Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Kate Steinle’s Accused Killer Acquitted

Kate Steinle’s Accused Killer Acquitted

Not even an involuntary manslaughter conviction

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was acquitted by a San Francisco jury Thursday night.

Garcia Zarate, an illegal immigrant who had been deported numerous times and had a rap sheet a mile long (including multiple felony convictions), was accused of fatally shooting Kate Steinle while she was walking along the pier with her father and a friend.

Local news reported:

In a surprising verdict, the jury of six men and six women deliberated and came back with a not guilty verdict, acquitting defendant Jose Ines Garcia Zarate. He was facing second-degree murder charges for killing 32-year-old Pleasanton resident Kate Steinle on July 1, 2015, at Pier 14 in San Francisco.

The jury found Garcia Zarate guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon.

While Garcia Zarate can technically walk out of the courtroom, it’s expected he will be taken into custody by Immigration officials and eventually deported back to his native Mexico.

The Steinle family has been waiting more than two years for this day. Kate Steinle was shot and killed when she was walking with her father and a friend on the pier.

Garcia Zarate, who was homeless at the time, claimed he found the gun wrapped in a piece of cloth under a swivel chair at the pier. He says he picked it up, and it accidentally fired, hitting Steinle in the back. The bullet, the defense claimed, ricocheted and then traveled 78 feet before striking Steinle.

The prosecution has always maintained that Garcia Zarate had the gun all along, aimed it at Steinle and fired. But, because, he had little experience with guns, the bullet ricocheted first, a common mistake made by amateurs.

The gun used to shoot Steinle was stolen in San Francisco from the personal vehicle of a federal park ranger four days earlier. The agent works for the Bureau of Land Management, which is being sued by the Steinle family.

A number of witnesses testified in the trial, including police officers and several people who saw Garcia Zarate at the scene, along with several CSI investigators and forensic experts.

As Professor Jacobson wrote, “San Francisco was a sanctuary city, but not for Kate Steinle.”

For our previous coverage on this case and subsequent complaints and legislation, see here.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

I weep for the Steinle family, I weep for our nation.

This was political. No where in America, can I think of, that a normal citizen, could “find” a stolen Federal Agents’ firearm, discharge it killing someone… and not even get manslaughter.. I mean.. if this isn’t manslaughter , what is? I hate California.

It always seemed strange to me that this culprit was so ready to discuss the crime with the media immediately following his arrest. Something tells me he wasn’t afraid of the consequences here. That aspects of it were planned.

Details such as the federal employees gun going missing a whole week before the crime say there is a longer story behind the progress of the gun to the hands of the perpetrator who seemed to not fear prosecution.

Finally, his lawyer continues to take political activism to a new level by attacking Trump’s sanctuary city policy, instead of expressing satisfaction that his client was cleared.

A judge can (should!!) sentence him to a long jail term for the crime he was convicted of. Based on a long felony record, he should get the maximum possible sentence.

I have to wonder if the verdict wasn’t, in part, intended to send a message to President Donald Trump by the citizens of San Francisco.

    Sure. What is a few dead white girls. Can’t have those evil white babies that way. /

    david7134 in reply to Leslie Eastman. | December 1, 2017 at 5:12 pm

    No, the reason for this creep getting off is about jury selection. Once the lawyers have gone through the pool, the ones left could be classified as the stupidest people in town, being selected for a jury is not an honor. I have testified in front of a number of juries and have marveled at the fact they were not actively drooling.

Sounds like SF has joined the War on Women. American women, at least.

When the police who beat up Rodney King were found not guilty in state court, they were later tried by the feds for violating King’s civil rights. They were convicted.
Seems that Kate’s civil rights were even more effectively violated than were Rodney’ King’s.

    Exactly.

    Time for Swamp Sessions to step in and prosecute this guy. Will he?

    Milhouse in reply to Rick. | December 1, 2017 at 12:55 am

    Nope, can’t be done. The only way to bring civil rights charges would be if A) He was a state actor; or B) His purpose in shooting her was to forcibly prevent people of her race/sex/etc. from using the public streets. Since there’s no way they could convince a jury of that, the civil rights laws don’t apply.

      No need to be a state actor.

      Nor ‘prevent from using public street.’ (Where did you get that one?)

