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: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-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: 1858
Karma: 17 (+22/-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: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-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: 937
Karma: 6 (+9/-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: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-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: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-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: 937
Karma: 6 (+9/-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: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-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: 937
Karma: 6 (+9/-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: 1977
Karma: 13 (+21/-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
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 937
Karma: 6 (+9/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


I made that clear earlier in the thread.
12/3/2017, 11:04 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1858
Karma: 17 (+22/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


It's clear that if there was a failure here it was on the part of the prosecution.
12/4/2017, 1:09 am Link to this post PM shiftless2 Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3940
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

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.



Then why would you want to put judges in control when they are mostly white men? I'm thinking right now about the Oscar Pistorius case where it was a black women judge who let him slide. I don't even want to think what would happen in this country without a jury and a bunch of mostly white men.
12/4/2017, 3:45 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
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.



Reasonable doubt is a very ambiguous factor in any trial. It's also one that functions contingent on the level of rationality of jurors, not the quality of the prosecution or the defense.

That means that even when the prosecution does a good job of presenting solid evidence for a conviction a jury may reject that evidence based on bias and simply claim that they had reasonable doubt. You can't possibly know that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the outcome of a trial.

For that matter you can't possibly know that a prosecution did a good job of proving its case if a jury finds someone guilty. People have been convicted when the evidence presented for conviction was extremely flimsy and inadequate.

When jurors are irrational and biased reasonable doubt is either elusive when they should have it or they claim to have it when it couldn't possibly exist.
12/5/2017, 5:48 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

shiftless2 wrote:

It's clear that if there was a failure here it was on the part of the prosecution.



So jurors can never be wrong in evaluating the evidence and couldn't have possibly been wrong about it in this case? That is obviously not true. You and gop have a very unrealistic and idealistic view of our jury system.

It is extremely error prone due to the simple fact that many of the people who get on juries are not very bright and not good at evaluating evidence. What they are good at is basing their decisions on their own prejudices and biases and mistaking that for evaluating the evidence.
12/5/2017, 5:59 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Then why would you want to put judges in control when they are mostly white men?-katie



Because they have some knowledge about legal matters and probably aren't more biased than jurors are. And as I pointed out, they could be fired from their jobs if they displayed a pattern of bias and their convictions could be tossed out once that pattern of bias was discovered.
 
quote:

I'm thinking right now about the Oscar Pistorius case where it was a black women judge who let him slide.



A classic example of how bias can affect the outcome of a trial. That black judge didn't care about the young white woman who was murdered and obviously was biased in favor of Oscar Pistorius.

It also demonstrated that reasonable doubt can be used as an excuse when it couldn't possibly exist. Did she have reasonable doubt about a murder taking place and Pistorius being responsible? Of course not. What she acted on was bias, not reasonable doubt.

quote:

I don't even want to think what would happen in this country without a jury and a bunch of mostly white men.



It would be a very error prone system but not more than the jury system we currently use. And bad, biased judges could be removed from that system.

Our current jury system doesn't remove bad, biased jurors as much as it depends on them.

Last edited by Philer, 12/5/2017, 6:18 pm
12/5/2017, 6:15 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3815
Karma: 11 (+17/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


Assuming that the shooting was accidental - and I have seen nothing to convice me otherwise.

It isnt unusual for those who 'accidentally' (meaning in most cases negligently) shoot people to be not charged, even in cases more egregious than Zarate's - not being charged isnt unusual even when the victim dies.

So it was fairly unusual in the circumstances that Zarate was even charged and 'got his day in court' and that is down (in my opinion) to his immigration status.

