Trumps tweets on the San Francisco verdict in the Zarate case are very disappointing. He really needs to get a life. Lots of hay to be made on these. He is totally ignorant of the details of this case. Digging himself a deep hole with a long handled shovel.
Nothing will shake his base. Nothing. As he once said, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose a voter...Originally Posted by Williamsmith
I'd love to see him get life. Oh, you said get a life....
Expecting a jury in San Francisco to convict a homeless idiot of intentional homicide by richocheting a bullet off the pavement is wishing in one hand and.......in the other. The fact that Sessions also chimes in on it is disturbing. It’s none of the feds business. The Bureau of Land Management has lots of explaining to do when the gun used to kill the poor girl was stolen from an agents vehicle and it was in a backpack and stuffed under a seat. Anyone ever heard of safely securing your weapon? Build the wall.......but install readily available vehicle safes for your loaded firearm.
He's such an idiot with no sense of propriety. The "Pocahontas" statement (even though not a tweet) at the Native American code breakers' celebration was totally ignorant/unacceptable/selfish/inappropriate, etc., etc., etc. How can this be our president????
That is a tricky one - self-delusion is a component of narcissism. On the other hand a gaslighter has to know when they are lying in order to gaslight. Maybe a mixture of both?
I am confused on why the guy that shot the girl in SF didn't get found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. That would seem to be appropriate. Creaker I totally agree.
The investigators bring the facts to the prosecutor. It’s up to them to decide strategy and present the case. To a juror it’s a blank canvas. I only know what I read. From that I’ll make a guess based on my experience.
1. I don’t believe this is jury nullification like you will hear talk show hosts espouse. The fact Zarate is illegal changes nothing about the evidence.
2. The prosecution seems by everything I read, to have focused on first degree murder. That’s a huge roll of the dice if you don’t have the evidence to back it up....which they didn’t. What it does is use up valuable attention span of the jury on elements of a crime that probably won’t be proven and risks adding confusion.
3. Still, wouldn’t the jury be able to understand at least his guilt on the involuntary manslaughter? Yes, if they believed the Evidence showed he did more than just discover a parcel abandoned in a public place. But if that evidence was thin.....then they would have to revert to the defense supposition that he picked up the parcel and it inadvertently discharged. In that scenario, Zarate himself might have just as well been shot.
4. There are a few inconvenient facts for the prosecution. The bullet ricocheted off the concrete and then travelled more than 25 yards before it fatally wounded the victim. Would a person intentionally attempting to kill someone not fire directly at the victim? Or more importantly, close the distance to ensure a direct hit? Would someone shooting a random victim in a crowded pier....stop firing after a single round? Hum. Would a person having an accidental discharge stop firing after a single round? Yes. Definitely. Could anyone ever repeat a ricochet shot in an attempt to intentionally kill another person? Never in 100 tries.
5. The jury is not saying Zarate did not shoot the victim. They aren’t saying he couldn’t have been reckless. They are simply saying that the prosecution failed to prove it.
6. Was there any evidence presented that the defendant knew how to operate a Sig Sauer P239 with a decocking lever. A trigger pull of about 5 lbs. The-jury asked to handle the gun themselves in order to see how easy it is to pull the trigger. The judge refused. The jury was doing their due diligence. There’s not even any evidence that Zarate has used a gun in the past to commit crime. Especially not one made in Germany and costing over $600. A homeless indigent nitwit doesn’t get a chance to practice with a top of the line duty weapon much.
I really appreciate your input on many issues here, Williamsmith.
Thanks WS! That all makes sense now.
I’ve been on the jury side in a criminal case involving violence. The “reasonable doubt” standard is a pretty high bar, and rightly so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote