The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Prosecution in Steinle Killer Case Gave Jury Three Options
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Mexico’s Best

The San Francisco Chronicle has an article defending the jury in the Kate Steinle killing:

Kate Steinle murder trial: How the prosecution’s case fell apart
By Vivian Ho December 1, 2017

But this section makes it clear that’s ridiculous:

Garcia Zarate was charged with murder from the beginning, and prosecutors gave jurors three options.

They could convict on first-degree or premeditated murder. They could opt for second-degree murder, requiring a finding that Garcia Zarate either intended to kill Steinle or intentionally committed a dangerous act with conscious disregard for human life. Or they could choose involuntary manslaughter, which would require a finding that Garcia Zarate caused Steinle’s death with an unlawful, negligent act.

Obviously, Mexico’s Best was guilty of at least “involuntary homicide.”

Why didn’t the jury find that? I was on a jury in 2008 in a trial of an immigrant tax cheat, and about 9 of us 12 jurors were complete dimwits. Plus they appeared to be biased in favor of immigrants and tax cheats, because many were immigrants and (likely) tax cheats themselves.

 
Hide 170 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Hail says: • Website

    When will they release the full demographics of the jury?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/prosecution-in-steinle-killer-case-gave-jury-three-options/#comment-2101334
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    I don't understand.
    , @Neuday
    Shouldn't that read: BECAUSE ITALIANS ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents. I take some satisfaction in knowing that you will be just as miserable in the polluted plutocracy Trump intends to create as the rest of us, but your whining will be unbearable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents.
     
    Nazis? Apparently, you are historically illiterate. Anyway, it is your side that is trying to delegitimize last years' election. We did not deligitimize the trial of Kate Steinles' killer. The jury did that.

    Idiot.
    , @Big Bill

    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents.
     
    I dunno. It sounds pretty good to me.
    , @Pericles
    A right but also an obligation.
    , @El Dato
    Ya posting on wrong website, bro.
    , @Thea
    They have all the protection they want in countries they run
    , @MBlanc46
    Sounds good to me. Perhaps you’ll die from the unbearableness. Agonizingly, I hope.
    , @TWS
    Damn it tiny duck stop switching names.
    , @Andre
    Lol, unhinged GoodWhite is unhinged!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. ‘…I was on a jury in 2008 in a trial of an immigrant tax cheat, and about 9 of us 12 jurors were complete dimwits…’

    I assume, Steve, you were among the other three. OTOH you didn’t get out of jury duty…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    "OTOH you didn’t get out of jury duty…"

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we're given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it's smarter to shirk.

    I'm finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries... We're the real dummies... the chumps....

    Our society is broken. Goodwill? Solidarity? Only for your own tribe.
    Anarcho-tyranny for the law-abiding...

    Our nation now belongs to the sociopaths because that's what we reward.

    Nice guys? Betas? We don't even get the steak knives any more.

    , @guest
    "The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races."

    -Homer Simpson on getting out of jury duty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. San Francisco obviously has a more than one class of citizens; some protected and some not protected.
    Those who have or feel guilty about having domestic servants run the town so they fell good about themselves. What is the price of cheap domestic help?

    Who would believe a gun just fired itself? Unless there is some one of special status to be protected. A local ordinace allowing people to just sleep anywhere was just barely defeated at the polls. My neighborhood of what appear to be owner occuppied homes actually approved of sleeping anywhere.

    The message is clear; stay away from San Francisco. Spread the word.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Michelle
    I have not been to the City for about 5 years now. I used to think San Francisco was one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Now, the reeking streets, ugly immigrants, ugly tourists, and aggressive pan handlers and murderers have made it quite unappealing to me. Couple that with the crime on BART and I have given up visiting San Francisco.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. It was obviously jury nullification, a middle finger to Trump. This will only get worse. Lots of pols in California want illegals to serve jury duty. Moonbeam vetoed this once I think, but they won’t quit until they get their way. And when they do, you can turn out the lights in California.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Illegals bring their own vibrant customs and unique driving styles to California streets and freeways. Knowledgeable locals avoid driving in certain areas at night and especially on weekends. Those new drivers are influencing behaviors and traffic patterns in addition to insurance rates, ER capacity factors and DUI courtrooms. (Sad thought, jury of their peers becomes even more dysfunctional.). Those all represent wasted resources and economic welfare losses in addition to their overall demoralizing factors. But, Muh vibrancy!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @anony-mouse
    '...I was on a jury in 2008 in a trial of an immigrant tax cheat, and about 9 of us 12 jurors were complete dimwits...'

    I assume, Steve, you were among the other three. OTOH you didn't get out of jury duty...

    “OTOH you didn’t get out of jury duty…”

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we’re given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it’s smarter to shirk.

    I’m finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries… We’re the real dummies… the chumps….

    Our society is broken. Goodwill? Solidarity? Only for your own tribe.
    Anarcho-tyranny for the law-abiding…

    Our nation now belongs to the sociopaths because that’s what we reward.

    Nice guys? Betas? We don’t even get the steak knives any more.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we’re given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it’s smarter to shirk.
     
    I wouldn't dream of wasting my time doing jury duty.

    Trial by jury belongs to the past. It may have once made sense, back when commoners needed protection against their social superiors, but the jury system was always wide open to corruption and, America being America, corrupted it has indeed become. It has got to go.
    , @Moses

    I’m finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries… We’re the real dummies… the chumps….
     
    A working society is an example of game theory writ large. If everyone (or nearly everyone) takes civic responsibilities seriously (honesty, paying taxes owed, playing fair, serving on juries and doing your best, playing by the golden rule) then the society works well. Everyone benefits.

    Such a society can tolerate a few bad free riders/bad actors. But when the % of free riders/bad actors reaches a certain point everything tips. The optimal strategy in a society like that is NOT to be honest and to cheat like hell on taxes etc because everyone else is doing it.

    Has America reached that point? Maybe not yet, but we're heading there.

    I've lived in several countries abroad, including 3rd world. Concepts like individual rights, rule of law, blind justice, trial by jury are concepts people in many (not all) non-western societies find inscrutable. Just totally outside their reality like a rainbow is to a blind man. When they immigrate to a western country they do understand how to take advantage of these ideas. But the idea that they have a reciprocal civic responsibility does not register at all. The lens through which they view the world is tribal. They view us as complete and total suckers, "wow these idiots are just giving me free stuff and letting me get away with murder! What morons!" They do not like us, nor do they respect us (see: Muslims in Europe). How could they given their worldview?

    I've come to believe that Western societies became great based on the civic culture of Europeans. And yes, I believe a big chunk of that is intrinsic to European blood.

    Flooding Western countries with people who are all take and no give (re: civic responsibility) and fundamentally incompatible with how our societies work will not end well. I think the idea that different groups really ARE different in how they think and behave will seep into the Overton window over time. I hope it's soon enough to right the ship. I doubt it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. “A jury of one’s peers,” indeed.

    But I thought immigrants were supposed to be better jurors than us American hicks! At the very least, that’s what I was taught in school.

    (I once had a teacher who showed us not one but two versions of the movie Twelve Angry Men – the black-and-white Hollywood version and a TV remake. Over the years, I must have watched To Kill a Mockingbird in its entirety at least thrice.)

    In defense of immigrant jurors, Casey Anthony did get away scot-free. So did Michael Jackson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    In defense of the Casey Anthony prosecution, they didn't have a great case. Slim evidence, and the mother perjured herself to cover for her daughter. The big red flag was the defendant not reporting the kid missing for however long, but that's not what she was on trial for and wasn't itself evidence of murder. Though it was highly suggestive. (That, along with the pictures of her partying, is what made it a national news sensation.)
    , @I, Libertine
    We still speak of a right to a "jury of ones peers" through sheer verbal inertia. Like naval personnel are "sailors." We "drive" automobiles (although"driving" requires an implement such as a whip or a club).

    It's as if we are under the delusion that we are living in 14th Century England.

    This just in. There's no such thing as peers anymore. By the time everyone is your peer, the word peer has lost its meaning.

    In 21st Century America we are tried by people who, virtually by definition, are too stupid to know how to get out of jury duty. (Hat tip to Jackie Mason, and apologies to Steve Sailer, who probably had subversive reasons for acquiescing to his assignment to the box.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. anon says: • Disclaimer

    The best way to get out of serving on a jury in DC is to tell the judge during voir dire: “I believe the District’s gun laws are unconstitutional.”

    Worked for me every time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I told them I thought the defendant was guilty during voir dire. I really had made up my mind in about 5 minutes of being introduced to the case. Some cases are like that. Disgusting mofo shook a baby to death, and he was the only one in the residence with the kid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Ivy says:
    @Bragadocious
    It was obviously jury nullification, a middle finger to Trump. This will only get worse. Lots of pols in California want illegals to serve jury duty. Moonbeam vetoed this once I think, but they won't quit until they get their way. And when they do, you can turn out the lights in California.

    Illegals bring their own vibrant customs and unique driving styles to California streets and freeways. Knowledgeable locals avoid driving in certain areas at night and especially on weekends. Those new drivers are influencing behaviors and traffic patterns in addition to insurance rates, ER capacity factors and DUI courtrooms. (Sad thought, jury of their peers becomes even more dysfunctional.). Those all represent wasted resources and economic welfare losses in addition to their overall demoralizing factors. But, Muh vibrancy!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Off Topic says:

    Off Topic: A recent article and report on declining US fertility,

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/health/united-states-fertility-rate.html

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/report002.pdf

    oddly fail to break down the fertility rate by race. They say fertility fell most with teens, which I think would mean the declining fertility is disproportionately among blacks and Hispanics–but they don’t say. Any way to figure this out?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The big drop after 2008 was among Hispanics. Emilio Parrado showed in 2010 that new Hispanic immigrant women tend to have a very high fertility rate for their first 5 or 10 years in the country and then drop off. So when the Housing Bubble burst and Mexicans stopped coming for several years, the national birthrate dropped sharply.
    , @Steve Sailer
    The big drop after 2008 was among Hispanics. Emilio Parrado showed in 2010 that new Hispanic immigrant women tend to have a very high fertility rate for their first 5 or 10 years in the country and then drop off. So when the Housing Bubble burst and Mexicans stopped coming for several years, the national birthrate dropped sharply.
    , @silviosilver
    CDC does breakdown fertility by race and hispanic status. Look again.
    , @Perspective
    Here's a table from Wikipedia detailing the fertility rates by race of mother:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

    Non-Hispanic White: 1.746
    Black: 1.853
    Asian: 1.646
    Native: 1.263
    Hispanic: 2.124

    It's puzzling why the Native fertility rate is so low? Perhaps a discussion for another thread, I don't want to derail the discussion any further.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    The best way to get out of serving on a jury in DC is to tell the judge during voir dire: "I believe the District's gun laws are unconstitutional."

    Worked for me every time.

    I told them I thought the defendant was guilty during voir dire. I really had made up my mind in about 5 minutes of being introduced to the case. Some cases are like that. Disgusting mofo shook a baby to death, and he was the only one in the residence with the kid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    So you were eliminated from the jury, while someone who said they didn't believe he did it got on.

    Decades ago I was on the stand during the voir dire for a fellow named Tony "Rooster" D'Onofrio, who was charged with running someone over three times and then shooting him twice "with intent to cause grievous bodily harm."

    His lawyer said to me, "Mr. Baldwin, I want you to look my client in the eye and I want you to tell me whether you believe he is innocent or guilty."

    I said, "I believe he's innocent in the judicial sense."

    "What do you mean by that, Mr. Baldwin?"

    "I mean that everyone is considered innocent until proved guilty, but I wouldn't loan him $100 or put him up at my house for the weekend."

    That got a laugh, even from the judge and Rooster, but I was excused from the jury.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. vinny says:

    Given the political and legal environment we’re likely to find ourselves in in the coming years, the alt-right should be doing all it can to celebrate jury-independence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    This story is a couple of years old, but relevant for this post. An illegal alien from Mexico accidentally ran over two young girls in Portland, OR and they later died. The illegal did not realize she had hit anyone. Her conviction was recently overturned.

    Authorities arrested Garcia-Cisneros for her involvement in the reported hit-and-run, and a 2014 jury trial landed her a conviction for failing to perform the duties of a driver.

    A judge sentenced her to three years of probation and 250 hours of community service, and as an undocumented immigrant, she risked deportation. Officials turned her over the federal immigration enforcement, but the deportation case was eventually dismissed.

    The appeals court ruled in Garcia-Cisneros’ favor on this matter, arguing the law doesn’t require the driver to go back if they didn’t know they were involved until after they left the scene.

    So her conviction for running over the kids was not only overturned, BUT HER DEPORTATION CASE WAS DROPPED TOO.

    How can she not be deported?

    Read More
    • Replies: @athEIst
    Can probably apply for welfare(if not already receiving it).
    , @Autochthon
    Unless you are high (presenting its own liabilities...) it all but impossible to strike a human with your car and not notice it. In all but the largest vehicles one notices if one strikes a squirrel or rabbit. Fascinated, I now damn you for increasing my reading tonight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    "OTOH you didn’t get out of jury duty…"

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we're given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it's smarter to shirk.

    I'm finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries... We're the real dummies... the chumps....

    Our society is broken. Goodwill? Solidarity? Only for your own tribe.
    Anarcho-tyranny for the law-abiding...

    Our nation now belongs to the sociopaths because that's what we reward.

    Nice guys? Betas? We don't even get the steak knives any more.

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we’re given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it’s smarter to shirk.

    I wouldn’t dream of wasting my time doing jury duty.

    Trial by jury belongs to the past. It may have once made sense, back when commoners needed protection against their social superiors, but the jury system was always wide open to corruption and, America being America, corrupted it has indeed become. It has got to go.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Corn
    The jury system certainly has flaws but if we did away with jury trials we’d all be here complaining about unelected or unaccountable demagogues in black robes everytime we disagreed with a verdict. Going to have outrages either way.
    , @David In TN
    Peter Brimelow raised the issue of the jury system becoming untenable in a Vdare piece on the Kate Steinle verdict.
    , @Autochthon
    Juries are the gem of the common (i.e., English) law. The only problem here is the demography thereof (not English, nor even European). This jury even had two or three immigrants invaders on it. They have to go back
    , @NickG
    Yup, the concept of trial by jury is a quaint anachronistic relic of an age of civic capital.

    Jury trial was abandoned in Northern Ireland during the 'Troubles'. This due to widespread witness intimidation and the sectarian nature of society. The Diplock courts, using judges in lieu of a jury panel were introduced in 1973.

    Naturally judges became targets too and their homes had to be hardened and they were all given armed 24/7 police protection - at horrific cost. A few judges were murdered by Republican terrorists.

    Jury trials are not used in South Africa either, because of the racial dynamic - and likely because the average IQ is 72*, making the function of juror beyond the bulk of the population.

    Some may remember that the Oscar Pistorious trial, the 'blade runner', who fired three 9mm hollow-point bullets at his girlfriend through the lavatory door adjacent to his bedroom, killing her. The trial was adjudicated by a panel of judges.

    * I didn't pull this figure out of my arse. This is the average figure from weighted studies across racial groups by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen for their books IQ and the Wealth of the Nations (2002) and the later book IQ and Global Inequality (2006).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. The jury acquitted him because it bought the argument that the killer fired the gun by accident. Or to put it another way, that there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger.

    I hate to say it, but I could see that happening, especially with a semiautomatic. If that jerkoff was carrying it cocked and with the safety on “fire”, he could have pulled the trigger if he took it out to look at it, fumbled it, and awkwardly tried to catch it.

    Of course he confessed in 2015 that he was shooting at a seal. But maybe that information was witheld from the jury.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger"

    What was the gun doing out, safety off, loaded and ready to fire, with his finger near the trigger? Don't they have reckless endangerment laws? Doesn't causing death through reckless endangerment amount to manslaughter?

    Unless it was a case of Spontaneous Accidental Discharge after they gun floated, Disney-like, out of his pocket to go on an adventure.

    , @Mr. Anon

    I hate to say it, but I could see that happening, especially with a semiautomatic. If that jerkoff was carrying it cocked and with the safety on “fire”, he could have pulled the trigger if he took it out to look at it, fumbled it, and awkwardly tried to catch it.
     
    Sure. And? It almost certainly wasn't pre-meditated murder. However, it certainly was manslaughter.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    He was a felon handling a stolen gun when that gun went off and killed somebody. That could be listed in Wester's Dictionary as an example of involuntary manslaughter.

    It doesn't matter if he was kissing it, calling it honey, and jerking his dick. He caused someone's death by firearm while illegally handling the firearm.

    Reasonable doubt about whether or not he deliberately pulled the trigger doesn't matter in this case. The jury's conclusion that he was illegally handling a firearm makes it a logical necessity that his illegal act also caused the death. They convicted him of involuntary manslaughter without even realizing it.

    Other than that, our jury system worked perfectly, because your comment makes it clear that even a very intelligent man can get this wrong.
    , @2Mintzin1
    I can understand the acquittal on the murder charge ...kinda..the fact that the shot that killed her was a ricochet could mean that he was not aiming at her (although twitching while pulling the trigger of a heavy-caliber pistol , resulting in "dumping" a shot is not uncommon...I have done it myself...bullet goes low of the target and generally somewhat to the left).

    Of course, I would like to know where the other two shots went, towards the pink elephants/sea lions he initially claimed to be shooting at, or in the opposite direction of the victim, or where?

    The acquittal on manslaughter is an absolute disgrace, however. The jury was manipulated into believing that: -the felon found some sleeping pills and ate them

    -he also found an unidentifiable Thing in a Rag

    -he accidently fired the Thing 3 times while picking it up.

    Perhaps a Sanctuary type jury with no experience with guns could believe this.
    , @TWS
    Quit writing now. Even if the hammer was back he still had to pull the rather robust single action three times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. guest says:
    @anony-mouse
    '...I was on a jury in 2008 in a trial of an immigrant tax cheat, and about 9 of us 12 jurors were complete dimwits...'

    I assume, Steve, you were among the other three. OTOH you didn't get out of jury duty...

    “The trick is to say you’re prejudiced against all races.”

    -Homer Simpson on getting out of jury duty

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. guest says:
    @Stan Adams
    "A jury of one's peers," indeed.

    But I thought immigrants were supposed to be better jurors than us American hicks! At the very least, that's what I was taught in school.

    (I once had a teacher who showed us not one but two versions of the movie Twelve Angry Men - the black-and-white Hollywood version and a TV remake. Over the years, I must have watched To Kill a Mockingbird in its entirety at least thrice.)

    In defense of immigrant jurors, Casey Anthony did get away scot-free. So did Michael Jackson.

    In defense of the Casey Anthony prosecution, they didn’t have a great case. Slim evidence, and the mother perjured herself to cover for her daughter. The big red flag was the defendant not reporting the kid missing for however long, but that’s not what she was on trial for and wasn’t itself evidence of murder. Though it was highly suggestive. (That, along with the pictures of her partying, is what made it a national news sensation.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    True.

    One of the more egregious child-murder cases I've read about was that of Pauline Zile, who not only a) stood by and watched without protest as her husband John murdered her daughter (by another man) Christina Holt and b) actively covered up the murder for over a month, but c) went on television and tearfully claimed that her daughter had been kidnapped at a Fort Lauderdale flea market:
    http://murderpedia.org/female.Z/z/zile-pauline.htm

    (For a number of weeks, the child's decomposing body was hidden in a closet in their apartment. They burned incense to cover up of the smell.)

    In a morbid twist, Zile was making her pleas on TV screens in South Florida the very same week that Susan Smith was begging for help to find her two "kidnapped" little boys in Union, South Carolina.

    Lizzie Borden got off scot-free, as well.

    The other day, I watched the 1975 TV movie starring Elizabeth Montgomery (of Bewitched fame) as axe-wieldin' Lizzie. It's not bad, for what it is:
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2l3kas

    Last night I was reading about one of the more notorious crimes in the history of Miami - the 1964 murder of Jacques Mossler, a wealthy banker. It turned out that Mossler's estranged wife Candy, an ex-model, was having an incestuous affair with her strapping young nephew (her sister's son). The two were eventually charged with murder and put on trial. The dead man's diary, in which he documented his rage over the tryst, was a key piece of circumstantial evidence. But the jury voted to acquit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Mossler
    , @dr kill
    She's a regular at my local. A real looker these days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. guest says:
    @International Jew
    The jury acquitted him because it bought the argument that the killer fired the gun by accident. Or to put it another way, that there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger.

    I hate to say it, but I could see that happening, especially with a semiautomatic. If that jerkoff was carrying it cocked and with the safety on "fire", he could have pulled the trigger if he took it out to look at it, fumbled it, and awkwardly tried to catch it.

    Of course he confessed in 2015 that he was shooting at a seal. But maybe that information was witheld from the jury.

    “there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger”

    What was the gun doing out, safety off, loaded and ready to fire, with his finger near the trigger? Don’t they have reckless endangerment laws? Doesn’t causing death through reckless endangerment amount to manslaughter?

    Unless it was a case of Spontaneous Accidental Discharge after they gun floated, Disney-like, out of his pocket to go on an adventure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bugg
    Given my misspent youth as a lowly ADA and then a defense attorney, reluctant to draw conclusions having not seen an entire trial. You don't know if the prosecution, undoubtedly being soft-headed liberals, lost this case in jury selection, or the SF jury pool is filled with such fools. Or if the jury simply took a dislike to the DA. Such human things do happen.

    But the defendant did not testify, rather relying on the DA's use of his own post-arrest statements to make his nonsense defense about the force needed to pull the trigger. Clear the prosecution could have limited their case to the physical evidence and their witnesses rather than introducing this bum's statements, and still made out their case. In such a situation the defendant would have been forced to take the stand to make such arguments. And then his record goes into evidence. Looks like a strategic blunder. But that's not surprising since to work in such a DA's office is as insanely liberal a jurisdiction actually prosecuting criminals is secondary to other considerations.

    "City authorities never overcame a critical obstacle and established a motive that would explain why the 45-year-old homeless undocumented immigrant — whose release from San Francisco jail before the shooting under the city’s sanctuary policies became a national controversy — would want to kill a stranger." This makes me nuts-there is no requirement to prove a motive to a reckless act, and in many intent crimes it's a lack of impulse control. Most stupid street crime doesn't have anything close to a motive as in an Agatha Christie novel. Criminals do dumb stupid shit every day.

    , @Alden
    Not everyone who has a gun in his or her hand knows how to handle it. Some gun owners who think they know how to handle a gun kill or injure themselves or others. Most of the gun owners I know are preoccupied with all the safety precautions and careful handling. Defendant claimed he found it and was messing around with it. Maybe he was. Maybe he wanted to shoot someone. Who knows?

    But there was no evidence presented that he knew how to handle a gun. An illegal alien in San Francisco purposely shot the father and 2 sons of the Bologna family in an intersection. The illegal was outraged because the father made a legal left turn thus forcing the illegal to wait a couple minutes.

    As per usual, the illegal alien felon was released from SF city jail despite an immigration hold a few days before he murdered the Bolognas. Mrs. Bologna, the only family member left alive sued the city & county for violating the federal immigration hold and letting the illegal felon out.

    The judge of course dismissed her case at the first hearing. Dismissing the case violates all the legal precedents and laws about liability, negligence, affirmative negligence and causation for 2 thousand years.
    , @Autochthon
    This just almost certainly included no one with even a rudimentary understanding of firearms – how they operate, their proper use, etc. The prosecutor failed spectacularly, first by empaneling these fools and secondly by not remedying this ignorance during the trial.

    To be fair, it may well be mathematically impossible to locate twelve residents of San Francisco who know their asses from their elbows vis-a-vis firearms, and it may further be impossible to find twelve remotely educable persons in that Hellhole. Even if those things were miraculously achieved, it remains a struggle to overcome their impetus for a kind of reverse jury nullification for their pet mestizoid murderer.

    What was the prosecutor's last name again, anyway? Ah, yes: Gonzalez....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anon
    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents. I take some satisfaction in knowing that you will be just as miserable in the polluted plutocracy Trump intends to create as the rest of us, but your whining will be unbearable.

    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents.

    Nazis? Apparently, you are historically illiterate. Anyway, it is your side that is trying to delegitimize last years’ election. We did not deligitimize the trial of Kate Steinles’ killer. The jury did that.

    Idiot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Big Bill says:
    @Anon
    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents. I take some satisfaction in knowing that you will be just as miserable in the polluted plutocracy Trump intends to create as the rest of us, but your whining will be unbearable.

    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents.

    I dunno. It sounds pretty good to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Mr. Anon says:
    @International Jew
    The jury acquitted him because it bought the argument that the killer fired the gun by accident. Or to put it another way, that there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger.

    I hate to say it, but I could see that happening, especially with a semiautomatic. If that jerkoff was carrying it cocked and with the safety on "fire", he could have pulled the trigger if he took it out to look at it, fumbled it, and awkwardly tried to catch it.

    Of course he confessed in 2015 that he was shooting at a seal. But maybe that information was witheld from the jury.

    I hate to say it, but I could see that happening, especially with a semiautomatic. If that jerkoff was carrying it cocked and with the safety on “fire”, he could have pulled the trigger if he took it out to look at it, fumbled it, and awkwardly tried to catch it.

    Sure. And? It almost certainly wasn’t pre-meditated murder. However, it certainly was manslaughter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Moses says:
    @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    "OTOH you didn’t get out of jury duty…"

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we're given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it's smarter to shirk.

    I'm finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries... We're the real dummies... the chumps....

    Our society is broken. Goodwill? Solidarity? Only for your own tribe.
    Anarcho-tyranny for the law-abiding...

    Our nation now belongs to the sociopaths because that's what we reward.

    Nice guys? Betas? We don't even get the steak knives any more.

    I’m finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries… We’re the real dummies… the chumps….

    A working society is an example of game theory writ large. If everyone (or nearly everyone) takes civic responsibilities seriously (honesty, paying taxes owed, playing fair, serving on juries and doing your best, playing by the golden rule) then the society works well. Everyone benefits.

    Such a society can tolerate a few bad free riders/bad actors. But when the % of free riders/bad actors reaches a certain point everything tips. The optimal strategy in a society like that is NOT to be honest and to cheat like hell on taxes etc because everyone else is doing it.

    Has America reached that point? Maybe not yet, but we’re heading there.

    I’ve lived in several countries abroad, including 3rd world. Concepts like individual rights, rule of law, blind justice, trial by jury are concepts people in many (not all) non-western societies find inscrutable. Just totally outside their reality like a rainbow is to a blind man. When they immigrate to a western country they do understand how to take advantage of these ideas. But the idea that they have a reciprocal civic responsibility does not register at all. The lens through which they view the world is tribal. They view us as complete and total suckers, “wow these idiots are just giving me free stuff and letting me get away with murder! What morons!” They do not like us, nor do they respect us (see: Muslims in Europe). How could they given their worldview?

    I’ve come to believe that Western societies became great based on the civic culture of Europeans. And yes, I believe a big chunk of that is intrinsic to European blood.

    Flooding Western countries with people who are all take and no give (re: civic responsibility) and fundamentally incompatible with how our societies work will not end well. I think the idea that different groups really ARE different in how they think and behave will seep into the Overton window over time. I hope it’s soon enough to right the ship. I doubt it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moses
    In one Asian country I lived in a famous retail magnate was exposed publicly for deceptive business practices, passing off mass-produced goods as artisanal and selling at high markups. Many people openly admired him for it -- he had used his wits to deceive and cheat his customers, and the result was massive wealth and an empire. Behavior of this kind is looked on approvingly in many other cultures.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Excellent comment, Sir.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJS7Igvk6ZM
    , @Anonymous
    Yep, you're right, and it's by design. Our Ruling Tribe prefers to lord it over a cacophony of primitive, warring, low-trust third-worlders, the better to justify their own primacy.

    I used to think warnings about Total World Domination were ridiculous. Live and learn.
    , @midtown
    Excellent comment, Moses. This was the theme of Huntington's 2004 book "Who Are We?" European culture and legal history uniquely created the United States' high-trust society. Whether or how much came through genetic preferences is up to the reader. Personally, I think non-Western people can be acculturated into it, but it is a multigenerational process and the numbers of immigrants need to be very low. You are absolutely correct that we can't absorb large numbers of people with the tribal mindset without flipping everyone into what I would call a corrupt mindset, which is perfectly rational when everyone is perceived to be cheating or working for tribal ends.

    Very recently I was on a jury -- a black man was charged with brutally raping a black woman. While there were some doubts about the woman's overall story, there was strong physical evidence of the rape and beating itself with no alternative explanation that made any sense. Of twelve jurors, nine were white with three black males. It ended in a hung jury -- the black men simply would not convict another black man without something like clear video proof.
    , @RonaldB
    I remember reading in a sociology text that in China, they used to have hauling teams whose bonuses depended on timely delivery. The team all voluntarily chipped in to hire a whipper, a person who would whip anyone not pulling his weight. So, each hauler was paying for someone who could very well whip him.

    The point of the anecdote is that even in a group where everyone knows the benefits of being productive, it is necessary to have an enforcement mechanism which works against the slackers. Otherwise, there is a tangible reward for slacking.

    Europeans probably developed such effective mechanisms that there was selection in favor of those who worked to be productive; but, slackers were still not rewarded.

    Without the welfare state, and with a small number of immigrants, productivity and even honest dealings could be enforced. But, if you overwhelm the enforcement structure, naturally the slackers will drive out those putting effort into being productive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Moses says:
    @Moses

    I’m finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries… We’re the real dummies… the chumps….
     
    A working society is an example of game theory writ large. If everyone (or nearly everyone) takes civic responsibilities seriously (honesty, paying taxes owed, playing fair, serving on juries and doing your best, playing by the golden rule) then the society works well. Everyone benefits.

    Such a society can tolerate a few bad free riders/bad actors. But when the % of free riders/bad actors reaches a certain point everything tips. The optimal strategy in a society like that is NOT to be honest and to cheat like hell on taxes etc because everyone else is doing it.

    Has America reached that point? Maybe not yet, but we're heading there.

    I've lived in several countries abroad, including 3rd world. Concepts like individual rights, rule of law, blind justice, trial by jury are concepts people in many (not all) non-western societies find inscrutable. Just totally outside their reality like a rainbow is to a blind man. When they immigrate to a western country they do understand how to take advantage of these ideas. But the idea that they have a reciprocal civic responsibility does not register at all. The lens through which they view the world is tribal. They view us as complete and total suckers, "wow these idiots are just giving me free stuff and letting me get away with murder! What morons!" They do not like us, nor do they respect us (see: Muslims in Europe). How could they given their worldview?

    I've come to believe that Western societies became great based on the civic culture of Europeans. And yes, I believe a big chunk of that is intrinsic to European blood.

    Flooding Western countries with people who are all take and no give (re: civic responsibility) and fundamentally incompatible with how our societies work will not end well. I think the idea that different groups really ARE different in how they think and behave will seep into the Overton window over time. I hope it's soon enough to right the ship. I doubt it.

    In one Asian country I lived in a famous retail magnate was exposed publicly for deceptive business practices, passing off mass-produced goods as artisanal and selling at high markups. Many people openly admired him for it — he had used his wits to deceive and cheat his customers, and the result was massive wealth and an empire. Behavior of this kind is looked on approvingly in many other cultures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    Many people openly admired him for it...
     
    That's an insight our "importing" class doesn't get.

    An acquaintance related a recent incident when his company was hiring for a pretty high executive position. They were doing a lot of work in Africa, so they felt compelled to seriously consider a local. The guy who came through the ranks was asked at one of the final interviews to discuss one of his achievements. He animatedly related a time when he organized a scheme to, essentially, defraud another company. The interviewers looked at each other with arched eyebrows, thinking: is this guy for real?

    Yes, it's for real.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Redstate has an interesting analysis. I hope it’s ok to cross post it here, Steve.

    https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    No, its not an "interesting analysis". Its a total bunch of BS that gets a lot of facts wrong cause those cucks over at redstate love illegals.
    , @Joe Stalin
    The weapon was a Sig P239 which has no "safety" like a Colt 1911. It has a "decocking"lever on the left side. Operationally, it is no different from your standard .357Mag/.38 Spl. REVOLVER. You can safe it by putting your thumb between the hammer and firing pin and pressing the trigger. I disagree with the RS article in which they describe the Single Action 4.4 lb. trigger as "hair trigger." It is heavier than a Colt Gold Cup ; my experience is with an older Sig P220 .45 and it would be extremely hard for this weapon to "accidentally discharge" if you keep your finger out of the trigger guard.

    So: either the weapon was pre-cocked when found or the guy deliberately pressed through the Double Action trigger. No way the weapon "just went off."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. About 15 years ago I served on a jury for a drunk driving trial with Glynn Custred. He ended up being the jury foreman and was a very fair guy by all accounts. We ended up convicting her on hit and run instead of DUI because she managed to drive home with her kid in the car a couple of blocks away from the accident and then claimed that she got drunk after she got home. It was an obvious lie but nobody could prove she was intoxicated when she smashed into the other car. It was very heart breaking because everybody knew that she would do it again but there was nothing else we could do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    You apply a much higher standard of proof than I would in that situation. I would have had no problem voting guilty for DUI. Did the prosecutor not urge you to infer from the fact that she fled that she was hiding her intoxication?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. I gave up trying to understand legal reasoning a long time ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    Right and wrong is easy, but legal and illegal depends on a 650 bucks an hour attorney. Such is modern life in the USSA.
    , @Autochthon
    Would that other laypersons without an aptitude for it would; it'd be much less exasperating for us lawyers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. SnakeEyes says:

    The “gun fired by accident” defense should not fly. Handling a gun incompetently in a public space is the very definition of involuntary manslaughter; i.e. causing another person’s death by one’s criminal negligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Just about every killer ever arrested and tried has attempted to put forward a "the gun just went off by itself" defense at some point in the process. If we start accepting that, we'll never get a conviction again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. J1234 says:

    Maybe someone told the jury, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @SnakeEyes
    The "gun fired by accident" defense should not fly. Handling a gun incompetently in a public space is the very definition of involuntary manslaughter; i.e. causing another person's death by one's criminal negligence.

    Just about every killer ever arrested and tried has attempted to put forward a “the gun just went off by itself” defense at some point in the process. If we start accepting that, we’ll never get a conviction again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    A similar excuse killers sometimes use is if "the gun just went off by itself" doesn't fit is "I don't remember anything."
    , @Sean
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. syonredux says:

    Speaking of degeneracy….

    Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay, says minister
    Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth says C of E will be forced to support same-sex marriage if the ‘Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman’

    Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay to force support for same-sex marriage in the Church of England, a senior Scottish Episcopal church minister and LGBTQ campaigner has said.

    The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, made the comments in a blog he reposted about LGBTQ inclusion in the Church of England following the announcement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s engagement.

    In the post, he writes that Christians should pray “for the Lord to bless Prince George with a love, when he grows up, of a fine young gentleman”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/01/christians-should-pray-from-prince-george-to-be-gay-says-c-of-e-minister

    Read More
    • Replies: @jim jones
    Luckily China is developing an Anti-Gay Spray:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-01/chinese-researchers-experiment-anti-gay-spray
    , @Expletive Deleted
    What-ho, a turbulent priest??

    https://travelforkids.com/images/photo-albums/england/tower-of-london/tower-of-london-chopping-block-axe.jpg
    , @Ivy
    Holdsworth takes C of E parishioner recruiting to a new low. Who will be the Defender of the Faith, or will it be Faith(s), next?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Off Topic
    Off Topic: A recent article and report on declining US fertility,

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/health/united-states-fertility-rate.html

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/report002.pdf

    oddly fail to break down the fertility rate by race. They say fertility fell most with teens, which I think would mean the declining fertility is disproportionately among blacks and Hispanics--but they don't say. Any way to figure this out?

    The big drop after 2008 was among Hispanics. Emilio Parrado showed in 2010 that new Hispanic immigrant women tend to have a very high fertility rate for their first 5 or 10 years in the country and then drop off. So when the Housing Bubble burst and Mexicans stopped coming for several years, the national birthrate dropped sharply.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Off Topic
    Off Topic: A recent article and report on declining US fertility,

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/health/united-states-fertility-rate.html

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/report002.pdf

    oddly fail to break down the fertility rate by race. They say fertility fell most with teens, which I think would mean the declining fertility is disproportionately among blacks and Hispanics--but they don't say. Any way to figure this out?

    The big drop after 2008 was among Hispanics. Emilio Parrado showed in 2010 that new Hispanic immigrant women tend to have a very high fertility rate for their first 5 or 10 years in the country and then drop off. So when the Housing Bubble burst and Mexicans stopped coming for several years, the national birthrate dropped sharply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Better get more of those stabby Somalis.

    Making babies is apparently one of those jobs Americans just won't do...

    Once the autonomous cars make America's Uber drivers redundant they can focus full time on plugging America's fertility gap. Ordinary American families may not be able to afford family formation with housing and child care as expensive as they are. Needy refugees needn't worry about that because they are entitled to housing benefits befitting growing families.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Steve Sailer
    The big drop after 2008 was among Hispanics. Emilio Parrado showed in 2010 that new Hispanic immigrant women tend to have a very high fertility rate for their first 5 or 10 years in the country and then drop off. So when the Housing Bubble burst and Mexicans stopped coming for several years, the national birthrate dropped sharply.

    Better get more of those stabby Somalis.

    Making babies is apparently one of those jobs Americans just won’t do…

    Once the autonomous cars make America’s Uber drivers redundant they can focus full time on plugging America’s fertility gap. Ordinary American families may not be able to afford family formation with housing and child care as expensive as they are. Needy refugees needn’t worry about that because they are entitled to housing benefits befitting growing families.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Whiskey says: • Website

    The whole point is that it is NOT OK to be White. In fact its NEVER OK. Certain people have more rights than others, that was the whole point of the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr. That Blacks were the natural rulers of White people, as being morally and spiritually superior. As well as being more emotional, “open,” and spontaneous. The media certainly helped by putting a blanket over anything negative associated with either King or Blacks in general. As they did with Kennedy’s bimbos and Bill Clinton’s years later.

    The Jury voted in the most natural way possible. The victim, Katie Steinle, being White had no rights and did not count as person. She did not count even as a stray animal. The perp, being an illegal alien, could only be more holy and special and due special rights if he had been a gay Black Muslim.

    The Justice system EXISTS to punish White people for being White, since it is NEVER OK TO BE WHITE. NOT EVER. And exalt non Whites as the natural and eternal rulers over Whites. That is the whole purpose of the law and has been its purpose since about 1925 or so.

    No one should have any illusions this will change for the better, only worse. Its not as if White women will suddenly get a hankering for more beta male Whiteness. Or non-Whites will start fearing Whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MB
    You have a right to be white.
    Dead right.
    Because anything else is just wrong plain old discrimination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @International Jew
    The jury acquitted him because it bought the argument that the killer fired the gun by accident. Or to put it another way, that there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger.

    I hate to say it, but I could see that happening, especially with a semiautomatic. If that jerkoff was carrying it cocked and with the safety on "fire", he could have pulled the trigger if he took it out to look at it, fumbled it, and awkwardly tried to catch it.

    Of course he confessed in 2015 that he was shooting at a seal. But maybe that information was witheld from the jury.

    He was a felon handling a stolen gun when that gun went off and killed somebody. That could be listed in Wester’s Dictionary as an example of involuntary manslaughter.

    It doesn’t matter if he was kissing it, calling it honey, and jerking his dick. He caused someone’s death by firearm while illegally handling the firearm.

    Reasonable doubt about whether or not he deliberately pulled the trigger doesn’t matter in this case. The jury’s conclusion that he was illegally handling a firearm makes it a logical necessity that his illegal act also caused the death. They convicted him of involuntary manslaughter without even realizing it.

    Other than that, our jury system worked perfectly, because your comment makes it clear that even a very intelligent man can get this wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Smoggins
    "Other than that, our jury system worked perfectly, because your comment makes it clear that even a very intelligent man can get this wrong."



    I guess his intelligence was overridden by his Jewishness - that is, the need to argue disruptively and take a shit on America whenever possible.
    , @Autochthon
    In a civil matter, any remotely competent judge would enter a judgement notwithstanding the verdict,* ("JNOV"), but it is not permitted in criminal cases for obvious reasons.

    *This practice, for any who may not know, is permitted in cases where in is effectively impossible to have reached the jury's verdict on any interpretation of the evidence whatsoever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. notice says:

    ……was impanelled for jury duty myself. It became obvious to me through the voire dire process both lawyers wanted jurors they thought they could sway with their rhetoric. Those with thoughtful, well reasoned, well elucidated remarks got struck, while the slower-witted hick-types remained. It was a he-said/ she-said improper touching case involving a rich-billboard-around-town insurance agent, a resentful ex-wife and her (not his) 13 year old daughter claiming “he touched me” (through-my-clothes) in a moment in her bedroom at a birthday party with a house full of guests. I was glad to get struck because their was no way to tell if resentful -mamma put the kid up to it or not. No evidence to or fro. I’d hate for a guilty pervert to get away with it, and I’d hate for an innocent fella to get blamed for it. Believing in God, and ultimate rights and wrongs is a chore sometimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I’d hate for a guilty pervert to get away with it, and I’d hate for an innocent fella to get blamed for it. Believing in God, and ultimate rights and wrongs is a chore sometimes.
     
    Believing in God (or any form of ultimate justice) ought to be a comfort in such cases, because nobody really "gets away with it" in the end.

    That's one reason why a religious society can have a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard for conviction rather than the kind of "balance of opinion" standard that would be required to convict in the kind of "he said, she said" case you describe. The latter is of course the standard feminists are being increasingly successful at introducing, de facto, for rape and other sexual offences in the US sphere.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Umm, of course the ex-wife put her daughter up to it. That's the oldest trick in the book.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Art Deco says:

    Why didn’t the jury find that? I was on a jury in 2008 in a trial of an immigrant tax cheat, and about 9 of us 12 jurors were complete dimwits.

    That might be an issue in a case which incorporated an assessment of conflicting forensic testimony or business ledgers. I doubt that was the case here, where the verdict turned on an assessment of moral responsibility. You don’t have to be all that intelligent to fairly distinguish between doing something knowingly and intentionally, doing something recklessly, and doing something negligently.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Thomm says:

    It was definitely manslaughter. He also was deported so many times that his presence itself is evidence of America’s total failure.

    However, it is not a race issue.

    Bill Cosby’s son was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Russia. So the murder was white (and illegal) while the victim was black and had no criminal record (and was rich, not poor). WN wiggers don’t care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage (just like BLM is).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    Not sure what you mean by "WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage".

    A. I couldn't care less if they shoot the guy who killed Cosby's son. B. From what I recall, and from what I've been able to google, Cosby's murderer wasn't here illegally.

    Do you have information to the contrary? Also, why do you use the term "WN wiggers" in every one of your posts? I can kind of see what you're going for here for but it's not very effective rhetoric. Unless your goal is to get people to go, "huh?"

    , @Yan Shen
    I pointed out in a different thread that homicide rates for Eastern Europeans seem fairly high. Peak Russian homicide rates some number of years ago were basically in African American territory, although now it's dropped to something like 10 per 100,000 as opposed to 20-30 per 100,000 like it used to be. IIRC, Cosby's son was killed by an Eastern European immigrant.

    I think it's fair to say that in general African Americans today tend to excel at disorganized violence and brutality, judging by the absurdly high rates of crime in many inner city neighborhoods, while whites have historically tended to excel at organized violence and brutality. Even today, this manifests itself in how Italian or Russian mobsters seem to be very much in our national conscience for anyone who follows any kind of pop culture. This of course creates an awkward situation in which both whites and blacks tend to be wary of each other in contemporary America.

    For instance, someone like Ta Nehisi Coates will focus on the fact that for much of the past couple of centuries, violent and racist whites in this country basically uh brutalized black bodies. And similarly men like King Leopold II of Belgium brutalized black bodies in the Congo. The downside to this factually correct but perhaps excessively narrow focus on the past is that it ignores the fact that today in America there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence of overt discrimination against African Americans and in fact society bends over backwards to give blacks every benefit possible, i.e. affirmative action, fawning over men like Coates as if they were the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, etc. And so you have poor John Derbyshire lamenting endlessly over the obvious African American penchant for disorganized violence and both sides basically talking past one another.

    , @bomag
    I'm not sure your point here. The only people advocating the forgiveness of racially motivated killing seems to be the Left.

    Cosby's son's murder was an utter tragedy. No one disputes this.

    But at least the killer was convicted, is in prison, and has shown remorse.
    , @David In TN
    I followed that case and think Ennis Cosby's killer deserved the death penalty, though it wasn't on the table. My understanding is that Mikhail Markhasev was a legal immigrant.

    BTW, Markhasev self-identified with the Mexican gangs from what I read.

    , @Mr. Anon

    Bill Cosby’s son was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Russia.
     
    No, the murder was a legal immigrant from Ukraine. Given the year he arrived (1989) he very proably came here under the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. You didn't realize any of that because you are not very smart.

    By the way, despite the fact that Ennis Cosby was murdered by a foreigner, his mother still managed to blame the inherent white racism of America.
    , @kihowi
    For someone who is Very Intelligent you certainly love repeating the same phrases over and over again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Moses

    I’m finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries… We’re the real dummies… the chumps….
     
    A working society is an example of game theory writ large. If everyone (or nearly everyone) takes civic responsibilities seriously (honesty, paying taxes owed, playing fair, serving on juries and doing your best, playing by the golden rule) then the society works well. Everyone benefits.

    Such a society can tolerate a few bad free riders/bad actors. But when the % of free riders/bad actors reaches a certain point everything tips. The optimal strategy in a society like that is NOT to be honest and to cheat like hell on taxes etc because everyone else is doing it.

    Has America reached that point? Maybe not yet, but we're heading there.

    I've lived in several countries abroad, including 3rd world. Concepts like individual rights, rule of law, blind justice, trial by jury are concepts people in many (not all) non-western societies find inscrutable. Just totally outside their reality like a rainbow is to a blind man. When they immigrate to a western country they do understand how to take advantage of these ideas. But the idea that they have a reciprocal civic responsibility does not register at all. The lens through which they view the world is tribal. They view us as complete and total suckers, "wow these idiots are just giving me free stuff and letting me get away with murder! What morons!" They do not like us, nor do they respect us (see: Muslims in Europe). How could they given their worldview?

    I've come to believe that Western societies became great based on the civic culture of Europeans. And yes, I believe a big chunk of that is intrinsic to European blood.

    Flooding Western countries with people who are all take and no give (re: civic responsibility) and fundamentally incompatible with how our societies work will not end well. I think the idea that different groups really ARE different in how they think and behave will seep into the Overton window over time. I hope it's soon enough to right the ship. I doubt it.

    Excellent comment, Sir.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Thomm
    It was definitely manslaughter. He also was deported so many times that his presence itself is evidence of America's total failure.

    However, it is not a race issue.

    Bill Cosby's son was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Russia. So the murder was white (and illegal) while the victim was black and had no criminal record (and was rich, not poor). WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage (just like BLM is).

    Not sure what you mean by “WN wiggers don’t care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage”.

    A. I couldn’t care less if they shoot the guy who killed Cosby’s son. B. From what I recall, and from what I’ve been able to google, Cosby’s murderer wasn’t here illegally.

    Do you have information to the contrary? Also, why do you use the term “WN wiggers” in every one of your posts? I can kind of see what you’re going for here for but it’s not very effective rhetoric. Unless your goal is to get people to go, “huh?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Smoggins
    Thomm could respond to a post about the difference between two different species of butterflies and find a way to work in something about "white trash" or "wigger" White nationalists. He's obviously obsessed which is too bad because otherwise his posts are readable.

    I haven't figured out yet if he's just another Asian gamma, like Yan Shen, who's pissed off that the hottest Asian girls all prefer White men or a White gamma who went to Asia, got his first ever girlfriend and is now white knighting for her race.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Also, why do you use the term “WN wiggers” in every one of your posts?

    Because Thomm is a dips**t. He purports to be oh-so superior to all of us, and yet he has an encyclopedic knowledge of trashy TV. Odds-on Mensa member.
    , @Alden
    Cosby's murderer was a legal immigrant with full green card lawful residence status. Like so many of the Russian immigrants in Los Angeles he was a criminal who got into this country pretending to be a Jew, just as the Chinese get into this country by pretending to be Catholic.
    , @Alden
    I'm pretty sure Thomm is an economics 101 idiot who thinks Whites with our labor unions, minimum wages, labor safety laws etc are a total obstacle to the triumph of pure capitalism and slave labor ala the Roman Empire.

    So he wants us gone. Problem is, if pure capitalism every arrives, people like Thomm will be lucky to be slaves instead of homeless beggars with the welfare system gone.

    Careful what you wish for Thomm, when the rapturous day of pure capitalism comes, you might be done there with all the docile brown slaves., or dead
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Pericles says:
    @Anon
    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents. I take some satisfaction in knowing that you will be just as miserable in the polluted plutocracy Trump intends to create as the rest of us, but your whining will be unbearable.

    A right but also an obligation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. El Dato says:
    @Anon
    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents. I take some satisfaction in knowing that you will be just as miserable in the polluted plutocracy Trump intends to create as the rest of us, but your whining will be unbearable.

    Ya posting on wrong website, bro.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Yan Shen says:

    Why didn’t the jury find that? I was on a jury in 2008 in a trial of an immigrant tax cheat, and about 9 of us 12 jurors were complete dimwits.

    The right to a jury of your peers seems like a pretty bad idea given that anyone can basically serve on a jury. There should be some cognitive filtering of the potential jury pool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neuday

    The right to a jury of your peers seems like a pretty bad idea given that anyone can basically serve on a jury. There should be some cognitive filtering of the potential jury pool.
     
    Not cognitive filtering, but genetic filtering. The jury pool should be mainly comprised of distant relatives. People with roughly similar genetic backgrounds, using the same language, customs and beliefs, with similar histories. We could call it a "nation".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Yan Shen says:
    @Thomm
    It was definitely manslaughter. He also was deported so many times that his presence itself is evidence of America's total failure.

    However, it is not a race issue.

    Bill Cosby's son was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Russia. So the murder was white (and illegal) while the victim was black and had no criminal record (and was rich, not poor). WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage (just like BLM is).

    I pointed out in a different thread that homicide rates for Eastern Europeans seem fairly high. Peak Russian homicide rates some number of years ago were basically in African American territory, although now it’s dropped to something like 10 per 100,000 as opposed to 20-30 per 100,000 like it used to be. IIRC, Cosby’s son was killed by an Eastern European immigrant.

    I think it’s fair to say that in general African Americans today tend to excel at disorganized violence and brutality, judging by the absurdly high rates of crime in many inner city neighborhoods, while whites have historically tended to excel at organized violence and brutality. Even today, this manifests itself in how Italian or Russian mobsters seem to be very much in our national conscience for anyone who follows any kind of pop culture. This of course creates an awkward situation in which both whites and blacks tend to be wary of each other in contemporary America.

    For instance, someone like Ta Nehisi Coates will focus on the fact that for much of the past couple of centuries, violent and racist whites in this country basically uh brutalized black bodies. And similarly men like King Leopold II of Belgium brutalized black bodies in the Congo. The downside to this factually correct but perhaps excessively narrow focus on the past is that it ignores the fact that today in America there doesn’t seem to be compelling evidence of overt discrimination against African Americans and in fact society bends over backwards to give blacks every benefit possible, i.e. affirmative action, fawning over men like Coates as if they were the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, etc. And so you have poor John Derbyshire lamenting endlessly over the obvious African American penchant for disorganized violence and both sides basically talking past one another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sajmon
    "Peak Russian homicide rates some number of years ago were basically in African American territory, although now it’s dropped to something like 10 per 100,000 as opposed to 20-30 per 100,000 like it used to be."

    It hasn't dropped. Russian police massage homicide statistics to hide a murder rate that may be among the world’s highest. The most accurate estimates show that murder rate in Russia is ~27 per 100.000 people. See paper by Lysova and Shchitov, “What Is Russia’s Real Homicide Rate?” – http://goo.gl/Wrvbwv
    , @bomag

    both sides basically talking past one another
     
    Both sides know the score. Coates and crew are fully aware that a more disorganized society favors Blacks. They are not worried about crime rates.
    , @Art Deco
    Russia has had elevated homicide rates. The other East European countries have had rates about normal for Europe. Russia's have dropped by about 1/2 in the last 20 years.
    , @Alden
    " men like King Leopold 11 of Belgium brutalized black bodies in the Congo. "

    I don't want to start an argument, but the cruel King of Belgium and the Congo was the same type of myth and propaganda the British created about the Germans in WWs 1 and 2. The British and French happily divided up Africa. Adn then the evil Boers rebelled against the British and the Belgiums had the audacity to invade and take over a part of Africa that the british wanted..

    The British are masters of propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. twilight says:

    It’s an open and shut case! Doesn’t matter what his mindset was–the exception would be if he was mentally retarded. Since he managed to get sneak over the border 5 times and rack up some felonies besides, I think we can rule that out.

    Otherwise, he was in possession of a stolen firearm, shot it, and tried to hide the weapon.

    It doesn’t matter if he didn’t understand police questions, or said ANYthing related to the shooting, as long as it’s a given that he did it.

    It’s “involuntary manslaughter.” People who accidentally kill people with their automobiles get charged and found guilty of involuntary manslaughter routinely, even though they had no intention of killing anyone, or even knew their victims.

    This is like Bizzaro World!

    San Francisco has turned into the South of the 1930′s, but instead of victimizing minorities on trumped up charges, they’re freeing minorities on absolutely valid charges!

    A perfect perverse logic that would make Rod Serling cream his jeans!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. There was a really good discussion of the case and Sanctuary Cities etc on Fox News last night. Starting at 13:00 Charles Hurt gives an analysis of the core problem, which is population replacement by the left in order to win elections. The Hannity/Carlson wing of Fox is very close to going full alt-right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. jim jones says:
    @syonredux
    Speaking of degeneracy....

    Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay, says minister
    Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth says C of E will be forced to support same-sex marriage if the ‘Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman’

     

    Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay to force support for same-sex marriage in the Church of England, a senior Scottish Episcopal church minister and LGBTQ campaigner has said.

    The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, made the comments in a blog he reposted about LGBTQ inclusion in the Church of England following the announcement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s engagement.

    In the post, he writes that Christians should pray “for the Lord to bless Prince George with a love, when he grows up, of a fine young gentleman”.
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/01/christians-should-pray-from-prince-george-to-be-gay-says-c-of-e-minister
    Read More
    • Replies: @CJ
    Spray the gay away!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Off Topic
    Off Topic: A recent article and report on declining US fertility,

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/health/united-states-fertility-rate.html

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/report002.pdf

    oddly fail to break down the fertility rate by race. They say fertility fell most with teens, which I think would mean the declining fertility is disproportionately among blacks and Hispanics--but they don't say. Any way to figure this out?

    CDC does breakdown fertility by race and hispanic status. Look again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Sajmon says:
    @Yan Shen
    I pointed out in a different thread that homicide rates for Eastern Europeans seem fairly high. Peak Russian homicide rates some number of years ago were basically in African American territory, although now it's dropped to something like 10 per 100,000 as opposed to 20-30 per 100,000 like it used to be. IIRC, Cosby's son was killed by an Eastern European immigrant.

    I think it's fair to say that in general African Americans today tend to excel at disorganized violence and brutality, judging by the absurdly high rates of crime in many inner city neighborhoods, while whites have historically tended to excel at organized violence and brutality. Even today, this manifests itself in how Italian or Russian mobsters seem to be very much in our national conscience for anyone who follows any kind of pop culture. This of course creates an awkward situation in which both whites and blacks tend to be wary of each other in contemporary America.

    For instance, someone like Ta Nehisi Coates will focus on the fact that for much of the past couple of centuries, violent and racist whites in this country basically uh brutalized black bodies. And similarly men like King Leopold II of Belgium brutalized black bodies in the Congo. The downside to this factually correct but perhaps excessively narrow focus on the past is that it ignores the fact that today in America there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence of overt discrimination against African Americans and in fact society bends over backwards to give blacks every benefit possible, i.e. affirmative action, fawning over men like Coates as if they were the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, etc. And so you have poor John Derbyshire lamenting endlessly over the obvious African American penchant for disorganized violence and both sides basically talking past one another.

    “Peak Russian homicide rates some number of years ago were basically in African American territory, although now it’s dropped to something like 10 per 100,000 as opposed to 20-30 per 100,000 like it used to be.”

    It hasn’t dropped. Russian police massage homicide statistics to hide a murder rate that may be among the world’s highest. The most accurate estimates show that murder rate in Russia is ~27 per 100.000 people. See paper by Lysova and Shchitov, “What Is Russia’s Real Homicide Rate?” – http://goo.gl/Wrvbwv

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Hhsiii says:

    Zarate looks miserable in that shot. About to be released from his 3 hots and a cot home to being homeless in Mexico again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Moses

    I’m finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries… We’re the real dummies… the chumps….
     
    A working society is an example of game theory writ large. If everyone (or nearly everyone) takes civic responsibilities seriously (honesty, paying taxes owed, playing fair, serving on juries and doing your best, playing by the golden rule) then the society works well. Everyone benefits.

    Such a society can tolerate a few bad free riders/bad actors. But when the % of free riders/bad actors reaches a certain point everything tips. The optimal strategy in a society like that is NOT to be honest and to cheat like hell on taxes etc because everyone else is doing it.

    Has America reached that point? Maybe not yet, but we're heading there.

    I've lived in several countries abroad, including 3rd world. Concepts like individual rights, rule of law, blind justice, trial by jury are concepts people in many (not all) non-western societies find inscrutable. Just totally outside their reality like a rainbow is to a blind man. When they immigrate to a western country they do understand how to take advantage of these ideas. But the idea that they have a reciprocal civic responsibility does not register at all. The lens through which they view the world is tribal. They view us as complete and total suckers, "wow these idiots are just giving me free stuff and letting me get away with murder! What morons!" They do not like us, nor do they respect us (see: Muslims in Europe). How could they given their worldview?

    I've come to believe that Western societies became great based on the civic culture of Europeans. And yes, I believe a big chunk of that is intrinsic to European blood.

    Flooding Western countries with people who are all take and no give (re: civic responsibility) and fundamentally incompatible with how our societies work will not end well. I think the idea that different groups really ARE different in how they think and behave will seep into the Overton window over time. I hope it's soon enough to right the ship. I doubt it.

    Yep, you’re right, and it’s by design. Our Ruling Tribe prefers to lord it over a cacophony of primitive, warring, low-trust third-worlders, the better to justify their own primacy.

    I used to think warnings about Total World Domination were ridiculous. Live and learn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. midtown says:
    @Moses

    I’m finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries… We’re the real dummies… the chumps….
     
    A working society is an example of game theory writ large. If everyone (or nearly everyone) takes civic responsibilities seriously (honesty, paying taxes owed, playing fair, serving on juries and doing your best, playing by the golden rule) then the society works well. Everyone benefits.

    Such a society can tolerate a few bad free riders/bad actors. But when the % of free riders/bad actors reaches a certain point everything tips. The optimal strategy in a society like that is NOT to be honest and to cheat like hell on taxes etc because everyone else is doing it.

    Has America reached that point? Maybe not yet, but we're heading there.

    I've lived in several countries abroad, including 3rd world. Concepts like individual rights, rule of law, blind justice, trial by jury are concepts people in many (not all) non-western societies find inscrutable. Just totally outside their reality like a rainbow is to a blind man. When they immigrate to a western country they do understand how to take advantage of these ideas. But the idea that they have a reciprocal civic responsibility does not register at all. The lens through which they view the world is tribal. They view us as complete and total suckers, "wow these idiots are just giving me free stuff and letting me get away with murder! What morons!" They do not like us, nor do they respect us (see: Muslims in Europe). How could they given their worldview?

    I've come to believe that Western societies became great based on the civic culture of Europeans. And yes, I believe a big chunk of that is intrinsic to European blood.

    Flooding Western countries with people who are all take and no give (re: civic responsibility) and fundamentally incompatible with how our societies work will not end well. I think the idea that different groups really ARE different in how they think and behave will seep into the Overton window over time. I hope it's soon enough to right the ship. I doubt it.

    Excellent comment, Moses. This was the theme of Huntington’s 2004 book “Who Are We?” European culture and legal history uniquely created the United States’ high-trust society. Whether or how much came through genetic preferences is up to the reader. Personally, I think non-Western people can be acculturated into it, but it is a multigenerational process and the numbers of immigrants need to be very low. You are absolutely correct that we can’t absorb large numbers of people with the tribal mindset without flipping everyone into what I would call a corrupt mindset, which is perfectly rational when everyone is perceived to be cheating or working for tribal ends.

    Very recently I was on a jury — a black man was charged with brutally raping a black woman. While there were some doubts about the woman’s overall story, there was strong physical evidence of the rape and beating itself with no alternative explanation that made any sense. Of twelve jurors, nine were white with three black males. It ended in a hung jury — the black men simply would not convict another black man without something like clear video proof.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Anon
    I told them I thought the defendant was guilty during voir dire. I really had made up my mind in about 5 minutes of being introduced to the case. Some cases are like that. Disgusting mofo shook a baby to death, and he was the only one in the residence with the kid.

    So you were eliminated from the jury, while someone who said they didn’t believe he did it got on.

    Decades ago I was on the stand during the voir dire for a fellow named Tony “Rooster” D’Onofrio, who was charged with running someone over three times and then shooting him twice “with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.”

    His lawyer said to me, “Mr. Baldwin, I want you to look my client in the eye and I want you to tell me whether you believe he is innocent or guilty.”

    I said, “I believe he’s innocent in the judicial sense.”

    “What do you mean by that, Mr. Baldwin?”

    “I mean that everyone is considered innocent until proved guilty, but I wouldn’t loan him $100 or put him up at my house for the weekend.”

