Passionate pre-election opinion of prominent Democrat

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Do you think the rest of the worlds leaders use Fox and Friends as their intelligence source?

The Russians do...oh wait, they are Fox and Friend's intelligence source

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don't trust him because he doesn't think things thru, reacts to things without thought and is easily lead astray, all you have to do is flatter him. Do you think the rest of the worlds leaders use Fox and Friends as their intelligence source?
Don't you think they know that at worst he will be around for 6 years?
Look at the history of negotiations with N Korea and see where we are now.
They have nukes, ICBMs and as a reward are having a meeting with the leader of the USA.
As far as being whatever nasty name you want to call him, that's up to you. I just think he's a schmuck.
All the inalienable rights in the world will do you no good if you don't have access to capital or the ability to accrue it. That is what is happening to the middle class and you can look at income distribution over the past 100 years and see it.

Pete makes a lot of good points except pointing out the fact they have nukes and icbms. Do you honestly blame that on Trump Pete? My feeling is that is another problem he inherited from his predecessors. I feel like this is a great opportunity to make the world safer,who is responsible for this moment of clarity? Do you think the US is misguided when we "reward" NK with a meeting?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don't trust him because he doesn't think things thru, reacts to things without thought and is easily lead astray, all you have to do is flatter him.

I don't know that what you say about him is true. His success in life is evidence that what you say is not true. I get that those who don't like him, and those who are pissed at being defeated by him, and those who want to win an election against him, would say stuff like that. That's just boilerplate politics.

Do you think the rest of the worlds leaders use Fox and Friends as their intelligence source?

That's just sarcasm, not an argument. Not part of an intelligent, honest discussion.

Don't you think they know that at worst he will be around for 6 years?

I don't know who the entire "they" are. Nor do I know why I should have trust, confidence, and agreement with those "they." There's a lot of "they" in this country and in other countries who would replace the word "worst" in your question with the word "best." Of course, those who hate Trump, don't want that notion to be exposed.

Look at the history of negotiations with N Korea and see where we are now.
They have nukes, ICBMs and as a reward are having a meeting with the leader of the USA.

You may want to frame it as a "reward." Others may want to call it Kim being scared out of his pants. And how did the history of negotiations with non-schmuk, decent leaders who didn't "reward" Kim work out?

Rather than not "thinking things thru," as you put it, Trump may have employed a version of Kissinger's "mad man strategy" to scare the be-Jesus out of Kim so he would be more likely to quit the nukes. Bombing Syria might well have been the kind of demonstrations which would help to convince Kim that Trump actually would attack NK if it didn't cooperate.

As far as being whatever nasty name you want to call him, that's up to you. I just think he's a schmuck.

When I said he was a scumbag, I thought I was reflecting your opinion of him, which seems to be the opinion of most anti-Trumpers. Again, I misinterpreted you. You don't consider him a scumbag. You think he is a schmuck. That's actually a bit nicer, but still as devastating. Probably even more so. Since scumbags in politics are very common and our previous, and several, scumbag Presidents have been able to do "the job." Schmuks would be too stupid to do "the job." Even so, you are willing to let time tell if Trump does "the job." Even though schmuks would not be capable of doing "the job."

All the inalienable rights in the world will do you no good if you don't have access to capital or the ability to accrue it. That is what is happening to the middle class and you can look at income distribution over the past 100 years and see it.

It is interesting that the past 100 years have been the time period in which Progressivism had begun to take hold and gradually have taken nearly total control of our society and our government. Yet it is those who are Progressive in their politics who rail against what they have wrought.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Pete makes a lot of good points except pointing out the fact they have nukes and icbms. Do you honestly blame that on Trump Pete? My feeling is that is another problem he inherited from his predecessors. I feel like this is a great opportunity to make the world safer,who is responsible for this moment of clarity? Do you think the US is misguided when we "reward" NK with a meeting?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it is not Trumps fault, but time is on their side. They are a nuclear power. In order to negotiate a treaty with them we will have to modify our existing relationship with S Korea and Japan. It is not a simple problem, unless the current regime is substantially different than his father. Who knew North Korea could be so complicated? (Couldn't resist)

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is interesting that the past 100 years have been the time period in which Progressivism had begun to take hold and gradually have taken nearly total control of our society and our government. Yet it is those who are Progressive in their politics who rail against what they have wrought.

