America's Gun Violence

mace1229

I believe the shooting was accidental, so just don't see how that isn't still involuntary manslaughter. The thing is I can believe his whole defense story with the exception he didn't know it was a gun when he picked it up and it went off, and that doesn't change anything. Still manslaughter. The jury saw it different I guess.

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

I believe the shooting was accidental, so just don't see how that isn't still involuntary manslaughter. The thing is I can believe his whole defense story with the exception he didn't know it was a gun when he picked it up and it went off, and that doesn't change anything. Still manslaughter. The jury saw it different I guess.

I guess it all hinges on whether they believed he behaved recklessly or not. If they believed he deliberately discharged the gun, then clearly it would be reckless, so somehow they decided he was not. The hunting "accidents" are different, as the hunters deliberately discharged their firearms in unsafe situations. 

PJPOWER

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

I believe the shooting was accidental, so just don't see how that isn't still involuntary manslaughter. The thing is I can believe his whole defense story with the exception he didn't know it was a gun when he picked it up and it went off, and that doesn't change anything. Still manslaughter. The jury saw it different I guess.

I guess it all hinges on whether they believed he behaved recklessly or not. If they believed he deliberately discharged the gun, then clearly it would be reckless, so somehow they decided he was not. The hunting "accidents" are different, as the hunters deliberately discharged their firearms in unsafe situations. 

I am not sure that deliberateness is the issue here.  Neglectful discharge cases haven’t gone well for defendants in the past either.  I was not on the jury, so i’m not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of their decision here...but it does seem interesting.

mace1229

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

I believe the shooting was accidental, so just don't see how that isn't still involuntary manslaughter. The thing is I can believe his whole defense story with the exception he didn't know it was a gun when he picked it up and it went off, and that doesn't change anything. Still manslaughter. The jury saw it different I guess.

I guess it all hinges on whether they believed he behaved recklessly or not. If they believed he deliberately discharged the gun, then clearly it would be reckless, so somehow they decided he was not. The hunting "accidents" are different, as the hunters deliberately discharged their firearms in unsafe situations. 

I am not sure that deliberateness is the issue here.  Neglectful discharge cases haven’t gone well for defendants in the past either.  I was not on the jury, so i’m not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of their decision here...but it does seem interesting.

Especially since he was illegally in possession of a firearm, I just don't see how deliberateness is a factor.
I can't imagine why he would intentionally discharge a gun, so giving him all the benefit of the doubt, it is still illegal for him to possess one.

oftenreading

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

I believe the shooting was accidental, so just don't see how that isn't still involuntary manslaughter. The thing is I can believe his whole defense story with the exception he didn't know it was a gun when he picked it up and it went off, and that doesn't change anything. Still manslaughter. The jury saw it different I guess.

I guess it all hinges on whether they believed he behaved recklessly or not. If they believed he deliberately discharged the gun, then clearly it would be reckless, so somehow they decided he was not. The hunting "accidents" are different, as the hunters deliberately discharged their firearms in unsafe situations. 

I am not sure that deliberateness is the issue here.  Neglectful discharge cases haven’t gone well for defendants in the past either.  I was not on the jury, so i’m not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of their decision here...but it does seem interesting.

Deliberateness is certainly an issue here, given the prosecution's assertion that he deliberately fired into the crowd. What I am saying is that the jury seems to have rejected that argument completely. 

So we are left with accidental discharge, or deliberate discharge in another direction. If accidental, the only thing that seems to not fit the "reckless" definition is that he didn't know it was a gun when he picked it up, which was his defence. I guess that's what won out. 
 

PJ_Soul

Halifax2TheMax said:

stuckinline said:

WTF?

Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources has issued 10 hunting licenses to children under the age of 1 in the weeks following the state’s new regulations concerning mentored hunts, the agency reports

Earlier this month, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a law eliminating the age restriction on mentored hunts, meaning that children of any age would be allowed to accompany a licensed hunter in the field, as well as carry their own weapon.

Previously, a child in Wisconsin needed to be 12 to be issued a hunting license, and mentored hunts — wherein the protégée would carry his/her own rifle — were limited to those 10 and up.

In addition to the 10 mentored-hunt licenses issued to those under 1 year of age, Wisconsin’s DNR has also issued 52 other licenses to children under the age of 5, the Associated Press reports. In total, 1,814 licenses have been issued to children under 10, although the majority — 1,011 — went to 9-year-olds.

On Nov. 17, 6-year-old Lexie Harris became one of the first and youngest hunters in Wisconsin to bag a deer during a mentored hunt under the new law. Her father, Tyler, said he had been taking Lexie on his deer hunts since she was 3, but never before was she allowed to actually carry a weapon and kill one.

http://www.foxnews.com/great-outdoors/2017/12/01/wisconsin-issues-10-hunting-licenses-to-children-under-age-1.html

Kids gotta eat.

