Jose Zarate NOT Guilty of killing Kate Steinle

[slacker-]

Originally Posted by philomath

I mean,,, you do have a logical point of view as I said earlier in this thread when someone else brought a similar point up. Both are correct, and logical. You know me, its easiest for my widdle brain to comprehend logic.

I never thought that he actually tried, or intended to kill her. I'm almost sure it was not intentional. Thats why there are varying levels of responsibility(Crimes), and variable sanctions(penalty's) for each respective level a person who causes the death of another citizen in this country will have to pay or suffer if they commit those crimes. Hell, most country's for that matter, have similar penalty's for these kinda crimes.. That would be first degree murder in anyone's court(Well Usually) if he intended to cause her death. Understanding that, my question becomes, what is the level of sanction (punishment) is warranted in this case, considering all the aggravating factors? In my mind, It sure as hell isn't just nothing. Again IMHO, he is guilty of at least some lower crime that is attached with the unintentional loss of that young ladies life.

All his family got from the legal process for their loss caused by a well documented criminal that was not even suppose to be in this country was, Thanks for playing.

Hell, If he had been driving a car all drugged up and caused her death, that alone in most places would make him guilty of some level lower than murder. The aggravating factors of the case would again and rightly effect the level of conviction. Everything from unintentional death by vehicle all the way up to one level under capitol murder. It should never just be nodda. He is at least guilty of some level of causing a persons death.

EDIT.

Waves to all

No, I agree, based on what I know, i personally think he shoulda been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. it seems like what he did fits the definition (as i understand it) perfectly, actually. but the jury didn't agree with you or me, for whatever reason. maybe they factored in something we haven't, like some sort of evidence or facts or things that we haven't heard or overlooked. or perhaps certain things that WE know, were suppressed/inadmissible at the trial and therefore, unknown to the jury. that happens sometimes, too.
i personally don't see the point of looking at high-profile cases like this with a political agenda, tho. instead, i like to get down to the nitty-gritty of the people involved to try to get as clear of an understanding as i can about who they were and what what went down, instead of clinging to some theory about what i want to believe happened to support my political beliefs. bc in that case, i might as well not read or listen to anything about it at all bc what's the point, right? if i've already made up my mind.

Originally Posted by laserjobs

Do you think he should have been guilty for manslaughter?

see above ^^^^

[syszero]

he should not have been here. don't care if he meant it or not, an innocent person has died at the hands of a criminal. He needs to be killed and deported . . .

[ThisisnotChad]

Originally Posted by syszero

he should not have been here. don't care if he meant it or not, an innocent person has died at the hands of a criminal. He needs to be killed and deported . . .

Kill him then deport his body?