Not Guilty verdict in killing of Kate Steinle

[Dacien]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-finds-...ry?id=51497686

There are so many things to say about this, and it's really impossible to say them all. I don't feel like justice was served. I don't understand how even involuntary manslaughter was rejected by the jury; the man was open about the fact that he shot her, only that it was an accident. Complete acquittal on any homicide charges is difficult for me to understand.

I don't think this is going to soothe the immigration debate. I think if we saw the system working eventually in the end, even if it failed so many times along the way, I think that would have been justice, that would have been a somber but appropriate end to a very sad story. But now we have an angered Republican base claiming that politics has crept even into our courtrooms. Trump will surely fire up his anti-illegal immigration rhetoric and it stands a reasonable chance of finding purchase in the hearts of Americans who aren't even particularly political. This in turn adds fuel to the fire of polarization.

This is not a good day for anybody.

People can talk about it being a gun control issue, they can talk about Trump poisoning the case with his caustic style of politicization, but the bottom line is a woman was shot to death by a man who admitted that he shot her, even if by accident, and he was aquitted of any kind of charges related to her death. That I cannot understand.

[The One Percent]

Picking up a firearm should mean you assume responsibility for that weapon. Oh well, whatever.

[Mister Cheese]

This sets a horrible precedent for illegal immigrants that aspire to be criminals that's all I can say from this. Really disappointing.

[I Push Buttons]

People can talk about it being a gun control issue

The man was an illegal immigrant, a convicted felon, AND this took place in a state with literally the most stringent gun control laws in the country...

If someone tries to make this about gun control, they are a literal retard.

---
On topic, this is pretty gross. Really unfortunate the family's lawsuit against San Francisco was thrown out, as far as I am concerned the city was absolutely negligent and liable for her death.

[Matchles]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-finds-...ry?id=51497686

There are so many things to say about this, and it's really impossible to say them all. I don't feel like justice was served. I don't understand how even involuntary manslaughter was rejected by the jury; the man was open about the fact that he shot her, only that it was an accident. Complete acquittal on any homicide charges is difficult for me to understand.

I don't think this is going to soothe the immigration debate. I think if we saw the system working eventually in the end, even if it failed so many times along the way, I think that would have been justice, that would have been a somber but appropriate end to a very sad story. But now we have an angered Republican base claiming that politics has crept even into our courtrooms. Trump will surely fire up his anti-illegal immigration rhetoric and it stands a reasonable chance of finding purchase in the hearts of Americans who aren't even particularly political. This in turn adds fuel to the fire of polarization.

This is not a good day for anybody.

People can talk about it being a gun control issue, they can talk about Trump poisoning the case with his caustic style of politicization, but the bottom line is a woman was shot to death by a man who admitted that he shot her, even if by accident, and he was aquitted of any kind of charges related to her death. That I cannot understand.

For involuntary manslaughter, it has to be a reckless act or one that is inherently dangerous and the defendant either knows or should have known threatens the lives of others. Given his account of events, is opening a t-shirt you found under a park bench a reckless or inherently dangerous act? Of course not. Well then you have your answer. Sometimes shitty things happen and a person dies as a result. It isn't always a crime.

[PACOX]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-finds-...ry?id=51497686

There are so many things to say about this, and it's really impossible to say them all. I don't feel like justice was served. I don't understand how even involuntary manslaughter was rejected by the jury; the man was open about the fact that he shot her, only that it was an accident. Complete acquittal on any homicide charges is difficult for me to understand.

I don't think this is going to soothe the immigration debate. I think if we saw the system working eventually in the end, even if it failed so many times along the way, I think that would have been justice, that would have been a somber but appropriate end to a very sad story. But now we have an angered Republican base claiming that politics has crept even into our courtrooms. Trump will surely fire up his anti-illegal immigration rhetoric and it stands a reasonable chance of finding purchase in the hearts of Americans who aren't even particularly political. This in turn adds fuel to the fire of polarization.

This is not a good day for anybody.

People can talk about it being a gun control issue, they can talk about Trump poisoning the case with his caustic style of politicization, but the bottom line is a woman was shot to death by a man who admitted that he shot her, even if by accident, and he was aquitted of any kind of charges related to her death. That I cannot understand.

You do know that the strong anti-immigration rhetoric is in part to blame for no conviction. Second, they overcharged him. Third, the prosecution was trash. Fourth, they couldn't disprove his account of accidentally finding the gun, which is a unfortunate accident not enough for a criminal charge. And lastly, the man's mental state is in question. No jury outside of the Bible Belt and Texas would convict him.

The person who owned and concealed the gun would more liable, assuming the gun when off when he found it. Can't go after them though because its a federal gun that was stolen.

[Dacien]

For involuntary manslaughter, it has to be a reckless act or one that is inherently dangerous and the defendant either knows or should have known threatens the lives of others. Given his account of events, is opening a t-shirt you found under a park bench a reckless or inherently dangerous act? Of course not. Well then you have your answer. Sometimes shitty things happen and a person dies as a result. It isn't always a crime.

He claimed he picked up the gun and was aiming it at sea lions, and it accidentally went off. I think that qualifies as reckless and inherently dangerous.

[Matchles]

He claimed he picked up the gun and was aiming it at sea lions, and it accidentally went off. I think that qualifies as reckless and inherently dangerous.

During a 5 hour interrogation in which the police lied to him many times and where he gave other accounts too. But just because that is the one you went with doesn't mean the jury did.

[Xar226]

I'm going to go against the flow here and say I am happy about the verdict.

Not because of any particular details of this specific case, or because I care one way or another if he's guilty or innocent; not because of immigration, or gun control, or anything like that -- but rather because I think it is good from time to time to see a jury reach the unpopular conclusion. They were the ones who sat there the entire time, they were the ones who heard every bit of evidence, weighed and considered it, and they came to a unanimous verdict that the government failed to prove its case. They looked at exactly what they were supposed to look at and considered the evidence without tainting it with other factors that have nothing to do with the charges brought. That's exactly how I want juries to behave, for ALL of us, and it's nice to see it once in a while.

[apples]

I'm going to go against the flow here and say I am happy about the verdict.

Not because of any particular details of this specific case, or because I care one way or another if he's guilty or innocent; not because of immigration, or gun control, or anything like that -- but rather because I think it is good from time to time to see a jury reach the unpopular conclusion. They were the ones who sat there the entire time, they were the ones who heard every bit of evidence, weighed and considered it, and they came to a unanimous verdict that the government failed to prove its case. They looked at exactly what they were supposed to look at and considered the evidence without tainting it with other factors that have nothing to do with the charges brought. That's exactly how I want juries to behave, for ALL of us, and it's nice to see it once in a while.

you do realize juries cant possibly know what the popular conclusion is right?

[Dacien]

During a 5 hour interrogation where he gave other accounts too. But because that is the one you go with doesn't mean the jury did.

So in an interview with a news station he said he picked it up and it went off three times. Then he told police he was aiming it at sea lions. This sounds like a credible defendant with a reasonable and consistent explanation, Matchles.

[kail]

I don't know all the details, it is likely that the prosecutors put up a poor case against Garcia. It is their job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia murdered. Garcia was given his due process and the jury of 12 acquitted him. This is the process, if you want to change it go make your proposals.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well Trayvon Martin was executed and his murderer allowed to go free. Seems it happened again.

[melodramocracy]

Worst national attention verdict since OJ / Rodney King. Disgusting.

[Everwake]

I mean, are they at least going to deport him for the 6th time?

[Hiricine]

I don't know how you could argue murder for this case, but his story is completely bonkers. I certainly didn't watch the details of the case, but the idea of a gun like that misfiring multiple times seems impossible. Heck, you could probably credibly argue a voluntary manslaughter charge on this one. Its classic California juries--- another reason not to live in that garbage dump.

Well Trayvon Martin was executed and his murderer allowed to go free. Seems it happened again.

Self defense against a highly aggressive combatant isn't murder.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Self defense against a highly aggressive combatant isn't murder.

It is when you started the incident by harassing and following an innocent kid for no reason to begin with, and couldn't leave well the hell enough alone for the police to handle any concern.

The only difference between this incident is the calendar date and the perception as to whatever narrative you want to believe. He was just shooting at Sea Lions

- - - Updated - - -

Worst national attention verdict since OJ / Rodney King. Disgusting.

Yep it might even ignite racist policies and hysteria about mexicans and illegal immigrants in order to build unnecessary walls, and make people with brown skin second class citizens.

[Hiricine]

It is when you started the incident by harassing and following an innocent kid for no reason to begin with, and couldn't leave well the hell enough alone for the police to handle any concern.

The only difference between this incident is the calendar date and the perception as to whatever narrative you want to believe. He was just shooting at Sea Lions

Well by the legal definition a jury found him not guilty, and from a philosophical standpoint approaching someone without showing obvious aggression or violent intent is not starting a violent incident, the rest of the story is irrelevant so long as its clear who the aggressor was. You can either not believe the facts with no evidence, or you can make the ironically less credible argument that you can't shoot someone who slams your head into the pavement after you walk up to them.

To the second point, you aren't even getting his insane story right, he said he was pointing a gun at sea lions and it accidentally went off, not to mention to this guy's defense that some Mexican drifter is not likely to be some master marksman who can ricochet a shot to kill someone intentionally. So the stories aren't remotely similar regardless of how extreme you see the recent case.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep it might even ignite racist policies and hysteria about mexicans and illegal immigrants in order to build unnecessary walls, and make people with brown skin second class citizens.

Well considering we're talking about a guy who isn't a citizen making him a second-class one would be a promotion if anything.

[Dacien]

Presumably he will serve some jail time since he was convicted of the gun possession charge.

Though California may go for the triple whammy on this one... No involuntary manslaughter conviction, then give him time served for the two years he's been remanded for this trial for the gun possession conviction, then release him in a sanctuary city.

His previous deportations/felony conviction didn't prevent them from releasing him in a sanctuary city.

San Francisco currently has a good time and work time credit that equates to a 50% required sentence served, meaning he would have already served his time on a maximum sentence of three years on a "felon in possession of a firearm" conviction. It appears it was charged as a felony.

So it would appear that he could be deported, time served, immediately. This is just speculation based on the information I know, but this appears to be the case.

If he wasn't earning work time credit (which sounds reasonable that he wouldn't being so high profile), then he would be required to serve 75%, which would still make him eligible for immediate release and deportation.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well by the legal definition a jury found him not guilty, and from a philosophical standpoint approaching someone without showing obvious aggression or violent intent is not starting a violent incident, the rest of the story is irrelevant so long as its clear who the aggressor was. You can either not believe the facts with no evidence, or you can make the ironically less credible argument that you can't shoot someone who slams your head into the pavement after you walk up to them.

Right and this guy suspected of murder was just shooting at Sea Lions

To the second point, you aren't even getting his insane story right, he said he was pointing a gun at sea lions and it accidentally went off, not to mention to this guy's defense that some Mexican drifter is not likely to be some master marksman who can ricochet a shot to kill someone intentionally. So the stories aren't remotely similar regardless of how extreme you see the recent case.
- - - Updated - - -
Well considering we're talking about a guy who isn't a citizen making him a second-class one would be a promotion if anything.

Right thus not murder, remember tit for tat.