FU$%ING @ZZHOLE JURORS!
All he did was hold the gun and pull the trigger, so he’s OBVIOUSLY completely innocent…
I know it’s a bad time but I wonder if the parents have had a change of heart over “Sanctuary Cities?”
Kate Steinle’s parents came out in 2015 and said they didn’t like the use of the term “Kate’s Law” for the Federal law under consideration to cut funding to sanctuary cities because they were not necessarily against sanctuary cities.
The prosecution overreached insanely with a 1st degree murder charge. There was literally nothing to suggest a pre-meditated murder. Absolutely nothing. Even the 2nd degree charge was a reach.
Once you’ve burned through the credibility of your prosecutorial discretion, the odds of the jury just saying “I don’t think I can buy anything they say” is not unexpected.
If someone dies directly related to one committing a felony, that IS 1st Degree Murder and that’s PRECISELY what was done in this case. He was a FELON in possession of a firearm–itself a felony–and because he HAD that firearm, Kate was killed. It doesn’t MATTER that he claimed it was an “accidental discharge”. The mere fact that he was in possession of the gun when it went off makes it 1st Degree Murder…period. I’m unsurprised that this verdict came out of San Francisco–the epitome of the “Land of Fruits and Nuts.”
They no longer follow the Constitution.
It’s going to have to be invaded from the East, re-conquered, and missionaries sent in to convert the barbarians to Christianity.
Why? Sanctuary cities have less crime; it’s police officers in these cities who tend to advocate for this approach in the first place. It makes their job safer.
You can’t police people if you don’t have a relationship with the people who live there. What federal law says of illegals has no bearing on the reality that cops face. Prudential judgement applies.
He’s innocent! That evil gun murdered her!
Have you been to New Orleans or Chicago?
Yes, and with Chicago especially, the lack of cooperation between black communities and police there demonstrates the point quite well.
If you don’t have the community’s trust, you can’t police effectively.
If you were implementing COIN tactics in Iraq, I imagine they covered a similar idea.
No, I don’t agree. Iraq’s issues weren’t policing. Different ball of wax.
Roll out to a domestic involving a bunch of illegals, or catch them shoplifting, or respond to a robbery call and catch them. Dealing with them is only similar in that rules of engagement hinder the process.
I’m not in New Orleans itself, but we get spillover crimes. We are close enough that a large portion of our community’s crime originates from New Orleans gangs. Nearly all auto theft, car break-ins, and a very large portion of our shoplifting is from New Orleans residents. Our local criminal activity is mainly domestics, drugs, DUI, some burglary, rapes, assaults, and the typical <5 murders a year. My city is 70% white, and the arrest demographics generally reflect the population for locals. When you include the New Orleans denizens, the polarity shifts. If you could take away the New Orleans generated crimes, my city is relatively Mayberry. If you compare Slidell’s overall crime to New Orleans, it is Mayberry.
We don’t know why they do it. For some reason, they may think they have a better chance of getting away. Quite the opposite though. Our parish is widely known as “St Slammany” for a reason. We have great police dept and Sherriff dept, and our judges and prosecutors will throw the book at people, and the community supports it.
Juries are notoriously fickle . . . and stupid to boot (and, of course, multiply that by 100 if it’s Kalifornia).
These are people that either can’t figure out how to get out of jury duty, or actually WANT to be there.
Why is it stupid to WANT to be there? After all, isn’t it your civic duty to serve on a jury?
I fail to see how it’s smart, or a civic duty, to surround yourself with . . . STUPID people (for example, people who don’t have enough wits to think of legitimate ways to avoid being selected).
I was in a pool being considered for a drunk driver trial. I simply told the judge that my brother was killed by a drunk driver. I stated, honestly, that drunk drivers that commit vehicular homicide should be executed. That was enough (and I knew it would be) in the defenses voir dire for them to eliminate me as a juror.
My views on any crime are strict punishment. Saying, "I think they should be hung . . .", is usually enough to get you off.
I was in another pool for a child molesting trial. For that one, I said (again, honestly), “I think child molesters should be hung”. Instant ejection by the defense.
The Independent Republic of Kalifornia . . . home of John Wayne, Richard Nixon, Charles Manson, and Moonbeam Brown. QED!
DOJ demands custody of Steinle killer
He’s not just innocent, he’s the VICTIM here.
[grammar nazi] It’s ‘hanged’. Objects are hung, people get hanged…[/grammar nazi] ;D
I’ve never been involved in jury duty, wife has, but I did have to take a class to get a traffic ticket dismissed.
That was the single most miserable event I have ever been through. I was embarrassed by the people there, pissed off at the ignorance, and I guarantee I lost 20 points off my IQ level, just being there.
I imagine jury duty would be the same.
The wife did allude to that sorta atmosphere.
Interesting enough, she finally caved and let the shoplifter go, just so she could go home.
Not in my experience.
So it’s not like the movies?
I always respond to a jury summons the same way, I write them “I will play no voluntary part in lending credibility to this corrupt Judicial system, if you force me to participate I will vote not guilty unless there is enough evidence that is in no way connected to the integrity of a government employee; any testimony given or evidence gathered by a government employee I will assume is corrupt all or in part”.
The first step in restoring integrity to the Judicial Branch is to stop pretending that the Law and truth can still be respected and honored within its current incarnation.
They have force but force does not create credibility, voluntary capitulation is what lends credibility.
And it would not have made any difference if this jury had voted guilty, the judge would have granted a mistrial on fake grounds and/or ignored the verdict some other way; the Left take what they want and Conservatives usually let them.