      Read 18 U.S.C. § 249:

      Section 249 prohibits willfully causing bodily injury, or attempting to cause bodily injury with a dangerous weapon, when the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin of any person:
      https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-section

      Do you know what this guy was thinking when he shot Kate Steinle in the back?

        Where did I get that one? From Lemrick Nelson’s federal trial. To convict him the jury had to find that he’d killed Yankel Rosenbaum, not just because he was a Jew, but because he was a Jew daring to exercise the protected civil right of using public facilities, in this case a public sidewalk, like he was a real person or something.

        Thank you for pointing out &sec;249, which didn’t exist at the time (or at the time of the Rodney King affair). It was passed in 2009 and removed that condition, and I missed the news.

        But even under the new law the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he shot her because of her race, color, religion, or national origin. Since it’s unlikely that this actually was his motive (especially since he shot her in the back), it would be impossible to prove that it was. It would be both illegal and disgustingly unethical to bring the charge without believing it to be true, or knowing that it couldn’t be proved but hoping the jury would go along with the pretense.

        In any event, now that we know about the ricochet such a charge would be impossible, because we know he didn’t aim at her, and therefore couldn’t have intended to hit her specifically.

But, because, he had little experience with guns, the bullet ricocheted first, a common mistake made by amateurs.

This sentence doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

In fact, despite all the coverage of this case, this is the first I’ve heard of a ricochet possibly being involved.

I suppose being in the courtroom and actually hearing testimony might be important to the proceedings.

Wait till this guy kills again in San Francisco.

And then gets off again.

The fix was in from the get go.

The article excerpted above doesn’t give any details about what these forensic experts, witnesses, and such said in court. Is that information available yet?

I would love to read more about what actual evidence was presented, what the testimonies of witnesses on the scene were, how the defense presented the case. Did he create doubt about the man having the gun, shooting it, or that Kate died because of that gun shot (i.e. manslaughter)? If so, how?!

Also, I would also love to know more about how the jury was selected. Sounds like they may have packed the jury with people that hated Trump (shocking, I know, in San Fran). My opinion: they likely had their minds made up before the trial began, and the trial was just a kangaroo court, a one-act show.

Regardless of all that – what a shocking verdict, what a travesty of justice. Tragic and heartbreaking, for the Steinle’s and all who believe in the rule of law.

I’m a father of a little girl. I think as a father of a little girl. She will always be my little girl. Her safety is more precious to me than any and everything else in this world combined.

Paul In Sweden | December 1, 2017 at 12:23 am

Which federal government agency should be issuing safety warnings to US and foreign travelers to California and particularly SF?

AG Sessions should have already been overseeing the loading of entire convoys of ICE detention buses daily in each of the country’s illegal sanctuary cities. The DOJ needs to step up action to the level demanded by the seriousness of the situation. I am frustrated by the rhetoric and token gestures.

Round them up, detain, prosecute and lock them up or ship them out.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Paul In Sweden. | December 1, 2017 at 2:49 am

    The warnings definitely should be going out. Travel to San Francisco is dangerous because of the lawless population and the lawless government.

    However since being confirmed, our AG has distinguished himself primarily by doing nothing against any crimes committed by anyone who is a Democrat or a Leftist protected class. There is no point in relying on the Federal government to enforce the law, and all Democrat controlled polities nullify all Federal law.

Outrageous verdict.

To truly put this in context, this same jury would find Ferguson cop Darren Wilson guilty

Ok, I can understand a not guilty verdict for murder as they would have had to have proven it was his intention to kill her from the get go.

What I don’t understand is why there was no secondary charge of manslaughter? That, to me, would have seem the much easier conviction to get as her death resulted from his act of negligence (or something like that).

What I also don’t understand is how the State legislators responsible for passing their sanctuary laws aren’t being sued from here to kingdom come for the role their legislation and their rules played in her death. After all if it wasn’t for their direction that state officials NOT engage with the feds then Kate would still be alive today.

However what really gets me about all this is that people will be pleased about the ruling for no other reason than it allows them to blame this all on President Trump.