That makes it ironic that breastfeeding in public is probably less acceptable to these people than infants having hunting licenses and kindergartners blowing animals' brains out, lol.

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

stuckinline said:

WTF?

Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources has issued 10 hunting licenses to children under the age of 1 in the weeks following the state’s new regulations concerning mentored hunts, the agency reports

Earlier this month, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a law eliminating the age restriction on mentored hunts, meaning that children of any age would be allowed to accompany a licensed hunter in the field, as well as carry their own weapon.

Previously, a child in Wisconsin needed to be 12 to be issued a hunting license, and mentored hunts — wherein the protégée would carry his/her own rifle — were limited to those 10 and up.

In addition to the 10 mentored-hunt licenses issued to those under 1 year of age, Wisconsin’s DNR has also issued 52 other licenses to children under the age of 5, the Associated Press reports. In total, 1,814 licenses have been issued to children under 10, although the majority — 1,011 — went to 9-year-olds.

On Nov. 17, 6-year-old Lexie Harris became one of the first and youngest hunters in Wisconsin to bag a deer during a mentored hunt under the new law. Her father, Tyler, said he had been taking Lexie on his deer hunts since she was 3, but never before was she allowed to actually carry a weapon and kill one.

http://www.foxnews.com/great-outdoors/2017/12/01/wisconsin-issues-10-hunting-licenses-to-children-under-age-1.html

Kids gotta eat.

That makes it ironic that breastfeeding in public is probably less acceptable to these people than infants having hunting licenses and kindergartners blowing animals' brains out, lol.

Interestingly, I have also found it ironic that it is okay to depict people blowing each other’s brains out in HD on daytime TV, but a boob...noooooo!  

CM189191

CM189191 said:

If you shoot someone in accident you should at least:
Spend time in jail
Never be allowed to handle own or otherwise possess a gun ever again
Pay compensation to your victim above and beyond medical expenses

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

KC138045 said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/deer-hunter-who-killed-woman-is-charged-with-manslaughter/ar-BBFZkjF?li=AAggNb9&ocid=edgsp

Nighttime, neighbourhood, handgun deer hunter charged with shooting his neighbour after he thought she was a deer.

100% agree with that verdict. He was not legally hunting, so there's no question he is criminally responsible for it. Manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge.

And the illegal Mexican immigrant who is also a felon was acquitted of killing Kate Steinle in San Francisco.  Not saying the hunter should not of been charged but this guy in California should of been charged as well.  He was wanted by immigration officers and should not of even been allowed to be in the position to shoot and kill this poor girl.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-reaches-verdict-san-francisco-pier-shooting-233343965.html

He was charged. A jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty on other serious charges. What grounds do you have to argue against this sequence? Are you second guessing the jury's decision? I'm guessing they have more information on the case than you do. 
 

I agree with that. I agreed with that with all the high profile police cases in the last 2 years as well, but that wasn't a good enough answer for most back then.

Good post.

mcgruff10

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

KC138045 said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/deer-hunter-who-killed-woman-is-charged-with-manslaughter/ar-BBFZkjF?li=AAggNb9&ocid=edgsp

Nighttime, neighbourhood, handgun deer hunter charged with shooting his neighbour after he thought she was a deer.

100% agree with that verdict. He was not legally hunting, so there's no question he is criminally responsible for it. Manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge.

And the illegal Mexican immigrant who is also a felon was acquitted of killing Kate Steinle in San Francisco.  Not saying the hunter should not of been charged but this guy in California should of been charged as well.  He was wanted by immigration officers and should not of even been allowed to be in the position to shoot and kill this poor girl.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-reaches-verdict-san-francisco-pier-shooting-233343965.html

He was charged. A jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty on other serious charges. What grounds do you have to argue against this sequence? Are you second guessing the jury's decision? I'm guessing they have more information on the case than you do. 
 

I agree with that. I agreed with that with all the high profile police cases in the last 2 years as well, but that wasn't a good enough answer for most back then.

Great post. 

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

KC138045 said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/deer-hunter-who-killed-woman-is-charged-with-manslaughter/ar-BBFZkjF?li=AAggNb9&ocid=edgsp

Nighttime, neighbourhood, handgun deer hunter charged with shooting his neighbour after he thought she was a deer.

100% agree with that verdict. He was not legally hunting, so there's no question he is criminally responsible for it. Manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge.

And the illegal Mexican immigrant who is also a felon was acquitted of killing Kate Steinle in San Francisco.  Not saying the hunter should not of been charged but this guy in California should of been charged as well.  He was wanted by immigration officers and should not of even been allowed to be in the position to shoot and kill this poor girl.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-reaches-verdict-san-francisco-pier-shooting-233343965.html

He was charged. A jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty on other serious charges. What grounds do you have to argue against this sequence? Are you second guessing the jury's decision? I'm guessing they have more information on the case than you do. 
 

