TexasCHLforum.com

JustSomeOldGuy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:20 pm

If neither side disputes the findings, the court will discuss whether the defendant should be treated locally for mental illness or sent to a federal facility outside California.

Sounds good to me. Send him for treatment at a federal facility outside California. IN MEXICO.

He would be welcomed home as a hero like Megrahi was. Shame on CA. Shame!

philip964 wrote:I believe the California view is that the gun did the killing.

The undocumented patriot simply picked up an object on the ground and it then decided to kill someone as guns are inherently evil.

I believe there may have been evidence that the trigger was "light".

It may have also been jury nullification. One life is a small sacrifice to send a message to Trump that Hillary should have won.

The defense attorney immediately seemed to point to Trump being the real criminal here.

Although there is no present in your comments I do sense some jest. Unfortunately, I think you may not be far from some truth.

chasfm11 wrote:I understand that there is a difference in CA law and NY law regarding homicide. Supposedly, the defense attorney was able to claim that it was a richocet and that removed any homicide charge. But it doesn't square well with this situation.
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/ ... ting-black

A couple differences I can think of are that one was a police officer and the other an illegal alien. The officer was convicted while BO was still going after and vilifying LE, while CA is welcoming illegal aliens with open arms. Another difference is that the officer admitted pulling the trigger, albeit accidentally after being startled, while the illegal alien kept to his story that the gun just went off.

I really don't know exactly how much responsibility this illegal alien should bear for Kate's death. There are many "ifs", but I find it very difficult to believe he intended to cause any harm at all if the shot really did ricochet off the ground. The jury asked to see the gun not long before they rendered their verdict. Maybe they know something we don't know yet.

It is very sad and shouldn't have happened. He shouldn't have been in the country. He shouldn't have had a gun. Maybe the family can sue SanFran and or the county for wrongful death because of their sanctuary policy that allowed this many to remain in the country.

Involuntary manslaughter in California occurs when one person kills another unintentionally, either

1. while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous California felony, OR
2. while committing a lawful act which might produce death, without due caution.

https://www.shouselaw.com/involuntary_manslaughter.html

If these are correct I think I can see how they did not find him guilty of even involuntary manslaughter. Obviously, we can throw #2 out. The only two other crimes he was committing were being in the country illegally and being in possession of a gun illegally. By being found not guilty, this tells me that California does not consider either of those to be inherently dangerous California felonies.

That's the only reasonable way I can see this happening. If it isn't that, the jury is just bat guano California crazy.

This all reminds me of the Casey Anthony trial. Granted we, the general public, hadn't seen all the same evidence the jury did, but I didn't think they were going to find her guilty either. Not because I don't think she did it, but because they couldn't prove much of anything that she committed the crime. There were too many possibilities in that one and not enough evidence or facts to prove who did it.

When I first heard this today I wondered if the OJ prosecutors messed this one up too. However, I read something I had never seen or heard before. The bullet ricocheted off the sidewalk or something before hitting Kate. Knowing that, I don't think I could have convicted him of murder either. I guess I don't fully understand the definition of "involuntary manslaughter" enough to know how they found him not guilty for that.