Playball40
Veteran Member
Since the poster child for building it has been acquitted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial.html
-
Features
Guess that 'wall' isn't nearly so important
- Thread starter Playball40
- Start date
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
... of taking life, but not of felonies. He was convicted and he would go to jail which means he shouold be deported. Let's not descend to Trump level when gloating.
Playball40
Veteran Member
No, it means he didn't murder her as was accused!
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
No. We need to prosecute the rock from which the bullet refracted. Or, it's a shame shit didn't happen.
Well, good, as long as she's still alive it seems like there's no harm.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,222
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
This is the stupidest comment on this story I've read all day. But I suppose you're just getting started
Playball40
Veteran Member
Right?
I figure anybody who can manage to hit a target off a richocet can probably get over a wall....
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,187
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Zarate wasn't acquitted of taking life. He took her life. He was acquitted of doing it on purpose, which is fine, and of doing it negligently, which is idiotic. (Whether the idiocy was on the part of the jurors or the prosecutor is unclear.) The guy should obviously have gone down for manslaughter.
The rock wouldn't have bounced the bullet if Zarate hadn't shot the rock. When you shoot a rock, you are responsible for the rock bouncing the bullet. And when you shoot a rock by accident even though you weren't aiming at it, you are responsible for shooting when you aren't a good enough shot to hit what you're aiming at instead of some random rock.
No doubt you'll argue you aren't responsible for a gun going off accidentally when all you do is pick it up. But that's not what happened here; that's merely the lie the defense somehow managed to sell to the jury.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html
"Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier. He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged.
But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal."
But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal."
It seems unlikely to me that the jury was idiotic enough to decide trying to shoot a seal in a populated area and missing the seal and hitting a rock that bounces your bullet into a crowd isn't manslaughter. So I'd bet on that little detail never having come out at trial, because of the idiotic prosecutor deciding it would undermine her theory that Zarate deliberately fired into the crowd.
Oh, and she should have also prosecuted him for cruelty to the seal.
ETA: Found another source that says it did come out at trial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...san-francisco-killing/?utm_term=.135e2ed8b866
Last edited: