Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3 

 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Still believe in our jury system?


I certainly don't. Of course I haven't believed in it for a long time. I've seen far too many examples of this kind of jury bias and incompetence.

Our jury system takes, dumb, biased and irrational people and gives them the power to make major legal decisions affecting other people on trial as well as future potential victims. It's a system that is so flawed that it should be completely eliminated from this society.

In this case we see a jury once again favoring a man over a female victim to the point where they wouldn't even convict him of manslaughter, let alone murder.

Keep in mind that even if the jury was convinced the shooting was accidental that doesn't rule out convicting him of manslaughter. In fact, that is exactly the crime he would have been guilty of committing.

So why didn't this jury do so?

[sign in to see URL]
12/1/2017, 5:54 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

“Both the prosecution and defense worked very hard in litigating this case,” he said. “At the end of the day, however, it is up to the jury to determine what they believe is an appropriate verdict. They came back the way they did and we will respect the jury’s decision.”



I don't. Why would anyone respect such an irrational verdict?

quote:

After the verdict was read, the victim’s father, Jim Steinle, told The San Francisco Chronicle, “We’re just shocked — saddened and shocked.”



To be shocked I would have had to be unfamiliar with our jury system and how poorly it functions.

quote:

“There’s no other way you can coin it,” he said. “Justice was rendered, but it was not served.”



A very common result of using jurors who wouldn't know justice if it bit them in the butt. Jurors often don't have a clue about justice.
12/1/2017, 6:02 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
snowpixie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 874
Karma: 6 (+10/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


I think there was reasonable doubt.

1. Version : He found something wrapped in cloth was unwrapping the cloth when the gun went off ricochet and hit the victim in the back.

2. Version: He told the police he kicked the gun and it went off ricochet and hit the victim in the back.

3. Version: He was trying to kill a seal, shot the victim by accident after the bullet ricochet.

video shows him running away from the scene and they found the gun that was apparently thrown into the ocean. His hands tested positive for recently firing a gun.
 
That is all the evidence they had.


What we have is a highly political case. The police overcharged him. If they had charged him with manslaughter, then he would of been convicted.

by all accounts the bullet did ricochet, making it nearly impossible for a jury to find him guilty of intentionally murdering the victim.

Last edited by snowpixie, 12/1/2017, 7:06 am
12/1/2017, 7:06 am Link to this post PM snowpixie Blog
 
GoHawk Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 10-2015
Location: Lost in space
Posts: 979
Karma: 7 (+9/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


Yes Philer, we know you dont believe in the American judicial system. My only questions of you are simply why do you not find a country with what you regard a superior system? And once you find that country, why do you not emigrate to that country?

---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long live the Free Territory of Trieste (1947 - 1954)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yxq951CSa0
12/1/2017, 2:14 pm Link to this post PM GoHawk Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

snowpixie wrote:

I think there was reasonable doubt.

1. Version : He found something wrapped in cloth was unwrapping the cloth when the gun went off ricochet and hit the victim in the back.

2. Version: He told the police he kicked the gun and it went off ricochet and hit the victim in the back.

3. Version: He was trying to kill a seal, shot the victim by accident after the bullet ricochet.

video shows him running away from the scene and they found the gun that was apparently thrown into the ocean. His hands tested positive for recently firing a gun.
 
That is all the evidence they had.


What we have is a highly political case. The police overcharged him. If they had charged him with manslaughter, then he would of been convicted.

by all accounts the bullet did ricochet, making it nearly impossible for a jury to find him guilty of intentionally murdering the victim.



Based on the article it appears they could have found him guilty of manslaughter even assuming it was an accident so why didn't they at least do that? Based on any version of the events you mentioned above he could have been found guilty of that crime under our laws. And if his hand tested positive for gun shot residue we can eliminate at least one of those scenarios, the one involving him kicking the gun.

Instead the jury acquitted him which means from their standpoint he was not at all responsible for her being shot. But if he wasn't responsible what was? The gun itself?

It was another ridiculous, irrational verdict which makes no sense.

"An undocumented Mexican immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges on Thursday in the killing of Kathryn Steinle, whose death while out walking on a San Francisco pier became a touchstone in the national debate over immigration fueled by Donald J. Trump."
12/1/2017, 5:20 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

GoHawk wrote:

Yes Philer, we know you dont believe in the American judicial system. My only questions of you are simply why do you not find a country with what you regard a superior system? And once you find that country, why do you not emigrate to that country?