    That got a laugh, even from the judge and Rooster, but I was excused from the jury.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    His lawyer said to me, “Mr. Baldwin, I want you to look my client in the eye and I want you to tell me whether you believe he is innocent or guilty.”
     
    What was the intent of that? Please look my (probably, mobbed-up) client in the eye while I publicly state your name, so that his compatriots can visit your home tonight and kill your dog as a warning, or at least I will plant the idea in your head that that might happen, should you end up on the jury and vote to convict.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Randal says:
    @notice
    ......was impanelled for jury duty myself. It became obvious to me through the voire dire process both lawyers wanted jurors they thought they could sway with their rhetoric. Those with thoughtful, well reasoned, well elucidated remarks got struck, while the slower-witted hick-types remained. It was a he-said/ she-said improper touching case involving a rich-billboard-around-town insurance agent, a resentful ex-wife and her (not his) 13 year old daughter claiming "he touched me" (through-my-clothes) in a moment in her bedroom at a birthday party with a house full of guests. I was glad to get struck because their was no way to tell if resentful -mamma put the kid up to it or not. No evidence to or fro. I'd hate for a guilty pervert to get away with it, and I'd hate for an innocent fella to get blamed for it. Believing in God, and ultimate rights and wrongs is a chore sometimes.

    I’d hate for a guilty pervert to get away with it, and I’d hate for an innocent fella to get blamed for it. Believing in God, and ultimate rights and wrongs is a chore sometimes.

    Believing in God (or any form of ultimate justice) ought to be a comfort in such cases, because nobody really “gets away with it” in the end.

    That’s one reason why a religious society can have a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard for conviction rather than the kind of “balance of opinion” standard that would be required to convict in the kind of “he said, she said” case you describe. The latter is of course the standard feminists are being increasingly successful at introducing, de facto, for rape and other sexual offences in the US sphere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Thea says:
    @Anon
    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents. I take some satisfaction in knowing that you will be just as miserable in the polluted plutocracy Trump intends to create as the rest of us, but your whining will be unbearable.

    They have all the protection they want in countries they run

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. El Dato says:
    @jorge videla (BGI volunteer)
    https://memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4682145.jpg

    I don’t understand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Tulip says:

    Not to defend the jury verdict, but it appears that they had the facts to get an involuntary conviction, and instead tried to push two other theories for which they had no facts.

    Even worse, then they gave the jury three options to choose.

    They no doubt lost credibility with the jury trying to argue to convict him on charges on which they lacked evidence, and perhaps, created the impression that they were simply trying to torpedo the defendant perhaps based on other characteristics (say his legal status). If this is so, they may have lost the trust of the jury completely, and the verdict makes sense.

    I suspect it is much easier if you start with one theory, say involuntary manslaughter, which is consistent with the facts, and then you tell them this is involuntary manslaughter, and here are the facts why this is involuntary manslaughter, and now return of verdict of guilty. You retain credibility and you tell the jury what to do.

    Jurors want to do Justice, they don’t want to answer a multiple choice test. “Doing Justice” generally involves someone doing something out of a sense of cognitive certainty, e.g. this is the one and only thing I can do, ergo I am doing what is right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    If a prospective juror can't understand the concept of a lesser included they're not bright enough for jury service. If they rebel against it that's a form of jury nullification.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. bomag says:
    @Moses
    In one Asian country I lived in a famous retail magnate was exposed publicly for deceptive business practices, passing off mass-produced goods as artisanal and selling at high markups. Many people openly admired him for it -- he had used his wits to deceive and cheat his customers, and the result was massive wealth and an empire. Behavior of this kind is looked on approvingly in many other cultures.

    Many people openly admired him for it…

    That’s an insight our “importing” class doesn’t get.

    An acquaintance related a recent incident when his company was hiring for a pretty high executive position. They were doing a lot of work in Africa, so they felt compelled to seriously consider a local. The guy who came through the ranks was asked at one of the final interviews to discuss one of his achievements. He animatedly related a time when he organized a scheme to, essentially, defraud another company. The interviewers looked at each other with arched eyebrows, thinking: is this guy for real?

    Yes, it’s for real.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Off Topic
    Off Topic: A recent article and report on declining US fertility,

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/health/united-states-fertility-rate.html

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/report002.pdf

    oddly fail to break down the fertility rate by race. They say fertility fell most with teens, which I think would mean the declining fertility is disproportionately among blacks and Hispanics--but they don't say. Any way to figure this out?

    Here’s a table from Wikipedia detailing the fertility rates by race of mother:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

    Non-Hispanic White: 1.746
    Black: 1.853
    Asian: 1.646
    Native: 1.263
    Hispanic: 2.124

    It’s puzzling why the Native fertility rate is so low? Perhaps a discussion for another thread, I don’t want to derail the discussion any further.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    iSteve, your comment about jurors sounds about right. Ideally, biases are supposed to be flushed out during the voir dire process but there is no way of knowing for sure whether a potential juror is being truthful, shading the truth or lying outright.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    A case in the news in Chicago, a gang conspiracy case, included fireworks when 5 jurors were booted after deliberations had begun. One was a white juror accused of racism by the forewoman, who then got herself and one other juror dismissed by arguing with the judge about the jury instructions. (They believed the instructions were biased, probably in favor of the state.) One was medical; I forget the reason for the fifth.

    The judge had apparently anticipated something like this happening and had impaneled an unusually large number of alternates; otherwise there would have been a mistrial. The news report that I read, in a normally reliably left wing paper, said that the defendants were visibly pleased. Nonetheless, the defense lawyer pointed out that the judge had dismissed four black jurors, to which the judge replied that his decisions had nothing to do with race.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. bomag says:
    @Yan Shen
    I pointed out in a different thread that homicide rates for Eastern Europeans seem fairly high. Peak Russian homicide rates some number of years ago were basically in African American territory, although now it's dropped to something like 10 per 100,000 as opposed to 20-30 per 100,000 like it used to be. IIRC, Cosby's son was killed by an Eastern European immigrant.

    I think it's fair to say that in general African Americans today tend to excel at disorganized violence and brutality, judging by the absurdly high rates of crime in many inner city neighborhoods, while whites have historically tended to excel at organized violence and brutality. Even today, this manifests itself in how Italian or Russian mobsters seem to be very much in our national conscience for anyone who follows any kind of pop culture. This of course creates an awkward situation in which both whites and blacks tend to be wary of each other in contemporary America.

    For instance, someone like Ta Nehisi Coates will focus on the fact that for much of the past couple of centuries, violent and racist whites in this country basically uh brutalized black bodies. And similarly men like King Leopold II of Belgium brutalized black bodies in the Congo. The downside to this factually correct but perhaps excessively narrow focus on the past is that it ignores the fact that today in America there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence of overt discrimination against African Americans and in fact society bends over backwards to give blacks every benefit possible, i.e. affirmative action, fawning over men like Coates as if they were the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, etc. And so you have poor John Derbyshire lamenting endlessly over the obvious African American penchant for disorganized violence and both sides basically talking past one another.

    both sides basically talking past one another

    Both sides know the score. Coates and crew are fully aware that a more disorganized society favors Blacks. They are not worried about crime rates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @PiltdownMan
    Redstate has an interesting analysis. I hope it's ok to cross post it here, Steve.

    https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

    No, its not an “interesting analysis”. Its a total bunch of BS that gets a lot of facts wrong cause those cucks over at redstate love illegals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. 1) The weapon involved was an “SA/DA”, and dropping it would not have made it go off once, let alone three times.

    2) The illegal gave three different stories, admitting at least twice to shooting into the crowd.

    Just when I think we have beaten this topic to death, Steve posts about it again and shows that half the commentariat either can’t do independent research or has the memory of a goldfish.

    The reason so many cucks are furiously trying to grasp at any straws to prove “uh huh uh huh we still have a free and fair judicial system yes we do we totally do” is because this is the kind of shit that torpedoes civil society and how you get death squads enforcing their own law.

    You know what else does that? Pretending we have a free and fair judicial system when we don’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Corn says:
    @silviosilver

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we’re given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it’s smarter to shirk.
     
    I wouldn't dream of wasting my time doing jury duty.

    Trial by jury belongs to the past. It may have once made sense, back when commoners needed protection against their social superiors, but the jury system was always wide open to corruption and, America being America, corrupted it has indeed become. It has got to go.

    The jury system certainly has flaws but if we did away with jury trials we’d all be here complaining about unelected or unaccountable demagogues in black robes everytime we disagreed with a verdict. Going to have outrages either way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Former detective Joe Kenda, star of his ID Channel show, says in a book he just put out that juries aren't completely reliable. This despite Kenda only losing a couple of cases at trial.

    Kends said if you are accused of a crime and are completely innocent, the best option is a Bench Trial, in which there is no jury and the judge decides. Even though you are innocent, the jurors may not like the way you look, talk, etc. Kenda believes a judge is more likely to do the right thing than a jury is when it comes down to it.

    On the other hand, Kenda said if you are guilty, a jury trial is the better option. With 12 people, some of them might favor you.

    Exhibit A is the Baltimore cops in the Freddie Gray Affair opting for a Bench Trial and being acquitted. The judge had made pre-trial rulings the defense didn't like, but ruled Not Guilty in the end.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. bomag says:
    @Thomm
    It was definitely manslaughter. He also was deported so many times that his presence itself is evidence of America's total failure.

    However, it is not a race issue.

    Bill Cosby's son was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Russia. So the murder was white (and illegal) while the victim was black and had no criminal record (and was rich, not poor). WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage (just like BLM is).

    I’m not sure your point here. The only people advocating the forgiveness of racially motivated killing seems to be the Left.

    Cosby’s son’s murder was an utter tragedy. No one disputes this.

    But at least the killer was convicted, is in prison, and has shown remorse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    I’m not sure your point here. The only people advocating the forgiveness of racially motivated killing seems to be the Left.
     
    I see plenty of 'white nationalists' that praise Anders Breivik, and openly say that we need more like him.

    You are not in this group, of course. But I am sure you know they exist (even here on Unz.com).

    That is why I say that the bottom 10% of whites (the pool that WN draws from), has more in common with BLM blacks than with everyday white people. They know this, which is why they are frustrated with how little traction they get with mainstream whites.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. This guy is a prosecutor, from California I think. He explains the law of the case, the whole article is worth reading:

    http://patterico.com/2017/12/01/lawsplainer-the-california-homicide-statutes-relevant-to-the-steinle-murder-case/

    “Probably the first thing to explain here is that this was not a “felony murder” case. The term “felony murder” does not mean “any killing that occurs when the defendant is committing any felony.” So the fact that Zarate was committing the crime of “felon in possession of a firearm” does not make this homicide a murder, simply because it occurred in the course of that felony.

    I could spend a lot of time explaining the ins and outs of felony murder, but that would be pointless because, again, this is not a felony murder case. Plus, felony murder law is very complicated, with a lot of subtleties and rules. All you need to know is that it has nothing to do with this case.

    I see some people complaining about prosecutors “charging first-degree murder” in the Zarate case. In California, prosecutors don’t “charge” first-degree or second-degree murder. The charging document reads simply “murder.” The judge will instruct on first-degree and/or second-degree murder and/or lesser included offenses of manslaughter, based on the evidence presented in the case, and how that evidence fits the law. None of these lesser included offenses have to be charged for the jury to consider them.

    When I try a murder case (and I have tried about thirty-five of them), with rare exceptions (like a felony-murder case, which this is not; see above) I typically start by explaining what second-degree murder is. Murder does not necessarily require an intent to kill. It is an unlawful killing of a human being with “malice aforethought.” This state of mind could be intent to kill, but it could also be intentionally committing an act, the natural and probable consequence of which is dangerous to human life, with knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and with conscious disregard for human life.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Really reassuring that a guy with your biases is a decision maker in the justice system. I guess criminals whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower will get fair treatment from you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @silviosilver

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we’re given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it’s smarter to shirk.
     
    I wouldn't dream of wasting my time doing jury duty.

    Trial by jury belongs to the past. It may have once made sense, back when commoners needed protection against their social superiors, but the jury system was always wide open to corruption and, America being America, corrupted it has indeed become. It has got to go.

    Peter Brimelow raised the issue of the jury system becoming untenable in a Vdare piece on the Kate Steinle verdict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Buzz Mohawk
    He was a felon handling a stolen gun when that gun went off and killed somebody. That could be listed in Wester's Dictionary as an example of involuntary manslaughter.

    It doesn't matter if he was kissing it, calling it honey, and jerking his dick. He caused someone's death by firearm while illegally handling the firearm.

    Reasonable doubt about whether or not he deliberately pulled the trigger doesn't matter in this case. The jury's conclusion that he was illegally handling a firearm makes it a logical necessity that his illegal act also caused the death. They convicted him of involuntary manslaughter without even realizing it.

    Other than that, our jury system worked perfectly, because your comment makes it clear that even a very intelligent man can get this wrong.

    “Other than that, our jury system worked perfectly, because your comment makes it clear that even a very intelligent man can get this wrong.”

    I guess his intelligence was overridden by his Jewishness – that is, the need to argue disruptively and take a shit on America whenever possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. MBlanc46 says:
    @Anon
    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents. I take some satisfaction in knowing that you will be just as miserable in the polluted plutocracy Trump intends to create as the rest of us, but your whining will be unbearable.

    Sounds good to me. Perhaps you’ll die from the unbearableness. Agonizingly, I hope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Malcolm X-Lax
    Not sure what you mean by "WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage".

    A. I couldn't care less if they shoot the guy who killed Cosby's son. B. From what I recall, and from what I've been able to google, Cosby's murderer wasn't here illegally.

    Do you have information to the contrary? Also, why do you use the term "WN wiggers" in every one of your posts? I can kind of see what you're going for here for but it's not very effective rhetoric. Unless your goal is to get people to go, "huh?"

    Thomm could respond to a post about the difference between two different species of butterflies and find a way to work in something about “white trash” or “wigger” White nationalists. He’s obviously obsessed which is too bad because otherwise his posts are readable.

    I haven’t figured out yet if he’s just another Asian gamma, like Yan Shen, who’s pissed off that the hottest Asian girls all prefer White men or a White gamma who went to Asia, got his first ever girlfriend and is now white knighting for her race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    I definitely get the rejected-oriental-guy-resentment vibe from him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Steve Sailer
    Just about every killer ever arrested and tried has attempted to put forward a "the gun just went off by itself" defense at some point in the process. If we start accepting that, we'll never get a conviction again.

    A similar excuse killers sometimes use is if “the gun just went off by itself” doesn’t fit is “I don’t remember anything.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Trans-celebrity. If she thinks she is Jolie, maybe we should pretend she is.

    https://sg.news.yahoo.com/teen-dubbed-corpse-bride-reportedly-slideshow-wp-165727319.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    In the Old South, the police overlooked injustices against blacks.

    Now, the police overlook injustice to patriots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. @Thomm
    It was definitely manslaughter. He also was deported so many times that his presence itself is evidence of America's total failure.

    However, it is not a race issue.

    Bill Cosby's son was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Russia. So the murder was white (and illegal) while the victim was black and had no criminal record (and was rich, not poor). WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage (just like BLM is).

    I followed that case and think Ennis Cosby’s killer deserved the death penalty, though it wasn’t on the table. My understanding is that Mikhail Markhasev was a legal immigrant.

    BTW, Markhasev self-identified with the Mexican gangs from what I read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Bugg says:
    @guest
    "there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger"

    What was the gun doing out, safety off, loaded and ready to fire, with his finger near the trigger? Don't they have reckless endangerment laws? Doesn't causing death through reckless endangerment amount to manslaughter?

    Unless it was a case of Spontaneous Accidental Discharge after they gun floated, Disney-like, out of his pocket to go on an adventure.

    Given my misspent youth as a lowly ADA and then a defense attorney, reluctant to draw conclusions having not seen an entire trial. You don’t know if the prosecution, undoubtedly being soft-headed liberals, lost this case in jury selection, or the SF jury pool is filled with such fools. Or if the jury simply took a dislike to the DA. Such human things do happen.

    But the defendant did not testify, rather relying on the DA’s use of his own post-arrest statements to make his nonsense defense about the force needed to pull the trigger. Clear the prosecution could have limited their case to the physical evidence and their witnesses rather than introducing this bum’s statements, and still made out their case. In such a situation the defendant would have been forced to take the stand to make such arguments. And then his record goes into evidence. Looks like a strategic blunder. But that’s not surprising since to work in such a DA’s office is as insanely liberal a jurisdiction actually prosecuting criminals is secondary to other considerations.

    “City authorities never overcame a critical obstacle and established a motive that would explain why the 45-year-old homeless undocumented immigrant — whose release from San Francisco jail before the shooting under the city’s sanctuary policies became a national controversy — would want to kill a stranger.” This makes me nuts-there is no requirement to prove a motive to a reckless act, and in many intent crimes it’s a lack of impulse control. Most stupid street crime doesn’t have anything close to a motive as in an Agatha Christie novel. Criminals do dumb stupid shit every day.

    Read More
    • Agree: David In TN
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @syonredux
    Speaking of degeneracy....

    Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay, says minister
    Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth says C of E will be forced to support same-sex marriage if the ‘Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman’

     

    Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay to force support for same-sex marriage in the Church of England, a senior Scottish Episcopal church minister and LGBTQ campaigner has said.

    The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, made the comments in a blog he reposted about LGBTQ inclusion in the Church of England following the announcement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s engagement.

    In the post, he writes that Christians should pray “for the Lord to bless Prince George with a love, when he grows up, of a fine young gentleman”.
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/01/christians-should-pray-from-prince-george-to-be-gay-says-c-of-e-minister

    What-ho, a turbulent priest??

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. 2Mintzin1 says:
    @International Jew
    The jury acquitted him because it bought the argument that the killer fired the gun by accident. Or to put it another way, that there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger.

    I hate to say it, but I could see that happening, especially with a semiautomatic. If that jerkoff was carrying it cocked and with the safety on "fire", he could have pulled the trigger if he took it out to look at it, fumbled it, and awkwardly tried to catch it.

    Of course he confessed in 2015 that he was shooting at a seal. But maybe that information was witheld from the jury.

    I can understand the acquittal on the murder charge …kinda..the fact that the shot that killed her was a ricochet could mean that he was not aiming at her (although twitching while pulling the trigger of a heavy-caliber pistol , resulting in “dumping” a shot is not uncommon…I have done it myself…bullet goes low of the target and generally somewhat to the left).

    Of course, I would like to know where the other two shots went, towards the pink elephants/sea lions he initially claimed to be shooting at, or in the opposite direction of the victim, or where?

    The acquittal on manslaughter is an absolute disgrace, however. The jury was manipulated into believing that: -the felon found some sleeping pills and ate them

    -he also found an unidentifiable Thing in a Rag

    -he accidently fired the Thing 3 times while picking it up.

    Perhaps a Sanctuary type jury with no experience with guns could believe this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Sean says:

    His alibi has a lack of precision; he initially said he was shooting at seals. Then he said he had stepped on the gun and it just went off. Unsupported statements by the accused only carry weight if they are assertions against the accused’s own interests.

    He was sitting in a seat and they walked right past him (there are photos showing how close by they passed) and then the gun, which even if cocked and the hammer eased down heeds 4lb trigger pressure, fired; not forward in the direction he was naturally facing, but at right angles to the way the chair forced him to sit. The gun fired pointing to the ground so as the ricochet would likely be towards them, with the angle with the ground oblique.But it was predictable the bullet might ricochet at them. Assuming the bullet came up at same angle after travelling another 16 feet (from the apparent ricochet mark) it would have been at thigh height, another 16 feet mid back, and so on until around 80 feet when it killed her

    This was a predictably a ricochet that put them in extreme danger. If it was at a surface perpendicular to them and the ricochet had for some reason went at right angles he would have an arguable case for not knowing how dangerous it would be, but that is not what happened, and the ricochet was highly unlikely to go straight up into the sky. Given that there were two people in the direction that the ricochet was very likely to go, the chances of one being hit were not low at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. Michelle says:
    @willieskull68
    San Francisco obviously has a more than one class of citizens; some protected and some not protected.
    Those who have or feel guilty about having domestic servants run the town so they fell good about themselves. What is the price of cheap domestic help?

    Who would believe a gun just fired itself? Unless there is some one of special status to be protected. A local ordinace allowing people to just sleep anywhere was just barely defeated at the polls. My neighborhood of what appear to be owner occuppied homes actually approved of sleeping anywhere.

    The message is clear; stay away from San Francisco. Spread the word.

    I have not been to the City for about 5 years now. I used to think San Francisco was one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Now, the reeking streets, ugly immigrants, ugly tourists, and aggressive pan handlers and murderers have made it quite unappealing to me. Couple that with the crime on BART and I have given up visiting San Francisco.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Mr. Anon says:
    @Malcolm X-Lax
    Not sure what you mean by "WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage".

