Kate Steinle shooting: Defense wants gun-possession conviction tossed as well

Kate Steinle shooting: Defense wants gun-possession conviction tossed as well
Kate Steinle shooting: Defense wants gun-possession conviction tossed as well

Seriously? You were deported 5 times, came back, shot and killed someone, (guns don’t accidentally go off despite the logic in SF) and now you want the gun charged drop?

Let’s just ask for compensation as well.

They already admitted he was in possession of the gun when he fired it. No matter how they swing this felons arent supposed to handle guns.

Let’s just ask for compensation as well.

You must not have heard her defense team's post judgement conference.

It was one of the most despicable, deplorable examples of "sore winners" I've ever seen. Trying to turn their ridiculous verdict into a political message?

This will bury their careers, they badly misjudged how pissed off people are about this verdict. This is just doubling up on their insanity.

Heroes in California, villains in America.

Naturally - that's what defense lawyers do. That's part of the job. Did anybody expect the lawyer to go "my client is a scumbag. Lock him up and throw away the key." He'd get disbarred in a heartbeat.

Illegal immigrant felon. Lmftfy

Experts say what you pay them to. Sig 239s are not unreliable or unsafe and they've been on the market for over a decade.

This is all just a big “fuck you Trump” show at the expense of a woman’s life and a shattered family.

Up next is the poor illegal who shot Ms. Steinle will get full subsidized housing and other entitlements and eventually become a us citizen. Absolute disgrace

I’m very anti-trump, and I think California made a giant mistake with this. This guy should be in prison for the rest of his life.

This isn’t just people trying to shit on Cali. You should be upset about what happened with this case. Trump supporter or not.

I feel so bad for the father. This was preventable if they had just followed proper immigration laws.

This will bury their careers

"So, I've just been indicted on a case that can send me up the river for 20 years, and there's these lawyers that got that one guy off who was guilty as hell... but I'll be God-damned if I let them handle my case. I'd rather possibly be convicted and do the 20 years with a more 'moral' attorney at my side than possibly get off by using 'amoral' counsel that are only focused on the best outcome for my case!"

The difference is that it’s not an accidental discharge. It’s a negligent discharge. The gun didn’t fire from a mechanical issue. It fired because he was handling it negligently. If he was behind the wheel of a car and he accidentally put it into gear and hit her with it would we be arguing that that model of car has a touchy gear shifter?

Edit: Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think think this guy should be charged with murder or anything. I don’t think he meant to do it. But the fact is he was doing something he shouldn’t and he still caused her death.

Felons shouldn’t be handling guns period.

I’m democrat and this entire case has angered me.

You do realize that the guy and his defense admitted he was the one who shot the gun. They weren't even trying to defend that. There defense was basically trying to find the best excuse possible,

I was shooting at seals! No wait I stepped on it... No wait I unwrapped it and it went off... No wait I unwrapped it and dropped it, picked it up, tossed it in the water and ran away from the scene! Yeah that's what happened! See I'm innocent!

He's a felon illegally in possession of a gun that he probably stole. Care to defend that?

He's been deported multiple times.

I'm struggling to believe how inept the DA could be on this one. If multiple experts really testified to that inane possibility, a good prosecutor should have ripped them apart on examination.

The idea that a P239 accidentally discharged, in the first ever documented instance, is so stupid as to be painful. All you have to do is tell the jury- "look- this pistol is carried by thousands of cops all day every day. They get in car chases, tackle people, get in fights, etc, and never, not once in a decade has one accidentally fired. You can run it over with a car, and it won't fire. You can pick it up by the trigger, and it won't fire. Now was this the only time ever, where this gun, that had nothing wrong with it mechanically, just up and fired? Or was it 10 lbs of force applied to the trigger for a half inch pull? Which seems the more likely outcome?" /End lawyer fantasy.

Guns go off accidentally when someone pulls the trigger and claims "it was just an accident." They aren't autonomous, they cannot function without being acted upon by an outside force. That's like saying "well I left this match on my desk and it just accidentally lit itself." Barring something crazy like a hangfire, a gun is not going to shoot if the trigger isn't pulled. You do have shitty examples like that old Taurus video of their handgun shooting when you shake it back and forth, but this firearm was stolen from a Bureau of Land Management officer's vehicle, and was more than likely in good working order.

Guns can go off by accident if mishandled yes. I have pretty good hands on knowledge with the model of handgun that he killed her with. Even with a very light trigger pull, just holding a handgun isn't enough yo set it off, unless the gun is on really poor condition.

