RE: Blood On Their Hands

RE: Blood On Their Hands (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 9:00:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub You and I have no idea what evidence was presented to the jury...why do you presume their decision was politically influenced... you have no idea the political affiliations of the jurors? I don't even know the charge but it seems to me they were mandated to come back with a verdict only on the charges put before them. So it is not their fault if he was not convicted on other charges they were not asked to consider. If I were on that jury I would be very unhappy with my President that criticized our decision without knowing the evidence. Butch Actually, Butch, I'd ask you to speak for yourself. I've been following the case and I know a good portion of the evidence presented. Obviously, I wasn't in the courtroom, but I'm aware of the evidence of the gun (which I believe was never charged as theft, but should have been, based upon the BLM agent's account), I'm aware of the theory which the D.A. presented to the jury, even offering evidence that the ricochet wasn't off the ground, but off a cement "pillar" (vertical) on the pier. I'm also aware, as my post attempted to point out, that the (top) charges were: 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. How even an *accidental* discharge when one is illegally in possession of a weapon (he was found guilty of that) doesn't add up to (at the very least) "involuntary manslaughter" is beyond me. It seems prêt-à-porté to me. Michael It sounds to me, even by your description, according to the law he was not illegally in possession and the evidence pointed to an accidental discharge rather than a premeditated murder. All this said their is no reason he cannot be charged on a lesser account in the future. In any case...legal possession or not...I am not defending this man at all... but I am defending the jurors that listened to all the evidence first hand...not reported by news organisations. Butch

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 9:10:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It sounds to me, even by your description, according to the law he was not illegally in possession Well, he was a convicted felon so, just having the gun in his hand makes him in possession of a weapon, illegally. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub and the evidence pointed to an accidental discharge rather than a premeditated murder. All this said their is no reason he cannot be charged on a lesser account in the future. In my post to you, I wasn't arguing premeditation (although I believe there was). I specifically mentioned INVOLUNTARY Manslaughter which absolutely fits the illegal possession (by his own admission) and "accidental" discharge (also by his own admission). Now, if you want to add on to that, illegal possession of a weapon (a convicted felon possessing a gun) is a felony, then, add on the "accidental" discharge and the illegal possession becomes a predicate felony, almost demanding a higher charge is proven ("intent follows the bullet" is an accepted argument in murder {as opposed to manslaughter} cases), but that is some legalese gymnastics, I'll grant. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Butch

kdsub -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 9:25:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It sounds to me, even by your description, according to the law he was not illegally in possession Well, he was a convicted felon so, just having the gun in his hand makes him in possession of a weapon, illegally. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub and the evidence pointed to an accidental discharge rather than a premeditated murder. All this said their is no reason he cannot be charged on a lesser account in the future. In my post to you, I wasn't arguing premeditation (although I believe there was). I specifically mentioned INVOLUNTARY Manslaughter which absolutely fits the illegal possession (by his own admission) and "accidental" discharge (also by his own admission). Now, if you want to add on to that, illegal possession of a weapon (a convicted felon possessing a gun) is a felony, then, add on the "accidental" discharge and the illegal possession becomes a predicate felony, almost demanding a higher charge is proven ("intent follows the bullet" is an accepted argument in murder {as opposed to manslaughter} cases), but that is some legalese gymnastics, I'll grant. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Butch Again we don't know the instructions or the law presented to the jury...your idea of the laws broken may be completely wrong according to the state law and circumstances... I am not a lawyer nor was I or you privy to the judges instructions or evidence. So I'll give the jury the benefit of doubt... but like you that does mean I have to be happy about it...I am not. I would say there is a good chance it was technicalities that got him off and the jury had little choice. Butch