    A. I couldn't care less if they shoot the guy who killed Cosby's son. B. From what I recall, and from what I've been able to google, Cosby's murderer wasn't here illegally.

    Do you have information to the contrary? Also, why do you use the term "WN wiggers" in every one of your posts? I can kind of see what you're going for here for but it's not very effective rhetoric. Unless your goal is to get people to go, "huh?"

    Also, why do you use the term “WN wiggers” in every one of your posts?

    Because Thomm is a dips**t. He purports to be oh-so superior to all of us, and yet he has an encyclopedic knowledge of trashy TV. Odds-on Mensa member.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Jack D says:

    It’s pretty clear to me that the prosecutors overcharged Zarate. Prosecutors do this all the time for various reasons – to satisfy a public that is baying for blood, in the hopes of exacting a plea bargain, on the theory that, worst case, the jury will “split the baby in half” by convicting on a lesser charge, etc.

    The risk of overcharging is that you will confuse the jury. The prosecutors argue mainly for the top charge because they still hope that the jury will go for it, so they de-emphasize the other charges while nominally giving the jury the option in the instructions. Juries really suck at understanding complex jury instructions. Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    The fact that Steinle was apparently killed by a ricochet seems to obviate intentional murder. Not even devious Mexican banditos think that they can get you on a bank shot. Even “depraved heart” murder (you fire into a crowd with no particular target but knowing you are probably going to kill someone) sounded difficult to sustain because the bullet hit the concrete before bouncing, indicating that he was not really aiming into the crowd. The unfortunate truth is that the drug addled Mexican probably was playing with the gun that he stole and he accidentally hit the trigger and fired off a shot which bounced and killed that poor woman. This is still a crime (negligent homicide) and if the prosecutors had charged this and clearly argued it,they would have won, but instead they gambled and lost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    Quit with the ricochet can't mean murder horse shit. I was hit by a ricochet that was aimed at me. My vest stopped it.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Thanks Jack D, for high lighting my previous post about how no one reads anything and everyone thinks they are just the Biggest Brain here without needing to do anything but read a headline.

    The prosecutors presented multiple options to the jury, including manslaughter, but they said NOPE. Good job on the word vomit tho.

    , @candid_observer
    No doubt the prosecution might have done a more effective job if they had focused like a laser on the involuntary manslaughter charge, which, given the ricochet, is the one that fits.

    But I can't imagine that the proper ground wasn't covered for the right decision to be made. The guy said in a police interview that he was shooting at a seal, and then that he stepped on the gun which was on the ground. How is him telling these stories consistent with the final story he told: that he found the gun under the bench (happens all the time!) covered with a cloth, and that when he removed the gun from the cloth, it went off (or fell and went off).

    Why would this guy make up not one, but two stories, when the supposedly true story was the most innocent of all? (He didn't even know it was a gun, it was covered in cloth -- magically, he wasn't even guilty of being in possession of a gun if this story was true -- isn't it great that it would work out that way?).

    Anybody on the jury with a smidgen of common sense and skepticism would be thinking about these things -- IF they had any desire to do so, instead of desperately finding a way to vindicate the guy.

    I also find it very hard to believe that the prosecution didn't bring to light the inconsistencies in the stories, and the extraordinary convenience and implausibility of the final story. That would be something that would be important to establish no matter which charge they went after. Obviously, they had to rule out the magical gun story before they could go after any further charge.

    The prosecution might have been pretty bad, but I find it very hard to believe that they bear the real responsibility for the travesty.

    That lies in the jury itself, which obviously for its own reasons wanted to make sure the guy wasn't seen as responsible for the death.

    And I would say that the fact that they did find him guilty of illegal possession gives away their game. If they believed the story of the magical gun and the magical cloth and the magical firing when dropped, why did they find him guilty of possession? It makes no sense. And if they find his story and him incredible, why should they believe anything else he says about how it all went down? No: they obviously wanted to find him guilty of a lesser charge so that they wouldn't look less like the disgusting, perverted ideological and tribal hacks that they are.

    Somewhere upthread someone mentions that RedState had a take on this. They don't consider any of this. They are idiots.

    , @Art Deco
    Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    You've spent how much time on juries instructed to consider lesser included offenses?
    , @Sean
    He was sitting there for 20 minutes twirling the gun around before Steinle walked past, she was quite striking as photos show. I said this two years ago and I got called a nut, but the most likely explanation is he saw a beautiful young woman and tried to terrify her by ricocheting a bullet past her. It was an intentional act, just like his immediate dumping of the gun into the sea and leaving the scene.

    Murder is far from restricted to obvious motive and direct aim of killing a targeted person , it covers knowingly doing something that may result in severe injury,eg letting a bomb off in a public place, and what Zarate did fell into that category. She walked right past him moments before the gum went off, and if you think it was a freak accident you are very naive about human nature.
    , @Eagle Eye

    the bullet hit the concrete before bouncing, indicating that he was not really aiming into the crowd.
     
    The way that the MSM keep harping on the "ricochet" theory leads me to suspect that there was no "ricochet" at all. This was a cold-blooded murder.

    Zarate - recently sprung from custody by SF - and the gun were there for a purpose which was the hit that killed Kate Steinle.

    The only question is whether Steinle was personally targeted, or just a random victim of violence aimed at extorting money from the city and merchants in SF.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Mr. Anon says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    So you were eliminated from the jury, while someone who said they didn't believe he did it got on.

    Decades ago I was on the stand during the voir dire for a fellow named Tony "Rooster" D'Onofrio, who was charged with running someone over three times and then shooting him twice "with intent to cause grievous bodily harm."

    His lawyer said to me, "Mr. Baldwin, I want you to look my client in the eye and I want you to tell me whether you believe he is innocent or guilty."

    I said, "I believe he's innocent in the judicial sense."

    "What do you mean by that, Mr. Baldwin?"

    "I mean that everyone is considered innocent until proved guilty, but I wouldn't loan him $100 or put him up at my house for the weekend."

    That got a laugh, even from the judge and Rooster, but I was excused from the jury.

    His lawyer said to me, “Mr. Baldwin, I want you to look my client in the eye and I want you to tell me whether you believe he is innocent or guilty.”

    What was the intent of that? Please look my (probably, mobbed-up) client in the eye while I publicly state your name, so that his compatriots can visit your home tonight and kill your dog as a warning, or at least I will plant the idea in your head that that might happen, should you end up on the jury and vote to convict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. TWS says:

    Jury nullification.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. TWS says:
    @Jack D
    It's pretty clear to me that the prosecutors overcharged Zarate. Prosecutors do this all the time for various reasons - to satisfy a public that is baying for blood, in the hopes of exacting a plea bargain, on the theory that, worst case, the jury will "split the baby in half" by convicting on a lesser charge, etc.

    The risk of overcharging is that you will confuse the jury. The prosecutors argue mainly for the top charge because they still hope that the jury will go for it, so they de-emphasize the other charges while nominally giving the jury the option in the instructions. Juries really suck at understanding complex jury instructions. Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    The fact that Steinle was apparently killed by a ricochet seems to obviate intentional murder. Not even devious Mexican banditos think that they can get you on a bank shot. Even "depraved heart" murder (you fire into a crowd with no particular target but knowing you are probably going to kill someone) sounded difficult to sustain because the bullet hit the concrete before bouncing, indicating that he was not really aiming into the crowd. The unfortunate truth is that the drug addled Mexican probably was playing with the gun that he stole and he accidentally hit the trigger and fired off a shot which bounced and killed that poor woman. This is still a crime (negligent homicide) and if the prosecutors had charged this and clearly argued it,they would have won, but instead they gambled and lost.

    Quit with the ricochet can’t mean murder horse shit. I was hit by a ricochet that was aimed at me. My vest stopped it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. TWS says:
    @Anon
    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents. I take some satisfaction in knowing that you will be just as miserable in the polluted plutocracy Trump intends to create as the rest of us, but your whining will be unbearable.

    Damn it tiny duck stop switching names.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Risk
    Got a good chuckle. Yeah, where is tiny duck these days?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm
    It was definitely manslaughter. He also was deported so many times that his presence itself is evidence of America's total failure.

    However, it is not a race issue.

    Bill Cosby's son was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Russia. So the murder was white (and illegal) while the victim was black and had no criminal record (and was rich, not poor). WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage (just like BLM is).

    Bill Cosby’s son was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Russia.

    No, the murder was a legal immigrant from Ukraine. Given the year he arrived (1989) he very proably came here under the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. You didn’t realize any of that because you are not very smart.

    By the way, despite the fact that Ennis Cosby was murdered by a foreigner, his mother still managed to blame the inherent white racism of America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. TWS says:
    @International Jew
    The jury acquitted him because it bought the argument that the killer fired the gun by accident. Or to put it another way, that there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger.

    I hate to say it, but I could see that happening, especially with a semiautomatic. If that jerkoff was carrying it cocked and with the safety on "fire", he could have pulled the trigger if he took it out to look at it, fumbled it, and awkwardly tried to catch it.

    Of course he confessed in 2015 that he was shooting at a seal. But maybe that information was witheld from the jury.

    Quit writing now. Even if the hammer was back he still had to pull the rather robust single action three times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    He took three shots? I didn't know. (And did the jury know? There was a lot they weren't told.) Granted the pull resistance on that gun is a good deal more than the gun's weight. So it wouldn't discharge if he just dangled it. But in fumbling just the right way, he could produce enough force.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. denjae says:

    Chronicle blithely uses term”NATION.”

    http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Justice-not-served-in-trial-of-Kate-Steinle-s-12396717.php

    “An inmate with Garcia Zarate’s record, a seven-time felon who repeatedly re-entered this country illegally, could be released on the streets today. [San Fran] Supervisors need to ask themselves, not only whether this is in the interest of public safety — but the humanity of sending an immigrant who was otherwise headed for deportation into the streets of one of the nation’s most expensive cities to become homeless.”

    Caught up in their own mess . . . . Yet arrogantly . . .

    Making use of “NATION” to include/define city of San Fran

    While implicitly rejecting options of NATIONAL interest (e.g. deportation)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Neuday says:
    @jorge videla (BGI volunteer)
    https://memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4682145.jpg

    Shouldn’t that read: BECAUSE ITALIANS ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Jack D
    It's pretty clear to me that the prosecutors overcharged Zarate. Prosecutors do this all the time for various reasons - to satisfy a public that is baying for blood, in the hopes of exacting a plea bargain, on the theory that, worst case, the jury will "split the baby in half" by convicting on a lesser charge, etc.

    The risk of overcharging is that you will confuse the jury. The prosecutors argue mainly for the top charge because they still hope that the jury will go for it, so they de-emphasize the other charges while nominally giving the jury the option in the instructions. Juries really suck at understanding complex jury instructions. Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    The fact that Steinle was apparently killed by a ricochet seems to obviate intentional murder. Not even devious Mexican banditos think that they can get you on a bank shot. Even "depraved heart" murder (you fire into a crowd with no particular target but knowing you are probably going to kill someone) sounded difficult to sustain because the bullet hit the concrete before bouncing, indicating that he was not really aiming into the crowd. The unfortunate truth is that the drug addled Mexican probably was playing with the gun that he stole and he accidentally hit the trigger and fired off a shot which bounced and killed that poor woman. This is still a crime (negligent homicide) and if the prosecutors had charged this and clearly argued it,they would have won, but instead they gambled and lost.

    Thanks Jack D, for high lighting my previous post about how no one reads anything and everyone thinks they are just the Biggest Brain here without needing to do anything but read a headline.

    The prosecutors presented multiple options to the jury, including manslaughter, but they said NOPE. Good job on the word vomit tho.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. In the incident that took the life of Kate Steinle, the pistol appears to have discharged three times and, even by account of the gunman, in rapid succession. How can that happen by accident, even when the pistol has a short, light trigger, without the gunman pulling the trigger?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. Neuday says:
    @Yan Shen

    Why didn’t the jury find that? I was on a jury in 2008 in a trial of an immigrant tax cheat, and about 9 of us 12 jurors were complete dimwits.
     
    The right to a jury of your peers seems like a pretty bad idea given that anyone can basically serve on a jury. There should be some cognitive filtering of the potential jury pool.

    The right to a jury of your peers seems like a pretty bad idea given that anyone can basically serve on a jury. There should be some cognitive filtering of the potential jury pool.

    Not cognitive filtering, but genetic filtering. The jury pool should be mainly comprised of distant relatives. People with roughly similar genetic backgrounds, using the same language, customs and beliefs, with similar histories. We could call it a “nation”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @PiltdownMan
    Redstate has an interesting analysis. I hope it's ok to cross post it here, Steve.

    https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

    The weapon was a Sig P239 which has no “safety” like a Colt 1911. It has a “decocking”lever on the left side. Operationally, it is no different from your standard .357Mag/.38 Spl. REVOLVER. You can safe it by putting your thumb between the hammer and firing pin and pressing the trigger. I disagree with the RS article in which they describe the Single Action 4.4 lb. trigger as “hair trigger.” It is heavier than a Colt Gold Cup ; my experience is with an older Sig P220 .45 and it would be extremely hard for this weapon to “accidentally discharge” if you keep your finger out of the trigger guard.

    So: either the weapon was pre-cocked when found or the guy deliberately pressed through the Double Action trigger. No way the weapon “just went off.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    This is what (((Rumpf))) and Cuckstate and the rest of the left would have us believe. He found the gun and it just accidentally went off because of its "hair pin" trigger, which wasn't the first explanation he offered to police. Also, read Rumpf smug reactions to people criticizing her article. She's an insufferable c-word.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Jack D
    It's pretty clear to me that the prosecutors overcharged Zarate. Prosecutors do this all the time for various reasons - to satisfy a public that is baying for blood, in the hopes of exacting a plea bargain, on the theory that, worst case, the jury will "split the baby in half" by convicting on a lesser charge, etc.

    The risk of overcharging is that you will confuse the jury. The prosecutors argue mainly for the top charge because they still hope that the jury will go for it, so they de-emphasize the other charges while nominally giving the jury the option in the instructions. Juries really suck at understanding complex jury instructions. Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    The fact that Steinle was apparently killed by a ricochet seems to obviate intentional murder. Not even devious Mexican banditos think that they can get you on a bank shot. Even "depraved heart" murder (you fire into a crowd with no particular target but knowing you are probably going to kill someone) sounded difficult to sustain because the bullet hit the concrete before bouncing, indicating that he was not really aiming into the crowd. The unfortunate truth is that the drug addled Mexican probably was playing with the gun that he stole and he accidentally hit the trigger and fired off a shot which bounced and killed that poor woman. This is still a crime (negligent homicide) and if the prosecutors had charged this and clearly argued it,they would have won, but instead they gambled and lost.

    No doubt the prosecution might have done a more effective job if they had focused like a laser on the involuntary manslaughter charge, which, given the ricochet, is the one that fits.

    But I can’t imagine that the proper ground wasn’t covered for the right decision to be made. The guy said in a police interview that he was shooting at a seal, and then that he stepped on the gun which was on the ground. How is him telling these stories consistent with the final story he told: that he found the gun under the bench (happens all the time!) covered with a cloth, and that when he removed the gun from the cloth, it went off (or fell and went off).

    Why would this guy make up not one, but two stories, when the supposedly true story was the most innocent of all? (He didn’t even know it was a gun, it was covered in cloth — magically, he wasn’t even guilty of being in possession of a gun if this story was true — isn’t it great that it would work out that way?).

    Anybody on the jury with a smidgen of common sense and skepticism would be thinking about these things — IF they had any desire to do so, instead of desperately finding a way to vindicate the guy.

    I also find it very hard to believe that the prosecution didn’t bring to light the inconsistencies in the stories, and the extraordinary convenience and implausibility of the final story. That would be something that would be important to establish no matter which charge they went after. Obviously, they had to rule out the magical gun story before they could go after any further charge.

    The prosecution might have been pretty bad, but I find it very hard to believe that they bear the real responsibility for the travesty.

    That lies in the jury itself, which obviously for its own reasons wanted to make sure the guy wasn’t seen as responsible for the death.

    And I would say that the fact that they did find him guilty of illegal possession gives away their game. If they believed the story of the magical gun and the magical cloth and the magical firing when dropped, why did they find him guilty of possession? It makes no sense. And if they find his story and him incredible, why should they believe anything else he says about how it all went down? No: they obviously wanted to find him guilty of a lesser charge so that they wouldn’t look less like the disgusting, perverted ideological and tribal hacks that they are.

    Somewhere upthread someone mentions that RedState had a take on this. They don’t consider any of this. They are idiots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Had he killed the seal the animal rights people would have made sure he was convicted and sentenced for curelty to animals.
    , @Joe Stalin
    "(or fell and went off)"

    The Sig P239 incorporates a firing pin block that blocks the firing pin from moving if the trigger has not depressed. This is to prevent the inertia of a falling weapon (and thus firing pin) causing the primer to be impacted and firing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Art Deco says:
    @Yan Shen
    I pointed out in a different thread that homicide rates for Eastern Europeans seem fairly high. Peak Russian homicide rates some number of years ago were basically in African American territory, although now it's dropped to something like 10 per 100,000 as opposed to 20-30 per 100,000 like it used to be. IIRC, Cosby's son was killed by an Eastern European immigrant.

    I think it's fair to say that in general African Americans today tend to excel at disorganized violence and brutality, judging by the absurdly high rates of crime in many inner city neighborhoods, while whites have historically tended to excel at organized violence and brutality. Even today, this manifests itself in how Italian or Russian mobsters seem to be very much in our national conscience for anyone who follows any kind of pop culture. This of course creates an awkward situation in which both whites and blacks tend to be wary of each other in contemporary America.

    For instance, someone like Ta Nehisi Coates will focus on the fact that for much of the past couple of centuries, violent and racist whites in this country basically uh brutalized black bodies. And similarly men like King Leopold II of Belgium brutalized black bodies in the Congo. The downside to this factually correct but perhaps excessively narrow focus on the past is that it ignores the fact that today in America there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence of overt discrimination against African Americans and in fact society bends over backwards to give blacks every benefit possible, i.e. affirmative action, fawning over men like Coates as if they were the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, etc. And so you have poor John Derbyshire lamenting endlessly over the obvious African American penchant for disorganized violence and both sides basically talking past one another.

    Russia has had elevated homicide rates. The other East European countries have had rates about normal for Europe. Russia’s have dropped by about 1/2 in the last 20 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D
    It's pretty clear to me that the prosecutors overcharged Zarate. Prosecutors do this all the time for various reasons - to satisfy a public that is baying for blood, in the hopes of exacting a plea bargain, on the theory that, worst case, the jury will "split the baby in half" by convicting on a lesser charge, etc.

    The risk of overcharging is that you will confuse the jury. The prosecutors argue mainly for the top charge because they still hope that the jury will go for it, so they de-emphasize the other charges while nominally giving the jury the option in the instructions. Juries really suck at understanding complex jury instructions. Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    The fact that Steinle was apparently killed by a ricochet seems to obviate intentional murder. Not even devious Mexican banditos think that they can get you on a bank shot. Even "depraved heart" murder (you fire into a crowd with no particular target but knowing you are probably going to kill someone) sounded difficult to sustain because the bullet hit the concrete before bouncing, indicating that he was not really aiming into the crowd. The unfortunate truth is that the drug addled Mexican probably was playing with the gun that he stole and he accidentally hit the trigger and fired off a shot which bounced and killed that poor woman. This is still a crime (negligent homicide) and if the prosecutors had charged this and clearly argued it,they would have won, but instead they gambled and lost.

    Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    You’ve spent how much time on juries instructed to consider lesser included offenses?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “A working society is an example of game theory writ large. … I’ve come to believe that Western societies became great based on the civic culture of Europeans. And yes, I believe a big chunk of that is intrinsic to European blood.”

    There’s an old line that probably goes back to the ancient Greeks, that with the right people, you can make any form of government/society work, while with the wrong people, no form of government/society will work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    There are laws and instructions for which this is true — Florida’s law regarding use of a gun in standing one’s ground might be one such.

    But who doesn’t understand the concept of involuntary manslaughter, especially as applied to a case like this? Almost certainly, a significant subset of the smarter jurors among the 12 would have already heard of the concept, and all but the dumbest among them would get the distinction between accidental and negligent death, once pointed out in the jury room if nowhere else.

    If the jury found this guy not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, it’s because they wanted to find him not guilty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Two things I was told by a former prosecutor. One, the most important factor in a jury trial is jury selection. Two, In some cases, the jury simply will not convict.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. kihowi says:
    @Thomm
    It was definitely manslaughter. He also was deported so many times that his presence itself is evidence of America's total failure.

    However, it is not a race issue.

    Bill Cosby's son was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Russia. So the murder was white (and illegal) while the victim was black and had no criminal record (and was rich, not poor). WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage (just like BLM is).

