2 minutes ago, LostinSEA said:

Try Googling "Death during the Commission of a Felony", it might open your eyes... 

 

 

That is a special case and not universally applied. It's not Federal Law.  It has to do with people committing armed robbery and such. And it has nothing to do with this case unless you believe in the absurdity that since killing someone is a felony therefore anytime you kill someone you are committing 1st or 2nd degree murder. In other words, by that application all manslaughter would qualify as 1st or 2nd degree murder. Which would get a prosecutor laughed out of court. 

6 hours ago, webfact said:

"A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case!" Trump wrote on Twitter.

an american president using social media to, likely unintentionally and thru lack of thought, sow discord; 

a parallel to the remarkable insensitivity, and yes, stupidity, shown here recently by the current rulers

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

That is a special case and not universally applied. It's not Federal Law.  It has to do with people committing armed robbery and such. And it has nothing to do with this case unless you believe in the absurdity that since killing someone is a felony therefore anytime you kill someone you are committing 1st or 2nd degree murder. In other words, by that application all manslaughter would qualify as 1st or 2nd degree murder. Which would get a prosecutor laughed out of court. 

Ahh, so it only applies if somebody decides it applies...

 

I'll say no more (My original post was to ask a question & now I have the answer... US Law is exactly the same as Thai Law... IT DEPENDS"...

 

And you're being ridiculous with your example... If (heaven forbid) I killed somebody during a genuine accident that's nothing like me picking up a gun and discharging it... the qualifier is during the commission of a crime...

 

So If I was driving Drunk/Under the Influence of Drugs then yes, I could be on trial for murder, If I was innocently going about my business caused a fatal accident then no... But I would expect to be under that lens.

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 20178 yr by LostinSEA

A post with controversial information and no source has been removed.  

I'm not an expert on this case but some things seem pretty clear to me  --

 

-- The shooter shouldn't have been in the country in the first place. So many previous violations. The system failed. 

 

-- The jury should have made their decision based on whether the prosecution proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It sounds like that's what they did and found not guilty. It wasn't their job to rule on the hot politics of immigration policy and why the shooter was still in the country in the first place.

 

-- For the family. A tragedy no doubt and painful to see the shooter let go. If he wasn't in the country, the young lady wouldn't have been killed. So they can't be satisfied.

 

-- trump (as usual) is way out of line questioning the jury decision in this case!

Troll post removed.  

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

If he wasn't in the country, the young lady wouldn't have been killed. So they can't be satisfied.

And if she had not gone to the boardwalk that day she would still be alive, you can do the what if's all day long and it won't change the outcome

Another reason to build that wall ASAP. Illegally entering 5 times! Sad 

12 hours ago, LostinSEA said:

Ahh, so it only applies if somebody decides it applies...

No, it only applies if the applicable statutes say it applies. Different state laws (and federal laws) have different lists of what crimes can trigger a charge of felony murder but  generally speaking it is limited to being engaged in serious crimes such as robbery, rape, arson, burglary, felonious escape, terrorism, kidnapping and carjacking. 

 

Mere possession, or accidental discharge, of a firearm would not be grounds for using a charge of felony murder in any US jurisdiction as far as I can tell. 

18 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

No, it only applies if the applicable statutes say it applies. Different state laws (and federal laws) have different lists of what crimes can trigger a charge of felony murder but  generally speaking it is limited to being engaged in serious crimes such as robbery, rape, arson, burglary, felonious escape, terrorism, kidnapping and carjacking. 

 

Mere possession, or accidental discharge, of a firearm would not be grounds for using a charge of felony murder in any US jurisdiction as far as I can tell. 

Where I live, possession will get you life in prison, discharge will get you the death penalty (irrespective of whether anybody is hurt or not) ...  But hey, god bless the 2nd amendment... 

 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, the government can't appeal a not guilty verdict.

Correct!

 

The govt. could only appeal if they could claim an error of law by the trial court (e.g., a trial judge's ruling on whether or not to allow certain evidence in), not an error of fact by the trier of fact which would be the jury in the OP's case. 

Trump ran for president with the idea that he would be dictator!  Now he sadly finds out the the USA has separation of powers between the executive, judiciary and legislature.  I am sure that his model was Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.  I am so saddened that Americans are so frustrated with the compromises required to pass legislation that they would elect this clown.  

13 hours ago, LostinSEA said:

Try Googling "Death during the Commission of a Felony", it might open your eyes... 

 

I'll quote from the Top google result...  http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=741

 

felony murder doctrine n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder.

 

That's correct that the felony murder doctrine should be addressed.

 

However, each jurisdiction is allowed to define the doctrine differently.  I understand that the OP's case was tried in a California court, so it looks like the relevant law you're looking for is California Penal Code section 189. 

 

Here's the actual text of section 189:

 

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-189.html

 

For a less dry version, Wikipedia provides the following:

 

For some reason, the site wouldn't let me provide the link, so you can instead go to Wikipedia and look up "Felony Murder Rule (California)."

 

I have read little about the case, but it does look like to me that the felony murder rule does not apply to the OP's case as it only applies in California courts when specified felonies are committed, which was not one of those in the OP's case.  And, I would hope that the prosecutor's office would not overlook this, especially in such a high profile case and it's a doctrine that every California lawyer very likely knows of.

 

 

Edited December 2, 20178 yr by helpisgood
added sentence

19 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Yes, how dare the court adhere to the rules of law and actually base a verdict on the evidence. 

 

Was it not aware this person is a filthy foreigner who has no rights. 

 

Surely the court realises the thoughts and prejudices of the grand poobah of trumptopia are of more importance than judicial process. 

 

(Sarcasm alert)

He was already convicted of multiple felonies besides  being a "filthy foreigner."

2 minutes ago, joeyg said:

He was already convicted of multiple felonies besides  being a "filthy foreigner."

Ah, so is your view of the law that if you are found guilty of something you have done, then you have no right to be judged on the evidence in other situations?

 

Yep, no “scott free” possibilities there. 

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Ah, so is your view of the law that if you are found guilty of something you have done, then you have no right to be judged on the evidence in other situations?

 

Yep, no “scott free” possibilities there. 

Multiple previous felony convictions always influence a current case.  Of course you knew that. Think I'll stop there.

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Ah, so is your view of the law that if you are found guilty of something you have done, then you have no right to be judged on the evidence in other situations?

 

Yep, no “scott free” possibilities there. 

Is the 3 strikes law no longer in effect?

1 minute ago, joeyg said:

Multiple previous felony convictions always influence a current case.  Of course you knew that. Think I'll stop there.

Is that so?

 

Well thank goodness cases are judged on evidence, judicial process and the law, rather than knee jerk vigilantism. 

2 minutes ago, pgrahmm said:

Is the 3 strikes law no longer in effect?

"Up too you."

2 minutes ago, pgrahmm said:

Is the 3 strikes law no longer in effect?

Not sure, ask joeyg. 

18 hours ago, KMartinHandyman said:

Possibly the prosecutions charges didn’t include involuntary manslaughter or accidental homicide that would allow the jury to reach a guilty verdict.
It appears to be a case of jury nullification.

"The jury, while acquitting Garcia Zarate of murder, manslaughter and assault charges, found him guilty of the lesser charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm,"

 

It did...

4 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

And if she had not gone to the boardwalk that day she would still be alive, you can do the what if's all day long and it won't change the outcome

No law restricted her from going to the boardwalk. Immigration law did mean the killer should not have been there--as his multiple prior deportations indicated.

It may be possible to charge the killer with violating Steinle's civil rights. That isn't double jeopardy and it's been done before.

Are there no contempt of court laws in the US?  At the very least, Trump has once again jeopardised any chance of a fair appeal.

There is no appeal. When a court renders a verdict of not guilty, that is the end of the criminal trial process in the US.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

When it goes to the Supreme court, Trump will cut funding to San-Fransisco liberalites, will teach them a hard lesson in protecting criminals that enter USA illegally.  

The case is over and done.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Trump ran for president with the idea that he would be dictator!  Now he sadly finds out the the USA has separation of powers between the executive, judiciary and legislature.  I am sure that his model was Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.  I am so saddened that Americans are so frustrated with the compromises required to pass legislation that they would elect this clown.  

No he did not. We can agree or disagree on the merits of Trump as a president, but you are just pulling imaginary thoughts out of thin air.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I suspect that this may have had some bearing on the decision of the jury.

 

“The illegal alien who killed the 32 year old woman, Jose Zarate, received every benefit of the doubt from the jury, which did not even know that Zarate had a long criminal history and had been deported five times.

 

That’s because evidence not directly tied in to the actual shooting was excluded.”

 

Now, hopefully, Attorney General Sessions will charge Zarate with felony violations of immigration law.

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

2 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

"The jury, while acquitting Garcia Zarate of murder, manslaughter and assault charges, found him guilty of the lesser charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm,"

 

It did...

I can understand the not guilty verdict to the murder charge, but cannot understand why the manslaughter charge also failed.

I bet Jose Ines Garcia Zarate isn't through breaking laws in America.

 

19 hours ago, LostinSEA said:

Try Googling "Death during the Commission of a Felony", it might open your eyes... 

 

I'll quote from the Top google result...  http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=741

 

felony murder doctrine n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder.

 

So in all your posts up to this point and here in your underlined portion you do not understand the word "can". Nowhere does your quote indicate that: "

if you killed somebody (even by accident) whilst committing a crime it was considered murder.

"