    Edward in reply to mailman. | December 1, 2017 at 7:34 am

    That is one question I have, is there no automatic lesser included charge of manslaughter/involuntary manslaughter in murder charges in CA? If not automatically to be considered, did the DA/ADA fail to give the Grand Jury the proper language to have manslaughter be considered by the Petit Jury? Or did the Jurors also refuse to convict on a lesser charge of manslaughter?

      Virgo in reply to Edward. | December 1, 2017 at 11:28 am

      From the TV news report last night the manslaughter charge was included and the jury found him innocent of that too. The remaining charge of felony possession carries a 3 year maximum sentence, of which he has already served 2.

      Also, somewhat glossed over was the mention of two “immigrants” on the jury…of course no clarification if these jurists were citizen immigrants.

      The announcements from the DA on the disappointing verdict were hardly passionate, leading me to think they were not trying very hard. They said “they respect the verdict”, meaning, I suppose, they will do nothing more about it.

      The City of San Francisco declared “war” on the federal government, and so far it is winning.

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | December 1, 2017 at 10:42 am

    What I also don’t understand is how the State legislators responsible for passing their sanctuary laws aren’t being sued from here to kingdom come for the role their legislation and their rules played in her death.

    That is not possible. (1) The judiciary has no jurisdiction over the legislature; (2) They had every right to pass that legislation and no duty of care not to.

So now according to California, if you are an immigrant and you find a gun, you are not responsible for turning that gun in, not responsible for pulling the trigger, and not responsible for what the bullet from the gun does. In what world of reality is a person not responsible for these actions? It seems that the SJWs of the world and California have raised the victim status of illegal immigrants to the point where they can now kill others and it is not their fault.
>
I weep for the Steinle family and for our country.

    Milhouse in reply to Cleetus. | December 1, 2017 at 10:45 am

    So now according to California, if you are an immigrant and you find a gun, you are not responsible for turning that gun in, not responsible for pulling the trigger, and not responsible for what the bullet from the gun does.

    How on earth could you come up with that conclusion? California prosecuted this guy. Of course if his defense, implausible as it is, should somehow happen to be true, then no jurisdiction in the country would hold him responsible. But CA didn’t believe it and did its best to convict him.

As with the OJ verdict, this will live in infamy, an example of injustice, and a collar around the neck of the city of San Francisco and perhaps the State of California. But it may also be the impetus needed to strengthen and more stringently enforce immigration laws including the one named for Kate Steinle.

Hmmm. Still lacking most useful information. But I note that both prosecution and defense are talking about a ricochet. That doesn’t seem to be in dispute. That rules out a deliberate shot at Ms Steinle. Nobody tries to shoot someone with a bank shot. Ergo, Zarate was shooting at something else, or he’s a screwup who fired the gun accidentally. In either case, the prosecution’s contention that he aimed the gun at Steinle and fired … the bullet taking a casual detour to ricochet off something before finding its way back to its intended trajectory … sounds like utter BS. If that was the prosection’s claim, then maybe the jury made the right decision.

It is an unfortunate fact that people with little experience handling guns almost invariably try to fire them if they happen to find them. Handguns, mainly; rifles and shotguns, not so much. Guns in open or unlocked gun racks, guns left in department store dressing rooms, guns found in car glove boxes or under the front seats. Absurd but true. Children are worse; they point the gun at someone first, then try to fire it. At least adults (sober adults, anyway) almost never point a found gun at anyone deliberately before being stupid.

So the only mystery is how the gun came into Zarate’s possession. And that’s not too mysterious. Street thugs ditch incriminating evidence if they suspect they’re about to be nabbed by police; drugs, wads of cash, guns. Ideally they retrieve them later, but sometimes fail. And in that case, they lie there until found by someone else.

In sum; once the ricochet is recognized, the prosecution’s case becomes difficult.

Of course this is all speculation in face of essentially no information.

Connivin Caniff | December 1, 2017 at 6:09 am

Of course it was political. California swine love to wallow in their leftist muck.

This jury went into full-on social justice warrior mode. If they had found him guilty of either of the two crimes (manslaughter or murder), it would have validated the criminality of sanctuary cities. To validate themselves and their beliefs, they had no choice but to find him not guilty of anything that would have done so.

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

Those of you doing the outrage-edy outrage dance should read that.