I agree with that. I agreed with that with all the high profile police cases in the last 2 years as well, but that wasn't a good enough answer for most back then.

Good post.

Just saw this. Great minds think alike.

PJ_Soul

Well I think at least some of those cops should have been found guilty, and I think maybe this illegal immigrant guy should have been found guilty too. Sometimes juries get it wrong, for various reasons. Yes Often, you're right, it's possible the jury knows a hell of a lot more than we do... On the other hand, OJ was found innocent and Damiel Echols and his friends were sent to Death Row, and the Hurricane went to prison for years, sooooo...... I don't think we should always blindly support the results of a jury trial. Our justice system is far from infallible.

oftenreading

PJ_Soul said:

Well I think at least some of those cops should have been found guilty, and I think maybe this illegal immigrant guy should have been found guilty too. Sometimes juries get it wrong, for various reasons. Yes Often, you're right, it's possible the jury knows a hell of a lot more than we do... On the other hand, OJ was found innocent and Damiel Echols and his friends were sent to Death Row, and the Hurricane went to prison for years, sooooo...... I don't think we should always blindly support the results of a jury trial. Our justice system is far from infallible.

Oh, I am not arguing that the jury system is infallible. In fact, overall I think the adversarial system is inferior to the inquisitorial system. I also believe that juries get it wrong more than judges do, assuming you're actually talking about a real judge - i.e. someone trained in the law who rises to the bench on merit, not some jackass with political connections who go himself elected. 

But in this particular case, I don't think there was evidence for a murder verdict. 

oftenreading

Issues related to the justice system per se might be a good topic for a whole other thread, rather than shoehorning it in to the gun violence or police violence or whatever 

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

KC138045 said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/deer-hunter-who-killed-woman-is-charged-with-manslaughter/ar-BBFZkjF?li=AAggNb9&ocid=edgsp

Nighttime, neighbourhood, handgun deer hunter charged with shooting his neighbour after he thought she was a deer.

100% agree with that verdict. He was not legally hunting, so there's no question he is criminally responsible for it. Manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge.

And the illegal Mexican immigrant who is also a felon was acquitted of killing Kate Steinle in San Francisco.  Not saying the hunter should not of been charged but this guy in California should of been charged as well.  He was wanted by immigration officers and should not of even been allowed to be in the position to shoot and kill this poor girl.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-reaches-verdict-san-francisco-pier-shooting-233343965.html

He was charged. A jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty on other serious charges. What grounds do you have to argue against this sequence? Are you second guessing the jury's decision? I'm guessing they have more information on the case than you do. 
 

I agree with that. I agreed with that with all the high profile police cases in the last 2 years as well, but that wasn't a good enough answer for most back then.

Great post. 

Except in the high profile police cases, it’s not uncommon for the DA’s office to collude, suppress evidence, not try an aggressive case, withhold evidence, witness tamper or apply undue pressure to influence jurors from the jury to get the desired outcome of acquittal. Because like none of those things have ever happened, particularly if the cop is white and the deceased at the hands of the accused is black. False comparison.

oftenreading

KC138045 said:

oftenreading said:

KC138045 said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/deer-hunter-who-killed-woman-is-charged-with-manslaughter/ar-BBFZkjF?li=AAggNb9&ocid=edgsp

Nighttime, neighbourhood, handgun deer hunter charged with shooting his neighbour after he thought she was a deer.

100% agree with that verdict. He was not legally hunting, so there's no question he is criminally responsible for it. Manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge.

And the illegal Mexican immigrant who is also a felon was acquitted of killing Kate Steinle in San Francisco.  Not saying the hunter should not of been charged but this guy in California should of been charged as well.  He was wanted by immigration officers and should not of even been allowed to be in the position to shoot and kill this poor girl.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-reaches-verdict-san-francisco-pier-shooting-233343965.html

He was charged. A jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty on other serious charges. What grounds do you have to argue against this sequence? Are you second guessing the jury's decision? I'm guessing they have more information on the case than you do. 
 

All they charged him with was being a felon in possession on a fire arm.  I don't need grounds to state my opinion.  Isn't that what we all do on these threads?  He was an illegal immigrant in possession of a stolen gun in a crowded public place.

Just like the hunter the killing probably was not intentional but it should still be considered manslaughter just like it was with the hunter.

I don't think you understand the difference between charged and convicted. He was charged with murder, plus a few other things. He was convicted of possession of a firearm. He was acquitted of the murder and manslaughter charges. 

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

KC138045 said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/deer-hunter-who-killed-woman-is-charged-with-manslaughter/ar-BBFZkjF?li=AAggNb9&ocid=edgsp

Nighttime, neighbourhood, handgun deer hunter charged with shooting his neighbour after he thought she was a deer.

100% agree with that verdict. He was not legally hunting, so there's no question he is criminally responsible for it. Manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge.

And the illegal Mexican immigrant who is also a felon was acquitted of killing Kate Steinle in San Francisco.  Not saying the hunter should not of been charged but this guy in California should of been charged as well.  He was wanted by immigration officers and should not of even been allowed to be in the position to shoot and kill this poor girl.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-reaches-verdict-san-francisco-pier-shooting-233343965.html

He was charged. A jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty on other serious charges. What grounds do you have to argue against this sequence? Are you second guessing the jury's decision? I'm guessing they have more information on the case than you do. 
 

I agree with that. I agreed with that with all the high profile police cases in the last 2 years as well, but that wasn't a good enough answer for most back then.

So which of the high profile police shootings actually went to a jury trial, versus just having an internal police investigation?  My memory is not clear on that, but my recollection is that most of the outrage was over police never even being charged. 

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

Well I think at least some of those cops should have been found guilty, and I think maybe this illegal immigrant guy should have been found guilty too. Sometimes juries get it wrong, for various reasons. Yes Often, you're right, it's possible the jury knows a hell of a lot more than we do... On the other hand, OJ was found innocent and Damiel Echols and his friends were sent to Death Row, and the Hurricane went to prison for years, sooooo...... I don't think we should always blindly support the results of a jury trial. Our justice system is far from infallible.

I agree, but those cases are very different, there was so much more information readily available. The whole OJ trial took over daytime TV. Multiple documentaries were made about the WM3. We know a lot more about many cases where it is commonly accepted the jury got it wrong.
I'll admit I read 1 or maybe 2 articles about the Kate Steinly case (not even enough to remember if I spelled her name correctly). So I can form an opinion about it, but my feelings won;t be very strong until I read further into it. I linked it to those cop trials because how many rioting over the verdict do you think read more than a few headlines about what happened? I'm guessing very few. Where at this point the jury has heard weeks of testimony compared to my few minutes of news headlines. So until I know more, I have to assume there was some important information that persuaded the jury. Its seems like there should have been manslaughter, but like I said, I can't feel too strongly about it until I know more about the case. And honestly, I probably will never research the details of the case myself so I have to accept the verdict.

mace1229

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

KC138045 said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/deer-hunter-who-killed-woman-is-charged-with-manslaughter/ar-BBFZkjF?li=AAggNb9&ocid=edgsp

Nighttime, neighbourhood, handgun deer hunter charged with shooting his neighbour after he thought she was a deer.

100% agree with that verdict. He was not legally hunting, so there's no question he is criminally responsible for it. Manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge.

And the illegal Mexican immigrant who is also a felon was acquitted of killing Kate Steinle in San Francisco.  Not saying the hunter should not of been charged but this guy in California should of been charged as well.  He was wanted by immigration officers and should not of even been allowed to be in the position to shoot and kill this poor girl.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-reaches-verdict-san-francisco-pier-shooting-233343965.html

He was charged. A jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty on other serious charges. What grounds do you have to argue against this sequence? Are you second guessing the jury's decision? I'm guessing they have more information on the case than you do. 
 

I agree with that. I agreed with that with all the high profile police cases in the last 2 years as well, but that wasn't a good enough answer for most back then.

So which of the high profile police shootings actually went to a jury trial, versus just having an internal police investigation?  My memory is not clear on that, but my recollection is that most of the outrage was over police never even being charged. 

Off the top of my head without looking any of them up, Darren Wilson, which sort of started it all, went to a Grand Jury (where the defendant has little or no defense, and the level of proof is much, much lower than compared to a trial jury). The Baltimore 6 went to jury too. Pretty much none of those verdict were accepted by large groups of people.

mace1229

The reaction to the OJ trial still baffles me. Not the verdict, but the reaction to it.
My dad was a cop in LA duuring the first riots, and he was still a cop there when the OJ verdict was read. They were prepared for riots even worse than the first if he was found guilty, they were ready to watch the city burn. Some believe some the jury got it wrong on purpose for that reason.
The verdict was read live across the country, from downtown LA to Time Square in NY. And if you watch news clips of the reactions, for the most part it was divided by color. Large groups of white people looked disgusted, and the large groups of blacks were jumping up and down cheering, as if their team just won the NBA championship. I remember being in High School when it was read and it was the same there. Most of the black students jumped on top of the lunch tables cheering.
It only took a year or two for that case to become the iconic case it is and pretty much everyone, including most black people today, knows he got away with it. But at the time all that was seen was color. Maybe white people just got lucky they ended up on the correct side, I dont know, but it was obvious that a staggering amount of blacks cheered for his freedom, and there is no doubt in my mind that if he was guilty there would have been riots that matched, or even surpassed, the LA riots of just a few years earlier. 
At least with the Darren Wilson case, it seems very similar to me (but with the opposite outcome).