TexasCHLforum.com

Unbelievable. I don't even know what to say.

When I first heard this today I wondered if the OJ prosecutors messed this one up too. However, I read something I had never seen or heard before. The bullet ricocheted off the sidewalk or something before hitting Kate. Knowing that, I don't think I could have convicted him of murder either. I guess I don't fully understand the definition of "involuntary manslaughter" enough to know how they found him not guilty for that.

How could they have found him innocent of even involuntary manslaughter??? They did convict him of being a felon with a gun. Involuntary manslaughter is basically an unintentional killing due to reckless and/or criminal behavior, so how does that not fit???. I just don't get it. Again, unbelievable!

How long until someone celebrating the decision comes up with "San Fran Proud"?

Disgusting.

How about federal charges of the shooter denying the victim of her civil rights?

I don't know how he didn't at a minimum get involuntary manslaughter. If I'm sitting around at Chic-Fil-A twirling my gun around like an idiot and it goes off and kills someone I bet I get convicted of involuntary manslaughter. I don't understand this verdict at all.

Oh and felon in possession of a firearm, 16 months to 3 years. what the heck? that's it?

California is weak on gun control. They should remedy that by following the lead of the other 49 states, in addition to the rest of the civilized world, by outlawing "Using a firearm to murder a human being."

Maybe they'll find that the correction of this oversight reduces the need for other restrictions upon firearms and their ownership.

Involuntary manslaughter in California occurs when one person kills another unintentionally, either

1. while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous California felony, OR
2. while committing a lawful act which might produce death, without due caution.

https://www.shouselaw.com/involuntary_manslaughter.html

If these are correct I think I can see how they did not find him guilty of even involuntary manslaughter. Obviously, we can throw #2 out. The only two other crimes he was committing were being in the country illegally and being in possession of a gun illegally. By being found not guilty, this tells me that California does not consider either of those to be inherently dangerous California felonies.

That's the only reasonable way I can see this happening. If it isn't that, the jury is just bat guano California crazy.

This all reminds me of the Casey Anthony trial. Granted we, the general public, hadn't seen all the same evidence the jury did, but I didn't think they were going to find her guilty either. Not because I don't think she did it, but because they couldn't prove much of anything that she committed the crime. There were too many possibilities in that one and not enough evidence or facts to prove who did it.

This is beyond disgusting.

They can’t consider prior felonies when this poor woman is killed, but they’ll darn well consider them if they catch you with an 11rd mag. Or if you apply for CHL. But not when you pull trigger and gun goes “bang bang” and results in someone dying? Not even involuntary manslaughter? Boy oh boy.

Crossroads wrote:I don't know how he didn't at a minimum get involuntary manslaughter. If I'm sitting around at Chic-Fil-A twirling my gun around like an idiot and it goes off and kills someone I bet I get convicted of involuntary manslaughter. I don't understand this verdict at all.

Oh and felon in possession of a firearm, 16 months to 3 years. what the heck? that's it?

I thought possession of a firearm by a felon is a minimum sentence of 10 years.

bmwrdr wrote:

Crossroads wrote:I don't know how he didn't at a minimum get involuntary manslaughter. If I'm sitting around at Chic-Fil-A twirling my gun around like an idiot and it goes off and kills someone I bet I get convicted of involuntary manslaughter. I don't understand this verdict at all.

Oh and felon in possession of a firearm, 16 months to 3 years. what the heck? that's it?

I thought possession of a firearm by a felon is a minimum sentence of 10 years.

At the Federal level.
He should be tried for felon being illegally in this country with min of 10 years in Prison
Make it a new law if it is not on the books

C-dub wrote:

Involuntary manslaughter in California occurs when one person kills another unintentionally, either

1. while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous California felony, OR
2. while committing a lawful act which might produce death, without due caution.

https://www.shouselaw.com/involuntary_manslaughter.html

If these are correct I think I can see how they did not find him guilty of even involuntary manslaughter. Obviously, we can throw #2 out. The only two other crimes he was committing were being in the country illegally and being in possession of a gun illegally. By being found not guilty, this tells me that California does not consider either of those to be inherently dangerous California felonies.

That's the only reasonable way I can see this happening. If it isn't that, the jury is just bat guano California crazy.

This all reminds me of the Casey Anthony trial. Granted we, the general public, hadn't seen all the same evidence the jury did, but I didn't think they were going to find her guilty either. Not because I don't think she did it, but because they couldn't prove much of anything that she committed the crime. There were too many possibilities in that one and not enough evidence or facts to prove who did it.

According to the blog, if felony possession of a firearm is a California crime (infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, doesn't matter), then he would be charged minimum involuntary manslaughter. If it was considered an inherently dangerous CA felony, then it would be a murder charge. There's absolutely no way he would've gotten away with a minimum involuntary manslaughter charge (since he was committing a crime just by holding the firearm) UNLESS A: there is no CA law that bars felons from possessing a firearm and B: an involuntary manslaughter charge requires a violation of CA PC, but federal violations need not apply. So basically, by breaking only federal laws and accidentally killing someone, it will be seen as an accidental death vs involuntary manslaughter. That's the only thing I can think of.

Either way, the conviction, in my opinion, is extremely stupid.

strogg wrote:[quote=" ...

Either way, the conviction, in my opinion, is extremely stupid.

... and encouraging others because the sentence is just worth a laugh.

bmwrdr wrote:

strogg wrote:[quote=" ...

Either way, the conviction, in my opinion, is extremely stupid.

... and encouraging others because the sentence is just worth a laugh.

not very good at detouring crime with that case!

I'm bracing for the thousands of protesters in every major city who will be looting stores and burning buildings and cars, before dragging Hispanics out of their vehicles and beating them within an inch of their lives / throwing bricks at their heads.

Oh wait, it was just a white person victimized here. So we will see a lot of talk about the need for "understanding" and "tolerance" instead.

Both reactions are equally ineffective, but at least the whites don't injure, kill, and destroy the property of, a bunch of innocent people.

rotor wrote: and the idiot who let his gun get stolen from his car.

1000's of us are forced to temporarily store guns in a vehicle when we go into a GFZ... let's keep the blame on the one who stole the gun, shot the girl, etc.

Even if the owner of the gun had it stored illegally, it was still then stolen and then used against the victim by the perp/illegal alien/criminal/felon/pick your description.