And the Conservatives are happy?
This is a reply to the stuff you wrote in the body
Apparently you believe that because Trump says he is rich, that he is.
Perhaps John Barron told you so also.
As far as being around for some number of years, the rest of the world's leaders also feel some responsibility for their economies and realize that business needs the ability to be able to plan based on stable relationships, not the latest deal that someone thinks he can bully others into. This is not selling your name to anyone who wants to buy it for a minority stake in a project and if it's a loser, on to the next one.
You actually think Trump read any of Kissingers books, and developed a plan?
I think you could spend some time researching Trump, assume 20% is true. To me, it's pretty scary that he is where he is.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I hope you do realize a primary reason for the Russians working to elect Trump is because they were afraid of a Clinton POTUS.

Perhaps she doesn't have a pee tape.

Oh my yes, when she was crying in the early days of the 2008 primaries (when things weren't going so well for her), I'm sure that had Putin shaking in his boots.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If his job is making sure that the proletariat (lowest class of citizens, predating Marx by more than a thousand years) have less and grows as a group, while ensuring that the wealthiest people control more and more then yes, one would say he is doing his job.
The rise of the corporation will lead to the end of democracy in this country. The middle class is the heart of democracy and it is dying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unemployment is way down. For blacks, it's at record lows. Judging by the democrat response to that at the State Of The Union, maybe that's not the good news I presume it is. Perhaps you can explain why that is...

Did the wealthy not get wealthier under Obama? Given the stock market surge, that would be a nifty trick.

When the economy grows, that will always help the wealthier more than it helps regular folks, because they have more money to invest. Maybe that's not fair, but it's not a bad thing either, the wealthy aren't taking anything away from anyone else, wealth isn't finite, it's not like a pizza. Racism and income inequality, two favorite things for liberals to fall back on when they have nohting else, and cannot admit that the other guy has a point.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Unemployment is way down. For blacks, it's at record lows. Judging by the democrat response to that at the State Of The Union, maybe that's not the good news I presume it is. Perhaps you can explain why that is...

Did the wealthy not get wealthier under Obama? Given the stock market surge, that would be a nifty trick.

When the economy grows, that will always help the wealthier more than it helps regular folks, because they have more money to invest. Maybe that's not fair, but it's not a bad thing either, the wealthy aren't taking anything away from anyone else, wealth isn't finite, it's not like a pizza. Racism and income inequality, two favorite things for liberals to fall back on when they have nohting else, and cannot admit that the other guy has a point.

Where did you get race out of that?
Income inequality is real and capital is somewhat finite, less so now that we do not have a gold standard.
But capital has been flowing to the people at the very top(think 1%) and has accelerated. It's not just the latest administrations fault, but the tax change did not help. I'm sure the Waltons deserve it, after all they spread 2% out among their employees.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Where did you get race out of that?
Income inequality is real and capital is somewhat finite, less so now that we do not have a gold standard.
But capital has been flowing to the people at the very top(think 1%) and has accelerated. It's not just the latest administrations fault, but the tax change did not help. I'm sure the Waltons deserve it, after all they spread 2% out among their employees.

"Where did you get race out of that?" You make it seem like liberals care a lot about helping the poor. If that's true, why did all the democrats sit there with scowls on their faces, when Trump proclaimed that black unemployment was at record lows?

"Income inequality is real "

It sure is. Here in ultra-liberal CT, it is real and getting worse.

"and capital is somewhat finite"

Wealth is not finite. There is no hard cap to what GDP can be. If Warren Buffet earns another $1 million today, that doe snot mean there's a million less for you ad me to scrounge for. Wealthy people are good for the economy. They pay taxes on some of that wealth, they invest some of it, they spend some of it, they give some to charity. All of those things, help the economy. And except in the case of thieves, they aren't taking anything away from anyone else.

