Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Dec '17 04:00 / 2 edits
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-reaches-verdict-san-francisco-pier-shooting-233343965.html

    So let me get this straight, an illegal immigrant who had 7 felonies and 5 deportations says he found a gun and accidentally shot a US citizen and killed her. He said he took full advantage of his sanctuary city status to remain free in the US. A court in San Fran found him not guilty and let him go?

    How is this at least not involuntary man slaughter?
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    01 Dec '17 04:46
    The article says that the bullet ricocheted off the concrete and killed the woman. It says this in a way that makes it seems this is an accepted fact, rather than a debatable one.

    This being the case, it adds weight to the argument that it was just an accident. The court believed the accused man's account that he just found the gun and picked it up.

    *IF* this is true, merely picking up a gun isn't illegal; the ricocheting bullet resulted in a tragedy, and wouldn't be manslaughter. It may be inadvisable or unwise to pick up a random gun off the streets, but in off itself, it's not considered reckless (at least, it seems, in California, where the man was tried).

    For the record, I'm not defending or criticizing the court's decision, since I don't know any more details than what's covered in the article Whodey posted.
  3. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    01 Dec '17 05:25
    Originally posted by @vivify
    For the record, I'm not defending or criticizing the court's decision, since I don't know any more details than what's covered in the article Whodey posted.
    It's okay, someone has to tell whodey what the article says, it's like he never reads this stuff he posts links to.
  4. 01 Dec '17 11:13 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @vivify
    The article says that the bullet ricocheted off the concrete and killed the woman. It says this in a way that makes it seems this is an accepted fact, rather than a debatable one.

    This being the case, it adds weight to the argument that it was just an accident. The court believed the accused man's account that he just found the gun and picked it up. ...[text shortened]... decision, since I don't know any more details than what's covered in the article Whodey posted.
    What.....wut?

    I'm not lawyer but the man confessed to pulling the trigger that killed the woman. He said it was an accident. It was then an involuntary act that killed someone.

    Is that not involuntary manslaughter?

    Dear God someone help me cuz I think my head is about to explode.

    I can just picture the San Fran liberal prosecutor playing angry birds as the defense acquits the attacker.

    After all, it's racist to go after illegals.
  5. 01 Dec '17 11:17 / 2 edits
    Just for the sake of argument, let's say that the illegal had his way and shot a "sea animal" he thought he was shooting at. And for the sake of argument, let's say that the sea animal was endangered and died tragically.

    Would the looney left give him the death penalty?

    It's one of those questions that just makes you go, "Hmm?"
  6. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    01 Dec '17 11:28
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Just for the sake of argument, let's say that the illegal had his way and shot a "sea animal" he thought he was shooting at. And for the sake of argument, let's say that the sea animal was endangered and died tragically.

    Would the looney left give him the death penalty?

    It's one of those questions that just makes you go, "Hmm?"
    Haven't you heard that a mind is a terrible thing to waste?

    One might be excused for thinking you could find something to keep yours occupied on a chess website.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Dec '17 12:21
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-reaches-verdict-san-francisco-pier-shooting-233343965.html

    So let me get this straight, an illegal immigrant who had 7 felonies and 5 deportations says he found a gun and accidentally shot a US citizen and killed her. He said he took full advantage of his sanctuary city status to remain free in the US. A court in San Fran found him not guilty and let him go?

    How is this at least not involuntary man slaughter?
    Do you think juries should take into account the immigration status of the accused?
  8. Standard member vivify
    rain
    01 Dec '17 12:30
    Originally posted by @whodey
    What.....wut?

    I'm not lawyer but the man confessed to pulling the trigger that killed the woman. He said it was an accident. It was then an involuntary act that killed someone.

    Is that not involuntary manslaughter?

    Dear God someone help me cuz I think my head is about to explode.

    I can just picture the San Fran liberal prosecutor playing ...[text shortened]... ngry birds as the defense acquits the attacker.

    After all, it's racist to go after illegals.
    Manslaughter rewired some kind of negligence or reckless action. If he was waving the around like an idiot and it accidentally went off, he could be convicted of manslaughter. Merely picking a gun up that happened to go off, wasn't considered a negligent act in this case. The fact that it ricocheted off the concrete also shows he was at least trying to be careful in keeping it pointed downward.

    Put it this way: if a white Christian man picked up a gun that accidentally fired, ricocheted off the concrete and killed someone, would you be advocating for manslaughter?
  9. 01 Dec '17 12:45
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Manslaughter rewired some kind of negligence or reckless action. If he was waving the around like an idiot and it accidentally went off, he could be convicted of manslaughter. Merely picking a gun up that happened to go off, wasn't considered a negligent act in this case. The fact that it ricocheted off the concrete also shows he was at least trying to be ...[text shortened]... red, ricocheted off the concrete and killed someone, would you be advocating for manslaughter?
    I've only read this article, so don't know anymore details, but it says this:

    "San Francisco Deputy District Attorney Diana Garcia said during the trial that she didn't know why Garcia Zarate fired the weapon, but he created a risk of death by bringing the firearm to the pier and twirling around on a chair for at least 20 minutes before he fired."

    But it also says this:

    "Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said in his closing argument that he knows it's difficult to believe Garcia Zarate found an object that turned out to be a weapon, which fired when he picked it up."

    So depending on which side is speaking, he either fired the gun or it went off by accident. I'd need to know how both sides got to their respective conclusion before agreeing with either.

    In any case, walking around with a gun with the safety off (?) in an open - possibly crowded - area, while twirling around on a chair (?) does sound like a monumentally stupid thing to do, doesn't it? It does sound like something of which I'd say "don't do that, someone might get hurt". It does sound like reckless behaviour.
  10. Standard member vivify
    rain
    01 Dec '17 12:52
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Just for the sake of argument, let's say that the illegal had his way and shot a "sea animal" he thought he was shooting at. And for the sake of argument, let's say that the sea animal was endangered and died tragically.

    Would the looney left give him the death penalty?

    It's one of those questions that just makes you go, "Hmm?"
    In that case, his actions were deliberate, and illegal since shooting sea animals with a firearm is most likely prohibited by law, along with illegal possession of a firearm (since he didn't just pick up a firearm, but kept it for himself). This is the complete opposite of the case in the OP.

    He should be jailed in this scenario. And if he unknowingly killed a human being, that would indeed be involuntary manslaughter.
  11. 01 Dec '17 12:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Do you think juries should take into account the immigration status of the accused?
    I think anyone who has a record of 5 felonies should have that presented to the jury.

    Also anyone who has been deported 7 times should also be information given to the jury.

    Or do you think their history is irrelevant?
  12. 01 Dec '17 13:00
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    I've only read this article, so don't know anymore details, but it says this:

    "San Francisco Deputy District Attorney Diana Garcia said during the trial that she didn't know why Garcia Zarate fired the weapon, but he created a risk of death by bringing the firearm to the pier and twirling around on a chair for at least 20 minutes before he fired." ...[text shortened]... of which I'd say "don't do that, someone might get hurt". It does sound like reckless behaviour.
    Regardless, it should at the bare minimum be involuntary man slaughter.
  13. 01 Dec '17 13:00
    Originally posted by @vivify
    In that case, his actions were deliberate, and illegal since shooting sea animals with a firearm is most likely prohibited by law, along with illegal possession of a firearm (since he didn't just pick up a firearm, but kept it for himself). This is the complete opposite of the case in the OP.

    He should be jailed in this scenario. And if he unknowingly killed a human being, that would indeed be involuntary manslaughter.
    Does the fact that the accused had 5 felonies and been deported 7 times cause any concern?
  14. 01 Dec '17 13:14
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Regardless, it should at the bare minimum be involuntary man slaughter.
    I bet deadly accidents with firearms that might be regarded as involuntary manslaughter happen pretty much everyday in that joke of a country of yours. How surprising you'd choose this case to start a thread about.

    One might also question if it's wise to leave a gun in a car with the possibility of it getting stolen.

    But of course you aren't remotely interested in solutions of any kind. It's just your time of the month, where you need to see some minoritie's blood.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Dec '17 13:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I think anyone who has a record of 5 felonies should have that presented to the jury.

    Also anyone who has been deported 7 times should also be information given to the jury.

    Or do you think their history is irrelevant?
    Yes, I and the law, do.

    BTW where in the article does it say he was convicted of 5 or 7 felonies?