1. He was acquitted. He, in the eyes of the law, will spend no time for the murder.
2. A verdict of not guilty means that in the eyes of criminal law, you could not prove he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lowering the burden of proof means absolutely nothing when it comes to criminal charges.
Continue to not acknowledge that you're mad he wasn't guilty for a charge not even on the table.
Still unwilling to acknowledge what you actually posted, eh?
The funny thing about this is that you got your panties in a bunch over a statement thay was pretty damn innocuous. This was it:
Not quite sure how he got out of a conviction for negligent homicide.
Notice that didn't I say anything about him being not guilty of first degree murder, or of second degree murder. I understood that.
However, negligent homicide is when you do something grossly negligent and kill someone withiut intendi g to do so.
According to his own version of events, he picked up a gun he claims to have "found" on that crowded pier, fired three rounds at some sea lions, and then tossed the gun into the water, without realizing that one of the bullets had ricocheted and killed Kate Steinle.
That sounds like the very definitiin of negligent homicide, which is why I said I was "not quite sure" how he was found not guilty.
The problem was that you knew nothing of the case and didn't know that he'd admitted firing the bullets that killed her.
And by the way, if this was a black guy who got killed, and the shooter was white, this board would be going apeshit.