Disgraceful verdict' in pier shooting

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

The people that create these sanctuary city policies are the real murderers here.

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

The people that let their firearms get stolen are at higher responsibility.

I would say these items are at the top of the list.

[Buddahaid]

The point I'm trying to make is it could have been nearly anybody who found and accidentally discharged the weapon. Somebody's kid, a tourist, a homeless person, your mom, etc. Sanctuary city, or not, has little bearing on it save to act as political fodder.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

No, the people that let their firearms get stolen are at higher responsibility.

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I would say these items are at the top of the list.

THE ABSOLUTE TOP OF THE LIST! A professional officer never lets his weapon be stolen under any circumstances. Neither by being incapacitated or by being assaulted by several antagonists seeking just the weapon; EXAMPLE: several Federal guards in Social Security offices have suffered this and it is always foreseeable and preventable...even if you have to handcuff the weapon to your wrist to prevent the theft which will create an unpardonable danger to the public you are sworn (or least morally obligated) to protect or at least not endanger by your careless misconduct. The privilege to bear arms for a living is an immense one either in open or concealed carry, and 'weapon retention' consideration is the back-half of that equation. The more so as an officer's assets are subject to civil lawsuit if injury results. I hold the BLM officer primarily responsible. One does not leave a handgun locked in a vehicle in SF.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

The point I'm trying to make is it could have been nearly anybody who found and accidentally discharged the weapon. Somebody's kid, a tourist, a homeless person, your mom, etc. Sanctuary city, or not, has little bearing on it save to act as political fodder.

Fully agreed. When you strip away all the political descriptives and grandstanding, you are left with pretty much what Buddahaid has stated. The prosecution had a very weak case for 1st degree murder, regardless of who was in possession of the firearm and the jury saw that; if you fail to prove and substantiate your case as a prosecutor, you will lose the verdict, pure and simple. What is an interesting note is the attorney defending is a Public Defender, a class of attorney very often maligned as being inadequate or, sometimes, even incompetent. The defendant didn't have a high-powered private lawyer or crusading ACLU-type counsel, just one of those 'second-rate' Public Defenders, the kind who often are the recipients of suits alleging inadequate defense by their clients. In this case, however, the Public Defender was more than up to the task:

http://www.statesman.com/news/man-ac...d1gg1pfe8WsWP/

Hardly the stumbling novice lawyer stereotype so often seen in movies and TV shows; wonder how many big name law firms are lining up to offer this guy a high-paying job...

Neal, take note: Gonzalez is a Texan...








<O>

[em2nought]

In accordance with this thread I'm considering placing a booby trap in front of my gun safe. I'd rather be blamed for the death of a criminal than an innocent bystander.

A SIG that accidentally discharges? lmao

Too bad he didn't hit a seal, i'm pretty sure those wacky Californians place a higher value on a seal's life than a taxpayers.

[Platapus]

Were they able to determine, through forensic evidence, whether the bullet ricocheted or a straight line shot?
I know that the defense was claiming it was a ricochet and the prosecution was claiming it was a straight line shot

[Aktungbby]

^ yes! That's what settled the matter for me. You cannot have intent by ricochet at a distance of 90 feet with a weapon you have never handled.... that is factory calibrated for approx. 25 yards.....Manslaughter and wrongful discharge of the weapon- maybe- but not 1st degree murder. http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Kate-Steinle-murder-trial-How-the-12399543.php

Much of the trial focused on the Sig Sauer pistol that fired the fatal shot. The weapon was stolen from a federal Bureau of Land Management agent’s car several days before the shooting. The defense called a weapons expert, who said that make of gun has a history of misfiring, while the prosecution maintained that it would be difficult to fire it unintentionally

To prove murder, Assistant District Attorney Diana Garcia needed to convince jurors that the round that killed Steinle had been fired intentionally. But this was a difficult task as the bullet first struck the pier’s concrete 12 to 15 feet from Garcia Zarate, then bounced and traveled 78 more feet to strike Steinle in the back as she strolled with her father.
“The evidence that Kate Steinle was killed with a ricochet shot, rather than a direct shot, makes it even tougher to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an intentional killing,” said attorney Jim Hammer, a former city prosecutor.
With no direct accounts from eyewitnesses or surveillance video showing Garcia Zarate’s actions during the shooting and in the moments just before, what remained were dueling conclusions drawn from circumstantial evidence.
And in California, the law on circumstantial evidence swings in the defense’s favor. Jurors are instructed that if they “can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.”

I'm hardly unsympathetic here; My only child is an attractive, spirited business woman with an MA, and I cannot imagine losing her to such an accident. I brood about this particular case as I and my family often visit Fisherman's Wharf and the Embarcadero to see the USS Pampanito, Liberty ship USS Jeremiah O'brien and dine....

Originally Posted by Kate'sDad

Suddenly a shot rang out, Kate fell, and looked at me and said “Help me, Dad.” Those are the last words I will ever hear from my daughter.​

[Platapus]

It will be interesting to compare the reactions of this case to the other case where the "hunter" mistook a woman walking as a deer and shot at her at dusk at a distance of about 200 yards

[Steiger]

Originally Posted by em2nought

Too bad he didn't hit a seal, i'm pretty sure those wacky Californians place a higher value on a seal's life than a taxpayers.

We have the world's 5th largest economy (we go back and forth with France) so we can afford it.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It will be interesting to compare the reactions of this case to the other case where the "hunter" mistook a woman walking as a deer and shot at her at dusk at a distance of about 200 yards

IIRC, while it still might have been 'dusk' by common parlance, I believe I read, by his own admission, he had taken the shot later than he was supposed to, after sunset.

While the woman probably should have realized hiking near dusk in an area that hunting occurs, is probably a bad idea, I can't lay any blame on her. The hunter should have been hunting during legal hours, identified his target, and anything behind.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It will be interesting to compare the reactions of this case to the other case where the "hunter" mistook a woman walking as a deer and shot at her at dusk at a distance of about 200 yards

You mean the one who used a pistol? That whole story stinks to high heaven. Nobody in their right mind attempts a 200 yard shot with a handgun. There is more to this than we know.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Steiger

We have the world's 5th largest economy (we go back and forth with France) so we can afford it.

For now. https://www.charismanews.com/opinion...y-the-millions

[vienna]

Originally Posted by em2nought

For now. https://www.charismanews.com/opinion...y-the-millions

The strange thing is, with all the flak directed towards CA, the state has done so well, economically, and in spite of all the 'anti-business' criticisms. It is true a good many people are leaving the state, but they are offset by newcomers from other states, seeking a better opportunity in employment, some who come here just because specific fields now in high demand, IT, advanced technology, etc., are either headquartered here or have a large physical presence in the state. For as long as I can remember, there have been dire warnings and predictions about CA collapsing and about how the future is bleak, yet, in the half century or so that I have been hearing all that, CA is still here and still strong, if not stronger. A lot of those people leaving are those who have found their specific fields eroded or extinct, not by virtue of 'over-taxing' or 'over-regulation', etc, but just because technology has rendered a lot of those field relatively unnecessary, a situation to be found in every other highly industrial/business state. For every person who lost their job because of factors beyond their control and who couldn't or wouldn't adapt to new technology, there is usually someone else coming in who does have the skills and adaptability need for CA current and future economy. I remember when the Great Recession hit how there were many people who had moved to the 'boom-town' of Las Vegas came scurrying back when the Vegas boom went bust. CA did take good-sized hit in the Great Recession, but weathered it pretty much better than almost all the states and is still pretty solid...

BTW, the link you supplied may be more than a bit biased: Charisma News is an evangelical christian-right web-zine and is very slanted against CA, a place they view as the epitome of sin; exaggeration and self-serving hyperbole to back up their 'truths' is not unknown to them...







<O>

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by August

You mean the one who used a pistol? That whole story stinks to high heaven. Nobody in their right mind attempts a 200 yard shot with a handgun. There is more to this than we know.

Son, Oh Son Lyrics

It's up in the kitchen, down in the hall
I'll be lonely
Willy's the father of his sister's child
Down by the greenwood side
Took her down to the merry green wood
I'll be lonely
And there he shot his sister dead
Down by the greenwood side

He went back to his mother's home
Welcome to me my son my son
Son oh son, why are you so pale
Been down by the greenwood hunting quail

Ain't no quail a way down there
Been down there shooting the white tailed deer

Ain't no pistol kills a deer
Willy where's your sister fair?
Mother oh mother, make my bed
For I have shot my sister dead

Son oh son, where will you go?
Your father will kill you when he comes to know

He'll bury you under yon hill
If he doesn't kill you, I surely will

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

You mean the one who used a pistol? That whole story stinks to high heaven. Nobody in their right mind attempts a 200 yard shot with a handgun. There is more to this than we know.

Rumour has it that he was using something like a TC Contender which is a handgun in only the most liberal definition.

But Still I agree, the guy was totally in the wrong. Rule zero is be sure of your target, Rule 1 know your background.