Runboard.com
You're welcome.

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


Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 

 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2349
Karma: 15 (+17/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

shiftless2 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.



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."



Not true. They obviously could decide that he didn't do either of those two things because that is what they did.

I also doubt that they couldn't have found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It's highly unlikely that the judge would have threw out such a verdict regardless of any instruction he gave them.
12/3/2017, 9:11 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2387
Karma: 24 (+29/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

shiftless2 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.



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."



Not true. They obviously could decide that he didn't do either of those two things because that is what they did.

I also doubt that they couldn't have found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It's highly unlikely that the judge would have threw out such a verdict regardless of any instruction he gave them.



So you're saying that the judge didn't give the jury those instructions?

quote:

Judge Samuel Feng would not allow them to consider the defendant’s immigration status, his five deportations or his multiple drug convictions. They 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.

The jurors, who deliberated for four days, did not explain their unanimous decision to acquit Garcia Zarate of all charges except one count of a being felon in possession of a firearm.

[sign in to see URL]

12/3/2017, 9:14 pm Link to this post PM shiftless2 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2349
Karma: 15 (+17/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

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.



Of course we are dealing with people. That's the problem. People are biased and in this society they are biased in favor of men. Juries have demonstrated that over and over again just as white men and women demonstrated in our last election.

And while I agree that there can be other reasons why killers get away with their crimes, that is a common one in cases where women have been killed. It happens too often not to call the jury system into serious question.

12/3/2017, 9:15 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1120
Karma: 7 (+10/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


The jury was simply following California law regarding involuntary manslaughter. In order to convict someone of involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with a reckless and willful disregard for life. The prosecution didn't do that, so the jury acquitted him. They had the option of involuntary manslaughter, but only if the requirements for that charge were met.

Of course, you might have understood that if you had seen any of the trial rather than simply base your appraisal on ignorance of the law.
12/3/2017, 9:16 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2349
Karma: 15 (+17/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

shiftless2 wrote:

quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

shiftless2 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.



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."



Not true. They obviously could decide that he didn't do either of those two things because that is what they did.

I also doubt that they couldn't have found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It's highly unlikely that the judge would have threw out such a verdict regardless of any instruction he gave them.



So you're saying that the judge didn't give the jury those instructions?

quote:

Judge Samuel Feng would not allow them to consider the defendant’s immigration status, his five deportations or his multiple drug convictions. They 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.

The jurors, who deliberated for four days, did not explain their unanimous decision to acquit Garcia Zarate of all charges except one count of a being felon in possession of a firearm.

[sign in to see URL]




No, what I'm saying is that the jury couldn't have been as limited as you and that statement you quoted suggest. They obviously could acquit the defendant as well as find him guilty of manslaughter.
12/3/2017, 9:21 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2349
Karma: 15 (+17/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

gopqed wrote:

The jury was simply following California law regarding involuntary manslaughter. In order to convict someone of involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with a reckless and willful disregard for life. The prosecution didn't do that, so the jury acquitted him. They had the option of involuntary manslaughter, but only if the requirements for that charge were met.

Of course, you might have understood that if you had seen any of the trial rather than simply base your appraisal on ignorance of the law.



You mean this California law?

quote:

An involuntary manslaughter can also happen during lawful activities that occur recklessly, carelessly, or unreasonably. A prosecutor might prosecute a defendant for a homicide that occurred due to the defendant's careless behavior related to what would otherwise be a lawful activity.

Example: Michael Jackson's doctor was charged with involuntary manslaughter after the singer's death. The state based its criminal charges on the doctor's prescription of sedative drugs taken by Michael Jackson. Prescribing drugs is generally a lawful activity. To prove involuntary manslaughter, the state only needs to show that the doctor acted recklessly or carelessly; the state does not need to prove that the doctor intended to kill.



Explain how fooling around with a gun in a crowded place and firing it resulting in someone being killed doesn't qualify as acting recklessly or carelessly?
12/3/2017, 9:30 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1120
Karma: 7 (+10/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


What did the defense claim was happening when the gun fired?
12/3/2017, 9:31 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2349
Karma: 15 (+17/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

gopqed wrote:

What did the defense claim was happening when the gun fired?



What difference does it make what they claimed? They are trying to come up with any possible scenario to get their client off.

They'd claim that an alien pulled the trigger if they thought the jury was dumb enough to believe it or have "reasonable" doubt about it.
12/3/2017, 9:43 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1120
Karma: 7 (+10/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


Your understanding of the legal system and the jury system is incredibly inadequate. It's the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defense presents a credible explanation or theory, it's up to the prosecution to counter that argument. Failure to do so presents reasonable doubt. That's what happened in this case, which you could understand if you knew anything about the trial proceedings.
12/3/2017, 10:48 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2268
Karma: 15 (+23/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

gopqed wrote:

Your understanding of the legal system and the jury system is incredibly inadequate. It's the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defense presents a credible explanation or theory, it's up to the prosecution to counter that argument. Failure to do so presents reasonable doubt. That's what happened in this case, which you could understand if you knew anything about the trial proceedings.



Seems reasonable so the fault is with the prosecution or the legal system. Tell us which one you think it is.
12/3/2017, 11:02 pm Link to this post PM Yobbo
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 





You are not logged in (login)