This leads on to the question 'is it right?' well obviously it isnt but the Jury are all Americans many of whom will own guns and at the back of their minds might have been the thought 'if I convict Zarate will this set a precedent that might come back and haunt me should I have an accident'

In my opinion EVERY accidental /negligent discharge should result in a criminal charge, and if someone is injured or god forbid killed, then the default position should be jailtime even if no one gets hurt then jailtime should be a serious option
12/10/2017, 12:14 am Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3940
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


How about this scenario. This is an event I had read that circumstances change little, pretty much repeating a similar story. There is going to be a trial in WA. for manslaughter, a 13 y.o. boy who shot and killed his best buddy with his dads shotgun, playing around thinking it unloaded. The DA agrees it is an accident without intention but is charging the kid because HE was reckless. This is the 5th time I have seen this in WA. state, the kid is in orange, handcuffed, sitting next to an attorney on trial, while the parent who left out the loaded gun is in the audience. To me if you can hire a hit man to murder someone the hit man gets 20 to life and you get life or the death penalty, why isn't the parent on trial who started the motion of injury or death?
12/10/2017, 1:50 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3815
Karma: 11 (+17/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


 
quote:

the kid is in orange, handcuffed, sitting next to an attorney on trial, while the parent who left out the loaded gun is in the audience.



If what you are getting at is that the wrong person is in orange I agree. (although I dont think that the 13 year old should get a free pass either)


One the plus side at least they seem to be taking gun negligence seriously - many states dont
12/10/2017, 12:33 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

It isnt unusual for those who 'accidentally' (meaning in most cases negligently) shoot people to be not charged, even in cases more egregious than Zarate's - not being charged isnt unusual even when the victim [sign in to see URL]



A lot will depend on who is the victim in an allegedly accidental shooting and whether it will even be considered to be an accident. If someone accidentally shoots a police officer I doubt that it would matter in the slightest that it was an accident.

quote:

So it was fairly unusual in the circumstances that Zarate was even charged and 'got his day in court' and that is down (in my opinion) to his immigration status.



Perhaps but anyone being shot in such a public place by a stranger messing around with a gun would probably have been charged. It was very different from a domestic situation where someone supposedly accidentally shot a loved one.

quote:

This leads on to the question 'is it right?' well obviously it isnt but the Jury are all Americans many of whom will own guns and at the back of their minds might have been the thought 'if I convict Zarate will this set a precedent that might come back and haunt me should I have an accident'



I agree it's not right but tolerating it is more a matter of not caring all that much about the victim or simply not wanting to send someone to prison who shot a relative or girlfriend. If a young woman accidentally shoots her boyfriend there will not be quite so much tolerance for that. She won't be believed just because she claims it was an accident.

quote:

In my opinion EVERY accidental negligent discharge should result in a criminal charge, and if someone is injured or god forbid killed, then the default position should be jailtime even if no one gets hurt then jailtime should be a serious option



I agree but jail time is almost always related to whether a jury cared enough about a victim to see to it that someone gets jail time.
12/10/2017, 6:35 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

How about this scenario. This is an event I had read that circumstances change little, pretty much repeating a similar story. There is going to be a trial in WA. for manslaughter, a 13 y.o. boy who shot and killed his best buddy with his dads shotgun, playing around thinking it unloaded. The DA agrees it is an accident without intention but is charging the kid because HE was reckless. This is the 5th time I have seen this in WA. state, the kid is in orange, handcuffed, sitting next to an attorney on trial, while the parent who left out the loaded gun is in the audience. To me if you can hire a hit man to murder someone the hit man gets 20 to life and you get life or the death penalty, why isn't the parent on trial who started the motion of injury or death?



The boy was charged because the DA cared enough about the victim of the shooting to charge him. Who was the victim? Presumably another male approximately his age. Also in this case the DA is most likely thinking that the 13 year old was old enough to know better than to accidentally shoot his friend and is holding him more responsible than the dad.

As for your hit man scenario, I never believed in giving the actual killer a lighter sentence than someone who hired him. That makes no sense.

12/10/2017, 6:42 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3815
Karma: 11 (+17/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

A lot will depend on who is the victim in an allegedly accidental shooting and whether it will even be considered to be an accident. If someone accidentally shoots a police officer I doubt that it would matter in the slightest that it was an accident.



although its not really a relevant point in the context of this discussion.


quote:

Perhaps but anyone being shot in such a public place by a stranger messing around with a gun would probably have been charged.



Mmmmm 'messing around' is a bit emotive and isnt really supported by evidence.

If it would help - I suspect it wouldnt - I could provide a list of cases where some one has been shot in a public place by some one 'messing around with a gun' and wasnt charged.

It really isnt so rare


quote:

If a young woman accidentally shoots her boyfriend there will not be quite so much tolerance for that. She won't be believed just because she claims it was an accident.


Im not sure that that is the case - in a case very like that of Oskar Pretorious Tiffany Segule was in bed when she heard unexpected noises shooting through her bedroom door she shot her husband in the chest he was bringing her breakfast in bed - no charges

Jessica Utz shot her husband at the dinner table at the time the police said that she 'might' face charges but I cant find any thing that says that she was charged

Makanzie Halinski shot her boyfriend forehead, killing him and was sentenced to 7 years - she claimed that she thought the gun was not loaded


quote:

I agree but jail time is almost always related to whether a jury cared enough about a victim to see to it that someone gets jail time.



very often the jury has nothing to do with it - it doesnt get to go before a jury
12/10/2017, 7:19 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3815
Karma: 11 (+17/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Mary Beth Harshbarger, a Pennsylvania woman who shot and killed her husband during a 2006 hunting trip in central Newfoundland, was found not guilty Friday of criminal negligence causing death.

Harshbarger, 45, who has always claimed she mistook Mark Harshbarger, 42, for a black bear




If she cant tell her husband from a black bear should she be hunting?
12/10/2017, 7:45 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3940
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

katie5445 wrote:

How about this scenario. This is an event I had read that circumstances change little, pretty much repeating a similar story. There is going to be a trial in WA. for manslaughter, a 13 y.o. boy who shot and killed his best buddy with his dads shotgun, playing around thinking it unloaded. The DA agrees it is an accident without intention but is charging the kid because HE was reckless. This is the 5th time I have seen this in WA. state, the kid is in orange, handcuffed, sitting next to an attorney on trial, while the parent who left out the loaded gun is in the audience. To me if you can hire a hit man to murder someone the hit man gets 20 to life and you get life or the death penalty, why isn't the parent on trial who started the motion of injury or death?



The boy was charged because the DA cared enough about the victim of the shooting to charge him. Who was the victim? Presumably another male approximately his age. Also in this case the DA is most likely thinking that the 13 year old was old enough to know better than to accidentally shoot his friend and is holding him more responsible than the dad.

As for your hit man scenario, I never believed in giving the actual killer a lighter sentence than someone who hired him. That makes no sense.




The kid that died was his best buddy, they were both fooling around with the gun and the father got zero charges. I wouldn't hold a 13 y.o. responsible in this case but the dad would be in jail, maybe it'd teach these parents not to leave out a loaded weapon if he had several years in jail and by no means do I think this is taking gun laws "seriously" if the right person isn't punished, since this is the 5th case in a few years, I'd say the message isn't being received by adults.
12/10/2017, 8:05 pm Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3940
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


By the way the parents of the victim, fought against the DA and supported the kid, does that mean the DA cares and the parents don't?
12/10/2017, 8:12 pm Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

although its not really a relevant point in the context of this [sign in to see URL]



Except for the fact that it points to one of the main problems in our jury system. Bias.

People can't "accidentally" shoot police officers and get away with it because this society cares too much about police officers to allow them to do that. That concern and bias would be demonstrated by most juries even when a real accidental shooting of a cop took place.

My view is that the same concern should be shown for the average citizen who doesn't carry a badge. Accidental shootings should be taken much more seriously than they are.

quote:

Mmmmm 'messing around' is a bit emotive and isnt really supported by evidence.

If it would help - I suspect it wouldnt - I could provide a list of cases where some one has been shot in a public place by some one 'messing around with a gun' and wasnt charged.

