Winston
Platinum Member
If he killed Kate while driving drunk he would have done big time in prison. Yet he can break the law by entering our nation illegally and processing a hand gun illegally and killing a innocent young women with the rest of her life ahead of her. To defend the decision of the jury is to be as cold and unthinking as a human can be. Maybe you should move to San Francisco, you would fit right in.So if someone shoots at you and misses but the bullet ricochets and kills you the shooter gets off Scott free? Because he is a bad shot? What kind of idiocy has rotted your brain?Agreed. Which is why is would be difficult for the prosecution for prove murder. They have no idea what he was thinking. But they do know the bullet wasn't a direct hit
Dear Fang and Rambunctious
If the circumstances were purely accidental and legal for him to be there, yes this could be argued as an accidental shooting death. That is not murder, but could be negligent homicide if negligence is involved.
Even Zimmerman didn't get negligent homicide as many including me thought would better describe what went wrong when he killed Trayvon Martin.
In this case, "felony murder" comes the closest to the circumstances around the death. It still isn't exactly what happened to the "letter of the law."
But it matches closely "in spirit."
Basically the man has a felony record, and the ACT of re-entry into the country after deportation CAN be punished as a felony.
But being present in the country isn't a felony, not even in his case. He just has a felony background, and RE-ENTRY can be a felony.
Then any death that occurs, even unintentional or accidental, during the COMMISSION of a felony CAN be charged as "felony murder" IN SOME STATES.
So the two reasons this doesn't apply here directly, is the state has different laws and interpretations of felony murder. And the man's presence at that location when the death occurred because he had committed a felony "in the past" doesn't necessarily count as felony in the PRESENT when the death occurred. It wasn't "during the commission" of his PAST felonies.
So it is stretch, and other people who DO CALL HIS PRESENCE to be a felony DO count this as murder.
What they could do is consider everyone in SF who ENABLED this man to be there could count as an ACCESSORY to felony, and thus contributed to felony murder by letting him here where a DEATH occurred, accidental or unintentional or not.
That's a HUGE stretch. But it could be argued IN SPIRIT, just the letter of the law can contradict that and get them off the hook which is what they use, the letter of the law to violate the SPIRIT of the law.
??? Rambunctious did you even read or understand my message? This can be argued as FELONY MURDER. I explained how. Read it again.
If you agree that either this man "was in process of committing a felony" or that the city officials who ENABLED him to commit an immigration violation are committing a FELONY, then ANY DEATH that occurs during the commission of a felony CAN BE CHARGED AS FELONY MURDER if that law applies in that state.
The question is does the actions of the city to enable him to to be there "count as a felony."
It's because I'm NOT in California I don't have say in how they interpret laws. They may not have "felony murder" as they do in Texas.
Rambunctious instead of blaming and yelling at me when I offered a possible avenue for legal argument,
why don't you help lobby the federal govt to look into this argument for felony murder?
Why yell at me if you can make this argument I offered?
If you believe in it, I spelled out the TERMS that could be researched and possible USED.
But just calling it murder isn't explaining what is argued as an "accident."
FELONY MURDER
is the term that can be applied to even an accidental unintended death caused during the commission of a felony.
That's what my message is describing.
Did you even read it before you reacted?
Great, then I guess you support pressing felony charges of involuntary manslaughter against the BLM ranger whose gun was responsible for the death of Ms. Steinle. He left it unsecured, underneath the seat of his car, as he ate dinner with his family. That is criminal negligence. It was stolen, ditched, and then found by Mr. Zarate. The ranger's actions meet the standards for involuntary manslaughter, Mr. Zarate's do not.