Law Kathryn Steinle's Murder: Illegal Immigrant Found NOT Guilty of Manslaughter by San Francisco Jury

Well it makes perfect sense if what he said was true. He said he just found something on the ground wrapped in a cloth, and when he picked it up the gun inside of it discharged. That seems like an accident to me. Murder requires a motive and I don't really see one here. If he knew it was a gun before picking it up, I could see a manslaughter charge but I don't know if they could prove negligence either.

Except he originally said he shot at a seal. Then he said he stepped on the gun by accident.

He was also tried for, and acquitted of, involuntary manslaughter.
 
I'm as pro-gun as you can be but I'd reconsider this:

That's a taurus 24/7, piece of shit firearm, however even a good quality autoloader may shoot if it's broken without pulling the trigger.


What type of gun was involved? I've read stolen from a federal employees vehicle? Or state employees? The point there is it's probably not a Llama .45, or Hi-Point that's less than $100.

I've been shooting competitively, pistol, and in a combat arms profession for quite sometime. I have never witnessed a weapon accidentally fire, besides machines guns which I have seen cook-off.

I have seen people shoot themselves and others by placing their fingers on the trigger of a loaded weapon.

I am so highly skeptical of this guys story that it "went off". From my experience, that happening is incredibly rare, and even more rare with a quality non-modified pistol.
 
I've never shot a gun.


I'm just going off what was in the article. I don't know what his story changed from, only what they said in court. And what they said in court doesn't prove malice or negligence. If the prosection could prove negligence, I could see them charging him with manslaughter.

What article are you referring to?
 
So sad.

But this is what you get in morally bankrupt, decadent California.

It is a true hellhole (particularly Los Angeles or as J. Cole would say, the LAnd of Snakes) and I urge all CA residents to leave the state.
 
Except he originally said he shot at a seal. Then he said he stepped on the gun by accident.

He was also tried for, and acquitted of, involuntary manslaughter.

Was any of that presented in trial as evidence by the prosecution? With murder, you have to prove intent. So if they can't prove he wanted to kill her, they would be forced to go for manslaughter. The jury can only go off what's presented in trial. So if his earlier statements weren't introduced, it's irrelevant.

I get what you're saying and from a pubic perspective he looks guilty of manslaughter for not telling the truth, but it's all about what is presented in court.
 
What article are you referring to?

The one from the first post. It says his defense was that he saw something wrapped up, and when he picked it up the gun inside discharged.

It's up to the prosecutor to prove he didn't do that. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
 
Which part? I thought you lived at State Line for some reason.

No. I go there to place bets. 2hr 45 min drive with no traffic

I live in Anaheim Hills. 2 streets away from Michael Bisping. His street is gated though
 
Was any of that presented in trial as evidence by the prosecution? With murder, you have to prove intent. So if they can't prove he wanted to kill her, they would be forced to go for manslaughter. The jury can only go off what's presented in trial. So if his earlier statements weren't introduced, it's irrelevant.

I get what you're saying and from a pubic perspective he looks guilty of manslaughter for not telling the truth, but it's all about what is presented in court.

From what I read, the parrots at MSM cite a poorly prosecuted case, one in which the DA seemed hellbent to prove murder in the first. You might right be on to them having the wrong approach - not sure if that would have been the difference though.
 
The one from the first post. It says his defense was that he saw something wrapped up, and when he picked it up the gun inside discharged.

It's up to the prosecutor to prove he didn't do that. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Dude. You realize that was the defense. He told the cops a different story but came up with that 1 after he met with counsel

It would be like a Klan member lynching a black woman but using the defense she committed suicide. Sounds kinda far fetched, right?
 
From what I read, the parrots at MSM cite a poorly prosecuted case, one in which the DA seemed hellbent to prove murder in the first. You might right be on to them having the wrong approach - not sure if that would have been the difference though.

That's their way to justify it
 
No. I go there to place bets. 2hr 45 min drive with no traffic

I live in Anaheim Hills. 2 streets away from Michael Bisping. His street is gated though

Right on, that makes sense. I drive out to Vegas/Colorado river pretty often.

I’m down in San Juan Capistrano. Not much nightlife but I like it more than the Bay Area, at least. And the weather here is awesome.
 
No problem with it. This is EXACTLY what Californians want.

Enjoy, amigos!
 
Right on, that makes sense. I drive out to Vegas/Colorado river pretty often.

I’m down in San Juan Capistrano. Not much nightlife but I like it more than the Bay Area, at least. And the weather here is awesome.

Dude. Same here. No nightlife but a few restaurants/bars. I like it though.

Yea. Capistrano is nice. I love OC(most of it)
 
Dude. You realize that was the defense. He told the cops a different story but came up with that 1 after he met with counsel

It would be like a Klan member lynching a black woman but using the defense she committed suicide. Sounds kinda far fetched, right?

I don't know what he told police. If he told police something else, it would have been presented to the jury.

I don't know enough about this case to say what sounds far fetched.
 
fuck'n San Francisco. If he was found guilty, the whole city would be culpable so of course they voted to free themselves
 
I don't know what he told police. If he told police something else, it would have been presented to the jury.

I don't know enough about this case to say what sounds far fetched.

It was told to the jury. But they chose to ignore it.

Just like a bunch of KKK members or Nazis would believe the KKK member was innocent.
 
after-seeing-the-us-offering-a-million-bounty-on-an-isis-terrorist-138349.png
 
Back
Top