It's not that I don't believe in our judicial system completely. We have to have some sort of a judicial system. I just want to see it greatly improved.

And it would certainly take more than a crappy jury system to result in me wanting to leave this country. We just need to get rid of that system which relies on the biased efforts of nincompoops.
12/1/2017, 5:31 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


A couple of other points that I forgot to mention. The same sort of problems exist in other countries so one couldn't avoid them by moving to any of those countries.

Countries that rely on tribunals and judges demonstrate the same sort of bias in cases where women are involved either as defendants or victims. Men are still favored over women.

We seek to avoid those sorts of problems with our jury system but it doesn't work. All we do is spend more time and money on juries when we could achieve about the same results by just using judges.

And we could track and detect the patterns of bias better if we only used judges and then do something about them. We could fire extremely biased judges. Incompetent, biased juries can't be fired after a trial is over because their job is done.

 
12/1/2017, 5:44 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 1981
Karma: 13 (+21/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

A couple of other points that I forgot to mention. The same sort of problems exist in other countries so one couldn't avoid them by moving to any of those countries.

Countries that rely on tribunals and judges demonstrate the same sort of bias in cases where women are involved either as defendants or victims. Men are still favored over women.

We seek to avoid those sorts of problems with our jury system but it doesn't work. All we do is spend more time and money on juries when we could achieve about the same results by just using judges.

And we could track and detect the patterns of bias better if we only used judges and then do something about them. We could fire extremely biased judges. Incompetent, biased juries can't be fired after a trial is over because their job is done.

 


Check out other countries' legal systems. I know New Zealand's is much less gender biased.
12/1/2017, 6:37 pm Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3953
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


If you look at many other western countries, there are far more women self employed, far more women that are CEO's, far more women in high political positions than in the US. They also have tighter anti discrimination laws and hate crime laws and it seems to me they are taken more seriously than here.
12/1/2017, 7:35 pm Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
snowpixie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 874
Karma: 6 (+10/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

snowpixie wrote:

I think there was reasonable doubt.

1. Version : He found something wrapped in cloth was unwrapping the cloth when the gun went off ricochet and hit the victim in the back.

2. Version: He told the police he kicked the gun and it went off ricochet and hit the victim in the back.

3. Version: He was trying to kill a seal, shot the victim by accident after the bullet ricochet.

video shows him running away from the scene and they found the gun that was apparently thrown into the ocean. His hands tested positive for recently firing a gun.
 
That is all the evidence they had.


What we have is a highly political case. The police overcharged him. If they had charged him with manslaughter, then he would of been convicted.

by all accounts the bullet did ricochet, making it nearly impossible for a jury to find him guilty of intentionally murdering the victim.



Based on the article it appears they could have found him guilty of manslaughter even assuming it was an accident so why didn't they at least do that? Based on any version of the events you mentioned above he could have been found guilty of that crime under our laws. And if his hand tested positive for gun shot residue we can eliminate at least one of those scenarios, the one involving him kicking the gun.

Instead the jury acquitted him which means from their standpoint he was not at all responsible for her being shot. But if he wasn't responsible what was? The gun itself?

It was another ridiculous, irrational verdict which makes no sense.

"An undocumented Mexican immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges on Thursday in the killing of Kathryn Steinle, whose death while out walking on a San Francisco pier became a touchstone in the national debate over immigration fueled by Donald J. Trump."



my apology, i didn't realize involuntary manslaughter was on the table.

 So, a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally kills an innocent woman and the jury doesn't convict him of involuntary manslaughter.

let's think about how many cases recently that cops have accidentally killed people while arresting them or transporting them.

I'm talking about the firearm accidentally going off, or they restricted their breathing and the person died, or they transported them back in a van and they later died of injuries because they were not properly restrained.


I would say our jury system is awesome when it acquits cops or George Zimmerman, but never ever when a drug dealing, illegal alien acquitted.

Apparently their isn't a double standard with juries in San Francisco. Which has a lot of people upset.
12/1/2017, 7:39 pm Link to this post PM snowpixie Blog
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 941
Karma: 6 (+9/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


If there's fault to be assessed here, it's with the prosecutors who didn't make a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
12/1/2017, 8:20 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

If you look at many other western countries, there are far more women self employed, far more women that are CEO's, far more women in high political positions than in the US. They also have tighter anti discrimination laws and hate crime laws and it seems to me they are taken more seriously than here.



I believe you're right that some other western countries have made more progress along those lines than we have. Just the fact that women have become the top political leaders in some of them points in that direction.

We lag behind much of the western world in a lot of categories including treating women equally. At the same time even in other western countries women can be discriminated against in court as they tend to be in most other countries.
12/1/2017, 8:22 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

snowpixie wrote:

quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

snowpixie wrote:

I think there was reasonable doubt.

1. Version : He found something wrapped in cloth was unwrapping the cloth when the gun went off ricochet and hit the victim in the back.

2. Version: He told the police he kicked the gun and it went off ricochet and hit the victim in the back.

3. Version: He was trying to kill a seal, shot the victim by accident after the bullet ricochet.

video shows him running away from the scene and they found the gun that was apparently thrown into the ocean. His hands tested positive for recently firing a gun.
 
That is all the evidence they had.


What we have is a highly political case. The police overcharged him. If they had charged him with manslaughter, then he would of been convicted.

by all accounts the bullet did ricochet, making it nearly impossible for a jury to find him guilty of intentionally murdering the victim.



Based on the article it appears they could have found him guilty of manslaughter even assuming it was an accident so why didn't they at least do that? Based on any version of the events you mentioned above he could have been found guilty of that crime under our laws. And if his hand tested positive for gun shot residue we can eliminate at least one of those scenarios, the one involving him kicking the gun.

Instead the jury acquitted him which means from their standpoint he was not at all responsible for her being shot. But if he wasn't responsible what was? The gun itself?

It was another ridiculous, irrational verdict which makes no sense.

"An undocumented Mexican immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges on Thursday in the killing of Kathryn Steinle, whose death while out walking on a San Francisco pier became a touchstone in the national debate over immigration fueled by Donald J. Trump."



my apology, i didn't realize involuntary manslaughter was on the table.

 So, a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm accidentally kills an innocent woman and the jury doesn't convict him of involuntary manslaughter.

let's think about how many cases recently that cops have accidentally killed people while arresting them or transporting them.

I'm talking about the firearm accidentally going off, or they restricted their breathing and the person died, or they transported them back in a van and they later died of injuries because they were not properly restrained.


I would say our jury system is awesome when it acquits cops or George Zimmerman, but never ever when a drug dealing, illegal alien acquitted.

Apparently their isn't a double standard with juries in San Francisco. Which has a lot of people upset.



I'm upset at the double standard that favors men over women in this society which was again in play in this case.

All that the police being favored in court does is show that the men who are cops are favored in those courts which isn't the least surprising.

Judges and juries have to care enough about victims and future potential victims to render just verdicts. When cops commit these sorts of crimes judges and juries tend to care much more about the cops than the victims just as this jury seemed to care a lot more about the shooter than the victim.

It says a lot about a society where a representative panel of people care more about a man with a felony record who shoots someone than they do a young innocent woman who was his victim.

As I've said this society really doesn't seem to care much about women.

12/1/2017, 8:32 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 1981
Karma: 13 (+21/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


Cops in civilised nations spend a lot longer being trained than they do in police states.
12/1/2017, 8:59 pm Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3953
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

GoHawk wrote:

Yes Philer, we know you dont believe in the American judicial system. My only questions of you are simply why do you not find a country with what you regard a superior system? And once you find that country, why do you not emigrate to that country?



It's not that I don't believe in our judicial system completely. We have to have some sort of a judicial system. I just want to see it greatly improved.

And it would certainly take more than a crappy jury system to result in me wanting to leave this country. We just need to get rid of that system which relies on the biased efforts of nincompoops.



Who's to decide who is or is not a nincompoop?
12/2/2017, 1:12 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
snowpixie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 874
Karma: 6 (+10/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


anybody who not smart enough to get out of jury duty I guess.

here is Neil Degrasse contaminating a jury with common sense.

[sign in to see URL]
12/2/2017, 2:10 am Link to this post PM snowpixie Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

gopqed wrote:

If there's fault to be assessed here, it's with the prosecutors who didn't make a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty.



You're assuming that the jury was competent and unbiased. I don't make that assumption.

Even if there was evidence of a ricochet and therefore an accident this guy should still have been found guilty of manslaughter.

The reason why the jury acquitted him was not due to poor case preparation by the prosecution. The main reason? Little to no regard for the victim, her family or potential future victims.
12/3/2017, 6:16 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

GoHawk wrote:

Yes Philer, we know you dont believe in the American judicial system. My only questions of you are simply why do you not find a country with what you regard a superior system? And once you find that country, why do you not emigrate to that country?



It's not that I don't believe in our judicial system completely. We have to have some sort of a judicial system. I just want to see it greatly improved.

And it would certainly take more than a crappy jury system to result in me wanting to leave this country. We just need to get rid of that system which relies on the biased efforts of nincompoops.



Who's to decide who is or is not a nincompoop?



Prosecutors and defense attorneys already do that to a great extent. Those are the kind of folks they seem to want on their juries.

Besides nobody would need to worry about who is or who isn't a nincompoop getting on a jury if we simply did away with the jury system.

12/3/2017, 6:26 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


Snowpixie,

Neil Degrasse Tyson demonstrated another problem with our jury system. It seeks to employ people who don't notice little details like he did. That's not what prosecutors are looking for.

As he pointed out, when the judge declared the defendant had been found with 2000 milligrams of cocaine that made it sound worse than if he had simply said 2 grams. But I'm not at all surprised by that. Juries in this country routinely find people guilty of drug crimes and send them off to prison.

When some dumbass shoots a young woman and kills her they often find it a lot more difficult to do that, as they did in this case.

12/3/2017, 6:39 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 1981
Karma: 13 (+21/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


If a similar case had a similar decision by a jury in any of the countries I am familiar with, I feel people would look at other reasons than the victim's gender.
12/3/2017, 7:25 am Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 941
Karma: 6 (+9/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

gopqed wrote:

If there's fault to be assessed here, it's with the prosecutors who didn't make a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty.



You're assuming that the jury was competent and unbiased. I don't make that assumption.

Even if there was evidence of a ricochet and therefore an accident this guy should still have been found guilty of manslaughter.

The reason why the jury acquitted him was not due to poor case preparation by the prosecution. The main reason? Little to no regard for the victim, her family or potential future victims.



How much of the trial did you see, Philer?
12/3/2017, 10:35 am Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1867
Karma: 17 (+22/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

gopqed wrote:

If there's fault to be assessed here, it's with the prosecutors who didn't make a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty.



You're assuming that the jury was competent and unbiased. I don't make that assumption.

Even if there was evidence of a ricochet and therefore an accident this guy should still have been found guilty of manslaughter.

The reason why the jury acquitted him was not due to poor case preparation by the prosecution. The main reason? Little to no regard for the victim, her family or potential future victims.



Sorry but the jury is supposed to determine if the defendant committed the particular crime or crimes he has been charged with - the decision should not be based on crimes that he might commit in the future or the impact on the victim's family (that latter point should be a consideration when determining the sentence but has no bearing on whether or not the defendant actually committed the crime of which he's accused).

Fact is the jury deliberated for four days and concluded that the prosecution had not proved that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so unless you're suggesting that the reasonable doubt standard should be waived for some reason (his immigration status perhaps?) it would appear that the prosecution fell down on the job.

But have you reviewed the transcript of the entire trial (and completely disregarded anything that went on in the courtroom that the jury wasn't allowed to hear)? Absent that you're not in a position to second guess them.

And something that everyone seems to be forgetting - "[the jury] could decide only whether he intentionally shot Steinle on July 1, 2015, or at the least fired the gun with a willful disregard for life."

[sign in to see URL]
12/3/2017, 7:03 pm Link to this post PM shiftless2 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


None, but how much of the trial did I need to see, Gop? Even if there was good evidence that the shooting was an accident that still falls within the definition of manslaughter. For the jury to completely acquit the shooter is essentially to claim that nobody is responsible for the woman being shot and killed. And somebody obviously was to blame even if the shooting was accidental.

The jury didn't care enough about the victim to do the right thing and find the shooter at least guilty of manslaughter. It is a another strong indicator that our jury system stinks.