    For someone who is Very Intelligent you certainly love repeating the same phrases over and over again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    That is because a White Trashionalist like you has a negro IQ, and needs a lot of repetition to get it.

    The fact that this evades you is proof of your low intelligence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Bill says:
    @Prof. Woland
    About 15 years ago I served on a jury for a drunk driving trial with Glynn Custred. He ended up being the jury foreman and was a very fair guy by all accounts. We ended up convicting her on hit and run instead of DUI because she managed to drive home with her kid in the car a couple of blocks away from the accident and then claimed that she got drunk after she got home. It was an obvious lie but nobody could prove she was intoxicated when she smashed into the other car. It was very heart breaking because everybody knew that she would do it again but there was nothing else we could do.

    You apply a much higher standard of proof than I would in that situation. I would have had no problem voting guilty for DUI. Did the prosecutor not urge you to infer from the fact that she fled that she was hiding her intoxication?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    Her defense attorney, a young inexperienced but smart woman, did a good enough job explaining the story I mentioned replete with admitting her client was an alcoholic. The problem was that because she never got out of the car and instead sped off two blocks away no one actually saw whether she was intoxicated at the time of the accident. She locked herself in her house and it took the cops 30 minutes to pull her out. she was obviously drunk when they got her out of there but there was literally no way to prove that her story was false. We ended up nailing her on hit and run. This was part of her legal strategy and admitted to the HAR to avoid the DUI. She had her kid in the car and we all assumed that she would lose custody if convicted of DUI. Somehow ( I cannot remember) we assumed she had other alcohol related issues but we felt obligated to follow the letter of the law. None of us felt good about the verdict because we knew the child would be in danger but that he is in God's hands.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Sean says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Just about every killer ever arrested and tried has attempted to put forward a "the gun just went off by itself" defense at some point in the process. If we start accepting that, we'll never get a conviction again.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @candid_observer
    Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    There are laws and instructions for which this is true -- Florida's law regarding use of a gun in standing one's ground might be one such.

    But who doesn't understand the concept of involuntary manslaughter, especially as applied to a case like this? Almost certainly, a significant subset of the smarter jurors among the 12 would have already heard of the concept, and all but the dumbest among them would get the distinction between accidental and negligent death, once pointed out in the jury room if nowhere else.

    If the jury found this guy not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, it's because they wanted to find him not guilty.

    Two things I was told by a former prosecutor. One, the most important factor in a jury trial is jury selection. Two, In some cases, the jury simply will not convict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carbon blob
    This was Marcia Clark's former boss's assessment of the OJ criminal trial -- he basically said she'd screwed the pooch with poor jury selection before the trial even started.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Alden says:
    @guest
    "there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger"

    What was the gun doing out, safety off, loaded and ready to fire, with his finger near the trigger? Don't they have reckless endangerment laws? Doesn't causing death through reckless endangerment amount to manslaughter?

    Unless it was a case of Spontaneous Accidental Discharge after they gun floated, Disney-like, out of his pocket to go on an adventure.

    Not everyone who has a gun in his or her hand knows how to handle it. Some gun owners who think they know how to handle a gun kill or injure themselves or others. Most of the gun owners I know are preoccupied with all the safety precautions and careful handling. Defendant claimed he found it and was messing around with it. Maybe he was. Maybe he wanted to shoot someone. Who knows?

    But there was no evidence presented that he knew how to handle a gun. An illegal alien in San Francisco purposely shot the father and 2 sons of the Bologna family in an intersection. The illegal was outraged because the father made a legal left turn thus forcing the illegal to wait a couple minutes.

    As per usual, the illegal alien felon was released from SF city jail despite an immigration hold a few days before he murdered the Bolognas. Mrs. Bologna, the only family member left alive sued the city & county for violating the federal immigration hold and letting the illegal felon out.

    The judge of course dismissed her case at the first hearing. Dismissing the case violates all the legal precedents and laws about liability, negligence, affirmative negligence and causation for 2 thousand years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Ivy says:
    @syonredux
    Speaking of degeneracy....

    Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay, says minister
    Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth says C of E will be forced to support same-sex marriage if the ‘Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman’

     

    Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay to force support for same-sex marriage in the Church of England, a senior Scottish Episcopal church minister and LGBTQ campaigner has said.

    The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, made the comments in a blog he reposted about LGBTQ inclusion in the Church of England following the announcement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s engagement.

    In the post, he writes that Christians should pray “for the Lord to bless Prince George with a love, when he grows up, of a fine young gentleman”.
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/01/christians-should-pray-from-prince-george-to-be-gay-says-c-of-e-minister

    Holdsworth takes C of E parishioner recruiting to a new low. Who will be the Defender of the Faith, or will it be Faith(s), next?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Pluto says:

    First, I love reading Steve Sailer. He’s entertaining. But he’s a fake, and this Steinle murder he’s helping promote is also a fake. Nobody died. It’s just a psyop.
    How do I know he’s a fake?
    1. He pushes Richard Spencer, who’s been outed. (http://mileswmathis.com/spence.pdf)
    2. He’s said his wife’s uncle was a high ranking intelligence official. These intel jobs are only for family, just like in North Korea.
    3. In one blog, he said he couldn’t find an image of a couple which wasn’t a pasteup. So he knows what that is. Yet he pushed the Tiger Woods/Seals story, which came with photos which were the poorest fakes I’ve ever seen. No one who knows what pasteup means would fail to recognize that all the Tiger Woods + Navy Seals photos were fake.
    Sailer is a very high level agent. He’s a deep-cover traitor to whites. Belay that, he’s almost certainly a crypto-jew, so nothing to betray. Anyway, don’t get worked up over fake victim Kate Steinle. Just my two cents, do your own thinking and study.

    Read More
    • Troll: BB753
    • Replies: @Alden
    Thanks for the information. I had no idea Tiger Woods is a navy seal.
    , @Faraday's Bobcat
    This reads like a bunch of posts I saw on Zero Hedge today. Over-the-top conspiracy crap intended to discredit the rest of the commenters, and the blog in general, by association. Zero Hedge's real commenters are a little wackier than iSteve's, but the conspiracy comments today were numerous and obvious.
    , @Mr. Anon
    I don't know if you are stupid or crazy. Nor do I care. What you clearly are is ridiculously wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Sean says:
    @Jack D
    It's pretty clear to me that the prosecutors overcharged Zarate. Prosecutors do this all the time for various reasons - to satisfy a public that is baying for blood, in the hopes of exacting a plea bargain, on the theory that, worst case, the jury will "split the baby in half" by convicting on a lesser charge, etc.

    The risk of overcharging is that you will confuse the jury. The prosecutors argue mainly for the top charge because they still hope that the jury will go for it, so they de-emphasize the other charges while nominally giving the jury the option in the instructions. Juries really suck at understanding complex jury instructions. Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    The fact that Steinle was apparently killed by a ricochet seems to obviate intentional murder. Not even devious Mexican banditos think that they can get you on a bank shot. Even "depraved heart" murder (you fire into a crowd with no particular target but knowing you are probably going to kill someone) sounded difficult to sustain because the bullet hit the concrete before bouncing, indicating that he was not really aiming into the crowd. The unfortunate truth is that the drug addled Mexican probably was playing with the gun that he stole and he accidentally hit the trigger and fired off a shot which bounced and killed that poor woman. This is still a crime (negligent homicide) and if the prosecutors had charged this and clearly argued it,they would have won, but instead they gambled and lost.

    He was sitting there for 20 minutes twirling the gun around before Steinle walked past, she was quite striking as photos show. I said this two years ago and I got called a nut, but the most likely explanation is he saw a beautiful young woman and tried to terrify her by ricocheting a bullet past her. It was an intentional act, just like his immediate dumping of the gun into the sea and leaving the scene.

    Murder is far from restricted to obvious motive and direct aim of killing a targeted person , it covers knowingly doing something that may result in severe injury,eg letting a bomb off in a public place, and what Zarate did fell into that category. She walked right past him moments before the gum went off, and if you think it was a freak accident you are very naive about human nature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Your theory I would rate as "somewhat plausible" but the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Absent a confession or other evidence (e.g. a witness saying that they clearly saw him taking careful aim) I don't see how your theory could be proved.

    What you are referring to is called "depraved heart" murder - if he had aimed other than at the ground that might be plausible, but he didn't.

    The prosecutor might have tried other theories, such as "felony murder" - while in the course of committing a felony, someone dies, but they didn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @guest
    In defense of the Casey Anthony prosecution, they didn't have a great case. Slim evidence, and the mother perjured herself to cover for her daughter. The big red flag was the defendant not reporting the kid missing for however long, but that's not what she was on trial for and wasn't itself evidence of murder. Though it was highly suggestive. (That, along with the pictures of her partying, is what made it a national news sensation.)

    True.

    One of the more egregious child-murder cases I’ve read about was that of Pauline Zile, who not only a) stood by and watched without protest as her husband John murdered her daughter (by another man) Christina Holt and b) actively covered up the murder for over a month, but c) went on television and tearfully claimed that her daughter had been kidnapped at a Fort Lauderdale flea market:

    http://murderpedia.org/female.Z/z/zile-pauline.htm

    (For a number of weeks, the child’s decomposing body was hidden in a closet in their apartment. They burned incense to cover up of the smell.)

    In a morbid twist, Zile was making her pleas on TV screens in South Florida the very same week that Susan Smith was begging for help to find her two “kidnapped” little boys in Union, South Carolina.

    Lizzie Borden got off scot-free, as well.

    The other day, I watched the 1975 TV movie starring Elizabeth Montgomery (of Bewitched fame) as axe-wieldin’ Lizzie. It’s not bad, for what it is:

    Last night I was reading about one of the more notorious crimes in the history of Miami – the 1964 murder of Jacques Mossler, a wealthy banker. It turned out that Mossler’s estranged wife Candy, an ex-model, was having an incestuous affair with her strapping young nephew (her sister’s son). The two were eventually charged with murder and put on trial. The dead man’s diary, in which he documented his rage over the tryst, was a key piece of circumstantial evidence. But the jury voted to acquit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Mossler

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    Come on man the best Miami murders were in 98 when John Mese and the boys at Sun Gym were putting old Hungarians in 55 gallon drums. He was my accountant at the time and I wondered why I never got my tax returns filed on time that year. Not many people get to use the excuse I used with the IRS that time. He really was a great guy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. MB says: • Website
    @Whiskey
    The whole point is that it is NOT OK to be White. In fact its NEVER OK. Certain people have more rights than others, that was the whole point of the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr. That Blacks were the natural rulers of White people, as being morally and spiritually superior. As well as being more emotional, "open," and spontaneous. The media certainly helped by putting a blanket over anything negative associated with either King or Blacks in general. As they did with Kennedy's bimbos and Bill Clinton's years later.

    The Jury voted in the most natural way possible. The victim, Katie Steinle, being White had no rights and did not count as person. She did not count even as a stray animal. The perp, being an illegal alien, could only be more holy and special and due special rights if he had been a gay Black Muslim.

    The Justice system EXISTS to punish White people for being White, since it is NEVER OK TO BE WHITE. NOT EVER. And exalt non Whites as the natural and eternal rulers over Whites. That is the whole purpose of the law and has been its purpose since about 1925 or so.

    No one should have any illusions this will change for the better, only worse. Its not as if White women will suddenly get a hankering for more beta male Whiteness. Or non-Whites will start fearing Whites.

    You have a right to be white.
    Dead right.
    Because anything else is just wrong plain old discrimination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. RonaldB says:
    @Moses

    I’m finally coming around to your cynical perspective about us prosocial citizens who take civic responsibilities seriously, whether playing fair, paying taxes or serving on juries… We’re the real dummies… the chumps….
     
    A working society is an example of game theory writ large. If everyone (or nearly everyone) takes civic responsibilities seriously (honesty, paying taxes owed, playing fair, serving on juries and doing your best, playing by the golden rule) then the society works well. Everyone benefits.

    Such a society can tolerate a few bad free riders/bad actors. But when the % of free riders/bad actors reaches a certain point everything tips. The optimal strategy in a society like that is NOT to be honest and to cheat like hell on taxes etc because everyone else is doing it.

    Has America reached that point? Maybe not yet, but we're heading there.

    I've lived in several countries abroad, including 3rd world. Concepts like individual rights, rule of law, blind justice, trial by jury are concepts people in many (not all) non-western societies find inscrutable. Just totally outside their reality like a rainbow is to a blind man. When they immigrate to a western country they do understand how to take advantage of these ideas. But the idea that they have a reciprocal civic responsibility does not register at all. The lens through which they view the world is tribal. They view us as complete and total suckers, "wow these idiots are just giving me free stuff and letting me get away with murder! What morons!" They do not like us, nor do they respect us (see: Muslims in Europe). How could they given their worldview?

    I've come to believe that Western societies became great based on the civic culture of Europeans. And yes, I believe a big chunk of that is intrinsic to European blood.

    Flooding Western countries with people who are all take and no give (re: civic responsibility) and fundamentally incompatible with how our societies work will not end well. I think the idea that different groups really ARE different in how they think and behave will seep into the Overton window over time. I hope it's soon enough to right the ship. I doubt it.

    I remember reading in a sociology text that in China, they used to have hauling teams whose bonuses depended on timely delivery. The team all voluntarily chipped in to hire a whipper, a person who would whip anyone not pulling his weight. So, each hauler was paying for someone who could very well whip him.

    The point of the anecdote is that even in a group where everyone knows the benefits of being productive, it is necessary to have an enforcement mechanism which works against the slackers. Otherwise, there is a tangible reward for slacking.

    Europeans probably developed such effective mechanisms that there was selection in favor of those who worked to be productive; but, slackers were still not rewarded.

    Without the welfare state, and with a small number of immigrants, productivity and even honest dealings could be enforced. But, if you overwhelm the enforcement structure, naturally the slackers will drive out those putting effort into being productive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Alden says:
    @Malcolm X-Lax
    Not sure what you mean by "WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage".

    A. I couldn't care less if they shoot the guy who killed Cosby's son. B. From what I recall, and from what I've been able to google, Cosby's murderer wasn't here illegally.

    Do you have information to the contrary? Also, why do you use the term "WN wiggers" in every one of your posts? I can kind of see what you're going for here for but it's not very effective rhetoric. Unless your goal is to get people to go, "huh?"

    Cosby’s murderer was a legal immigrant with full green card lawful residence status. Like so many of the Russian immigrants in Los Angeles he was a criminal who got into this country pretending to be a Jew, just as the Chinese get into this country by pretending to be Catholic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. CJ says:
    @jim jones
    Luckily China is developing an Anti-Gay Spray:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-01/chinese-researchers-experiment-anti-gay-spray

    Spray the gay away!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Alden says:
    @Malcolm X-Lax
    Not sure what you mean by "WN wiggers don't care about that, since WN wiggers are very selective about their outrage".

    A. I couldn't care less if they shoot the guy who killed Cosby's son. B. From what I recall, and from what I've been able to google, Cosby's murderer wasn't here illegally.

    Do you have information to the contrary? Also, why do you use the term "WN wiggers" in every one of your posts? I can kind of see what you're going for here for but it's not very effective rhetoric. Unless your goal is to get people to go, "huh?"

    I’m pretty sure Thomm is an economics 101 idiot who thinks Whites with our labor unions, minimum wages, labor safety laws etc are a total obstacle to the triumph of pure capitalism and slave labor ala the Roman Empire.

    So he wants us gone. Problem is, if pure capitalism every arrives, people like Thomm will be lucky to be slaves instead of homeless beggars with the welfare system gone.

    Careful what you wish for Thomm, when the rapturous day of pure capitalism comes, you might be done there with all the docile brown slaves., or dead

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Buzz Mohawk
    He was a felon handling a stolen gun when that gun went off and killed somebody. That could be listed in Wester's Dictionary as an example of involuntary manslaughter.

    It doesn't matter if he was kissing it, calling it honey, and jerking his dick. He caused someone's death by firearm while illegally handling the firearm.

    Reasonable doubt about whether or not he deliberately pulled the trigger doesn't matter in this case. The jury's conclusion that he was illegally handling a firearm makes it a logical necessity that his illegal act also caused the death. They convicted him of involuntary manslaughter without even realizing it.

    Other than that, our jury system worked perfectly, because your comment makes it clear that even a very intelligent man can get this wrong.

    In a civil matter, any remotely competent judge would enter a judgement notwithstanding the verdict,* (“JNOV”), but it is not permitted in criminal cases for obvious reasons.

    *This practice, for any who may not know, is permitted in cases where in is effectively impossible to have reached the jury’s verdict on any interpretation of the evidence whatsoever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Alden says:
    @candid_observer
    No doubt the prosecution might have done a more effective job if they had focused like a laser on the involuntary manslaughter charge, which, given the ricochet, is the one that fits.

    But I can't imagine that the proper ground wasn't covered for the right decision to be made. The guy said in a police interview that he was shooting at a seal, and then that he stepped on the gun which was on the ground. How is him telling these stories consistent with the final story he told: that he found the gun under the bench (happens all the time!) covered with a cloth, and that when he removed the gun from the cloth, it went off (or fell and went off).

    Why would this guy make up not one, but two stories, when the supposedly true story was the most innocent of all? (He didn't even know it was a gun, it was covered in cloth -- magically, he wasn't even guilty of being in possession of a gun if this story was true -- isn't it great that it would work out that way?).

    Anybody on the jury with a smidgen of common sense and skepticism would be thinking about these things -- IF they had any desire to do so, instead of desperately finding a way to vindicate the guy.

    I also find it very hard to believe that the prosecution didn't bring to light the inconsistencies in the stories, and the extraordinary convenience and implausibility of the final story. That would be something that would be important to establish no matter which charge they went after. Obviously, they had to rule out the magical gun story before they could go after any further charge.

    The prosecution might have been pretty bad, but I find it very hard to believe that they bear the real responsibility for the travesty.

    That lies in the jury itself, which obviously for its own reasons wanted to make sure the guy wasn't seen as responsible for the death.

    And I would say that the fact that they did find him guilty of illegal possession gives away their game. If they believed the story of the magical gun and the magical cloth and the magical firing when dropped, why did they find him guilty of possession? It makes no sense. And if they find his story and him incredible, why should they believe anything else he says about how it all went down? No: they obviously wanted to find him guilty of a lesser charge so that they wouldn't look less like the disgusting, perverted ideological and tribal hacks that they are.

    Somewhere upthread someone mentions that RedState had a take on this. They don't consider any of this. They are idiots.

    Had he killed the seal the animal rights people would have made sure he was convicted and sentenced for curelty to animals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I been crying like a woman.
    Because I'm mad, mad, mad like a man.
    If you'd been in the s.s. in '43.
    You'd've been kicked out for cruelty
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEgSuAjs4go



    Remember, even the Nazis were against animal cruelty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Andre says:
    @Anon
    It’s bad enough that you Nazis work to delegitimize elections but must you take jury trials too? You want a dictatorship of white patriarchs with no protections in law for anyone else, and the right to kill all of your political opponents. I take some satisfaction in knowing that you will be just as miserable in the polluted plutocracy Trump intends to create as the rest of us, but your whining will be unbearable.

    Lol, unhinged GoodWhite is unhinged!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Alden says:
    @Yan Shen
    I pointed out in a different thread that homicide rates for Eastern Europeans seem fairly high. Peak Russian homicide rates some number of years ago were basically in African American territory, although now it's dropped to something like 10 per 100,000 as opposed to 20-30 per 100,000 like it used to be. IIRC, Cosby's son was killed by an Eastern European immigrant.

    I think it's fair to say that in general African Americans today tend to excel at disorganized violence and brutality, judging by the absurdly high rates of crime in many inner city neighborhoods, while whites have historically tended to excel at organized violence and brutality. Even today, this manifests itself in how Italian or Russian mobsters seem to be very much in our national conscience for anyone who follows any kind of pop culture. This of course creates an awkward situation in which both whites and blacks tend to be wary of each other in contemporary America.

    For instance, someone like Ta Nehisi Coates will focus on the fact that for much of the past couple of centuries, violent and racist whites in this country basically uh brutalized black bodies. And similarly men like King Leopold II of Belgium brutalized black bodies in the Congo. The downside to this factually correct but perhaps excessively narrow focus on the past is that it ignores the fact that today in America there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence of overt discrimination against African Americans and in fact society bends over backwards to give blacks every benefit possible, i.e. affirmative action, fawning over men like Coates as if they were the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, etc. And so you have poor John Derbyshire lamenting endlessly over the obvious African American penchant for disorganized violence and both sides basically talking past one another.

    ” men like King Leopold 11 of Belgium brutalized black bodies in the Congo. ”

    I don’t want to start an argument, but the cruel King of Belgium and the Congo was the same type of myth and propaganda the British created about the Germans in WWs 1 and 2. The British and French happily divided up Africa. Adn then the evil Boers rebelled against the British and the Belgiums had the audacity to invade and take over a part of Africa that the british wanted..

    The British are masters of propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @David In TN
    Two things I was told by a former prosecutor. One, the most important factor in a jury trial is jury selection. Two, In some cases, the jury simply will not convict.

    This was Marcia Clark’s former boss’s assessment of the OJ criminal trial — he basically said she’d screwed the pooch with poor jury selection before the trial even started.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Clark's boss, Garcetti, was the person who made it impossible to convict OJ.

    He was the person who insisted the trial be moved from the Santa Monica courthouse in whose jurisdiction the murder occurred, to a court house in the blackest section of the city. I always thought the black politicians informed the Mayor and business leaders that they would repeat the Rodney King riots if OJ were not acquitted.

    In a county that was only 10 percent black, it takes a lot of manipulation to get a jury that was mostly black.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Jack D says:
    @Sean
    He was sitting there for 20 minutes twirling the gun around before Steinle walked past, she was quite striking as photos show. I said this two years ago and I got called a nut, but the most likely explanation is he saw a beautiful young woman and tried to terrify her by ricocheting a bullet past her. It was an intentional act, just like his immediate dumping of the gun into the sea and leaving the scene.

    Murder is far from restricted to obvious motive and direct aim of killing a targeted person , it covers knowingly doing something that may result in severe injury,eg letting a bomb off in a public place, and what Zarate did fell into that category. She walked right past him moments before the gum went off, and if you think it was a freak accident you are very naive about human nature.

    Your theory I would rate as “somewhat plausible” but the standard for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Absent a confession or other evidence (e.g. a witness saying that they clearly saw him taking careful aim) I don’t see how your theory could be proved.

    What you are referring to is called “depraved heart” murder – if he had aimed other than at the ground that might be plausible, but he didn’t.

    The prosecutor might have tried other theories, such as “felony murder” – while in the course of committing a felony, someone dies, but they didn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Proved "beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean there is no chance of a mistake. The charge of murder would not have been allowed by the legal system if there had not been, at first blush, sufficient evidence for a conviction. Moreover, if the jury had found him guilty of murder, he would not have been able to argue at an appeal that the conviction was unsafe because there was insufficient evidence for a conviction on that charge..

    Felony murder is a good trick for convicting defendants of murder when they are pleading diminished responsibility.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Mr. Risk says:
    @TWS
    Damn it tiny duck stop switching names.

    Got a good chuckle. Yeah, where is tiny duck these days?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Thomm says:
    @bomag
    I'm not sure your point here. The only people advocating the forgiveness of racially motivated killing seems to be the Left.

    Cosby's son's murder was an utter tragedy. No one disputes this.

    But at least the killer was convicted, is in prison, and has shown remorse.

    I’m not sure your point here. The only people advocating the forgiveness of racially motivated killing seems to be the Left.

    I see plenty of ‘white nationalists’ that praise Anders Breivik, and openly say that we need more like him.

    You are not in this group, of course. But I am sure you know they exist (even here on Unz.com).

    That is why I say that the bottom 10% of whites (the pool that WN draws from), has more in common with BLM blacks than with everyday white people. They know this, which is why they are frustrated with how little traction they get with mainstream whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Are you telling me that William Pierce, Revilo P. Oliver, even George Lincoln Rockwell were individuals of low intelligence?

    I've met a few stupid WNs, but generally they are at least somewhat above average.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Thomm says:
    @kihowi
    For someone who is Very Intelligent you certainly love repeating the same phrases over and over again.

    That is because a White Trashionalist like you has a negro IQ, and needs a lot of repetition to get it.

    The fact that this evades you is proof of your low intelligence.

    Read More
    • Troll: clyde
    • Replies: @kihowi
    You you didn't call me a wigger. Do you catch phrase!
    , @Moses
    Resorting to personal insults is childish and weakens your credibility.
    , @Mr. Anon
    You have offered no evidence here that you are particularly smart. Actually, you come across as rather stupid. You obviously impress yourself, but that is obviously an easy audience to please. If you want people to believe that you are as smart as you style yourself, you'll need to try harder, clown.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. athEIst says:
    @anonymous
    This story is a couple of years old, but relevant for this post. An illegal alien from Mexico accidentally ran over two young girls in Portland, OR and they later died. The illegal did not realize she had hit anyone. Her conviction was recently overturned.

    Authorities arrested Garcia-Cisneros for her involvement in the reported hit-and-run, and a 2014 jury trial landed her a conviction for failing to perform the duties of a driver.

    A judge sentenced her to three years of probation and 250 hours of community service, and as an undocumented immigrant, she risked deportation. Officials turned her over the federal immigration enforcement, but the deportation case was eventually dismissed.

    ...

    The appeals court ruled in Garcia-Cisneros' favor on this matter, arguing the law doesn't require the driver to go back if they didn't know they were involved until after they left the scene.
     
    So her conviction for running over the kids was not only overturned, BUT HER DEPORTATION CASE WAS DROPPED TOO.

    How can she not be deported?

    Can probably apply for welfare(if not already receiving it).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. kihowi says:
    @Thomm
    That is because a White Trashionalist like you has a negro IQ, and needs a lot of repetition to get it.

    The fact that this evades you is proof of your low intelligence.

    You you didn’t call me a wigger. Do you catch phrase!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Hibernian says:
    @Tulip
    Not to defend the jury verdict, but it appears that they had the facts to get an involuntary conviction, and instead tried to push two other theories for which they had no facts.

    Even worse, then they gave the jury three options to choose.

    They no doubt lost credibility with the jury trying to argue to convict him on charges on which they lacked evidence, and perhaps, created the impression that they were simply trying to torpedo the defendant perhaps based on other characteristics (say his legal status). If this is so, they may have lost the trust of the jury completely, and the verdict makes sense.

    I suspect it is much easier if you start with one theory, say involuntary manslaughter, which is consistent with the facts, and then you tell them this is involuntary manslaughter, and here are the facts why this is involuntary manslaughter, and now return of verdict of guilty. You retain credibility and you tell the jury what to do.

    Jurors want to do Justice, they don't want to answer a multiple choice test. "Doing Justice" generally involves someone doing something out of a sense of cognitive certainty, e.g. this is the one and only thing I can do, ergo I am doing what is right.

    If a prospective juror can’t understand the concept of a lesser included they’re not bright enough for jury service. If they rebel against it that’s a form of jury nullification.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tulip
    I think there is plenty of literature suggesting jury instructions don't matter and don't influence juror behavior. [For example, no evidence different definitions of "legal insanity" matter in terms of jury verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity.]

    I have to say "So what if it doesn't conform to what they told you in your high school civics class?" Does anything in our government actually work the way they told you it did? If I remember, the "People" are above the President on the organizational chart last time I checked, and there is no box for "lobbyist".

    The reasons for having a jury system have nothing to do with jurors ability to comprehend and apply complex legal instructions (rather than sleeping through the jury instructions). Would you prefer a continental-style inquisitional system? Much more political and bureaucratic, and no thanks, I'd rather contend with the occasional stupid verdict. Nothing wrong with juror nullification either, as far as I'm concerned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @guest
    "there was reasonable doubt as to whether he deliberately pulled the trigger"

    What was the gun doing out, safety off, loaded and ready to fire, with his finger near the trigger? Don't they have reckless endangerment laws? Doesn't causing death through reckless endangerment amount to manslaughter?

    Unless it was a case of Spontaneous Accidental Discharge after they gun floated, Disney-like, out of his pocket to go on an adventure.

    This just almost certainly included no one with even a rudimentary understanding of firearms – how they operate, their proper use, etc. The prosecutor failed spectacularly, first by empaneling these fools and secondly by not remedying this ignorance during the trial.

    To be fair, it may well be mathematically impossible to locate twelve residents of San Francisco who know their asses from their elbows vis-a-vis firearms, and it may further be impossible to find twelve remotely educable persons in that Hellhole. Even if those things were miraculously achieved, it remains a struggle to overcome their impetus for a kind of reverse jury nullification for their pet mestizoid murderer.

    What was the prosecutor’s last name again, anyway? Ah, yes: Gonzalez….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I am so outraged I forgot to make my own intended point – this outrageous verdict, for the reasons I explained, represents a new angle to the dangers of a disarmed populace with no rights to firearms: the ignorance it engenders ensures incompetent juries in cases like these, including any involving firearms allegedly misused by police, thus causing problems for a pet cause of even the political left....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Hibernian says:
    @anonymous
    iSteve, your comment about jurors sounds about right. Ideally, biases are supposed to be flushed out during the voir dire process but there is no way of knowing for sure whether a potential juror is being truthful, shading the truth or lying outright.

    A case in the news in Chicago, a gang conspiracy case, included fireworks when 5 jurors were booted after deliberations had begun. One was a white juror accused of racism by the forewoman, who then got herself and one other juror dismissed by arguing with the judge about the jury instructions. (They believed the instructions were biased, probably in favor of the state.) One was medical; I forget the reason for the fifth.

    The judge had apparently anticipated something like this happening and had impaneled an unusually large number of alternates; otherwise there would have been a mistrial. The news report that I read, in a normally reliably left wing paper, said that the defendants were visibly pleased. Nonetheless, the defense lawyer pointed out that the judge had dismissed four black jurors, to which the judge replied that his decisions had nothing to do with race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Hibernian says:
    @Chris Mallory
    This guy is a prosecutor, from California I think. He explains the law of the case, the whole article is worth reading:

    http://patterico.com/2017/12/01/lawsplainer-the-california-homicide-statutes-relevant-to-the-steinle-murder-case/

    "Probably the first thing to explain here is that this was not a “felony murder” case. The term “felony murder” does not mean “any killing that occurs when the defendant is committing any felony.” So the fact that Zarate was committing the crime of “felon in possession of a firearm” does not make this homicide a murder, simply because it occurred in the course of that felony.

    I could spend a lot of time explaining the ins and outs of felony murder, but that would be pointless because, again, this is not a felony murder case. Plus, felony murder law is very complicated, with a lot of subtleties and rules. All you need to know is that it has nothing to do with this case.

    I see some people complaining about prosecutors “charging first-degree murder” in the Zarate case. In California, prosecutors don’t “charge” first-degree or second-degree murder. The charging document reads simply “murder.” The judge will instruct on first-degree and/or second-degree murder and/or lesser included offenses of manslaughter, based on the evidence presented in the case, and how that evidence fits the law. None of these lesser included offenses have to be charged for the jury to consider them.

    When I try a murder case (and I have tried about thirty-five of them), with rare exceptions (like a felony-murder case, which this is not; see above) I typically start by explaining what second-degree murder is. Murder does not necessarily require an intent to kill. It is an unlawful killing of a human being with “malice aforethought.” This state of mind could be intent to kill, but it could also be intentionally committing an act, the natural and probable consequence of which is dangerous to human life, with knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and with conscious disregard for human life."

    Really reassuring that a guy with your biases is a decision maker in the justice system. I guess criminals whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower will get fair treatment from you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Jamestown beats the Mayflower everyday of the week.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Alden says:
    @Carbon blob
    This was Marcia Clark's former boss's assessment of the OJ criminal trial -- he basically said she'd screwed the pooch with poor jury selection before the trial even started.

    Clark’s boss, Garcetti, was the person who made it impossible to convict OJ.

    He was the person who insisted the trial be moved from the Santa Monica courthouse in whose jurisdiction the murder occurred, to a court house in the blackest section of the city. I always thought the black politicians informed the Mayor and business leaders that they would repeat the Rodney King riots if OJ were not acquitted.

    In a county that was only 10 percent black, it takes a lot of manipulation to get a jury that was mostly black.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If they did that, which I don't know they did, the correct response would have been what the Germans allegedly did to Baader Meinhof. If of course they did, which we don't know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Alden says:
    @Pluto
    First, I love reading Steve Sailer. He's entertaining. But he's a fake, and this Steinle murder he's helping promote is also a fake. Nobody died. It's just a psyop.
    How do I know he's a fake?
    1. He pushes Richard Spencer, who's been outed. (http://mileswmathis.com/spence.pdf)
    2. He's said his wife's uncle was a high ranking intelligence official. These intel jobs are only for family, just like in North Korea.
    3. In one blog, he said he couldn't find an image of a couple which wasn't a pasteup. So he knows what that is. Yet he pushed the Tiger Woods/Seals story, which came with photos which were the poorest fakes I've ever seen. No one who knows what pasteup means would fail to recognize that all the Tiger Woods + Navy Seals photos were fake.
    Sailer is a very high level agent. He's a deep-cover traitor to whites. Belay that, he's almost certainly a crypto-jew, so nothing to betray. Anyway, don't get worked up over fake victim Kate Steinle. Just my two cents, do your own thinking and study.

    Thanks for the information. I had no idea Tiger Woods is a navy seal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Autochthon
    This just almost certainly included no one with even a rudimentary understanding of firearms – how they operate, their proper use, etc. The prosecutor failed spectacularly, first by empaneling these fools and secondly by not remedying this ignorance during the trial.

    To be fair, it may well be mathematically impossible to locate twelve residents of San Francisco who know their asses from their elbows vis-a-vis firearms, and it may further be impossible to find twelve remotely educable persons in that Hellhole. Even if those things were miraculously achieved, it remains a struggle to overcome their impetus for a kind of reverse jury nullification for their pet mestizoid murderer.

    What was the prosecutor's last name again, anyway? Ah, yes: Gonzalez....

    I am so outraged I forgot to make my own intended point – this outrageous verdict, for the reasons I explained, represents a new angle to the dangers of a disarmed populace with no rights to firearms: the ignorance it engenders ensures incompetent juries in cases like these, including any involving firearms allegedly misused by police, thus causing problems for a pet cause of even the political left….

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I don't understand why even a rudimentary knowledge of firearms is necessary to understand that if you discharge a firearm in a public place and it kills someone, you're responsible. Whether it has a hair trigger or you need both arms and your full strength to squeeze a round off.

    It's not even comparable to alleged runaway acceleration with cars, for instance. Which to my knowledge is probably caused by people mistakenly hitting the gas. Jurors could be bamboozled by automotive jargon. But I don't see how you swallow the same argument with guns.

    Driving your car around is a perfectly normal, innocent thing. Brandishing a pistol in public is something else. You should be cognizant that it could go off (when you pull the trigger), and therefore don't do it unless you're confident you know what you're doing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Bill
    You apply a much higher standard of proof than I would in that situation. I would have had no problem voting guilty for DUI. Did the prosecutor not urge you to infer from the fact that she fled that she was hiding her intoxication?

    Her defense attorney, a young inexperienced but smart woman, did a good enough job explaining the story I mentioned replete with admitting her client was an alcoholic. The problem was that because she never got out of the car and instead sped off two blocks away no one actually saw whether she was intoxicated at the time of the accident. She locked herself in her house and it took the cops 30 minutes to pull her out. she was obviously drunk when they got her out of there but there was literally no way to prove that her story was false. We ended up nailing her on hit and run. This was part of her legal strategy and admitted to the HAR to avoid the DUI. She had her kid in the car and we all assumed that she would lose custody if convicted of DUI. Somehow ( I cannot remember) we assumed she had other alcohol related issues but we felt obligated to follow the letter of the law. None of us felt good about the verdict because we knew the child would be in danger but that he is in God’s hands.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @notice
    ......was impanelled for jury duty myself. It became obvious to me through the voire dire process both lawyers wanted jurors they thought they could sway with their rhetoric. Those with thoughtful, well reasoned, well elucidated remarks got struck, while the slower-witted hick-types remained. It was a he-said/ she-said improper touching case involving a rich-billboard-around-town insurance agent, a resentful ex-wife and her (not his) 13 year old daughter claiming "he touched me" (through-my-clothes) in a moment in her bedroom at a birthday party with a house full of guests. I was glad to get struck because their was no way to tell if resentful -mamma put the kid up to it or not. No evidence to or fro. I'd hate for a guilty pervert to get away with it, and I'd hate for an innocent fella to get blamed for it. Believing in God, and ultimate rights and wrongs is a chore sometimes.

    Umm, of course the ex-wife put her daughter up to it. That’s the oldest trick in the book.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. guest says:
    @Autochthon
    I am so outraged I forgot to make my own intended point – this outrageous verdict, for the reasons I explained, represents a new angle to the dangers of a disarmed populace with no rights to firearms: the ignorance it engenders ensures incompetent juries in cases like these, including any involving firearms allegedly misused by police, thus causing problems for a pet cause of even the political left....

    I don’t understand why even a rudimentary knowledge of firearms is necessary to understand that if you discharge a firearm in a public place and it kills someone, you’re responsible. Whether it has a hair trigger or you need both arms and your full strength to squeeze a round off.

    It’s not even comparable to alleged runaway acceleration with cars, for instance. Which to my knowledge is probably caused by people mistakenly hitting the gas. Jurors could be bamboozled by automotive jargon. But I don’t see how you swallow the same argument with guns.

    Driving your car around is a perfectly normal, innocent thing. Brandishing a pistol in public is something else. You should be cognizant that it could go off (when you pull the trigger), and therefore don’t do it unless you’re confident you know what you’re doing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Hibernian
    Really reassuring that a guy with your biases is a decision maker in the justice system. I guess criminals whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower will get fair treatment from you.

    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Jamestown beats the Mayflower everyday of the week.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Pluto
    First, I love reading Steve Sailer. He's entertaining. But he's a fake, and this Steinle murder he's helping promote is also a fake. Nobody died. It's just a psyop.
    How do I know he's a fake?
    1. He pushes Richard Spencer, who's been outed. (http://mileswmathis.com/spence.pdf)
    2. He's said his wife's uncle was a high ranking intelligence official. These intel jobs are only for family, just like in North Korea.
    3. In one blog, he said he couldn't find an image of a couple which wasn't a pasteup. So he knows what that is. Yet he pushed the Tiger Woods/Seals story, which came with photos which were the poorest fakes I've ever seen. No one who knows what pasteup means would fail to recognize that all the Tiger Woods + Navy Seals photos were fake.
    Sailer is a very high level agent. He's a deep-cover traitor to whites. Belay that, he's almost certainly a crypto-jew, so nothing to betray. Anyway, don't get worked up over fake victim Kate Steinle. Just my two cents, do your own thinking and study.

    This reads like a bunch of posts I saw on Zero Hedge today. Over-the-top conspiracy crap intended to discredit the rest of the commenters, and the blog in general, by association. Zero Hedge’s real commenters are a little wackier than iSteve’s, but the conspiracy comments today were numerous and obvious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Moses says:
    @Thomm
    That is because a White Trashionalist like you has a negro IQ, and needs a lot of repetition to get it.

    The fact that this evades you is proof of your low intelligence.

    Resorting to personal insults is childish and weakens your credibility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Resorting to personal insults is childish and weakens your credibility.
     
    That might be true if commenter "Thomm" had any credibility. He hasn't any.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. dr kill says: • Website
    @guest
    In defense of the Casey Anthony prosecution, they didn't have a great case. Slim evidence, and the mother perjured herself to cover for her daughter. The big red flag was the defendant not reporting the kid missing for however long, but that's not what she was on trial for and wasn't itself evidence of murder. Though it was highly suggestive. (That, along with the pictures of her partying, is what made it a national news sensation.)

    She’s a regular at my local. A real looker these days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. dr kill says: • Website
    @Tim Howells
    I gave up trying to understand legal reasoning a long time ago.

    Right and wrong is easy, but legal and illegal depends on a 650 bucks an hour attorney. Such is modern life in the USSA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @candid_observer
    No doubt the prosecution might have done a more effective job if they had focused like a laser on the involuntary manslaughter charge, which, given the ricochet, is the one that fits.

    But I can't imagine that the proper ground wasn't covered for the right decision to be made. The guy said in a police interview that he was shooting at a seal, and then that he stepped on the gun which was on the ground. How is him telling these stories consistent with the final story he told: that he found the gun under the bench (happens all the time!) covered with a cloth, and that when he removed the gun from the cloth, it went off (or fell and went off).

    Why would this guy make up not one, but two stories, when the supposedly true story was the most innocent of all? (He didn't even know it was a gun, it was covered in cloth -- magically, he wasn't even guilty of being in possession of a gun if this story was true -- isn't it great that it would work out that way?).

    Anybody on the jury with a smidgen of common sense and skepticism would be thinking about these things -- IF they had any desire to do so, instead of desperately finding a way to vindicate the guy.

    I also find it very hard to believe that the prosecution didn't bring to light the inconsistencies in the stories, and the extraordinary convenience and implausibility of the final story. That would be something that would be important to establish no matter which charge they went after. Obviously, they had to rule out the magical gun story before they could go after any further charge.

    The prosecution might have been pretty bad, but I find it very hard to believe that they bear the real responsibility for the travesty.

    That lies in the jury itself, which obviously for its own reasons wanted to make sure the guy wasn't seen as responsible for the death.

    And I would say that the fact that they did find him guilty of illegal possession gives away their game. If they believed the story of the magical gun and the magical cloth and the magical firing when dropped, why did they find him guilty of possession? It makes no sense. And if they find his story and him incredible, why should they believe anything else he says about how it all went down? No: they obviously wanted to find him guilty of a lesser charge so that they wouldn't look less like the disgusting, perverted ideological and tribal hacks that they are.

    Somewhere upthread someone mentions that RedState had a take on this. They don't consider any of this. They are idiots.

    “(or fell and went off)”

    The Sig P239 incorporates a firing pin block that blocks the firing pin from moving if the trigger has not depressed. This is to prevent the inertia of a falling weapon (and thus firing pin) causing the primer to be impacted and firing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm
    That is because a White Trashionalist like you has a negro IQ, and needs a lot of repetition to get it.

    The fact that this evades you is proof of your low intelligence.

    You have offered no evidence here that you are particularly smart. Actually, you come across as rather stupid. You obviously impress yourself, but that is obviously an easy audience to please. If you want people to believe that you are as smart as you style yourself, you’ll need to try harder, clown.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    Yawn.... you are just asserting your immature emotions. What, exactly, does your comment provide as evidence?

    Remember, White Nationalists have Negro IQs. You have just proven it.

    Heh heh heh heh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Johnny Smoggins
    Thomm could respond to a post about the difference between two different species of butterflies and find a way to work in something about "white trash" or "wigger" White nationalists. He's obviously obsessed which is too bad because otherwise his posts are readable.

    I haven't figured out yet if he's just another Asian gamma, like Yan Shen, who's pissed off that the hottest Asian girls all prefer White men or a White gamma who went to Asia, got his first ever girlfriend and is now white knighting for her race.

    I definitely get the rejected-oriental-guy-resentment vibe from him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Mr. Anon says:
    @Pluto
    First, I love reading Steve Sailer. He's entertaining. But he's a fake, and this Steinle murder he's helping promote is also a fake. Nobody died. It's just a psyop.
    How do I know he's a fake?
    1. He pushes Richard Spencer, who's been outed. (http://mileswmathis.com/spence.pdf)
    2. He's said his wife's uncle was a high ranking intelligence official. These intel jobs are only for family, just like in North Korea.
    3. In one blog, he said he couldn't find an image of a couple which wasn't a pasteup. So he knows what that is. Yet he pushed the Tiger Woods/Seals story, which came with photos which were the poorest fakes I've ever seen. No one who knows what pasteup means would fail to recognize that all the Tiger Woods + Navy Seals photos were fake.
    Sailer is a very high level agent. He's a deep-cover traitor to whites. Belay that, he's almost certainly a crypto-jew, so nothing to betray. Anyway, don't get worked up over fake victim Kate Steinle. Just my two cents, do your own thinking and study.

    I don’t know if you are stupid or crazy. Nor do I care. What you clearly are is ridiculously wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. dr kill says:
    @Stan Adams
    True.

    One of the more egregious child-murder cases I've read about was that of Pauline Zile, who not only a) stood by and watched without protest as her husband John murdered her daughter (by another man) Christina Holt and b) actively covered up the murder for over a month, but c) went on television and tearfully claimed that her daughter had been kidnapped at a Fort Lauderdale flea market:
    http://murderpedia.org/female.Z/z/zile-pauline.htm

    (For a number of weeks, the child's decomposing body was hidden in a closet in their apartment. They burned incense to cover up of the smell.)

    In a morbid twist, Zile was making her pleas on TV screens in South Florida the very same week that Susan Smith was begging for help to find her two "kidnapped" little boys in Union, South Carolina.

    Lizzie Borden got off scot-free, as well.

    The other day, I watched the 1975 TV movie starring Elizabeth Montgomery (of Bewitched fame) as axe-wieldin' Lizzie. It's not bad, for what it is:
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2l3kas

    Last night I was reading about one of the more notorious crimes in the history of Miami - the 1964 murder of Jacques Mossler, a wealthy banker. It turned out that Mossler's estranged wife Candy, an ex-model, was having an incestuous affair with her strapping young nephew (her sister's son). The two were eventually charged with murder and put on trial. The dead man's diary, in which he documented his rage over the tryst, was a key piece of circumstantial evidence. But the jury voted to acquit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Mossler

    Come on man the best Miami murders were in 98 when John Mese and the boys at Sun Gym were putting old Hungarians in 55 gallon drums. He was my accountant at the time and I wondered why I never got my tax returns filed on time that year. Not many people get to use the excuse I used with the IRS that time. He really was a great guy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    For the uninitiated, dr kill is talking about the true story behind the 2013 movie Pain & Gain (with The Rock and Mark Wahlberg).

    The article upon which the movie was based:
    http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/pain-and-gain-6396870
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. eah says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. @anonymous
    This story is a couple of years old, but relevant for this post. An illegal alien from Mexico accidentally ran over two young girls in Portland, OR and they later died. The illegal did not realize she had hit anyone. Her conviction was recently overturned.

    Authorities arrested Garcia-Cisneros for her involvement in the reported hit-and-run, and a 2014 jury trial landed her a conviction for failing to perform the duties of a driver.

    A judge sentenced her to three years of probation and 250 hours of community service, and as an undocumented immigrant, she risked deportation. Officials turned her over the federal immigration enforcement, but the deportation case was eventually dismissed.

    ...

    The appeals court ruled in Garcia-Cisneros' favor on this matter, arguing the law doesn't require the driver to go back if they didn't know they were involved until after they left the scene.
     
    So her conviction for running over the kids was not only overturned, BUT HER DEPORTATION CASE WAS DROPPED TOO.

    How can she not be deported?

    Unless you are high (presenting its own liabilities…) it all but impossible to strike a human with your car and not notice it. In all but the largest vehicles one notices if one strikes a squirrel or rabbit. Fascinated, I now damn you for increasing my reading tonight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @silviosilver

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we’re given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it’s smarter to shirk.
     
    I wouldn't dream of wasting my time doing jury duty.

    Trial by jury belongs to the past. It may have once made sense, back when commoners needed protection against their social superiors, but the jury system was always wide open to corruption and, America being America, corrupted it has indeed become. It has got to go.

    Juries are the gem of the common (i.e., English) law. The only problem here is the demography thereof (not English, nor even European). This jury even had two or three immigrants invaders on it. They have to go back

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Tim Howells
    I gave up trying to understand legal reasoning a long time ago.

    Would that other laypersons without an aptitude for it would; it’d be much less exasperating for us lawyers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    I was going to ask you to explain this verdict for us, but I see you already have. Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Thomm

    I’m not sure your point here. The only people advocating the forgiveness of racially motivated killing seems to be the Left.
     
    I see plenty of 'white nationalists' that praise Anders Breivik, and openly say that we need more like him.

    You are not in this group, of course. But I am sure you know they exist (even here on Unz.com).

    That is why I say that the bottom 10% of whites (the pool that WN draws from), has more in common with BLM blacks than with everyday white people. They know this, which is why they are frustrated with how little traction they get with mainstream whites.

    Are you telling me that William Pierce, Revilo P. Oliver, even George Lincoln Rockwell were individuals of low intelligence?

    I’ve met a few stupid WNs, but generally they are at least somewhat above average.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    er... if you don't know the difference between anecdotes and averages, you are proving my point about WNs being wiggers.

    Thomas Sowell being smart does not mean all blacks are smart. Yet, you seem to be claiming the equivalent.

    White Trashionalists have Negro IQs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Alden
    Clark's boss, Garcetti, was the person who made it impossible to convict OJ.

    He was the person who insisted the trial be moved from the Santa Monica courthouse in whose jurisdiction the murder occurred, to a court house in the blackest section of the city. I always thought the black politicians informed the Mayor and business leaders that they would repeat the Rodney King riots if OJ were not acquitted.

    In a county that was only 10 percent black, it takes a lot of manipulation to get a jury that was mostly black.

    If they did that, which I don’t know they did, the correct response would have been what the Germans allegedly did to Baader Meinhof. If of course they did, which we don’t know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Alden
    Had he killed the seal the animal rights people would have made sure he was convicted and sentenced for curelty to animals.

    I been crying like a woman.
    Because I’m mad, mad, mad like a man.
    If you’d been in the s.s. in ’43.
    You’d’ve been kicked out for cruelty

    Remember, even the Nazis were against animal cruelty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Thomm says:
    @Mr. Anon
    You have offered no evidence here that you are particularly smart. Actually, you come across as rather stupid. You obviously impress yourself, but that is obviously an easy audience to please. If you want people to believe that you are as smart as you style yourself, you'll need to try harder, clown.

    Yawn…. you are just asserting your immature emotions. What, exactly, does your comment provide as evidence?

    Remember, White Nationalists have Negro IQs. You have just proven it.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Again..........more drivel. Is that all you have to offer? Pretty lame. For someone who claims to be superior, you sure come off as a borderline retard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Thomm says:
    @Anonymous
    Are you telling me that William Pierce, Revilo P. Oliver, even George Lincoln Rockwell were individuals of low intelligence?

    I've met a few stupid WNs, but generally they are at least somewhat above average.

    er… if you don’t know the difference between anecdotes and averages, you are proving my point about WNs being wiggers.

    Thomas Sowell being smart does not mean all blacks are smart. Yet, you seem to be claiming the equivalent.

    White Trashionalists have Negro IQs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Joe Stalin
    The weapon was a Sig P239 which has no "safety" like a Colt 1911. It has a "decocking"lever on the left side. Operationally, it is no different from your standard .357Mag/.38 Spl. REVOLVER. You can safe it by putting your thumb between the hammer and firing pin and pressing the trigger. I disagree with the RS article in which they describe the Single Action 4.4 lb. trigger as "hair trigger." It is heavier than a Colt Gold Cup ; my experience is with an older Sig P220 .45 and it would be extremely hard for this weapon to "accidentally discharge" if you keep your finger out of the trigger guard.

    So: either the weapon was pre-cocked when found or the guy deliberately pressed through the Double Action trigger. No way the weapon "just went off."

    This is what (((Rumpf))) and Cuckstate and the rest of the left would have us believe. He found the gun and it just accidentally went off because of its “hair pin” trigger, which wasn’t the first explanation he offered to police. Also, read Rumpf smug reactions to people criticizing her article. She’s an insufferable c-word.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @dr kill
    Come on man the best Miami murders were in 98 when John Mese and the boys at Sun Gym were putting old Hungarians in 55 gallon drums. He was my accountant at the time and I wondered why I never got my tax returns filed on time that year. Not many people get to use the excuse I used with the IRS that time. He really was a great guy.

    For the uninitiated, dr kill is talking about the true story behind the 2013 movie Pain & Gain (with The Rock and Mark Wahlberg).

    The article upon which the movie was based:

    http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/pain-and-gain-6396870

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. SF says:

    If Garcia Zarate follows the Hispanic naming convention of putting the mother’s maiden name last, then his patronymic surname is the same as the prosecutor– Garcia. Has anyone checked to see whether they are distant cousins?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Garcia" is like "Smith", perhaps the most common surname in the Hispanophone world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SF
    If Garcia Zarate follows the Hispanic naming convention of putting the mother's maiden name last, then his patronymic surname is the same as the prosecutor-- Garcia. Has anyone checked to see whether they are distant cousins?

    “Garcia” is like “Smith”, perhaps the most common surname in the Hispanophone world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SF
    And Watson, for example, is a very common last name in the United States. A man named Watson in the Texas judicial system held up the extradition of Manson killer Tex Watson for over a year, necessitating a separate trial for him. Prosecuter Vince Bugliosi eventually found out that Tex was a third cousin. Unlikely, but it has happened.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. NickG says:
    @silviosilver

    How did jury duty become something to dodge? We gripe about the idiocy and injustice and when we’re given great power and privilege to shape it, the cool kids decided it’s smarter to shirk.
     
    I wouldn't dream of wasting my time doing jury duty.

    Trial by jury belongs to the past. It may have once made sense, back when commoners needed protection against their social superiors, but the jury system was always wide open to corruption and, America being America, corrupted it has indeed become. It has got to go.

    Yup, the concept of trial by jury is a quaint anachronistic relic of an age of civic capital.

    Jury trial was abandoned in Northern Ireland during the ‘Troubles’. This due to widespread witness intimidation and the sectarian nature of society. The Diplock courts, using judges in lieu of a jury panel were introduced in 1973.

    Naturally judges became targets too and their homes had to be hardened and they were all given armed 24/7 police protection – at horrific cost. A few judges were murdered by Republican terrorists.

    Jury trials are not used in South Africa either, because of the racial dynamic – and likely because the average IQ is 72*, making the function of juror beyond the bulk of the population.

    Some may remember that the Oscar Pistorious trial, the ‘blade runner’, who fired three 9mm hollow-point bullets at his girlfriend through the lavatory door adjacent to his bedroom, killing her. The trial was adjudicated by a panel of judges.

    * I didn’t pull this figure out of my arse. This is the average figure from weighted studies across racial groups by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen for their books IQ and the Wealth of the Nations (2002) and the later book IQ and Global Inequality (2006).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. This shooter-killer from Mexico looks black.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  160. @Autochthon
    Would that other laypersons without an aptitude for it would; it'd be much less exasperating for us lawyers.

    I was going to ask you to explain this verdict for us, but I see you already have. Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Eagle Eye says:
    @Jack D
    It's pretty clear to me that the prosecutors overcharged Zarate. Prosecutors do this all the time for various reasons - to satisfy a public that is baying for blood, in the hopes of exacting a plea bargain, on the theory that, worst case, the jury will "split the baby in half" by convicting on a lesser charge, etc.

    The risk of overcharging is that you will confuse the jury. The prosecutors argue mainly for the top charge because they still hope that the jury will go for it, so they de-emphasize the other charges while nominally giving the jury the option in the instructions. Juries really suck at understanding complex jury instructions. Lawyers are dreaming if they think that the jury actually understands the instructions.

    The fact that Steinle was apparently killed by a ricochet seems to obviate intentional murder. Not even devious Mexican banditos think that they can get you on a bank shot. Even "depraved heart" murder (you fire into a crowd with no particular target but knowing you are probably going to kill someone) sounded difficult to sustain because the bullet hit the concrete before bouncing, indicating that he was not really aiming into the crowd. The unfortunate truth is that the drug addled Mexican probably was playing with the gun that he stole and he accidentally hit the trigger and fired off a shot which bounced and killed that poor woman. This is still a crime (negligent homicide) and if the prosecutors had charged this and clearly argued it,they would have won, but instead they gambled and lost.

    the bullet hit the concrete before bouncing, indicating that he was not really aiming into the crowd.

    The way that the MSM keep harping on the “ricochet” theory leads me to suspect that there was no “ricochet” at all. This was a cold-blooded murder.

    Zarate – recently sprung from custody by SF – and the gun were there for a purpose which was the hit that killed Kate Steinle.

    The only question is whether Steinle was personally targeted, or just a random victim of violence aimed at extorting money from the city and merchants in SF.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Stan Adams
    "A jury of one's peers," indeed.

    But I thought immigrants were supposed to be better jurors than us American hicks! At the very least, that's what I was taught in school.

    (I once had a teacher who showed us not one but two versions of the movie Twelve Angry Men - the black-and-white Hollywood version and a TV remake. Over the years, I must have watched To Kill a Mockingbird in its entirety at least thrice.)

    In defense of immigrant jurors, Casey Anthony did get away scot-free. So did Michael Jackson.

    We still speak of a right to a “jury of ones peers” through sheer verbal inertia. Like naval personnel are “sailors.” We “drive” automobiles (although”driving” requires an implement such as a whip or a club).

    It’s as if we are under the delusion that we are living in 14th Century England.

    This just in. There’s no such thing as peers anymore. By the time everyone is your peer, the word peer has lost its meaning.

    In 21st Century America we are tried by people who, virtually by definition, are too stupid to know how to get out of jury duty. (Hat tip to Jackie Mason, and apologies to Steve Sailer, who probably had subversive reasons for acquiescing to his assignment to the box.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Steve is a writer. To a writer, every facet of human experience is grist for the mill - the lulzier, the better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Tulip says:
    @Hibernian
    If a prospective juror can't understand the concept of a lesser included they're not bright enough for jury service. If they rebel against it that's a form of jury nullification.

    I think there is plenty of literature suggesting jury instructions don’t matter and don’t influence juror behavior. [For example, no evidence different definitions of "legal insanity" matter in terms of jury verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity.]

    I have to say “So what if it doesn’t conform to what they told you in your high school civics class?” Does anything in our government actually work the way they told you it did? If I remember, the “People” are above the President on the organizational chart last time I checked, and there is no box for “lobbyist”.

    The reasons for having a jury system have nothing to do with jurors ability to comprehend and apply complex legal instructions (rather than sleeping through the jury instructions). Would you prefer a continental-style inquisitional system? Much more political and bureaucratic, and no thanks, I’d rather contend with the occasional stupid verdict. Nothing wrong with juror nullification either, as far as I’m concerned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Sean says:
    @Jack D
    Your theory I would rate as "somewhat plausible" but the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Absent a confession or other evidence (e.g. a witness saying that they clearly saw him taking careful aim) I don't see how your theory could be proved.

    What you are referring to is called "depraved heart" murder - if he had aimed other than at the ground that might be plausible, but he didn't.

    The prosecutor might have tried other theories, such as "felony murder" - while in the course of committing a felony, someone dies, but they didn't.

    Proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean there is no chance of a mistake. The charge of murder would not have been allowed by the legal system if there had not been, at first blush, sufficient evidence for a conviction. Moreover, if the jury had found him guilty of murder, he would not have been able to argue at an appeal that the conviction was unsafe because there was insufficient evidence for a conviction on that charge..

    Felony murder is a good trick for convicting defendants of murder when they are pleading diminished responsibility.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm
    Yawn.... you are just asserting your immature emotions. What, exactly, does your comment provide as evidence?

    Remember, White Nationalists have Negro IQs. You have just proven it.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Again……….more drivel. Is that all you have to offer? Pretty lame. For someone who claims to be superior, you sure come off as a borderline retard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Mr. Anon says:
    @Moses
    Resorting to personal insults is childish and weakens your credibility.

    Resorting to personal insults is childish and weakens your credibility.

    That might be true if commenter “Thomm” had any credibility. He hasn’t any.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @I, Libertine
    We still speak of a right to a "jury of ones peers" through sheer verbal inertia. Like naval personnel are "sailors." We "drive" automobiles (although"driving" requires an implement such as a whip or a club).

    It's as if we are under the delusion that we are living in 14th Century England.

    This just in. There's no such thing as peers anymore. By the time everyone is your peer, the word peer has lost its meaning.

    In 21st Century America we are tried by people who, virtually by definition, are too stupid to know how to get out of jury duty. (Hat tip to Jackie Mason, and apologies to Steve Sailer, who probably had subversive reasons for acquiescing to his assignment to the box.)

    Steve is a writer. To a writer, every facet of human experience is grist for the mill – the lulzier, the better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @TWS
    Quit writing now. Even if the hammer was back he still had to pull the rather robust single action three times.

    He took three shots? I didn’t know. (And did the jury know? There was a lot they weren’t told.) Granted the pull resistance on that gun is a good deal more than the gun’s weight. So it wouldn’t discharge if he just dangled it. But in fumbling just the right way, he could produce enough force.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. SF says:
    @Anonymous
    "Garcia" is like "Smith", perhaps the most common surname in the Hispanophone world.

    And Watson, for example, is a very common last name in the United States. A man named Watson in the Texas judicial system held up the extradition of Manson killer Tex Watson for over a year, necessitating a separate trial for him. Prosecuter Vince Bugliosi eventually found out that Tex was a third cousin. Unlikely, but it has happened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Corn
    The jury system certainly has flaws but if we did away with jury trials we’d all be here complaining about unelected or unaccountable demagogues in black robes everytime we disagreed with a verdict. Going to have outrages either way.

    Former detective Joe Kenda, star of his ID Channel show, says in a book he just put out that juries aren’t completely reliable. This despite Kenda only losing a couple of cases at trial.

    Kends said if you are accused of a crime and are completely innocent, the best option is a Bench Trial, in which there is no jury and the judge decides. Even though you are innocent, the jurors may not like the way you look, talk, etc. Kenda believes a judge is more likely to do the right thing than a jury is when it comes down to it.

    On the other hand, Kenda said if you are guilty, a jury trial is the better option. With 12 people, some of them might favor you.

    Exhibit A is the Baltimore cops in the Freddie Gray Affair opting for a Bench Trial and being acquitted. The judge had made pre-trial rulings the defense didn’t like, but ruled Not Guilty in the end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?