manslaughter.
I watched a series that was focused on legal system reforms and issues, and they covered things like the "CSI Effect" and the concept of "a jury of your peers". They found that the jury was not, on average, a realistic representation of society, or something to that effect, and made note that it was especially problematic with longer (major) cases where jury duty would be a hardship to "normal" working people. I've served jury duty, and I know quite a few friends who have as well, but probably half(?) of us never even got picked... just showed up and got sent home a few hours later. That happened to me both times I was called. Not a big deal, a day or two is almost a welcome break from normal routine, and I'm glad to do it. I know one person who was up for a major trial in Vancouver (the Robert Pickton case), and right off the bat he was excused due to the fact he was the only bread-winner in his family, and it was going to be such a long trial that he wouldn't be able to provide for his family (pay rent, food, etc). The few bucks a day they offered as compensation was nowhere near enough to live on. If you then stop and think about who would typically be left to serve on such cases, you can see how it's a biased filter that would skew the results. Never mind the jury selection process itself. Never mind the fact that some people don't want to serve in the first place, so do what they can to get out of it.