Image 01 Image 03

Kate Steinle’s Family Files Lawsuit Over Her Murder By a Criminal Illegal Alien

Kate Steinle’s Family Files Lawsuit Over Her Murder By a Criminal Illegal Alien

. . . the same week San Francisco upheld its “sanctuary city” protections for illegals

In 2015, Kate Steile was killed by an illegal alien who had been deported five times prior to this crime and had a lengthy criminal record; San Francisco’s status as a well-known sanctuary city is believed to have contributed to the senseless murder.

Kate’s relatives are now filing suit.

Fox News reports:

Relatives of the woman shot to death on a San Francisco pier last year filed a lawsuit Friday saying the illegal immigrant accused in the killing should have been in custody if not for a series of mistakes by city and federal workers.

. . . .  The sheriff at the time of the killing, Ross Mirkarimi, is named in the lawsuit, along with ICE and the Bureau of Land Management. Mirkarimi previously defended the release of the suspect, a repeat drug offender and habitual border-crosser.

Frank Pitre, the lawyer for Steinle’s family, said the lawsuit points out “failures at every level.”

“We’re approaching the one year anniversary of Katie’s death and it is a particularly difficult time for the family.”

He said a seven-time convicted felon was able to obtain a BLM officer’s handgun due to negligence and ICE agents did not pursue his deportation.

According to a USA Today report last year, Kate’s murderer had recently been released from prison when he walked up and shot Kate as she strolled on a waterfront pier with her father and a family friend.

Francisco Sanchez, 45, a Mexican citizen deported from the United States five times and only recently released from U.S. prison after again getting caught sneaking into the United States, admitted Sunday he accidentally shot Kathryn “Kate” Steinle, 32, on July 1 as she walked on San Francisco’s Pier 14 with her father and a friend.

The San Francisco District Attorney on Monday charged Sanchez with murder, and he’s set to be arraigned Tuesday afternoon.

Federal officials say he should have never been walking the streets a free man. Federal officials released Sanchez in March from federal prison where he had served nearly four years for previous immigration violations. They delivered Sanchez to the San Francisco sheriff’s office, where he was wanted on felony marijuana distribution charges. Local officials dropped those charges a few days later and released Sanchez onto the street despite a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain him for deportation.

“As a result, an individual with a lengthy criminal history, who is now the suspect in a tragic murder case, was released onto the street rather than being turned over to ICE for deportation,” said Gillian Christensen, an ICE spokeswoman, said Monday.

The requests, known as “detainers,” ask local law enforcement to notify ICE agents before they release a convicted criminal with a history of immigration violations.

“We’re not asking local law enforcement to do our job…all we’re asking is that they notify us when a serious foreign national criminal offender is being released to the street so we can arrange to take custody,” Christensen said.

Earlier this week, San Francisco upheld its illegal status as a “sanctuary city.”

Fox News reported Wednesday:

Despite national outrage after a Mexican man killed a woman along a waterfront pier, San Francisco officials upheld the city’s strict sanctuary protections for people who are in the country illegally.

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday for a measure that clarifies when city workers, including police officers, can notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement of a person’s immigration status. Generally, the defendant must be charged with a violent crime and is someone who has been convicted of a violent crime within the past seven years.

The measure, however, also grants San Francisco’s sheriff leeway to contact immigration authorities in the limited cases of defendants charged with a felony if they have been convicted of other felonies in the past.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


good for them…

“sanctuary cities” are a disgrace…

i know: i live in one.

” Generally, the defendant must be charged with a violent crime and is someone who has been convicted of a violent crime within the past seven years.”

So let me get this straight – we have to wait for the illegal alien to commit a violent crime before we turn them over to ICE? For the life of me, I don’t understand this kind of thinking. Illegal is illegal,

    TX-rifraph in reply to JoAnne. | May 28, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    They have to commit more than one violent crime. One victim is not enough for a liberal.

    Milhouse in reply to JoAnne. | May 29, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    The thinking is very simple, and 100% constitutional, whether you agree with it or not: States (and their subsidiary units such as cities) may pick and choose when they will help federal authorities to enforce federal laws, and when they will not. That’s what the constitution says, and as constitutionalists we should champion it just as we do all the other liberties guaranteed by the constitution.

    The City of San Francisco disapproves of federal immigration laws, believes they are morally wrong, and therefore refuses to have its employees participate in their enforcement, for instance by informing federal authorities of the whereabouts of a fugitive from federal justice. It may, of course, make such exceptions to this policy as it sees fit, such as in the case of violent felons whom it wants off the streets, but in general that is its policy, which the constitution entitles it to have and to follow.

    That you and I may disagree with the city’s underlying policy decision is irrelevant. The important principle is its constituitional liberty to make this decision.

Sadly, that lawsuit has little chance of success. There are too many well established immunity doctrines for a Court to hang its hat on.

Subotai Bahadur | May 28, 2016 at 1:47 pm

This is the United States in 2016. The only ways to get the government, or government employees, to obey the law are either some form of bribe, or some form of effective threat. A citizen using the legal system is neither.

G. de La Hoya | May 28, 2016 at 1:49 pm

I would like to see Vicente Fox sued as well for “dumbassery”.

I can think of a few executive orders that President Trump could issue that would fix this problem.

1) Cut federal funding for those that refuse to cooperate with INS.
2) Charge those who establish, maintain or provide sanctuaries with obstruction of justice.
3) Arrange large holding camps to keep illegals for 3 years while they are being deported.

    Ragspierre in reply to ConradCA. | May 28, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    My position is that any violent illegal should be serving a life sentence here in the U.S.

    We can’t (and shouldn’t) rely on any foreign government to control these people. They are predators, and they know this is their richest target. It’s that “gradient” thing I keep on about.

      Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | May 29, 2016 at 12:07 am

      In general, I don’t favor capital punishment. I can agree to exceptions for treason, espionage (that is, actions against the state by illegal enemy combatants), and piracy on the high seas and in the air. However I wonder at what point do we get to execute a -multiple-times entering the U.S. violent offender? The expense of feeding a lodging him for a lifetime is huge. How many times do we need to say “get out and stay out” before putting a round into the scum? Want to rape and pillage? Stay in Mexico, they are more accustomed to it there.

      Clearly, firing a tax-payer-relief round at a thug breaking down your front door is not capital punishment, but self-defense.

    Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | May 29, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    (1) and (3) would be constitutional (though the president probably lacks the legal authority to do them, so Congress would probably have to be on board). (2), though, would be unconstitutional as applied to any state or subsidiary authority, such as a city. The State of California, however, could order San Francisco to comply; fat chance of that happening, though.

Don’t worry Ron Unz will shortly explain why this was just an accident and that despite being a violent criminal invader deported five times from America we have nothing to fear from them and they commit fewer crimes than others statistically.

Since I know three people killed by illegal aliens and my daughter and son were attacked by illegal aliens and the authorities wanted to let two of the murders go and did let one of them go, I’ll just say deport them all.

    Milhouse in reply to forksdad. | May 29, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Immigrants do commit fewer crimes than the general population. Illegal immigrants, however, commit more crimes than the general population. Both facts are entirely unsurprising; they’re exactly what one would expect, except in a country where the majority of immigrants are illegal (such as much of Europe today, where in fact immigrants do commit more crimes than the general population).

      forksdad in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2016 at 12:08 pm

      Not according to Unz. His models show that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by an illegal alien.

      I know the truth. I live it every day.

That reads to me as though there’s a clear Federal charge that can be laid against “sanctuary cities”.

I’m no expert, but I think you can penetrate a lot of immunity where you can show that officials are acting in violation of law.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | May 29, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    The laws you cite apply only to individuals, not to states and their subsidiaries. Congress lacks the power to compel states and their subsidiaries to take any action to enforce federal law.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 29, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    “A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he:

    assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,
    encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
    knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

    Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime.”

    That’s what it says…”local governments” commit a felony.

It’s like the gweilo are trying to piss me off.