• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Jose Ines Garcia Not Guilty of Murder Kate Steinle - verdict

NorCalAthlete said:
You do realize he fully admitted to pulling the trigger intentionally, though said it was because he was trying to shoot a seal?
Click to expand...

Do you think he tried to kill her?

I'm not surprised the court system is out for blood, America sends the mentally ill to prison for the crime of being sick and executes the mentally challenged. California might be a little more progressive but I have doubts convicting him of murder is justice.
 
NorCalAthlete said:
Don't know, but doesn't matter for a manslaughter conviction. Which is what everyone is up in arms about. Not the murder conviction. Or at least, most of the people in this thread. Can't speak for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

At best they were incompetent for not charging him solely for the appropriate crime. Otherwise they're just demonstrating they're just looking for "the win".
 
Matt Gonzales is a scumbag. I know it from dealing with him personally.
 
NorCalAthlete said:
You do realize he fully admitted to pulling the trigger intentionally, though said it was because he was trying to shoot a seal?
Click to expand...

What I do realize is that LEO will attempt to get a suspect to say anything that helps them get a conviction for breaking the law. That's what I realize, fundamentally, about this whole thing.

An expert in firearms should understand how difficult it would be to hit a target on the ricochet over 80 feet away, and, personally, I think you're pushing too hard on this one against your own strength of knowledge.
 
CocoLoco said:
What I do realize is that LEO will attempt to get a suspect to say anything that helps them get a conviction for breaking the law. That's what I realize, fundamentally, about this whole thing.

An expert in firearms should understand how difficult it would be to hit a target on the ricochet over 80 feet away, and, personally, I think you're pushing too hard on this one against your own strength of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Norcal brought that up to illustrate that the firing of the pistol was not accidental, not that he aimed to try to ricochet the bullet into the victim.

IOW, if the firing of the pistol was accidental, why admit to firing it on purpose to shoot a seal? A resonable person might see firing the pistol accidentally in the direction of a seal with the resulting ricochet hitting the woman. Firing the pistol on.purpose to shoot a seal changes to firing it accidentally with a ricochet killing someone?

Nah.
 
Schnellbandit said:
IOW, if the firing of the pistol was accidental, why admit to firing it on purpose to shoot a seal?
Click to expand...

One contention of the defense is that the perp is poorly educated, has limited English and did not fully understand the question. It might be true and might not be. The tactic is not original.
 
Schnellbandit said:
Pretty sure Norcal brought that up to illustrate that the firing of the pistol was not accidental, not that he aimed to try to ricochet the bullet into the victim.

IOW, if the firing of the pistol was accidental, why admit to firing it on purpose to shoot a seal? A resonable person might see firing the pistol accidentally in the direction of a seal with the resulting ricochet hitting the woman. Firing the pistol on.purpose to shoot a seal changes to firing it accidentally with a ricochet killing someone?

Nah.
Click to expand...

/\ This. I don't know why everyone keeps assuming that because someone is upset the guy didn't get convicted of manslaughter, they wanted him to be convicted of murder.

Ogier le Danois said:
Is there case law that addresses this possession argument.
Click to expand...

Not sure, I'd have to look into that.
 
I keep hearing people state the guy was on record to confessing details about the shooting. Was it admissible in court?

In most court rulings there are generally valid reasons behind the populist outrage.
 
mlm said:
I keep hearing people state the guy was on record to confessing details about the shooting. Was it admissible in court?

In most court rulings there are generally valid reasons behind the populist outrage.
Click to expand...

I see no reason it shouldn't have been admissible. It was stated, on video, to sworn officers, after he'd been read his Miranda rights. Or at least that's my understanding of it. His story then changed 2x until it arrived at the "I didn't know it was a gun and it was wrapped in a T shirt and went off accidentally" defense.
 
Did he truly understand his Miranda rights? Why would someone who understood them speak to the police without a lawyer?

How much liability did they assign to the law enforcement agent who's firearm was used in a homicide?
 
HappyHighwayman said:
Did he truly understand his Miranda rights? Why would someone who understood them speak to the police without a lawyer?

How much liability did they assign to the law enforcement agent who's firearm was used in a homicide?
Click to expand...

Because they're stupid?
 
HappyHighwayman said:
Did he truly understand his Miranda rights? Why would someone who understood them speak to the police without a lawyer?

How much liability did they assign to the law enforcement agent who's firearm was used in a homicide?
Click to expand...

...are you serious?

edit - can't tell if trolling or just showing ignorance / privilege / whatever.

1. Not everyone just has a lawyer on retainer to call up if they ever get arrested
2. People tend to talk to police without lawyers for a variety of reasons. Some of those include:
  • Think they're smarter than the cops
  • Think they don't have anything to hide
  • Think they'll just "tell the truth" not realizing they've committed a crime different from the one they had in mind
  • They're talkative
  • They think they'll get away with it if they lie / just talk to the initial officers before it gets to a courtroom
etc, etc, etc.

3. Re: liability for LEO - hopefully fucking zero, because if someone breaks into my car and steals shit that's not my fault, especially if I've secured a firearm by the legal standard - even if that isn't sufficient to stop a theft. Would you want to get a felony for speeding and evasion if someone stole your bike and ran from the cops because they knew they were on a stolen bike? Cops show up and go "hey, we found your bike, and by the way we're charging you with reckless endangerment, felony speeding in excess of 100 mph, and evading police. Doesn't matter that you weren't riding the bike, you owned it right? Well, your fault for not using chains and disc locks in addition to the ignition lock."
 
Last edited:
NorCalAthlete said:
...are you serious?
Click to expand...

That really could be the issue.

I was on a jury a long time ago for a case involving a kidnapping and two counts of rape. The defendant was a Mexican immigrant with apparently limited English. He confessed to the crime but the tape recorder (yeah, that long ago) didn't work. By the time we got to trial, "No habla inglés." Between the fact that there was no tape and the defense could plausibly claim the defendant didn't know what he had confessed to, there we were at trial.
 
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, isn’t that the phrase?

If the problem is a language barrier, would you agree then that that lends credence to conservative concerns over illegal immigrants refusing to learn the language and assimilate?
 
NorCalAthlete said:
/\ This. I don't know why everyone keeps assuming that because someone is upset the guy didn't get convicted of manslaughter, they wanted him to be convicted of murder.



Not sure, I'd have to look into that.
Click to expand...

I thought you were one of the folks that gave me a pretty good lashing for suggesting that it wasn’t murder back when it happened? Sorry if my memory is wrong.

If the statement was made under duress or the defendant didn’t understand the questions being asked due to language differences the confession can be inadmissible?
 
NorCalAthlete said:
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, isn’t that the phrase?

If the problem is a language barrier, would you agree then that that lends credence to conservative concerns over illegal immigrants refusing to learn the language and assimilate?
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. You are equating compliance with communication.

If you ask a person a question they may or may not understand, then they may or may not be giving an accurate answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top