Kate Steinle’s accused killer found not guilty of murder

It's easy to make decisions based on what you hear in the media. But jurors get to hear and see more evidence than we ever do. Plus, words have meanings. In order to be found guilty of murder, certain criteria must be met. It's the lawyers job to prove that that criteria was met. Same with every other crime. The fact that the man was an illegal alien who had been deported 5 times has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he committed murder. Being a jerk, or even a felon, does not equal a conviction of a separate felony.

The jury did their job, period. This was not about "illegal immigration." It was not about a "sanctuary city." It was about the death of a young woman. The prosecution could not prove it's case.

You ask, "Can anyone attempt to defend how 12 jurors could be so stupid?"

Nope. Not even gonna' try.

I wasn't there. I wasn't on the Jury. I didn't hear any of the testimony. I didn't see any of the evidence. For those reasons, I can't even begin to defend, "... how 12 jurors could be so stupid?".

For those same reasons: I wasn't there, didn't hear the testimony, didn't see the evidence, I can't even begin to criticize the Verdict arrived at by 12 Jurors. A unanimous verdict, it seems.

I gave up long ago trying to second guess decisions made by other people about matters and situations that didn't involve me and that I wasn't present for. I've also stopped listening to much of what the MSM has to say about such things. This post gives a textbook example.

The link for this post leads to the Fox News Alert with Tucker Carlson. Tucker talks with the reporter on location outside the Courthouse. In reviewing the "facts of the case", Tucker states the Defendant fired three times, with one shot hitting the Victim. Claudia Cowan, the on-site reporter, had to stop Tucker and tell him, "No, there was only one round discharged."

Then, at the end of the clip when Claudia repeats the Defense point that the gun had a "hair trigger", Tucker responds with, "That's ridiculous, as any gun owner can attest...".

Oh....? I am a gun owner. I have owned and handled firearms, and I don't hesitate a moment to say that some of them had "hair triggers".

In following links to other news stories about this case, I learned that, after five days of deliberation, the Jury asked to see the gun involved. It may or may not be significant, but it was shortly after they had a chance to inspect the weapon for themselves, the Jury returned with the "Not Guilty" Verdicts on the most serious Charges. Did that matter? Again, I don't know, I wasn't there.