Steinle Verdict (Page 7): I watched the interview live and hadn't been posted on web until much later. But here it is. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5670460765001/?#sp=show-clips...

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Harvey wrote:

Would be nice to read about it and know the source.

I watched the interview live and hadn't been posted on web until much later.
But here it is.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5670460765001/?#sp=show-clips

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

Obama blocked deportation of 550,000 illegals, more than Atlanta's population

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-blocked-deportation-of-550000-illegals-more-than-atlantas-population/article/2642694

nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca

So what.

idaholover wrote:

Obama blocked deportation of 550,000 illegals, more than Atlanta's population

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-blocked-deportation-of-550000-illegals-more-than-atlantas-population/article/2642694

Someone had to harvest our food. potato.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

nakkh wrote:

So what.

Someone had to harvest our food. potato.

Go sneak into Mexico and start harvesting there. Get caught and you will be harvesting from behind prison walls.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

nakkh wrote:

So what.

Someone had to harvest our food. potato.

What a racist thing to say. BTW, it is done by very expensive high tech machinery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KL7OrHkDaY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u70Yg4_dKUA

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

boberic wrote:

I just don't understand why he was not found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. His actions exactly fit that discription. Either the jury ot the prosecutor had their heads up their asses. I have been up and down the coast of Ca. several times. NEVER AGAIN. I have family in CA. I will not go there they will have to come here. I think that somehow people change when they move to Ca,. I think all that shaking from the earthquakes scrambles their brains.

I also wondered why the jury chose not to convict him of involuntary manslaughter. I just read an article that gave a reason. There are two kinds of involuntary manslaughter, felony and misdemeanor. The DA had charged him with the felony variety, which required criminal intent, like if he were brandishing the weapon. The misdemeanor charge, which the DA did not include, only required gross negligence, but accidental. The jury didn't think the felony was proved.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

JohnSwanda wrote:

I also wondered why the jury chose not to convict him of involuntary manslaughter. I just read an article that gave a reason. There are two kinds of involuntary manslaughter, felony and misdemeanor. The DA had charged him with the felony variety, which required criminal intent, like if he were brandishing the weapon. The misdemeanor charge, which the DA did not include, only required gross negligence, but accidental. The jury didn't think the felony was proved.

The jury was only given the information needed for an acquittal. They didn't get the info required to make an informed decision which would have likely produced at least a guilty of manslaughter if not more.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

BigBear wrote:

The jury was only given the information needed for an acquittal. They didn't get the info required to make an informed decision which would have likely produced at least a guilty of manslaughter if not more.

So you've read the trial transcript? Do you know of some evidence of criminal intent on the part of the defendant that would have allowed them to find him guilty of felony manslaughter?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

JohnSwanda wrote:

So you've read the trial transcript? Do you know of some evidence of criminal intent on the part of the defendant that would have allowed them to find him guilty of felony manslaughter?

Obviously either you didn't read my earlier post, or you are just fine with people free to keep murdering because they are illegals.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

BigBear wrote:

Obviously either you didn't read my earlier post, or you are just fine with people free to keep murdering because they are illegals.

I don't think he should have been free, he should have been deported. But you can't convict someone of murder because he's a bad guy and here illegally. The DA should have included misdemeanor manslaughter and he likely would have been convicted. The felony manslaughter just wasn't proven. I don't think anyone here has made that distinction. That was new to me.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

JohnSwanda wrote:

I don't think he should have been free, he should have been deported. But you can't convict someone of murder because he's a bad guy and here illegally. The DA should have included misdemeanor manslaughter and he likely would have been convicted. The felony manslaughter just wasn't proven. I don't think anyone here has made that distinction. That was new to me.

The felony was committed the moment he picked up the weapon and the manslaughter happened when she was shot by that weapon.
The prosecuting attorney intentionally withheld from the jury the fact that he was a felon prior to picking up the gun.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

BigBear wrote:

The jury was only given the information needed for an acquittal. They didn't get the info required to make an informed decision which would have likely produced at least a guilty of manslaughter if not more.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Architect1776 wrote:

I'm quite surprised that you would take a woman's rights over a man's. (it's not a bad thing, it is totally out of character for you) Keep in mind, her lips may have been moving. If you are offended, GOOD. I find the post I'm referring back to to be very offensive. If your not offended, let me know, and I will try to fix it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

thom w wrote:

I'm quite surprised that you would take a woman's rights over a man's. (it's not a bad thing, it is totally out of character for you) Keep in mind, her lips may have been moving. If you are offended, GOOD. I find the post I'm referring back to to be very offensive. If your not offended, let me know, and I will try to fix it.

I am very angered that whenever a woman says something against a man it is immediately considered the absolute truth with no question. Note the Duke LaCrosse Team and millions of other less known cases. It is repugnant that women are allowed to make such lies and suffer absolutely no consequences for destroying other lies for their own evil benefit. Note the Colorado teacher accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour with some female students, he lost his reputation, job marriage and was ruined forever. Then the sluts who made the accusations admitted it was all a lie. He is destroyed and they are living high. This happens over and over millions of times to the point the Britannica did an in depth yearbook article discussing this and that like only about 1% or less of these accusations are actually shown to be true so my statement of moving lips is very accurate. I kept that volume just for proof that it really was printed.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

LoL