If you're a defense lawyer, you try to get your client charged with as little as possible. There's nothing political about it.

A drugged out, homeless, multiple felony illegal immigrant kills a US citizen with a stolen gun in a liberal sanctuary city with strict legal gun control laws, gets acquitted on murder and now his lawyer wants the gun possesion charges dropped? I'm a liberal Bernie Bro in NYC who has tons of immigrant friends and this is so wrong, imagine what you'd think if you already didn't like immigrants? Trump's going to win 2020 sadly.

Logic in San Francisco is that the gun, with malicious intent, killed the woman.. not the poor, wrongly accused felon immigration violator... why would he do such a thing? The gun is EVIL, not this douche bag.. Wait, maybe the gun possessed him, since inanimate objects can do that.. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Let's be honest. He'll be back

This case will help Trump get reelected.

Why does any of that excuse involuntary manslaughter? And just because it was fired below his knee doesn't mean anything, the bullet still killed her as a result of him firing an illegal firearm

Felons have accidents too... the jury determined that the state could not show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an accident.

This case wasn't politicized by Trump's critics, it was politicized by Trump.

It appears, by all means, that the gun did accidentally fire.

No.

The evidence shows that the gun was indeed pointing in an awkward trajectory when fired, such that the bullet ricocheted off the ground before striking the woman, but that's all the evidence showed. He easily could've pulled the trigger to 'test' the new toy he potentially stole from that federal agent's car, or any number of other things. Point is that the gun was in his possession, and his 'agency' was what caused it to go off, whether by handling and causing a mechanism in the weapon to fail and it to discharge, or dropping it and causing it to fire, or pulling the trigger.

That the woman's death was caused by his criminal negligence seems quite apparent. Pity the jury seems to have let politics get in the way of a conviction.

On that note, I'm curious as to how the family's lawsuit against the BLM will turn out.

Their claims against the City of San Francisco, the former Sheriff, and ICE were all thrown out, but the BLM lawsuit has been permitted to proceed.

Um, nope. People die in accidents all the time without anyone going to jail... including firearm accidents.

It was enough to raise doubt. It makes more sense that some hoodlums stole a Fed's gun and hid it than it does that a homeless illegal alien stole a gun from a government employee and popped off a round in a crowded area.

The state couldn't prove that. The defense's story made sense when the jury looked at the evidence. He wasn't being charged with stealing the gun. All evidence pointed to an accident. Even the gun was shown to be prone to misfires.

They believe that Zarate is a trick-shot artist capable of pulling off this most improbable feat of shooting, while he was stoned on sleeping pills he found in a dumpster. The irony is these same folks would laugh and be incredulous of the Tom Cruise character pulling off the same shot in a Mission Impossible movie.

I'd guess they are since if you are a felon you can get in trouble even unknowingly be around a gun.

you could say the same thing about prosecutors putting away innocent people

Which they can only do by arguing on their client's behalf as aggressively as they are able to. The prosecution's job is to do the opposite. The aggregate effect of these efforts is how we get fairness in our court system.

Maybe you think it should be different, but then you have a problem with the American justice system that extends far beyond this one case.

Involuntary Manslaughter requires a burden of proof that the defendants actions were either carelessly negligent or malicious but not with the intent to cause death or serious injury.

If he found a gun under his seat and dropped it, that isn't Manslaughter. If he found the gun and just started popping shots at concrete to see what would happen, then that would constitute manslaughter.

so no one can actually give me a single idea of what to change. just complaints.

Yeah but that's not magic either. You had to drop it first.

The point I'm trying to make is people (idiots) think a gun will just randomly go off if you set it on a table and stare at it long enough.

who's called him a hero in california? He's a defense attorney, this is his job.

No, just an observer.

Seemingly baffling verdicts like this one in high-profile cases aren't really a new thing- there's OJ, Zimmerman, Casey Anthony, etc. The common thread seems to be overzealous prosecutors who try to get charges past what the evidence proves, leaving room for the defense to argue reasonable doubt. As far as I can tell, that's what happened with this case as well.

It's frustrating when you know in your gut that someone is guilty and they get off because the prosecutor got greedy, but what's the alternative? Should OJ have gone to prison because he obviously did it? Should his attorney have said "my client's a killer, we all know it even if we don't have the smoking gun"?

If you're concerned with politically-motivated verdicts, that's a very bad path to start going down.

So you’d like your defense attorney to follow his conscience rather then do what is in your best interests?

You should probably read the constitution and that'd help with your questions.