How would you deal with this? Would you pass a law saying that once someone achieves a certain net worth, that they can no longer work or invest?

"But capital has been flowing to the people at the very top(think 1%) and has accelerated"

It always does. And it doesn't negatively effect me or you, one bit. One person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty.

"sure the Waltons deserve it"

I didn't say that. I said that if the Waltons lost it all in the stock market tomorrow and became poor, I don't see how that helps anyone else.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Where did you get race out of that?
Income inequality is real and capital is somewhat finite, less so now that we do not have a gold standard.
But capital has been flowing to the people at the very top(think 1%) and has accelerated. It's not just the latest administrations fault, but the tax change did not help. I'm sure the Waltons deserve it, after all they spread 2% out among their employees.

"Where did you get race out of that?" You make it seem like liberals care a lot about helping the poor. If that's true, why did all the democrats sit there with scowls on their faces, when Trump proclaimed that black unemployment was at record lows?

"Income inequality is real "

It sure is. Here in ultra-liberal CT, it is real and getting worse.

"and capital is somewhat finite"

Wealth is not finite. There is no hard cap to what GDP can be. If Warren Buffet earns another $1 million today, that doe snot mean there's a million less for you ad me to scrounge for. Wealthy people are good for the economy. They pay taxes on some of that wealth, they invest some of it, they spend some of it, they give some to charity. All of those things, help the economy. And except in the case of thieves, they aren't taking anything away from anyone else.

How would you deal with this? Would you pass a law saying that once someone achieves a certain net worth, that they can no longer work or invest?

"But capital has been flowing to the people at the very top(think 1%) and has accelerated"

It always does. And it doesn't negatively effect me or you, one bit. One person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty.

"sure the Waltons deserve it"

I didn't say that. I said that if the Waltons lost it all in the stock market tomorrow and became poor, I don't see how that helps anyone else.

"the tax change did not help"

No? The $38 billion in taxes that Apple will pay when it brings cash back, that won't help? The new jobs and infrastructure investments promised by Apple and Comcast won't help?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And the Conservatives are happy?

Who said that conservatives are happy about what Progressives have done to this country? You complain about the so called disappearance of the middle class, the rise of corporatism, and the so called growing "income inequality" that has occurred during the ascendance of Progressivism in this country, yet you don't seem to connect that to Progressive distribution policies (which creates larger groups of low income dependents), nor to the Progressive growth of "government inequality" in which the federal government constantly grows in power at the expense of local and individual governance. Eisenhower originally intended the phrase we are familiar with as "The Military Industrial Complex" to be "The Military Industrial Congressional Complex."

Progressive policies linking the central government to all facets of society in ways that gives it power over them, centralizes political power, which, in turn, more easily links with centralized corporate power than with a plethora of small business entities. And its unconstitutional network of regulatory agencies creates regulations that favor large corporations over small businesses--which contributes to fewer "wealth owners" as well as watering down the number of "middle (class) wealth owners. Which, along with the larger number of low wealth government dependents creates a larger average wealth disparity as capital flows overall to fewer, much larger business entities in the form of centralized corporations.

So Eisenhower's "Complex" has expanded into the Big Business Big Government Complex. This is a result of the Progressive model of government being that which is not checked by constitutional bounds, but, rather, unlimited in its ability to do what it considers "good"--to do "the job."

This is a reply to the stuff you wrote in the body
Apparently you believe that because Trump says he is rich, that he is.

Trump was touted to be rich by the mainstream media long before he ran for President and before I read or heard anything he has said. I didn't get the notion of his richness from the Don's own mouth.

Perhaps John Barron told you so also.

Perhaps you want to appear to be stupid.

