Firing a weapon at a body of water is negligent if it ricochets off and kills someone I could see where it could be used as a basis for involuntary manslaughter. It would be very much like the dumbass that killed a woman walking her dog late evening when he mistook her for a deer.
I’m trying to understand how it meets the definition of the crime and again as we already established the fact that the gun is illegal doesn’t matter.
Let’s just step through every element of the crime and you tell me where he meets it.
You are just baiting and being silly.
He didn't own a gun. He was illegally in possession of a weapon as he was a convicted felon. His negligent handling of the weapon and subsequent firing of the weapon was directly responsible for her death. That is by the definitions that I have read involuntary manslaughter.
Your opinion is different from mine. We disagree. I'm not going to retry the case on a forum. I only hope the DOJ makes this right. And it doesn't matter to me if he is an alien, a police, a military service member, black, brown yellow red or white. So leave the race card in the deck.
It can’t be negligent based on outcomes, only on inputs.
Firing a weapon at a body of water is negligent no matter the outcome. I thought you were familiar with the use of firearms. I guess not so much.
This what can happen, bullets flying all over: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b52_1371102793
Of course this is an extreme case to show what could just as easily happen with one bullet. Negligent acts causing a death can be charged.
So you are now arguing that anyone who fires a gun at a body of water should be convicted of involuntary manslaughter if someone is killed? Like I said, I sincerely doubt that is the legal standard applied in the US.
I am not arguing anything. I said the case could be made.
You are entitled to your opinion...
I'm guessing either he will get away with a crime just like OJ Simpson unless the DOJ steps in to correct this injustice. We will see.
Another principle you have to consider is the concept of a reasonable jury. Anything that you wish to present before a court must be able to pass muster with a reasonable jury which is the reason that many cases are presented the way they are. When prosecutors overreach they fail in this regard leading to lost cases.I am not arguing anything. I said the case could be made.
You are entitled to your opinion...
I'm guessing either he will get away with a crime just like OJ Simpson unless the DOJ steps in to correct this injustice. We will see.
"That ricochet has been a cornerstone of the defense's case, saying that you can't intentionally shoot someone and ricochet the bullet and have it fly so far after the ricochet. That's an impossible intentional shot," said Emslie.
Do you really want the DOJ stepping in for every acquittal you disagree with? I mean you don't actually think that had this guy not been an illegal immigrant that the DOJ would do anything, do you?
Why would intent matter in the case of involuntary manslaughter? Which this jury found the criminal innocent?You understand that there is such a thing as intent right? Why are you so hung up on the ricochet aspect rather than the intent one?
Another principle you have to consider is the concept of a reasonable jury. Anything that you wish to present before a court must be able to pass muster with a reasonable jury which is the reason that many cases are presented the way they are. When prosecutors overreach they fail in this regard leading to lost cases.
I do not care if he is an illegal alien or not. I have stated this before.
No, I don't think that the DOJ should take every case I disagree with. I think they should take cases where there is a grave injustice as in this one.
So now let’s just focus on his actions. Are you saying firing a gun at the water means you are guilty of manslaughter if it happens to ricochet 20 times like in a cartoon? Presumably not. So again, it comes down to who you believe.
Murder charges are when you knowingly take an action to kill a person.
Manslaughter is when you accidentally take an action to kill a person.
Absolutely yes to your question.
"Who you believe" is the difference between murder and manslaughter. But manslaughter itself is already WELL established based on the fact that he grabbed a gun and killed a woman. Full stop. And that was his defense. There was no possible contest to manslaughter.
It's another win in the court of public opinion for conservatives, President Trump and the anti-sanctuary movement, i doubt if any other verdict would have given them such valuable propaganda value. Looks like the Democrats shot themselves in the foot again in an involuntary political injury ricochet kind of way.
Troll post alert!
why do they hate america so much?Oh I wouldn't be so sure about dismissing that.
Fox News Comments Section:
SF (Steinle case) just gave Alabamians their verdict: Jones tries to depict Moore as immoral to their daughters, but choosing Jones (weak on borders and illegals) means death sentence to their daughters.
When illegals are viewed as being permitted to murder in sanctuary cities, the backlash is huge.
One thing is for sure. Trump just got reelected.
You understand that there is such a thing as intent right? Why are you so hung up on the ricochet aspect rather than the intent one?
If you took this exact same situation and replaced an illegal immigrant with a police officer conservatives would be perfectly happy with the verdict.
Bump stock?How the fuck does a gun go off three times by "accident?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Steinle#Investigation