Apparently from what I just read elsewhere - the 3 strikes law only applies to US citizens in whichever state that has it......

 

Very dangerous if true....

14 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

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

Manslaughter.... "The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. "

 

Because he claims he never meant to kill her, just picked up the gun which then discharged !! Accidental death...

5 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

Manslaughter.... "The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. "

 

Because he claims he never meant to kill her, just picked up the gun which then discharged !! Accidental death...

Still there are other charges that could apply, such as involuntary manslaughter or perhaps reckless endangerment.People who see justice as having been done in this case must be incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of this poor girl's parents.

17 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Still there are other charges that could apply, such as involuntary manslaughter or perhaps reckless endangerment.People who see justice as having been done in this case must be incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of this poor girl's parents.

 

The charges were bought against him by the prosecution. The jury acquitted him of those charges (except possession of a firearm) on the evidence presented.

I'm sure there is a appeal process the prosecution can take if they want to contest the verdict.

Would everyone be so out raged if it was a white, middle aged, office worker, on their lunch break, that pick up the gun which then discharged ????

3 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

I'm sure there is a appeal process the prosecution can take if they want to contest the verdict.

 

There is no appeal process for prosecutors.

 

Quote

Would everyone be so out raged if it was a white, middle aged, office worker, on their lunch break, that pick up the gun which then discharged ????

 

Rational and empathetic people would be.

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

There is no appeal process for prosecutors.

 

 

Rational and empathetic people would be.

 

But the majority wouldn't be :)

When I was in Thailand 40 years ago, people like him tended to disappear.  Like in a hail of gunfire near the market in broad daylight.

3 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

Manslaughter.... "The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. "

 

Because he claims he never meant to kill her, just picked up the gun which then discharged !! Accidental death...

 Well first he claimed he had been shooting at sea lions. Then he changed his story, which was fortunate for him. Harming sea lions carries a heavy legal penalty up to a year in the nick and a $20,000 fine.

 

link proving attempting to harm a sea lion is illegal in the US

 

https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/node/10627

 

link proving the shooter first claimed he was attempting to shoot sea lions

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-california-shooting-kass-1203-story.html

 

49 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

 Well first he claimed he had been shooting at sea lions. Then he changed his story, which was fortunate for him. Harming sea lions carries a heavy legal penalty up to a year in the nick and a $20,000 fine.

 

link proving attempting to harm a sea lion is illegal in the US

 

https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/node/10627

 

link proving the shooter first claimed he was attempting to shoot sea lions

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-california-shooting-kass-1203-story.html

 

One link proves nothing and the other one is not working. 

Been following this story closely.  IMHO most here are missing the point and the real story.  Lived in California for 32 years.  Hopefully this news clip can shed some light on the confusion here. 

 

Part 2 

 

Any other questions?

1 hour ago, joeyg said:

Any other questions?

I have two.

1)Do you really expect people to sit through 27 combined minutes of Carlson and Hannity?

2)Fanboy much?

9 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

The charges were bought against him by the prosecution. The jury acquitted him of those charges (except possession of a firearm) on the evidence presented.

I'm sure there is a appeal process the prosecution can take if they want to contest the verdict.

Would everyone be so out raged if it was a white, middle aged, office worker, on their lunch break, that pick up the gun which then discharged ????

"Would everyone be so out raged if it was a white, middle aged, office worker, on their lunch break, that pick up the gun which then discharged ????"

 

Good point.  It's knowing the man's history that gives rise to much of the (justifiable) anger at the verdict.

 

Edit - having said this, it's a bit odd that the jury found him guilty on the charge of "possession of a firearm"!?

Edited December 3, 20178 yr by dick dasterdly

12 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Would everyone be so out raged if it was a white, middle aged, office worker, on their lunch break, that pick up the gun which then discharged ????"

 

Good point.  It's knowing the man's history that gives rise to much of the (justifiable) anger at the verdict.

 

Edit - having said this, it's a bit odd that the jury found him guilty on the charge of "possession of a firearm"!?

Most sane people would be.  

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/doj-kate-steinle/index.html 

Edited December 3, 20178 yr by joeyg

 

20 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Would everyone be so out raged if it was a white, middle aged, office worker, on their lunch break, that pick up the gun which then discharged ????"

 

Good point.  It's knowing the man's history that gives rise to much of the (justifiable) anger at the verdict.

 

Edit - having said this, it's a bit odd that the jury found him guilty on the charge of "possession of a firearm"!?

And just in.  More clarity.  If any are interested.