Just how fucked up is California?

[rightwinger]

What sentence did you expect for a weapons charge?

he was guilty of negligent homicide. If you had done it you would have been convicted. Why aren't illegal aliens responsible for their criminal acts in California?

If the prosecution had charged him with negligent homicide (manslaughter) they may have gotten a conviction

But the conservative media never would have tolerated a charge of negligent homicide......so they got a second degree murder charge

and lost

you don't understand our court system. the jury could have found him guilty of the lesser charge of negligent homicide, but they were determined to set him free to "show how tolerant" and stupid California is.

They had that option
But the prosecution did not sell that option

the fix was in from the beginning. No one in SFO or Cal wanted a conviction that would demonstrate how liberal illegal immigrant policies are hurting innocent American citizens. The jury was of the same mind and a criminal walks once again in the land of fruits and nuts.

If that was the case, why did they over prosecute on shaky evidence of murder?

 

[Redfish]

he was guilty of negligent homicide. If you had done it you would have been convicted. Why aren't illegal aliens responsible for their criminal acts in California?

If the prosecution had charged him with negligent homicide (manslaughter) they may have gotten a conviction

But the conservative media never would have tolerated a charge of negligent homicide......so they got a second degree murder charge

and lost

you don't understand our court system. the jury could have found him guilty of the lesser charge of negligent homicide, but they were determined to set him free to "show how tolerant" and stupid California is.

They had that option
But the prosecution did not sell that option

the fix was in from the beginning. No one in SFO or Cal wanted a conviction that would demonstrate how liberal illegal immigrant policies are hurting innocent American citizens. The jury was of the same mind and a criminal walks once again in the land of fruits and nuts.

If that was the case, why did they over prosecute on shaky evidence of murder?

incompetence or they did not want a conviction. Remember, a conviction would have demonstrated how cal's sanctuary policies are killing innocent American citizens.

 

[rightwinger]

The jury made the only verdict they could given the available evidence
The judge gave the only sentence he could based on the charge he was convicted of

But they had every witness they needed.. what else did they need?

.

Some proof of intent

winger: "but officer, I didn't intend to go 90 in a 35 zone" so you have to let me off, right?

Intent means everything when seeking a first or second degree murder charge

yes, but this was not first degree murder. No one in the cal legal system wanted a conviction.

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

 

[Redfish]

But they had every witness they needed.. what else did they need?

.

Some proof of intent

winger: "but officer, I didn't intend to go 90 in a 35 zone" so you have to let me off, right?

Intent means everything when seeking a first or second degree murder charge

yes, but this was not first degree murder. No one in the cal legal system wanted a conviction.

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

 

[danielpalos]

Some proof of intent

winger: "but officer, I didn't intend to go 90 in a 35 zone" so you have to let me off, right?

Intent means everything when seeking a first or second degree murder charge

yes, but this was not first degree murder. No one in the cal legal system wanted a conviction.

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

Why wouldn't a DA want a conviction?

 

[rightwinger]

Some proof of intent

winger: "but officer, I didn't intend to go 90 in a 35 zone" so you have to let me off, right?

Intent means everything when seeking a first or second degree murder charge

yes, but this was not first degree murder. No one in the cal legal system wanted a conviction.

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

If anyone else had done it they would have been prosecuted for negligent manslaughter and probably convicted

But this was no ordinary case
The rightwing media and then a candidate for President picked this case as an example of illegal Mexicans run amok killing beautiful white women

This case was pointed to as an example of why we need a wall and why Americans should fear illegal Mexicans

The facts of the case never supported the conclusions or remedies that conservatives were drawing

As a result, it was over prosecuted and the guy got off

 

[Redfish]

winger: "but officer, I didn't intend to go 90 in a 35 zone" so you have to let me off, right?

Intent means everything when seeking a first or second degree murder charge

yes, but this was not first degree murder. No one in the cal legal system wanted a conviction.

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

If anyone else had done it they would have been prosecuted for negligent manslaughter and probably convicted

But this was no ordinary case
The rightwing media and then a candidate for President picked this case as an example of illegal Mexicans run amok killing beautiful white women

This case was pointed to as an example of why we need a wall and why Americans should fear illegal Mexicans

The facts of the case never supported the conclusions or remedies that conservatives were drawing

As a result, it was over prosecuted and the guy got off

you make good points. this case was determined by political considerations rather than the rules of law and the criminal statutes of the state of California. But yet, you and many others seem to support that kind of political perversion of our legal system. That I find very disturbing.

 

[danielpalos]

Intent means everything when seeking a first or second degree murder charge

yes, but this was not first degree murder. No one in the cal legal system wanted a conviction.

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

If anyone else had done it they would have been prosecuted for negligent manslaughter and probably convicted

But this was no ordinary case
The rightwing media and then a candidate for President picked this case as an example of illegal Mexicans run amok killing beautiful white women

This case was pointed to as an example of why we need a wall and why Americans should fear illegal Mexicans

The facts of the case never supported the conclusions or remedies that conservatives were drawing

As a result, it was over prosecuted and the guy got off

you make good points. this case was determined by political considerations rather than the rules of law and the criminal statutes of the state of California. But yet, you and many others seem to support that kind of political perversion of our legal system. That I find very disturbing.

the right wing was doing the same thing.

 

[Redfish]

yes, but this was not first degree murder. No one in the cal legal system wanted a conviction.

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

If anyone else had done it they would have been prosecuted for negligent manslaughter and probably convicted

But this was no ordinary case
The rightwing media and then a candidate for President picked this case as an example of illegal Mexicans run amok killing beautiful white women

This case was pointed to as an example of why we need a wall and why Americans should fear illegal Mexicans

The facts of the case never supported the conclusions or remedies that conservatives were drawing

As a result, it was over prosecuted and the guy got off

you make good points. this case was determined by political considerations rather than the rules of law and the criminal statutes of the state of California. But yet, you and many others seem to support that kind of political perversion of our legal system. That I find very disturbing.

the right wing was doing the same thing.

which right wingers were in the courtroom or on the jury?

 

[danielpalos]

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

If anyone else had done it they would have been prosecuted for negligent manslaughter and probably convicted

But this was no ordinary case
The rightwing media and then a candidate for President picked this case as an example of illegal Mexicans run amok killing beautiful white women

This case was pointed to as an example of why we need a wall and why Americans should fear illegal Mexicans

The facts of the case never supported the conclusions or remedies that conservatives were drawing

As a result, it was over prosecuted and the guy got off

you make good points. this case was determined by political considerations rather than the rules of law and the criminal statutes of the state of California. But yet, you and many others seem to support that kind of political perversion of our legal system. That I find very disturbing.

the right wing was doing the same thing.

which right wingers were in the courtroom or on the jury?

you claim there weren't?

 

[rightwinger]

Intent means everything when seeking a first or second degree murder charge

yes, but this was not first degree murder. No one in the cal legal system wanted a conviction.

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

If anyone else had done it they would have been prosecuted for negligent manslaughter and probably convicted

But this was no ordinary case
The rightwing media and then a candidate for President picked this case as an example of illegal Mexicans run amok killing beautiful white women

This case was pointed to as an example of why we need a wall and why Americans should fear illegal Mexicans

The facts of the case never supported the conclusions or remedies that conservatives were drawing

As a result, it was over prosecuted and the guy got off

you make good points. this case was determined by political considerations rather than the rules of law and the criminal statutes of the state of California. But yet, you and many others seem to support that kind of political perversion of our legal system. That I find very disturbing.

I don't see it as perversion

I see it as a weak case that was over prosecuted. The law was followed

 

[rightwinger]

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

If anyone else had done it they would have been prosecuted for negligent manslaughter and probably convicted

But this was no ordinary case
The rightwing media and then a candidate for President picked this case as an example of illegal Mexicans run amok killing beautiful white women

This case was pointed to as an example of why we need a wall and why Americans should fear illegal Mexicans

The facts of the case never supported the conclusions or remedies that conservatives were drawing

As a result, it was over prosecuted and the guy got off

you make good points. this case was determined by political considerations rather than the rules of law and the criminal statutes of the state of California. But yet, you and many others seem to support that kind of political perversion of our legal system. That I find very disturbing.

the right wing was doing the same thing.

which right wingers were in the courtroom or on the jury?

Who knows?
Could be all of them

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

winger: "but officer, I didn't intend to go 90 in a 35 zone" so you have to let me off, right?

Intent means everything when seeking a first or second degree murder charge

yes, but this was not first degree murder. No one in the cal legal system wanted a conviction.

Second degree murder meant he intentionally fired with the intent of killing someone

Given that he fired one shot and it hit the ground 80 feet away from her makes it hard to prove he shot with intent to kill

I already told you, he should have been convicted of negligent homicide. If you did it, you would have been convicted. Think about that for a minute.

If anyone else had done it they would have been prosecuted for negligent manslaughter and probably convicted

But this was no ordinary case
The rightwing media and then a candidate for President picked this case as an example of illegal Mexicans run amok killing beautiful white women

This case was pointed to as an example of why we need a wall and why Americans should fear illegal Mexicans

The facts of the case never supported the conclusions or remedies that conservatives were drawing

As a result, it was over prosecuted and the guy got off

Correct.

The prosecution was motivated by bigotry and the right’s unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and Hispanic immigration, not the law and facts of the case.

 

[deanrd]

California. The worlds seventh largest economy. Republicans call it fuked up because it hasn't failed. The way they have.

 

[hazlnut]

Theyre a sanctuary state now. They don't really care about their own US citizens. They should secede.

w/o CA you'd all starve... nitwit...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the prosecution had charged him with negligent homicide (manslaughter) they may have gotten a conviction

But the conservative media never would have tolerated a charge of negligent homicide......so they got a second degree murder charge

and lost

you don't understand our court system. the jury could have found him guilty of the lesser charge of negligent homicide, but they were determined to set him free to "show how tolerant" and stupid California is.

They had that option
But the prosecution did not sell that option

the fix was in from the beginning. No one in SFO or Cal wanted a conviction that would demonstrate how liberal illegal immigrant policies are hurting innocent American citizens. The jury was of the same mind and a criminal walks once again in the land of fruits and nuts.

If that was the case, why did they over prosecute on shaky evidence of murder?

incompetence or they did not want a conviction. Remember, a conviction would have demonstrated how cal's sanctuary policies are killing innocent American citizens.

Plus the only jury demographic breakdown I could find is that the jury was gender split evenly and three of them were immigrants themselves.

I would sure like to know the ethnicity of the other nine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the prosecutor tried for. It was not murder or nothing, it was murder, manslaughter or nothing. They chose the weakest charge.

The prosecutor has to paint a picture of what he thinks happened

He painted a picture of intentional murder. The jury did not buy it

Fine. Then they should have found him guilty of manslaughter. How Fn stupid are people in Cali anyway?

I agree

The prosecutor was stupid to listen to rightwing hysteria

What makes you think he was?

The evidence he had to prosecute on

Oh, so in your own little world, this prosecutor based his case on rightwing media? Is that how a liberal really thinks???

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Theyre a sanctuary state now. They don't really care about their own US citizens. They should secede.

More like a Sanctimonious State.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We are in great need of a star chamber type of justice that takes care of business after the system fails.

 

[william the wie]

People are leaving California by the millions. That right there should give many pause for thought!

So far they haven't hit a million/year net out-migration but it could happen this year with all of the new taxes and the large number of people who will have insurance money to finance the move after landslide season ends, it could happen but the odds are about three to one against that happening. The possibility of that unfixed dam taking out Sacramento is probably larger and there are many other possibilities