It really isnt so rare



Not rare enough. I wouldn't mind looking at any cases you'd like to list.

quote:

Im not sure that that is the case - in a case very like that of Oskar Pretorious Tiffany Segule was in bed when she heard unexpected noises shooting through her bedroom door she shot her husband in the chest he was bringing her breakfast in bed - no charges

Jessica Utz shot her husband at the dinner table at the time the police said that she 'might' face charges but I cant find any thing that says that she was charged

Makanzie Halinski shot her boyfriend forehead, killing him and was sentenced to 7 years - she claimed that she thought the gun was not loaded



This Missouri case is more typical. A young white woman was found guilty of first degree murder even though she claimed the shooting was an accident. She was also given a life sentence with no parole.

Even assuming that the shooting wasn't accidental with little evidence indicating that it wasn't, why wasn't she convicted of second degree murder? What evidence was there of premeditation? It sounds like a spur of the moment shooting to me.

[sign in to see URL]
12/10/2017, 8:31 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

katie5445 wrote:

How about this scenario. This is an event I had read that circumstances change little, pretty much repeating a similar story. There is going to be a trial in WA. for manslaughter, a 13 y.o. boy who shot and killed his best buddy with his dads shotgun, playing around thinking it unloaded. The DA agrees it is an accident without intention but is charging the kid because HE was reckless. This is the 5th time I have seen this in WA. state, the kid is in orange, handcuffed, sitting next to an attorney on trial, while the parent who left out the loaded gun is in the audience. To me if you can hire a hit man to murder someone the hit man gets 20 to life and you get life or the death penalty, why isn't the parent on trial who started the motion of injury or death?



The boy was charged because the DA cared enough about the victim of the shooting to charge him. Who was the victim? Presumably another male approximately his age. Also in this case the DA is most likely thinking that the 13 year old was old enough to know better than to accidentally shoot his friend and is holding him more responsible than the dad.

As for your hit man scenario, I never believed in giving the actual killer a lighter sentence than someone who hired him. That makes no sense.




The kid that died was his best buddy, they were both fooling around with the gun and the father got zero charges. I wouldn't hold a 13 y.o. responsible in this case but the dad would be in jail, maybe it'd teach these parents not to leave out a loaded weapon if he had several years in jail and by no means do I think this is taking gun laws "seriously" if the right person isn't punished, since this is the 5th case in a few years, I'd say the message isn't being received by adults.



Why wouldn't you hold a thirteen year old responsible for shooting someone? It's not like they are completely brainless.

I also have no big problem with going after parents who negligently leave guns lying around where kids can get them but who do you charge? The father, the mother or both of them? And what punishment do you inflict?

My parents unintentionally allowed me access to a gun when I was a toddler and neither of them really deserved to be sent to prison. After I picked up the gun and pointed it at them without firing it my mom saw to it that I didn't get access to one again by getting them out of the house.
12/10/2017, 8:40 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2009
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

By the way the parents of the victim, fought against the DA and supported the kid, does that mean the DA cares and the parents don't?



They certainly cared a lot more about the shooter than the DA did.

They apparently cared about as much for him as they did their own son. The DA did not. He was more interested in justice for the victim.
12/10/2017, 8:45 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3815
Karma: 11 (+17/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


quote:

Why wouldn't you hold a thirteen year old responsible for shooting someone? It's not like they are completely brainless.



completely brainless no (although in my experience most 13 yearold boys are almost completely brainless)

But when a 13 year old is playing with his fathers loaded gun and someone gets shot I would hold the father at least 80% at fault
12/10/2017, 8:58 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3940
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: Still believe in our jury system?


Persons aren't always charged in an accident, sometimes it is an accident depending what happened and who was involved. The father I would have put him in jail for years, the kid would get counseling and monitoring. I have read several swimming pool drownings of children over the years with kids and no one held responsible it was called an accident. The parents didn't see it as justice for the kid, they said it would be the last thing their son would want to happen to his life long friend.
12/11/2017, 12:14 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top