Zararte found not guilty

[BushMasterBoy]

From what I understand, the gun was found by a homeless person digging in the trash. It was in a paper bag. The gun went off and killed a woman. The origin of the gun was some law enforcement type left it unsecured in a vehicle. The vehicle was burglarized and the gun was stolen by another person. This statement by me is based only on the information provided by the media. I think I read too much. Feel free to disagree.

[KAPA]

If im Kate's dad, im going hunting.

[hollohas]

What some people seem to forget is. The DA has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the defendant IS guilty. Clearly the jury was not convinced that was the case.

People get convicted in accidental shootings all the time. Might not be homicide, but not guilty for any any responsibility in her death is hard to believe.

[izzy]

That about matches to what I'm reading too. I don't know what to think though. You stumble across a gun by mistake, set it off and kill someone. You're guilty of possession of a firearm but not the death? I don't really know the laws that well and clearly wasn't on the jury but something just doesn't add up. It seems like the guy possessed the pistol long enough to get a guilty verdict. Long enough to pull the trigger, one way or the other. Are they saying someone else actually had the pistol when it went off?

[ray1970]

It was professor Plum in the conservatory with the candle stick.

[hollohas]

You're guilty of possession of a firearm but not the death?

Exactly right. He just "stumbled" across it accidentally while searching through the trash and that's enough to convict him of possession? But the fact that it "accidentally fires" while he's holding doesn't mean he killed her?

Yeah, no. Two of the public defenders came out afterwards and specifically mentioned Trump and his focus on the case and illegals. You can't tell me the jury just magically remained impartial all while the defense attorneys themselves spent as much time commenting on Trump as they did on the actual guy they were defending.

[jslo]

Replace a couple of words in your reply and it's exactly what the left was saying after the Zimmerman trial and D. Wilson grand jury findings.


What some people seem to forget is. The DA has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the defendant IS guilty. Clearly the jury was not convinced that was the case.

I'm not a lawyer but to find him not guilty of anything related to the non-accidental death of a person, IMO, is a travesty. He wasn't claiming self defense. People get convicted of involuntary manslaughter all the time for "accidents" and should of been the minimum in this case, IMO.

[Great-Kazoo]

People get convicted in accidental shootings all the time. Might not be homicide, but not guilty for any any responsibility in her death is hard to believe.

I'm not a lawyer but to find him not guilty of anything related to the non-accidental death of a person, IMO, is a travesty. He wasn't claiming self defense. People get convicted of involuntary manslaughter all the time for "accidents" and should of been the minimum in this case, IMO.

I agree with both of you. However like the Zimmerman trial, the DA pushed too hard for a conviction of a greater crime. Had the DA went for manslaughter there would have been convictions, IMO, both cases.

[Skip]

[snip]

Yeah, no. Two of the public defenders came out afterwards and specifically mentioned Trump and his focus on the case and illegals. You can't tell me the jury just magically remained impartial all while the defense attorneys themselves spent as much time commenting on Trump as they did on the actual guy they were defending.

This.

Some of you are really slow learners. Libs are telling us about the dimensionality of the world they are forcing on us.

[KevDen2005]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kat...ict/index.html

Here's a link for everyone.