As far as being around for some number of years, the rest of the world's leaders also feel some responsibility for their economies and realize that business needs the ability to be able to plan based on stable relationships, not the latest deal that someone thinks he can bully others into. This is not selling your name to anyone who wants to buy it for a minority stake in a project and if it's a loser, on to the next one.

It is nearly impossible, and way too taxing, to respond in detail to effusive blabber. But I'll give it a brief, summarized, try. Trump has, apparently, understood how to successfully deal with various world business and political leaders. One of his most important tactics is to get advice from "experts" in how to achieve his goals.

You actually think Trump read any of Kissingers books, and developed a plan?

Trump has met with Kissinger several times regarding foreign policy.

I think you could spend some time researching Trump, assume 20% is true. To me, it's pretty scary that he is where he is.

I assume that what you say about Trump is a result of your extensive "researching." But what you say as a result of that does not explain nor negate what Trump has done during his brief time in office. Ergo, I have no confidence in the veracity or relevance of your sources. There are sources that picture Trump as a positive force. I don't care about them either. The actual facts of his doing "the job" unfolding before our eyes determines what I think about him vis a vis "the job."

BTW, I am still interested in how you believe that corporations will lead to the end of democracy in this country, but that judges usurping Congress's power to amend the Constitution simply by rewriting the law (the Constitution) through "interpretations" that suit their personal prejudices, will not endanger democracy in this country?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Who said that conservatives are happy about what Progressives have done to this country?

What a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. In the past 100 years you claim "progressives" have influenced our country we've become the most powerful nation on the planet, cleaned up so much of our environment, got rid of child labor, reduced poverty, worked to defeat multiple enemies, advanced healthcare, invested in science which has driven corporate innovation, rocked the best legal system in existence, expanded civil liberties etc... etc... etc...

Our country is great, largely because of progressive thinking. We can do a lot better but the proof is in the putting.

How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?

[Sea Dangles]

Don't forget they invented the unisex bathroom and sanctuary cities too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

What a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. In the past 100 years you claim "progressives" have influenced our country we've become the most powerful nation on the planet,

There have always been a "most powerful nation on the planet." Dictatorships, monarchies, republics, etc. have all been powerful and even the most powerful. The Founders defeated a monarchy that was reputed to be the most powerful military on earth. Power is not a unique result of Progressivism, nor would we not be powerful under our pre-Progressive constitutional Republic. We, no doubt, would be as powerful or more.

cleaned up so much of our environment, got rid of child labor, reduced poverty, worked to defeat multiple enemies, advanced healthcare, invested in science which has driven corporate innovation, rocked the best legal system in existence,

Advancements in science, environmental improvement, more efficient ways to use labor, have happened throughout human history, and have not depended on Progressive politics nor were hindered by our pre-Progressive government. Humanitarianism, compassion, welfare for the needy, military power,again, are not Progressive creations. Corporate innovation, market innovation and wealth, free enterprise, are not Progressive creations, nor dependent on Progressive politics except as part of the Big Business/Big government Complex. On the contrary, they could be overall, a lot better if the populace/market was less regulated by Progressive need for control. And the best legal system in existence was not created by Progressivism. On the contrary, Progressivism is dismantling that system bit by bit and replacing it with top down control.

expanded civil liberties etc... etc... etc...

Civil liberties have been contracted, not expanded. Slavery was abolished before Progressivism. Women's suffrage started in states before Progressivism. Those were not Progressive brainchildren. Racial equality was instituted by law before Progressivism. Progressive type liberties such as those for newly created genders (which didn't exist pre-Progressivism) imposed restrictions on others and divided us by creating protected classes with special rights. Gay marriage was not an expansion of civil liberties. It was a redefinition of marriage for the purpose of expanding the class of people who could get government benefits through marriage. Homosexuals could live and love together without labeling it marriage. Though homo-sexuals were more widely discriminated against during pre-Progressivism and also for most of the Progressive era, and even banned and prosecuted in various communities, they weren't in others. It was only a matter of time with science and cultural advances (that were constantly happening throughout history and not dependent on Progressivism) that such draconian policies and practices would be challenged legally by using the legal, pre-Progressive, constitutional avenues.

Our country is great, largely because of progressive thinking. We can do a lot better but the proof is in the putting.

How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?

It was great before Progressivism. Progressivism is not the reason our country is great. Progressive thinking is not a product of Progressivism. Nor vice versa. Actual progress, and progressive thinking advanced fairly steadily, with a few bumps in certain areas, throughout history, and are far more advanced by individual freedom than by government control. Progressivism as a political philosophy and system is not progressive in the literal, non-political meaning of the word. It was an erroneous, self-aggrandizing, label created by the founders of the movement. They thought they were the next synthesis of evolutionary human social and governmental progress.

Progressivism is not actually progressive as a political system. It is a newer, gentler (for the time being), version of past authoritarian regimes. The notion that it is the reason for human progress is, as you put it, a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. It has pretty much managed to flourish on the bedrock of this nation's founding.

It developed in ascendance starting slowly, then more quickly over time toward its present dominance. And as it is reaching its apex of power, it's growing, massive and unwieldy structure is beginning to be exposed by things like those that concern Pete F, such as Corporatism (Big Government/Big Busaness complex), disappearance of the middle class, and "income inequality." It is also crumbling into the fissures of division by race, gender, income level, class struggle, expansion of government dependence, destruction and minimization of individual motivation, atomization of national culture creating culture wars, descent into a meaningless Post Modern relativism with its psychological stresses, alienation, futile wars, unsustainable government debt, I would add godlessness but that would be considered a plus by Post Modern, Social Marxist, Progressive relativists.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?

I live in CT (an extremely progressive state), and pay $900 more a month in taxes, than I would if I lived in NH. So you tell me...

And maybe you could ask that question to Kate Steinle's father

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I live in CT (an extremely progressive state), and pay $900 more a month in taxes, than I would if I lived in NH. So you tell me...

And maybe you could ask that question to Kate Steinle's father

More parents here that you could ask https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...gh-victims.htm
If we are going to label a group based on an incident, there is plenty to go around

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

More parents here that you could ask https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...gh-victims.htm
If we are going to label a group based on an incident, there is plenty to go around

I didn’t label any group. Spence asked what harm has come to anyone from progressive ideas. The progressive notion of sanctuary cities led directly to kate steinles death, and you can deny that until you are blue, but it’s true. It’s also true that liberalism has led to crushing taxes in my home state of ct, and if Spence doesn’t think that causes harm, that shows you how aloof he is.

What made our country great is the idea that the individual has rights granted by god, and that the state serves the individual, not the other way around; also the concepts of individual liberty and upward economic mobility. These are the things that made us great, and progressives could not be more dedicated to the abolition of these principles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I didn’t label any group. Spence asked what harm has come to anyone from progressive ideas. The progressive notion of sanctuary cities led directly to kate steinles death, and you can deny that until you are blue, but it’s true. It’s also true that liberalism has led to crushing taxes in my home state of ct, and if Spence doesn’t think that causes harm, that shows you how aloof he is.

What made our country great is the idea that the individual has rights granted by god, and that the state serves the individual, not the other way around; also the concepts of individual liberty and upward economic mobility. These are the things that made us great, and progressives could not be more dedicated to the abolition of these principles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death, illegal immigrants or open carry being illegal?
"I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that it did.

I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.


Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.

These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.

There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.

But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However, given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me that the jury made the right decision.

The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.

Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.

The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement.

I have come away from this experience with a strong sense of respect for the jurors and their objective handling of a sensitive case under the national spotlight. I hope that I would have acted with the same level of maturity."
Phil Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer who lives in San Francisco and occasionally writes at abinitioblog.com. He is not a lawyer.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death, illegal immigrants or open carry being illegal?
"I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that it did.

I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.


Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.

These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.

There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.

But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However, given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me that the jury made the right decision.

The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.

Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.

The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement.