I’ll also restate my idea that ANY felon who re-enters the U.S. and is captured should be confined for the rest of his or her life in a U.S. prison.

    Oversoul Of Dusk in reply to Ragspierre. | December 1, 2017 at 8:13 am

    Thanks for the link. Interesting article. It sounds like the defense was competent, while the prosecution may have overplayed a weak case.

    But I don’t think I’ll take the San Fran Exam’s opinion seriously when it comes to Sig-Sauer safety. Statistics about accidental discharges by police officers don’t tell us much about the safety of particular models of guns, but they tell us a lot about the competence of the police involved.

      Interesting article.

      The stuff about “hair triggers” is BS. 4.4 pounds is no “hair trigger”. It’s not even a particularly light trigger. The increased rate of police injuries isn’t due to SIG, it’s due to the stampede to autos. But no policeman ever has a negligent discharge because of a hair trigger, because no service pistol made in the last century has such a trigger. A very few target or hunting guns have them, but they’re slow to use (again, contrary to the article) because to get off a single shot one has to pull two triggers, or (with some designs) one trigger twice.

      I’d say the article is spot on about the ricochet, though, as I discuss above. Too bad the good points are diluted with technical BS.

        regulus arcturus in reply to tom_swift. | December 1, 2017 at 9:21 am

        Mostly true.

        In the 1980s (?) the NYPD switched to Glock service pistols, which resulted in numerous unintended discharges by officers purportedly due to lack of full trigger safety (Glocks use a lever-based trigger safety, built into the trigger itself).

        Thus, Glock came out with their only version of the pistol – the NYPD version, with full switchable safety.

        I am aware of at least 1 instance of a Glock discharging when dropped, resulting in the death of the user. I am not aware of any other similar pistol discharges.

          In 2005, a SWAT officer was killed by another officer due to an accidental handgun discharge. http://www.mcall.com/news/all-sollmanstories-storygallery.html

          More than that. Glockenspiel developed two incrementally stiffer trigger spring modules,the NY1 and NY2 to increase trigger weight pull. As has been recommended, anyone carrying a Glock should consider switching to the NY1 as an extra layer of “protection”.

          “Glock”… good grief iPad!

          The NYPD did not alter the safety on their Glocks. They substantially increased the weight of the trigger pull. While this MIGHT have reduced negligent discharges, it likely contributes to the difficulty so many NYPD offices seem to have in hitting their targets.

          regulus arcturus in reply to regulus arcturus. | December 1, 2017 at 12:43 pm

          I was told by an LEO/NRA instructor that NYPD did obtain Glocks with full “regular” safeties.

          I am not aware of any other similar pistol discharges.

          There was a well-known suit brought by an owner who shot himself with his Glock while putting it away in its case. It was apparently impossible to put that gun in its case without pulling the trigger. Of course the poor muzzle control was the operator’s fault, not Glock’s.

          Thus, Glock came out with their only version of the pistol – the NYPD version, with full switchable safety.

          Which is totally nuts.

          The entire user appeal of Glock was that it eliminated the doodads which proliferate on autoloaders. Slide locks, grip safeties, thumb safeties, docockers, oh my gawd what won’t they think of next—all stuff intended to prevent the gun from firing, which makes it just too hard to use when the chips are down. Autos are just too complicated for police or civie use. Military use is another matter, and that’s what they were originally developed for. The ideal police gun was the DA revolver, as perfected around 1900—no levers, no switches, pull the trigger and it goes “bang”, don’t pull the trigger and nothing happens. Just the thing for policemen who simply aren’t pistoleros. Putting the doodads back on means somebody missed the whole damn point of the Glock design.

      Ragspierre in reply to Oversoul Of Dusk. | December 1, 2017 at 9:29 am

      Don’t take the reporting of what was presented to the jury by the defense as an endorsement by the author.

      She’s just reporting.

      It was the defense’s job to raise reasonable doubt. They did.

      I thought the PopeHat comments very astute.

    tarheelkate in reply to Ragspierre. | December 1, 2017 at 8:21 am

    Thank you. That was very informative (although my husband says how the author talks about the gun is incorrect in some respects). The gist of it is that the gun in question has a history of accidental discharge and that the prosecutors should have charged, and argued for, a negligent homicide rather than second-degree murder.

      There is no such thing as an accidental discharge (at least of a firearm). It is extremely rare that a firearm can discharge without the trigger being pulled. The correct term is negligent discharge. Anyone trained in firearms knows that you are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your firearm. Being untrained does not absolve one of that responsibility.

    4th armored div in reply to Ragspierre. | December 1, 2017 at 10:45 am

    thanks for that VERY informative link.

    civil truth in reply to Ragspierre. | December 1, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    I also recommend Sarah Rumpf’s article at RedState. I posted a longish comment there last night and have nothing to add.

    Have We Been Lied to About the Kate Steinle Case?

    Today Patterico has posted some informed discussion of the relevant laws pertaining to this case that also merits reading before joining the outrage stampede.

    Lawsplainer: The California Homicide Statutes Relevant to the Steinle Murder Case

Hmmm i wonder if i was a 7 time convicted felon playing with a stolen gun in my bedroom and the gun went off ricocheting around the room until coming to rest in the head of my 5 year old daughter killing her what would the charge be

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Aggie95. | December 1, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    The owner of the gun would be charged for Negligent Homicide for allowing his firearm to be stolen.

buckeyeminuteman | December 1, 2017 at 8:11 am

Lets hope the next time he fools around with a found gun, the bullet ricochets around and hits him in his own head.

Coupla things. First, according to the San Jose Mercury-News at the time of empanelment, three of the jurors were immigrants. Country of origin unknown but at least one of them spoke Spanish. Second, the ‘sanctuary’ business ends when Sessions sends federal marshals to arrest San Francisco and California officials for violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens. Criminal law, not civil. I’m talking the full perp walk here. When Jerry Brown is led out with a raincoat over his head, that’s when it ends!

    Matt_SE in reply to Jwest. | December 1, 2017 at 9:41 am

    In other words, it will never end. Sessions is useless.

      4th armored div in reply to Matt_SE. | December 1, 2017 at 10:04 am

      Sessions is a total waste, he would have been better off staying in the senate where he can nap while sitting at meetings –
      he should resign out of embarrassment!

    Milhouse in reply to Jwest. | December 1, 2017 at 10:54 am

    Second, the ‘sanctuary’ business ends when Sessions sends federal marshals to arrest San Francisco and California officials for violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens.

    BS. No SF or CA official has brought in or harbored an illegal alien. Refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement as is their right is not harboring.

      tlcomm2 in reply to Milhouse. | December 1, 2017 at 11:30 am

      On the left coast albeit in Oregon – “poor Cali Norte”, a “judge” let an illegal out her personal court exit to avoid federal agents and impending arrest. What would you call that action??

        Milhouse in reply to tlcomm2. | December 1, 2017 at 2:34 pm

        Letting someone out into the street is the exact opposite of harboring. I call it unethical and inappropriate, but certainly within her legal rights, which is why she hasn’t been arrested.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | December 1, 2017 at 12:19 pm

      “Refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement as is their right…”

      You keep saying that and it is entirely FALSE. No state or local authority has any RIGHT to refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement. If such a refusal to cooperate does not violate the constitutional rights of a subject, then it can constitute obstruction of federal authorities.

      At the moment, federal detainment hold orders are a grey area. Various courts, mostly in the heavily liberal Northwest, have ruled that local law enforcement has no authority to enforce such orders unless they are issued by a federal judge. And, there is some merit to that argument. However, if a local LEO has a person in custody and KNOWS that federal authorities have a valid LE interest in that person does not notify the federal jurisdiction having such an interest, after being notified to do so, THAT can constitute obstruction. And claiming some nonexistent “right” to do so isn’t going to fly very far.

      And, that was what happened in this case. Zarate was a thrice convicted felon who was serving a sentence for his latest felony conviction, felony entry into the United States. Upon completion of that sentence, but before he was deported [a deportation order existed], he was turned over to the SF Sheriff’s Office to answer to an extant arrest warrant. The Sheriff was notified at that time that a deportation order existed and issued a detainer directing notification of ICE prior to release, as he was still, technically, in the custody of federal authorities. Upon the local warrant being dismissed, the Sheriff unilaterally released Zarate into the general population without notifying ICE. This is the BIGGGG problem for the SF Sheriff’s office. It is now attempting to hide behind the wholly unconstitutional SF ordinance which prohibits local LE from assisting or cooperating with federal immigration officials unless there are current felony charges against a subject AND a valid warrant. This might be arguably proper, if the subject was encountered on the street, but in this case the subject was transferred, temporarily, from the lawful custody of the ICE, who was holding him on a valid deportation order, to the SF Sheriff’s Office. Legally, he should have been returned to the custody of ICE when the Sheriff was finished with him.

      Technically, the Sheriff aided and abetted the escape of a person from lawful federal custody, as well as obstructed federal agents in the performance of their duties. Pretty heavy charges.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | December 1, 2017 at 2:32 pm

        No state or local authority has any RIGHT to refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement.

        The tenth amendment and 200+ years of court decisions says otherwise. States and their subsidiaries had no duty to cooperate with federal slave-catchers (and the Supreme Court said states could legislate to forbid their officers from doing so). The same during prohibition. The Supreme Court again upheld sheriffs’ right to refuse to cooperate with the Brady Act. Just a few years ago, in NFIB v Sibelius, it upheld states’ right to refuse to upgrade Medicare as the 0bamacare act purported to require, and said Congress couldn’t compel them by cutting off funding.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | December 1, 2017 at 5:06 pm

          The slave catcher cases were interesting in that they flew in the face of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. And, this was still the heyday of states rights versus central control. Times have changed with the Reconstruction court decisions, which said that states had to cooperate with federal law enforcement efforts.

          Now the Prohibition cases clearly established the separation of federal and state authority. what they said was that local law enforcement had no authority to enforce federal law and could not be coerced into enforcing such laws. However, they never said that local authorities had any right to obstruct federal agents or work against them in any way.

          The Brady Act cases again said that the local authorities were part of the state government and not part of the federal bureaucracy and therefor could not be compelled to enforce federal law. Obstructing federal agents in THEIR enforcement of federal laws was not addressed.

          NFIB v Sibilious was about Medicaid, not Medicare. It said that the Federal government could not force States to change their Medicaid programs, which are state not federal programs, and could not penalize them for not expanding their systems. It is a separation of powers issue. And, as there was NO enforcement of federal law by local authorities involved, it is not applicable to this discussion.

          Though local LE has no authority to enforce federal law and can nt be involuntarily co-opted by federal authorities to enforce federal laws, local LE has NO RIGHT to actively obstruct federal enforcement of federal laws. Understand?

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 1, 2017 at 2:59 pm

        “You keep saying that and it is entirely FALSE. No state or local authority has any RIGHT to refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”

        Sure they do. The feds cannot co-opt state or local LEOs without a declaration of martial law.

        It’s in that Constitution thingy. Look it up, spunky.

          While it is true that federal authorities can not involuntarily co-opt local or state law enforcement to enforce federal law, local and state LE has no RIGHT to obstruct the enforcement of federal laws by federal agents. See, what you do is the same ting that illegal immigration advocates do. They contend that merely notifying federal law enforcement agents that a violation of federal law is occurring is enforcing the law. This is totally untrue. If a city LEO stops a man on the street in his city and has reason to believe or suspect that the person is in this country illegally, he can not detain or arrest him for that suspected violation of federal law. He is still free to contact the federal agency having jurisdiction in the matter. Whether he does or not is up to him. If, however, a state or local jurisdiction or agency drafts a law, ordinance or rule that prohibits a LEO from reporting known, or even suspected, violations of law to the responsible authorities, this can constitute obstruction. Cooperation is not enforcement.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 1, 2017 at 5:44 pm

          You are, as usual, completely full of verbose shit.

          Try to be as concise as I am.

          It is known as an EXPLANATION. It is designed to allow everyone to follow my thought processes and make up their own minds as to the accuracy of my information. Unlike your juvenile statements, mine actually provide some useful information. You might like to try it sometime. Oh, wait. You can’t, can you?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 2, 2017 at 3:55 am

          No, actually it’s known as interminable obfuscation.

          Volumes of smoke and dust in the air to project the illusion that you have a point.

          You don’t. You’re wrong. You’re stupidly, obdurately wrong.

