Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely stunning verdict. Even CNN seem beside themselves on how this pathetic of a man got off. I’m sure, he’ll back and hurting someone soon in a liberal city near you.
What does it take? Someone in the jury's family being killed by a multiple illegal deportee to wake up?
If the roles were reversed and a white man "accidentally" shot and killed an illegal alien woman the San Francisco jury would have sent him to death row. This was not about justice it was about liberal bleeding hearts making a statement. The least he should have been convicted of his involuntary manslaughter. I hope Kate Steinley's family sue San Francisco for millions for wrongful death and wins.
We know how the verdict would have been if it was in Los Angeles - exactly the same.
Almost any coastal county in CA would have had the same result most likely (The chances in OC would have been 50/50)
It’s California.
They no longer follow the Constitution.
It’s going to have to be invaded from the East, re-conquered, and missionaries sent in to convert the barbarians to Christianity.
Not having been on the jury or present throughout the trial, I can’t say what the jury heard or did not hear. What I am NOT going to do is vilify the jurors based on my political inclinations. Do those who call the jurors “rabid leftists” have factual knowledge of any of the following:
1. the jurors’ knowledge of the defendant’s immigration status
2. each and every juror’s views on immigration policy
3. the actual case presented and the jury instructions received
4. each and every juror’s reason for the verdicts
If the answer to any of these is “no”, then the only rabid behavior is coming from those who are accusing the jurors of being “rabid leftists”. Those are the ones who truly should be ashamed.
Funny. "Not knowing all the facts" certainly doesn't stop people from accusing Trump of everything under the sun. I trust you condemn those people as well?
And this illegal ADMITTED to shooting the gun that killed the woman!
Come on, use your head if there's anything in there besides a mouthpiece for lawlessness in the name of PCness.
If the roles were reversed and a white man "accidentally" shot and killed an illegal alien woman the San Francisco jury would have sent him to death row. .
Not if said white man was homeless like this guy.
Something that people don't recognize - SF is a sanctuary city for the homeless. too, as are many California big cities. This had more to do with homeless privilege than illegal privilege.
Nope. Simply collateral damage of being a gun culture. That she would have survived if he was not here is true. But some other innocent would have died somewhere else. Gun violence is a certainty as long as guns are widely available. Hopefully the price is worth it. The guns in the society do enough good they justify a few deaths.
I doubt that even the conviction on a firearms charge will hold up on appeal. All the Trumpian zealots on this thread are conveniently overlooking the fact, that the jury essentially found that the shooting was accidental, by their not-guilty verdicts.
The basic facts of the case are, that the defendant in this case sat on a public bench and saw a bag underneath. As he lifted the bag and reached into it to see what it contained, a gun that was inside fired. The bullet ricocheted off the sidewalk and traveled 78 feet before it struck the victim.
The gun had been stolen 3 days before and the defendant in the shooting case, was not linked to the robbery. The prosecutor perjured herself by claiming that the defendant was holding the gun and aiming it at the victim, firing several shots. But the bullet hitting the sidewalk, was the only one fired. Obviously, the jury saw through the bogus details the prosecutor was presenting and gave her the full loss she deserved, on all the charges related to the shooting.
Since the defendant's only connection to the gun, was to look inside a bag that was under his seat, it's unjust that he was convicted on a possession charge. Trump spouted that the jury's decision was a disgrace, but they only carried out their duty, to base their decision on the facts. What's disgraceful, is that a president would insert himself and his biased opinion about people from Mexico, into a court case. His attempt to obstruct justice should be admissible, when the possession charge comes up on appeal. Once again, our system of trial by jury, rather than by an uninformed public opinion, has won. I'm hoping than none of Trump's recent appointments of right-wing sycophants, as federal judges, is handed the appeals case.
Last edited by Steve McDonald; 12-01-2017 at 02:17 AM..
If there is a silver lining in this verdict it will be leverage to get the wall and the raise act (
Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act ) in trade for DACA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a terrible miscarriage of justice, at least he was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