Last edited by Philer, 12/3/2017, 7:08 pm
12/3/2017, 7:05 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3953
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


I agree he should have been found guilty of manslaughter. Philer sees misogyny, very doubtful in San Francisco, the right is claiming he was found not guilty because he is illegal and SF is a sanctuary city. If you wouldn't have trial by jury how would you run them, hopefully not with judges!
12/3/2017, 7:12 pm Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 941
Karma: 6 (+9/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

None, but how much of the trial did I need to see, Gop? Even if there was good evidence that the shooting was an accident that still falls within the definition of manslaughter. For the jury to completely acquit the shooter is essentially to claim that nobody is responsible for the woman being shot and killed. And somebody obviously was to blame even if the shooting was accidental.

The jury didn't care enough about the victim to do the right thing and find the shooter at least guilty of manslaughter. It is a another strong indicator that our jury system stinks.



So you're basing your analysis of the trial on nothing but your preconceived notions. I'll remember that when you provide a review of a movie because now I know you base your pronouncements on your own ignorance.
12/3/2017, 7:31 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

shiftless2 wrote:

quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

gopqed wrote:

If there's fault to be assessed here, it's with the prosecutors who didn't make a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty.



You're assuming that the jury was competent and unbiased. I don't make that assumption.

Even if there was evidence of a ricochet and therefore an accident this guy should still have been found guilty of manslaughter.

The reason why the jury acquitted him was not due to poor case preparation by the prosecution. The main reason? Little to no regard for the victim, her family or potential future victims.



Sorry but the jury is supposed to determine if the defendant committed the particular crime or crimes he has been charged with - the decision should not be based on crimes that he might commit in the future or the impact on the victim's family (that latter point should be a consideration when determining the sentence but has no bearing on whether or not the defendant actually committed the crime of which he's accused).

Fact is the jury deliberated for four days and concluded that the prosecution had not proved that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so unless you're suggesting that the reasonable doubt standard should be waived for some reason (his immigration status perhaps?) it would appear that the prosecution fell down on the job.

But have you reviewed the transcript of the entire trial (and completely disregarded anything that went on in the courtroom that the jury wasn't allowed to hear)? Absent that you're not in a position to second guess them.

And something that everyone seems to be forgetting - "[the jury] could decide only whether he intentionally shot Steinle on July 1, 2015, or at the least fired the gun with a willful disregard for life."

[sign in to see URL]



From that article you cited:

quote:

But even critics of San Francisco were surprised the jury did not convict Garcia Zarate of involuntary manslaughter at a minimum, for negligently firing the Sig Sauer pistol on the pier.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that advocates for restrictions on immigration, thought the jury was deliberating between second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.

“I was very shocked that they bought into this idea that this was some accident that he shouldn’t be held responsible for,” Vaughan said. “I was very surprised and saddened for the Steinle family with this very controversial and unsatisfying verdict.”

The Steinle family told the San Francisco Chronicle they were “saddened and shocked by the verdict.”



I wasn't really surprised. Jurors tend to have little regard for female victims like Steinle and this set of jurors was no exception. Not even finding the shooter guilty of involuntary manslaughter shows how little regard they had for the victim.

And no, I haven't reviewed the trial transcript but I don't need to do that to recognize that the jury didn't care about the victim. That's obvious.

What reasonable doubt are you talking about? Did the defendant shoot the victim? Yes. Was he responsible for shooting her? Yes. Was it an accident? Maybe but he still shot and killed her. That still qualifies as a crime.

That means that a jury decided to rule in a way which suggests that nobody was responsible for the young woman being shot and killed when someone clearly was responsible. And it was the guy they acquitted.

It doesn't matter if he was homeless or the victim of a verbal assault by Trump. He still shot and killed a young woman and should have been found guilty of that crime by a jury. This moronic jury was more sympathetic toward him than his victim. That is a common factor in jury trials when innocent women have been shot and killed by men.

And one of many good reasons to get rid of the jury system.

Last edited by Philer, 12/3/2017, 7:58 pm
12/3/2017, 7:36 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

I agree he should have been found guilty of manslaughter. Philer sees misogyny, very doubtful in San Francisco, the right is claiming he was found not guilty because he is illegal and SF is a sanctuary city. If you wouldn't have trial by jury how would you run them, hopefully not with judges!



Misogyny is not doubtful anywhere, katie. Not even in San Francisco. This jury was faced with deciding the fate of a poor, homeless, illegal immigrant who had shot and killed some white woman of means and they simply sympathized more with him than her and her family. They decided to give him a big break despite the fact that he did shoot and kill an innocent young woman walking on a pier.

And I see no big problem in replacing juries with judges from a moral standpoint. As I've mentioned, while they are just as biased as juries, that bias could be detected and eliminated by eliminating them if trial by judges was implemented. You could see patterns of bias more easily and then could take steps to get it out of the system. Our jury system essentially guarantees that bias favoring men will remain a part of our criminal justice system in significant criminal trials like this one.
12/3/2017, 7:44 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2012
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

gopqed wrote:

quote:

Philer wrote:

None, but how much of the trial did I need to see, Gop? Even if there was good evidence that the shooting was an accident that still falls within the definition of manslaughter. For the jury to completely acquit the shooter is essentially to claim that nobody is responsible for the woman being shot and killed. And somebody obviously was to blame even if the shooting was accidental.

The jury didn't care enough about the victim to do the right thing and find the shooter at least guilty of manslaughter. It is a another strong indicator that our jury system stinks.



So you're basing your analysis of the trial on nothing but your preconceived notions. I'll remember that when you provide a review of a movie because now I know you base your pronouncements on your own ignorance.



Interesting that you mentioned that. I seldom review films but I was thinking about reviewing the film "Get Out." I haven't seen it yet though so I will wait until I have. I've only read the plot summary.

In this case, I didn't need to see the trial or a transcript to know that even if the shooting was accidental the jury didn't do the right thing. An accidental shooting doesn't relieve a shooter of all responsibility for that shooting.

So, given that fact, what other explanation is there for what the jury did other than a lack of regard for the victim and her family and more respect for the shooter? I suspect they didn't like Trump's criticism of their city or illegal immigrants in general and perhaps this one in particular but the bottom line is they favored the shooter over the victim.

12/3/2017, 7:53 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1867
Karma: 17 (+22/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

None, but how much of the trial did I need to see, Gop? Even if there was good evidence that the shooting was an accident that still falls within the definition of manslaughter. For the jury to completely acquit the shooter is essentially to claim that nobody is responsible for the woman being shot and killed. And somebody obviously was to blame even if the shooting was accidental.

The jury didn't care enough about the victim to do the right thing and find the shooter at least guilty of manslaughter. It is a another strong indicator that our jury system stinks.



The jury was not given that option. The judge ruled that "[the jury] could decide only whether he intentionally shot Steinle on July 1, 2015, or at the least fired the gun with a willful disregard for life."
12/3/2017, 8:29 pm Link to this post PM shiftless2 Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3953
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

katie5445 wrote:

I agree he should have been found guilty of manslaughter. Philer sees misogyny, very doubtful in San Francisco, the right is claiming he was found not guilty because he is illegal and SF is a sanctuary city. If you wouldn't have trial by jury how would you run them, hopefully not with judges!



Misogyny is not doubtful anywhere, katie. Not even in San Francisco. This jury was faced with deciding the fate of a poor, homeless, illegal immigrant who had shot and killed some white woman of means and they simply sympathized more with him than her and her family. They decided to give him a big break despite the fact that he did shoot and kill an innocent young woman walking on a pier.

And I see no big problem in replacing juries with judges from a moral standpoint. As I've mentioned, while they are just as biased as juries, that bias could be detected and eliminated by eliminating them if trial by judges was implemented. You could see patterns of bias more easily and then could take steps to get it out of the system. Our jury system essentially guarantees that bias favoring men will remain a part of our criminal justice system in significant criminal trials like this one.




We already recognize bias by judges, a system that guarantees non bias, that would be heavenly but you are dealing with people, whether judges or juries they are biased. I disagree with your reasoning, not every crime against a women or not guilty verdict is misogyny and I think it is a disservice to both women and men to label every crime against us that way when a man gets off. If there are 12 jurors, you won't find the same reasoning in all 12, there can be many different reasons a person gets off besides being anti women, however that does not mean for some persons that isn't the issue as you know, my family lived that.
12/3/2017, 8:29 pm Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top