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

In the end, he will answer for his acts.

What ever happened to California’s three strike rule?

The judiciary on the left coast needs to be shut down and handled further east. This verdict is despicable to say the least.

    Milhouse in reply to gourdhead. | December 1, 2017 at 11:01 am

    What’s this got to do with the judiciary? The jury acquitted him, not the judge.

    In any case, see Sarah Rumpf’s piece that Rags linked to; it seems the verdict may well be reasonable after all.

An textbook example of a pyrrhic victory.

The verdict, in this case, was not out of line. No real evidence was presented to show that Zarate intentionally fired at Steinle. No evidence was presented that he had intentionally fired that particular round. A case could have been made for manslaughter or culpable negligence, though that usually requires showing reckless behavior which the defendant should have known was dangerous. This was not shown in this case. While we may not like or agree with the verdict, it was most likely correct. The prosecution’s case, for the charges, was weak.

The real problem with this case is that the SF Sheriff’s office interfered with the legal custody of ICE, with regard to Zarate, for political purposes. And, that willful interference led to the death of Steinle. This could end up being a BBBIIIGGG problem for the Sheriff down the road. And, it should be pursued.

Best news I heard this week.

The federal statute I cited above, 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens, is available online at
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
and should be read by everyone. It’s addressed to “any person,” which presumably includes the sheriff of San Francisco County and the governor of California. Among its provisions is that a person who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation” is committing a crime. It also criminalizes conspiracy and the aiding and abetting of such behavior.

It goes without saying that should a court find one of these officials not guilty, he would be discharged from custody and free to pursue his life’s work, much like fellow exoneree Jose Ines Garcia Zarate.

    Milhouse in reply to Jwest. | December 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    No CA official has done anything to “conceal, harbor, or shield [illegal immigrants] from detection […] in any place.” Refusing to inform federal officials of their presence not only isn’t a crime, but in the case of state officials it can’t be, because the constitution protects their right to do just that.

      Jwest in reply to Milhouse. | December 1, 2017 at 8:53 pm

      This particular statute says nothing about refusing to inform federal officials, but in any case I think we’re well past that. In response to federal threats of increased enforcement after Governor Brown signed SB 54, the so-called ‘sanctuary state’ legislation, the San Jose Mercury News reports that

      “In anticipation of stepped-up raids, lawmakers passed a collection of OTHER bills aimed at resisting Trump’s immigration agenda. Brown signed 10 into law on Thursday, and they will take effect Jan. 1.

      “Assembly Bill 450, by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, forbids employers from sharing personal information with federal agents about employees or granting immigration officers access to workplaces without proper court orders. Assembly Bill 291, also by Chiu, will make it illegal for landlords to use someone’s real or perceived immigration status against them.”

      I think most people understand that these measures, together with public statements by the officials who enacted them, are intended to ‘harbor’ and ‘shield’ illegal aliens. What other purpose can they have? It’s just that some think harboring them is a good thing and some don’t. I can’t imagine Trump would ever have the balls to arrest the governor of the nation’s most populous state, but, if he did, a jury would get to decide the validity of the laws he has signed.

Everyone keeps saying a ricochet rules out that he was aiming for her. I was hit by a ricochet that was aimed at me. My vest stopped it.

He was aiming at something. There’s nothing legal to shoot at on the pier. If there were it would still be illegal to shoot in the manner he did. This was jury nullification.

If Americans cannot gain justice or even simple safety what do the elites expect to happen?

Excerpted from TheHill this AM:

A federal warrant has been issued for the arrest of a Mexican immigrant acquitted Thursday evening of murder charges in the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle.

The arrest warrant unsealed in the Western District of Texas by the Justice Department on Friday accuses Zarate of violating his supervised release

The Justice Department is also considering federal charges from Steinle’s death.

“We’re looking at every option and we will prosecute this to the fullest extent available under the law because these cases are tragic and entirely preventable,” Sarah Isgur Flores, the department’s director of public affairs, said on “Fox and Friends.”

Rick the Curmudgeon | December 1, 2017 at 6:10 pm

Not even “Discharging a firearm in the city limits”??

Zarate’s a known flight risk. Seize his passport while he’s awaiting sentencing!! LOL!!!!!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend