Passionate pre-election opinion of prominent Democrat

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I didn’t label any group. Spence asked what harm has come to anyone from progressive ideas. The progressive notion of sanctuary cities led directly to kate steinles death, and you can deny that until you are blue, but it’s true. It’s also true that liberalism has led to crushing taxes in my home state of ct, and if Spence doesn’t think that causes harm, that shows you how aloof he is.

What made our country great is the idea that the individual has rights granted by god, and that the state serves the individual, not the other way around; also the concepts of individual liberty and upward economic mobility. These are the things that made us great, and progressives could not be more dedicated to the abolition of these principles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death, illegal immigrants or open carry being illegal?
"I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that it did.

I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.


Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.

These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.

There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.

But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However, given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me that the jury made the right decision.

The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.

Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.

The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement.

I have come away from this experience with a strong sense of respect for the jurors and their objective handling of a sensitive case under the national spotlight. I hope that I would have acted with the same level of maturity."
Phil Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer who lives in San Francisco and occasionally writes at abinitioblog.com. He is not a lawyer.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death, illegal immigrants or open carry being illegal?
"I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that it did.

I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.


Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.

These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.

There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.

But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However, given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me that the jury made the right decision.

The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.

Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.

The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement.

I have come away from this experience with a strong sense of respect for the jurors and their objective handling of a sensitive case under the national spotlight. I hope that I would have acted with the same level of maturity."
Phil Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer who lives in San Francisco and occasionally writes at abinitioblog.com. He is not a lawyer.

"And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death"

I'm not sure how you can possibly not know this, the answer is sanctuary cities. The shooter should have been deported, if he had been, she'd be alive.

Your quotes form the juror are meaningless. I'm not saying the guy should have been convicted of anything, maybe it was an accident. But the shooter never should have been allowed to remain.

You are concentrating on the legal issues related to the trial. Not the point.

There's also the impact of liberalism on the crushing taxes on the state of CT, on the fact that 75% of black babies are born fatherless (the ones that aren't aborted, that is). I'm not saying conservatism is perfect. I am responding to Spence's comment that liberalism hasn't harmed anybody.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not sure how you can possibly not know this, the answer is sanctuary cities. The shooter should have been deported, if he had been, she'd be alive.

But with a millions of variables you can't really say that's the case. While tragic her death was an extremely random event.

Regardless, you don't make policy over a single event like that.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Regardless, you don't make policy over a single event like that.

One would think your statement is reasonable and correct, yet we have bumpstock bans because of a single event. Sounds like policy to me. A reactionary policy if ever there was one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

One would think your statement is reasonable and correct, yet we have bumpstock bans because of a single event. Sounds like policy to me. A reactionary policy if ever there was one.

I said event like that. A random accidental killing isn't the same as nearly a 1000 injuries and 59 fatalities and you know that...

Plus, the bump stock makes the semi nearly fully auto...which is heavily restricted to own and you know that...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

But with a millions of variables you can't really say that's the case. While tragic her death was an extremely random event.

Regardless, you don't make policy over a single event like that.

You asked who has been harmed by progressive ideas. Kate Steinle's family was horribly hurt, thanks to the liberal policy of not cooperating with ICE.

I also mentioned brutal taxes in CT, I mentioned black fatherlessness, all directly related to liberalism. No harm there? None at all?

"Regardless, you don't make policy over a single event like that."

Agreed. I wasn't using that event as a reason to advocate for policy, I pointed to it as evidence that liberalism has adverse side effects. Any wide-ranging agenda will.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death"

I'm not sure how you can possibly not know this, the answer is sanctuary cities. The shooter should have been deported, if he had been, she'd be alive.

Your quotes form the juror are meaningless. I'm not saying the guy should have been convicted of anything, maybe it was an accident. But the shooter never should have been allowed to remain.

You are concentrating on the legal issues related to the trial. Not the point.

There's also the impact of liberalism on the crushing taxes on the state of CT, on the fact that 75% of black babies are born fatherless (the ones that aren't aborted, that is). I'm not saying conservatism is perfect. I am responding to Spence's comment that liberalism hasn't harmed anybody.

The gun was lying under the bench
A man picked it up
It fired
What does his immigration status have to do with a death, other than to be a focus point for authoritarian white christian conservatives
One could also say that if there were no guns this would not have happened
"Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up."

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What does his immigration status have to do with a death, other than to be a focus point for authoritarian white christian conservatives
One could also say that if there were no guns this would not have happened

Jim will say that had he not been released he wouldn't have been there to pick up the unknown object. But like I said given the randomness of the entire thing that's kind of a silly way to make a point or policy for that matter.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The gun was lying under the bench
A man picked it up
It fired
What does his immigration status have to do with a death, other than to be a focus point for authoritarian white christian conservatives
One could also say that if there were no guns this would not have happened
"Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up."

I never said the guy intended to kill her. I said that if the city had cooperated with ICE, he would not have been there. I don't think it's a stretch to say it was an accident. But he shouldn't have been there to cause the accident. Is that going too fast for you?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I never said the guy intended to kill her. I said that if the city had cooperated with ICE, he would not have been there. I don't think it's a stretch to say it was an accident. But he shouldn't have been there to cause the accident. Is that going too fast for you?

I forgot guns don’t kill people. Illegals do
What do you propose to do to stop the majority of the terrorist killings in this country? More have been done by angry white men than by any other ethnic group.
Or are they not terrorists
Was Vegas an accident
Was Oklahoma City an accident
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I forgot guns don’t kill people. Illegals do
What do you propose to do to stop the majority of the terrorist killings in this country? More have been done by angry white men than by any other ethnic group.
Or are they not terrorists
Was Vegas an accident
Was Oklahoma City an accident
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's be very clear, OK? You're saying (and it sounds like Spence is saying) that if the shooter had been deported, it's reasonable to assume that someone else would have picked up the gun and similarly shot her in the back? Are you serious?

I was driving once, and I came around the corner, and right in the middle of the road, was a parked car. I hit it. It wasn't my fault, because whoever came around that curve next, was going to hit the car. It didn't matter who came next, they were going to hit the car.

You're suggesting that the same logic applies to this gun. That might be the most absurd thing I have ever heard. 95% of us aren't that stupid or thoughtless that we'd fire a gun in an open, crowded place. Even in San Francisco, people aren't that stupid.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let's be very clear, OK? You're saying (and it sounds like Spence is saying) that if the shooter had been deported, it's reasonable to assume that someone else would have picked up the gun and similarly shot her in the back? Are you serious?

The point is that the randomness of the event makes it statistically insignificant from a policy perspective.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I forgot guns don’t kill people. Illegals do
What do you propose to do to stop the majority of the terrorist killings in this country? More have been done by angry white men than by any other ethnic group.
Or are they not terrorists
Was Vegas an accident
Was Oklahoma City an accident
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What do you propose to do to stop the majority of the terrorist killings in this country?"

I don't know. Play offense abroad, play defense at home. Having open borders isn't the way I would go about it, I know that much.

"More have been done by angry white men than by any other ethnic group"

First, Islam isn't an ethnicity, it's a religion. Second, if you're suggesting that white, non-Muslim terrorists have killed more Americans than the number that died on 9/11, can you share the data that supports that? I'm skeptical...3,000 died on 9/11.

"Was Vegas an accident "

No. And we also don't know if the guy was a terrorist, do we? Was he a soldier for some cause? Or just a nut? Not every mass killer is a terrorist. A terrorist kills in the name of some cause.

"Was Oklahoma City an accident"

Nope. That was a white terrorist, as are most abortion clinic bombings. Last time I checked, the death toll from the instances you refer, are nowhere near 3,000.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I forgot guns don’t kill people. Illegals do

Duh! Illegals are people. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. You got a problem with that?


What do you propose to do to stop the majority of the terrorist killings in this country?

In the case of killings done by citizens, prosecute them. In the case of those done by illegals, crack down on illegal immigration and limit immigration to highly vetted people who have qualifications that are needed for our society and economy.

More have been done by angry white men than by any other ethnic group.

White men are not an ethnicity, white it is a race. Oh, I forgot, ethnicity, national origin, religion, and other stuff are all race. Every crime and anti-social behavior is racism . . . right . . . right . . . right. If my brother was born and raised in another country, we would not be of the same race.

Or are they not terrorists
Was Vegas an accident
Was Oklahoma City an accident
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Murders are not accidents.