I have come away from this experience with a strong sense of respect for the jurors and their objective handling of a sensitive case under the national spotlight. I hope that I would have acted with the same level of maturity."
Phil Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer who lives in San Francisco and occasionally writes at abinitioblog.com. He is not a lawyer.

"And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death"

I'm not sure how you can possibly not know this, the answer is sanctuary cities. The shooter should have been deported, if he had been, she'd be alive.

Your quotes form the juror are meaningless. I'm not saying the guy should have been convicted of anything, maybe it was an accident. But the shooter never should have been allowed to remain.

You are concentrating on the legal issues related to the trial. Not the point.

There's also the impact of liberalism on the crushing taxes on the state of CT, on the fact that 75% of black babies are born fatherless (the ones that aren't aborted, that is). I'm not saying conservatism is perfect. I am responding to Spence's comment that liberalism hasn't harmed anybody.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not sure how you can possibly not know this, the answer is sanctuary cities. The shooter should have been deported, if he had been, she'd be alive.

But with a millions of variables you can't really say that's the case. While tragic her death was an extremely random event.

Regardless, you don't make policy over a single event like that.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death"

I'm not sure how you can possibly not know this, the answer is sanctuary cities. The shooter should have been deported, if he had been, she'd be alive.

Your quotes form the juror are meaningless. I'm not saying the guy should have been convicted of anything, maybe it was an accident. But the shooter never should have been allowed to remain.

You are concentrating on the legal issues related to the trial. Not the point.

There's also the impact of liberalism on the crushing taxes on the state of CT, on the fact that 75% of black babies are born fatherless (the ones that aren't aborted, that is). I'm not saying conservatism is perfect. I am responding to Spence's comment that liberalism hasn't harmed anybody.

The gun was lying under the bench
A man picked it up
It fired
What does his immigration status have to do with a death, other than to be a focus point for authoritarian white christian conservatives
One could also say that if there were no guns this would not have happened
"Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up."

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What does his immigration status have to do with a death, other than to be a focus point for authoritarian white christian conservatives
One could also say that if there were no guns this would not have happened

Jim will say that had he not been released he wouldn't have been there to pick up the unknown object. But like I said given the randomness of the entire thing that's kind of a silly way to make a point or policy for that matter.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Regardless, you don't make policy over a single event like that.

One would think your statement is reasonable and correct, yet we have bumpstock bans because of a single event. Sounds like policy to me. A reactionary policy if ever there was one.

[Sea Dangles]

Boom
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

One would think your statement is reasonable and correct, yet we have bumpstock bans because of a single event. Sounds like policy to me. A reactionary policy if ever there was one.

I said event like that. A random accidental killing isn't the same as nearly a 1000 injuries and 59 fatalities and you know that...

Plus, the bump stock makes the semi nearly fully auto...which is heavily restricted to own and you know that...

[Sea Dangles]

Now that is called progressive thinking

And you know that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Antifa is good and you know that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Antifa is good and you know that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't say I advocate violent protest but the whole Antifa thing is mostly just a Trump deke.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Can't say I advocate violent protest but the whole Antifa thing is mostly just a Trump deke.

Man, you're really out of touch. Antifa "activism" was an issue before trump, correctly, latched on to it. Several "conservative's" who attempted to speak on college campuses were harassed and stopped and violently attacked by Antifa before Trump became President and before he said anything about it.

I can understand, though, if you're ignorant of the significant Antifa violence and harassment pre-Trump since the mainstream media reported little to nothing about it. Trump helped to bring attention to what the media preferred not to mention. Most of us who don't turn our nose up at the alternative media knew about this stuff well before Trump said anything.

Media inattention was the deke.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Man, you're really out of touch. Antifa "activism" was an issue before trump, correctly, latched on to it. Several "conservative's" who attempted to speak on college campuses were harassed and stopped and violently attacked by Antifa before Trump became President and before he said anything about it.

Yea, it's such a shame people would be motivated by anti-Nazi intentions. What are they thinking? How many violent Antifa events happened before Trump came to the political stage? Why is Trump using them as a foil to legitimize nationalists racist groups?