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 9:36:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Again we don't know the instructions or the law presented to the jury... Silly me! Here I thought your initial contention that neither of us knew the evidence presented. Oh! Wait! That *was* your contention: quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub You and I have no idea what evidence was presented to the jury... Butch So, then, when I showed you what evidence was presented, you moved the goal posts to: quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It sounds to me, even by your description, according to the law he was not illegally in possession ... Butch Again, here in reality world, he *was* in illegal possession of a weapon ... by his own admission. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub your idea of the laws broken may be completely wrong according to the state law and circumstances... Butch My idea of which laws may have been broken may be completely wrong, but it's not (at least not in cases heard in non-kangaroo courts) as a long history of such convictions stands. So, the goal posts have moved three times. Do I need to bring in an Australian, soccer-style kicker? Michael

kdsub -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 9:42:58 AM)
quote: So, the goal posts have moved three times. Do I need to bring in an Australian, soccer-style kicker Nah...I'd say we both made our points...and in the end feel the same way about the verdict...we just disagree i think on where the fault lies. Rather than the jury I would pick technicalities of law or the incompetence of the prosecution. Butch

JVoV -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 10:18:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV You don't think that the prosecution may have just totally fucked the case up? Or that the defense did their job? Manslaughter should have been easy to prove. Maybe the prosecution just didn't properly lay out the case? I'd reply to you, but you know ... reasons ... quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV 30 NOV, 2017 2:54:21 PM And it's a complete waste of time for anyone to try to have a rational discussion with you. As always, Blanche, you prove my point.

BamaD -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 10:33:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Twelve people, tried and true … Twelve true people. From the outset, I want to say, very clearly, I believe the jury in San Francisco deliberated and voted their conscience and that's (kind of) the disappointment. Twelve citizens, presumably “normal” (whatever that means) and of good conscience decided that an illegal alien, five times deported, who “found” (he probably stole) a gun and fired it on a pier with a bunch of people on it and killed Kate Steinle is not guilty of anything. Not guilty of anything. Well, that kind of sticks in my craw. He crossed our border SIX TIMES, illegally. He was found with drugs and (I think) was facing charges of intent to distribute. He was released and stole a weapon. He claims it accidentally discharged. Unfortunately, this is a Pablum©-puker's dream. It's those evil guns. It's not the idiots wielding them. It's the guns. So, it's not the fault of those twelve people; it's the environment in which they live. It's that leftist echo chamber that is named San Francisco County. It's in “The Peoples' Republic of California” The tradition there is to scoff at any law with which they don't agree. In some cases, it's to act in direct opposition to that law. In this case, it has ensured that Kate Steinle's blood has permanently stained San Francisco. San Francisco had this barely human piece of flotsam in their jail. I.C.E. (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) asked San Francisco to hold him until they could pick him up, what's called “put a detainer on him”. San Francisco, in their infinite, “opposition” wisdom decided to thumb their nose at I.C.E. and federal law and released him, allowing him to be on that pier with that gun where Kate and her dad were enjoying a day in the sunshine. There is no doubt the Steinle family will be filing a wrongful death suit (I believe they already have) so, it was to San Francisco's benefit this illegal alien who “accidentally” discharged a weapon on that pier be found “not guilty”. I'm not suggesting collusion, but it was certainly fortuitous he was found not guilty because, had he been found guilty, the Steinle family law suit would have been a slam dunk. And, obviously I am not alleging a judge on any bench in the country could “steer” a trial. That could never happen. I, for one, would love to be able to read the charge to the jury. I wish Kate Steinle weren't dead. I wish illegals weren't given sanctuary in so many places in this country. I wish breaking the law begat consequences for all people, equally. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I hope the Steinle family sues San Francisco into bankruptcy and then, the federal government refuses to bail them out. "San Steinle" has kind of a cool ring to it. Michael And a person in the east who shot a woman after mistaking her for a deer is up (properly for manslaughter . you would think this would be more serious.

BamaD -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 10:36:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It sounds to me, even by your description, according to the law he was not illegally in possession Well, he was a convicted felon so, just having the gun in his hand makes him in possession of a weapon, illegally. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub and the evidence pointed to an accidental discharge rather than a premeditated murder. All this said their is no reason he cannot be charged on a lesser account in the future. In my post to you, I wasn't arguing premeditation (although I believe there was). I specifically mentioned INVOLUNTARY Manslaughter which absolutely fits the illegal possession (by his own admission) and "accidental" discharge (also by his own admission). Now, if you want to add on to that, illegal possession of a weapon (a convicted felon possessing a gun) is a felony, then, add on the "accidental" discharge and the illegal possession becomes a predicate felony, almost demanding a higher charge is proven ("intent follows the bullet" is an accepted argument in murder {as opposed to manslaughter} cases), but that is some legalese gymnastics, I'll grant. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Butch An felon in possession of a stolen gun.

MasterDrakk -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 10:38:07 AM)
uh, where do you have intent?

kdsub -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 10:54:28 AM)
Was he convicted? And are you sure the charge wasn't Involuntary Manslaughter?... Damn the technicalities! Maybe...just maybe there is a difference in accidental discharge resulting in death... and a voluntary discharge resulting in death from criminal negligence. Say you are climbing a fence with a rifle and you drop your rifle that discharges and kills your son... don't you think that is different than seeing movement in the bushes and shooting and killing your friends son because you did not take the time to be sure what you were shooting at? The first case is an accident the second could be involuntary manslaughter. See the difference? Butch

JVoV -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 11:15:27 AM)
Intent isn't necessary for a manslaughter conviction. And the felony was being a felon in possession of a firearm (not to be confused with a forearm, in case my phone keeps fucking with me). The proper way to try the case would have been to prove the gun charge first, then explain the death that resulted from that crime. Prosecution probably focused too much on trying to prove murder.

JVoV -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 11:16:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Was he convicted? And are you sure the charge wasn't Involuntary Manslaughter?... Damn the technicalities! Maybe...just maybe there is a difference in accidental discharge resulting in death... and a voluntary discharge resulting in death from criminal negligence. Say you are climbing a fence with a rifle and you drop your rifle that discharges and kills your son... don't you think that is different than seeing movement in the bushes and shooting and killing your friends son because you did not take the time to be sure what you were shooting at? The first case is an accident the second could be involuntary manslaughter. See the difference? Butch Moot point. Felons are not legally able to possess firearms. That was the crime. And since that in itself is a felony, manslaughter should have been easy to prove.

jlf1961 -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 11:20:49 AM)
You ever think there may have been some evidence the jury felt made them think he was innocent? It sure was not because he had money and a dream team defense crew like OJ. Of course, if you are so adamant about this being wrong, and the jurors being wrong, you can, on your own initiative, travel to California and administer your own brand of justice. Now, granted, it would be murder. But look at who has been found not guilty in recent years, people like Casey Anthony....

kdsub -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 11:24:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Was he convicted? And are you sure the charge wasn't Involuntary Manslaughter?... Damn the technicalities! Maybe...just maybe there is a difference in accidental discharge resulting in death... and a voluntary discharge resulting in death from criminal negligence. Say you are climbing a fence with a rifle and you drop your rifle that discharges and kills your son... don't you think that is different than seeing movement in the bushes and shooting and killing your friends son because you did not take the time to be sure what you were shooting at? The first case is an accident the second could be involuntary manslaughter. See the difference? Butch Moot point. Felons are not legally able to possess firearms. That was the crime. Again... I hate defending this ass... but we just do not know the evidence and circumstances or the law according to the evidence given... if he is to be believed it was an accident... the defense, within and according to state and federal law, must have presented a case where guilt could not be proven in accordance with the charges. So it either was not a crime or the crime he was guilty of was not in accordance with what he was charged with. Otherwise he may have been convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter... but you cannot charge a man with murder and involuntary manslaughter at the same time because they oppose each other in intent. Butch

MasterDrakk -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 11:32:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Intent isn't necessary for a manslaughter conviction. And the felony was being a felon in possession of a firearm (not to be confused with a forearm, in case my phone keeps fucking with me). The proper way to try the case would have been to prove the gun charge first, then explain the death that resulted from that crime. Prosecution probably focused too much on trying to prove murder. it is for possession of a firearm. his claim was it wasnt intentional to possess or control, didnt know what it was that he picked up, and the jurys verdict seems to agree with that.

BamaD -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 11:45:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Was he convicted? And are you sure the charge wasn't Involuntary Manslaughter?... Damn the technicalities! Maybe...just maybe there is a difference in accidental discharge resulting in death... and a voluntary discharge resulting in death from criminal negligence. Say you are climbing a fence with a rifle and you drop your rifle that discharges and kills your son... don't you think that is different than seeing movement in the bushes and shooting and killing your friends son because you did not take the time to be sure what you were shooting at? The first case is an accident the second could be involuntary manslaughter. See the difference? Butch Moot point. Felons are not legally able to possess firearms. That was the crime. Again... I hate defending this ass... but we just do not know the evidence and circumstances or the law according to the evidence given... if he is to be believed it was an accident... the defense, within and according to state and federal law, must have presented a case where guilt could not be proven in accordance with the charges. So it either was not a crime or the crime he was guilty of was not in accordance with what he was charged with. Otherwise he may have been convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter... but you cannot charge a man with murder and involuntary manslaughter at the same time because they oppose each other in intent. Butch Yes you can. If the jury thinks he killed the victim out of stupidity rather than intent you go to involuntary manslaughter.

JVoV -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 11:46:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Intent isn't necessary for a manslaughter conviction. And the felony was being a felon in possession of a firearm (not to be confused with a forearm, in case my phone keeps fucking with me). The proper way to try the case would have been to prove the gun charge first, then explain the death that resulted from that crime. Prosecution probably focused too much on trying to prove murder. it is for possession of a firearm. his claim was it wasnt intentional to possess or control, didnt know what it was that he picked up, and the jurys verdict seems to agree with that. Well then what the hell are we bitching about here? And where is ICE to deport him again?

Politesub53 -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 12:25:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk It may come as a surprise to you, as I understand most reality does, but he was charged and the options were, 1st degree or 2nd degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. He was acquitted of those charges. Your rant, as they all are, are substandard bollocks, even for a demented rightist howler of the lowest order, such as yourself. Poor little mikey the welfare libertarian shot for the low ceiling and only faceplanted once again, as always. It is very naughty of you to try and trick him by posting the actual facts. [8D]

WhoreMods -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 12:28:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk It may come as a surprise to you, as I understand most reality does, but he was charged and the options were, 1st degree or 2nd degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. He was acquitted of those charges. Your rant, as they all are, are substandard bollocks, even for a demented rightist howler of the lowest order, such as yourself. Poor little mikey the welfare libertarian shot for the low ceiling and only faceplanted once again, as always. It is very naughty of you to try and trick him by posting the actual facts. [8D] Liberal bias: they're much happier with alternative facts.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Blood On Their Hands (12/1/2017 12:49:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV As always, Blanche, you prove my point. As you prove mine, almost daily, he-cunt: quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV 30 NOV, 2017 2:54:21 PM And it's a complete waste of time for anyone to try to have a rational discussion with you. So stick with your blog. quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV 30 NOV 2017 4:57:41 PM I don't believe constructive criticism is ever in violation, except maybe for your ego. But you seem to have trouble with things like facts, truth, and reality, as well as anyone who attempts to disrupt your fragile mind with any of them. It seems a special snowflake like you should cling to the safe space bosom of your blog, where you can reign supreme. Have you run off everyone in your actual life, Blanche? quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV 30 NOV 2017 6:20:19 PM Wtf kinda mouth breather pleb doesn't know an aught from an ought? quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV 01 DEC 2017 8:16:24 AM Yes, I concede that you're an idiot. Congratulations. quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV 01 DEC 2017 10:04:15 AM But I will cut a bitch that doesn't use an Oxford comma.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875