Utter lawlessness - Kate Steine's illegal alien murderer is acquitted

[ths61]

Oh, I’m sorry. When you say “facts”, are you referring to that nonsensical garbage that you presented in the form of opinion/editorial in your prior message? This stuff...

Originally Posted by ths61...

”Do you really think this was a fair trial (and not a political statement/coverup) in a sanctuary state court system, in a sanctuary state, in a sanctuary city with a liberal defense, liberal judge, liberal prosecution, suppression of evidence, coverup of failed sanctuary polices and liberal agencies that allowed the perp to murder and failure of the liberal prosecutor to present unbiased documented laboratory evidence to debunk the fabricated testimony?”

Apparently you have trouble distinguishing fact from opinion. Just because something spews across your keyboard from the depths of your brain doesn’t make it factual, no matter how many times you regurgitate it.

If you’re really interested in debating the issues, I’ll go there with you. I could use the entertainment. Bring your substantiated points and cite your sources and lets see what happens.

Again, you ignored all of the facts including suppression of priors (probably eligible for the 3 strikes law), suppression of evidence, failure of the prosecution to have the gun tested, failure to charge for a plethora of applicable associated violations, violating federal immigration laws by both the illegal alien and the state, etc., etc. etc.. Those are all facts, not opinions. Nice obfuscation though.

BTW, the DOJ just unsealed an arrest warrant for the POS.

[Ixol Phaane]

Again, you ignored all of the facts including suppression of priors (probably eligible for the 3 strikes law), suppression of evidence, failure of the prosecution to have the gun tested, failure to charge for a plethora of applicable associated violations, violating federal immigration laws by both the illegal alien and the state, etc., etc. etc.. Those are all facts, not opinions. Nice obfuscation though.

BTW, the DOJ just unsealed an arrest warrant for the POS.

Okay, since you insist, I’ll play.

I do believe it was a fair trial. Your opinion may differ.
I do not believe it was a political statement or coverup. Your opinion may differ.
Suppression of priors is a lawful defense tactic. Fact.
“Probably eligible for the 3 strikes law”. Sounds like your opinion or guess.
Suppression of evidence is a lawful defense tactic. Fact.
Failure to test the gun was poor prosecution. Fact.
Failure to charge for a plethora... How many? What specifications?
Violation of Federal immigration laws by defendant. Apparently factual.
Violation of Federal immigration laws by State. Alleged by you.
Etc., etc., etc. ... padding? Or do you just like to see yourself type? You do understand how debate works, right? Point/counterpoint?

Yeah, you know, on second thought this really does sound like it was a political statement or coverup.

[ths61]

Okay, since you insist, I’ll play.

I do believe it was a fair trial. Your opinion may differ.
I do not believe it was a political statement or coverup. Your opinion may differ. - Unless both prosecution and defense are both party to generate predetermined outcome.
Suppression of priors is a lawful defense tactic. Fact. - Unless both prosecution and defense are both party to generate predetermined outcome.
“Probably eligible for the 3 strikes law”. Sounds like your opinion or guess. - He has 7 prior felony convictions. - fact.
Suppression of evidence is a lawful defense tactic. Fact. - Unless both prosecution and defense are both party to generate predetermined outcome.
- Suppress 7 prior felony convictions, jurors don't know if 3 strikes apply. (Hint: 7 is more than 3)
- Suppress 7 prior felony convictions, jurors don't know if felony possession applies.
- Suppress 6 prior deportations, jurors don't know he is guilty of federal felony reentry of 5 counts. (not including 7 felony priors)
- ...
Failure to test the gun was poor prosecution. Fact. - Unless both prosecution and defense are both party to generate predetermined outcome.
Failure to charge for a plethora... How many? What specifications? -
These are a few that come to mind.
- Involuntary manslaughter. The definition of negligent use of a firearm which results in killing a person. - fact
(NOTE: The defense's "not-guilty" argument was the actual definition of Involuntary manslaughter. E.g. He is not guilty because he is guilty ???)
- Possession of stolen property. - fact
- Brandishing a weapon in public. - fact
- Carrying a loaded firearm in public without a permit. -fact
- Violation of supervised release. - fact
- Felony possession of a firearm. - fact
- Possessing a magazine with the capacity of over 10 rounds. - fact
- Carrying a firearm outside of a locked container - fact
- Discharging a firearm in a public place - fact
- Federal Felony Illegal reentry after removal - 5 counts - fact
- Attempting to kill protected wildlife. - Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) - by own admission
- Attempting to conceal or destroy evidence. - fact (see also: HRC)
- More drug charges

Violation of Federal immigration laws by defendant. Apparently factual. - Repeat offender 7 times, Felony reentry 5 counts. - fact
Violation of Federal immigration laws by State. Alleged by you. - As declared by Director of ICE Thomas D. Homan - fact

Etc., etc., etc. ... padding? Or do you just like to see yourself type? You do understand how debate works, right. Point/counterpoint?
Since you failed to address any of the specific points I made until this post, why should I have elaborated any further? Obfuscation is your game.

Yeah, you know, on second thought this really does sound like it was a political statement or coverup.
Obviously your head is still in the sand, nor have you spent any time in California politics.

..

[Ixol Phaane]

..

Ths61, you are an amazing individual. Not only do you ride, but apparently you’re also a prodigious legal analyst and mind reader. I take my hat off to you.

Too bad you’re not particularly adept at selling conspiracy. I assume that the whole point of your response to my complimenting your theory is to convince me that “...both prosecution and defense are both party to predetermined outcome.” But I’m not buying it.

I believe lawyers are particularly self serving people. In this case a win would be huge for either of them. To think that the prosecution would act unethically and risk his career and livelihood for an illegal immigrant, an accused murderer and obviously bad guy no less, is beyond me. It is not beyond me to believe the prosecution was simply incompetent in this case, as evidenced by the lack of firearm testing, for example.

Couple an unskilled prosecutor with a solid defense attorney and the outcome of the trial can be anticipated. If, as you state, the defense of murder is that the man is guilty of manslaughter and the evidence supports that, then the jury cannot return a verdict of guilty of murder... they are two different specifications. But you know that because you’re a smart guy.

In my opinion, to seriously consider, much less believe, that all parties, judge included, conspired to rig the outcome of this murder trial is ludicrous and pathetic.

But I’ll stand by my original statement: “That’s a pretty good conspiracy theory ya got goin’ there.”

And, by the way, your use of combined color and bold font to get a point across is kind of impressive. Do you walk and chew gum at the same time, too?

[ths61]

Ths61, you are an amazing individual. Not only do you ride, but apparently you’re also a prodigious legal analyst and mind reader. I take my hat off to you.

Too bad you’re not particularly adept at selling conspiracy. I assume that the whole point of your response to my complimenting your theory is to convince me that “...both prosecution and defense are both party to predetermined outcome.” But I’m not buying it.

I believe lawyers are particularly self serving people. In this case a win would be huge for either of them. To think that the prosecution would act unethically and risk his career and livelihood for an illegal immigrant, an accused murderer and obviously bad guy no less, is beyond me. It is not beyond me to believe the prosecution was simply incompetent in this case, as evidenced by the lack of firearm testing, for example.

Couple an unskilled prosecutor with a solid defense attorney and the outcome of the trial can be anticipated. If, as you state, the defense of murder is that the man is guilty of manslaughter and the evidence supports that, then the jury cannot return a verdict of guilty of murder... they are two different specifications. But you know that because you’re a smart guy.

In my opinion, to seriously consider, much less believe, that all parties, judge included, conspired to rig the outcome of this murder trial is ludicrous and pathetic.

But I’ll stand by my original statement: “That’s a pretty good conspiracy theory ya got goin’ there.”

And, by the way, your use of combined color and bold font to get a point across is kind of impressive. Do you walk and chew gum at the same time, too?

Again, complete obfuscation. Totally ignored every applicable State and Federal law on the books that I listed. Amazing, absolutely amazing.

What happened to your flaccid point/counterpoint comment ??? You are proved wrong on each count and then you resort back to generalized obfuscation. You got nothing.

If you knew anything about California politics, you would know how a SF prosecutor keeps his job. He doesn't bite the super-majority hand that feeds him. If you want to become AG of California, you sleep with Willie Brown.

[Ixol Phaane]

Again, complete obfuscation. Totally ignored every applicable State and Federal law on the books that I listed. Amazing, absolutely amazing.

What happened to your flaccid point/counterpoint comment ??? You are proved wrong on each count and then you resort back to generalized obfuscation. You got nothing.

If you knew anything about California politics, you would know how a SF prosecutor keeps his job. He doesn't bite the super-majority hand that feeds him. If you want to become AG of California, you sleep with Willie Brown.

What’s wrong, ths61? Do you need validation of your sad delusion of conspiracy? You won’t get it from me. Are you upset that evidence didn’t support a verdict of guilty in this murder trial? Too bad, get over it. Oh, you want to convict someone for murder because they have prior unrelated felony convictions. Good luck with that.

What do you want, man? Why are you listing every applicable State and Federal law on the books? What’s your point? Will you be making it anytime soon?

Could you be any more obtuse?

Seriously, somebody get this tick off me!

[Radical Taz]

: