Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

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

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  8  9 

 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1347
Karma: 10 (+13/-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

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2548
Karma: 29 (+34/-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."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-kate-steinle-analysis-20171202-story.html
12/3/2017, 7:03 pm Link to this post PM shiftless2 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
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

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
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

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1347
Karma: 10 (+13/-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

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
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."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-kate-steinle-analysis-20171202-story.html



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

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
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

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
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

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2548
Karma: 29 (+34/-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

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
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  4  5 ... 7  8  9 





You are not logged in (login)