Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

DOJ Unsealed Arrest Warrant for Illegal Immigrant in Kate Steinle Case

DOJ Unsealed Arrest Warrant for Illegal Immigrant in Kate Steinle Case

Charges in this warrant “include violations related to the charges of a felon in possession of a firearm, involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon,

The Department of Justice has unsealed an arrest warrant for Jose Garcia Zarate, the illegal immigrant just acquitted of killing Kate Steinle in California.

This arrest warrant is in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas for a supervised release violation.

From Fox News:

The arrest warrant was originally drafted in 2015 and amended this week to include violations related to the charges of a felon in possession of a firearm, involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon, all of which were filed after the defendant’s initial arrest, according to Friday’s warrant.

Officials at the Department of Justice told Fox News that there is an existing federal detainer that requires Zarate to be remanded into the custody of the U.S. Marshals to be transported to the Western District of Texas pursuant to the arrest warrant.

On Thursday, a jury found Garcia Zarate not guilty on three charges, including first and second degree murder and manslaughter. They did find him “guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.” He claimed he found the gun “in a wrapped T-shirt under a bench and that he went off accidentally.”

From ABC News:

Garcia Zarate, a Mexican citizen, had been deported several times and has previous convictions for re-entry after deportation. Before the killing, he had been released from a San Francisco jail after a minor drug charge had been dismissed. Garcia Zarate was released under the city’s sanctuary laws although the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had issued a detainer for him.

The ICE agency lashed out at San Francisco. Fox News reported:

“Following the conclusion of this case, ICE will work to take custody of Mr. Garcia Zarate and ultimately remove him from the country,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said.

ICE Deputy Director Tom Homan added, “San Francisco’s policy of refusing to honor ICE detainers is a blatant threat to public safety and undermines the rule of law. This tragedy could have been prevented if San Francisco had turned the alien over to ICE, as we requested, instead of releasing him back onto the streets.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It is about time justice is served ! Thank goodness it is out of California’s system.

the other rob | December 1, 2017 at 6:50 pm

So the federal warrant went with manslaughter, but the DA grandstanded on first degree murder and downplayed manslaughter in the closing?

A lot of people are saying that this was jury nullification. An alternative explanation might be that the DA’s office took a dive.

    YellowSnake in reply to the other rob. | December 1, 2017 at 7:17 pm

    Perhaps the fact that the bullet ricocheted off some concrete before hitting the victim made intent unlikely. The felony that he was convicted of was being here illegally. It is a crime, but not a violent one. He had no history of violence.

    Methinks it was not the DA taking a dive; but rather Trump being Trump. The man is dangerous with a phone in his hand.

    Trump once took out a whole page newspaper ad calling for the execution of the ‘Central Park 5’. They were railroaded into prison after a violent rape that they had nothing to do with. Trump still maintains that they were guilty even though the actual perpetrator confessed and maintained he did the rape alone. The evidence supports the confession, but Trump knows better #sarcasm.

      Lewfarge in reply to YellowSnake. | December 1, 2017 at 7:37 pm

      From what I understand, it makes no difference if it was a ricochet or not – he is guilty of INVOLUNTARY manslaughter because he caused the discharge !

        the other rob in reply to Lewfarge. | December 1, 2017 at 7:41 pm

        Precisely. A baby prosecutor could have got a conviction for that. If they wanted to.

          Not if the jury was dead-set on acquittal. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it could be. (Case in point, see People v. Simpson, Orenthal James.)

        YellowSnake in reply to Lewfarge. | December 1, 2017 at 7:42 pm

        I agree. It just wasn’t the crime of the century – as the tweeter-in-chief would have us believe.

        Milhouse in reply to Lewfarge. | December 2, 2017 at 7:31 pm

        From what I understand, it makes no difference if it was a ricochet or not – he is guilty of INVOLUNTARY manslaughter because he caused the discharge !

        You understand incorrectly. See Patterico’s lawsplainer on the subject.

        Involuntary manslaughter requires recklessness. It requires that the defendant act in a way that “is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act”.

        Since the prosecution’s theory was that he meant to hit her, it put up no evidence of such recklessness. Once the jury found the prosecution’s theory unlikely, it had no grounds on which to find recklessness.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | December 2, 2017 at 9:24 pm

          Yep, basically an huge overcharge probably based on public outcry.

          If they had charged manslaughter with a lesser included charge of involuntary manslaughter things could have turned out much differently, they were never gonna get Murder 1.

      alaskabob in reply to YellowSnake. | December 1, 2017 at 7:52 pm

      Negligent homicide does not require a history of violence. Carelessness … yes…

      Solomon in reply to YellowSnake. | December 1, 2017 at 8:04 pm

      @yellowsnake. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Armstrong panel’s report before you expound on the Central Park Five case.

        YellowSnake in reply to Solomon. | December 1, 2017 at 10:58 pm

        Shocker! I can write a report and it is safe to assume that if you like its conclusio,n it will add it to the great conspiratorial canon. If you don’t, it will be dismissed.

        What I do know is that the only DNA found belonged to Reyes. To get beyond that you need incontrovertible evidence that is not in the Armstrong report.

        I also know that police interrogation techniques of the day were more about getting a confession than getting the truth. The police techniques so contaminated the confessions that the suspects could have been convicted of the Lindbergh kidnapping.

        So I ask you: When has Trump ever admitted he was wrong about anything? I am not inclined to believe a man who can never admit he is wrong; because we are all wrong sometimes. Besides I have heard Trump lie about things on which I have specific knowledge.

          Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | December 2, 2017 at 7:42 pm

          What I do know is that the only DNA found belonged to Reyes. To get beyond that you need incontrovertible evidence that is not in the Armstrong report.

          No, you don’t. All the DNA evidence means is that they probably didn’t rape her when they viciously attacked her and several other people; the rape (or at least the only rape we know about) happened later, when she was half-conscious and vulnerable from their attack, while they’d gone on to attack other people.

          See here

      Look who’s back – Yellow Tail!

      When you argue with an idiot troll, you now have two idiots arguing.

      Today, we have seven – including the original idiot.

Subotai Bahadur | December 1, 2017 at 7:17 pm

I will believe that the Federales will do something AFTER I hear that he is in FEDERAL custody. Sanctuary City San Francisco is more likely to ignore any Federal warrants, release him early, or release him out the back door as ICE comes in the front.

The most important thing for Democrat polities is claiming the power to nullify Federal laws, like South Carolina in 1832. That was solved by a threatened application of Federal troops, ropes, and trees. It will take something similar today.

The odds of the Sessions DOJ moving in a determined and timely fashion in this matter are small.

    YellowSnake in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | December 1, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    There were a lot more attempts to nullify laws in the south after reconstruction and through the Civil Rights Era. Before you bother, the people doing it called themselves democrats. But those democrats became republicans when modern day democrats started supporting civil rights.

    BTW, I first heard about jury nullification as a doctrine from libertarians. But southern whites were nullifying murder charges where whites killed blacks regularly – that was when the sheriff bothered to arrest anyone.

      Keep vomiting out the same old lie that Democrats somehow miraculously shape shifted into Republicans, it becomes you.

        YellowSnake in reply to Shane. | December 1, 2017 at 10:21 pm

        Strom Thurman, Jesse Helms.

        Keep vomiting out the same new lie that southern racist democrats didn’t in a calculated and decidedly unmiraculous way shift into Republicans.

        You can vomit that one after the one about how the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.

          Interesting take on history. But, the fact that Thurman and Helms changed parties from Democrat to Republican is hardly evidence that they did not support discrimination. In fact, the Democrat party, almost to a man, fought tooth and nail to stop desegregation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was not until after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed that the Democrats began an intense campaign to gain black support through such programs as welfare.

          Now as to the issue of slavery being the cause of the Civil War, it was not. The direct cause was the erosion of traditional states rights. Slavery was the lever which the industrialized North was using to undermine the power of the agricultural South, but it was not the most important factor in the decision to go to war against the Confederacy. This is amply evidenced by the fact that four Union states continued to practice legal slavery until late 1864 or early 1865. And, it was never abolished by an act of the federal government, within the boundaries of the United States of America, until the ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 18, 1865.

          The main reasn for the Civil War was the fact that that the Union could not allow an independent nation to exist in the southern half of the North American continent north of Old Mexico. The plan was always to control the center of the North American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific . We know it as Manifest Destiny. To allow an independent nation to exist, which could lay legitimate claim to territory in the West and which had close ties to European nations, was simply unacceptable. So, Union troop were ordered to remain in Fort Sumter, and other forts which were well within the territorial limits of states which legally seceded, to force the Confederacy to use force to stop the trespass upon its territory by a foreign power. The Union was the aggressor in the Civil War. Lincoln made no bones about the purpose of the war. He stated clearly that it was for the purposes of preserving the “Union”.

      alaskabob in reply to YellowSnake. | December 1, 2017 at 8:20 pm

      I understand… your sincere efforts to whitewash the sins of your political fore bearers is a terribly hard chore. You don’t have to because it can not be done. Not only the sins of segregation but the stain of embracing the false religion of communism with all of its terror and suffering let alone the attempt by members of the Democratic Party to spy for the USSR or active collusion to undo a presidential election in 1980. So sorry for you.

      tom_swift in reply to YellowSnake. | December 1, 2017 at 8:36 pm

      Spin away; but it doesn’t change the obvious fact that the Democrats have been America’s racist party since coming to national prominence in the 1800 election. The details of Party racism have evolved, but not the fundamental crime.

      Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | December 2, 2017 at 7:43 pm

      But those democrats became republicans when modern day democrats started supporting civil rights.

      This is not true. Almost all those Democrats remained Democrats to their dying days. The South didn’t turn Republican until they were gone.

    The most important thing for Democrat polities is claiming the power to nullify Federal laws, like South Carolina in 1832.

    That is not true either. No sanctuary state or city claims the federal law is invalid. They merely stand on their fundamental constitutional right to refuse to help the feds enforce it. It is the USA’s job to enforce its laws with whatever resources it has, and it is not entitled to any help from the states or their subsidiaries.

    It’s entirely up to a state whether to order its subsidiaries and/or their officers to help the feds, or to forbid them from doing so, or to leave it up to them. Texas has taken the first choice, California has taken the second; both are equally valid, and Congress has no right to make any law compelling a state to cooperate, including by cutting funding.

    Congress can try to persuade a state to cooperate, by making very limited cuts to funding that is directly related to the subject, or by offering new funding with such a condition, but only Congress can do so, not the Attorney General or the President.

The FEDS still have to GET HIM IN CUSTODY – which I think the traitors in mexifornicate will probably try to “LOSE ” him !

    YellowSnake in reply to Lewfarge. | December 1, 2017 at 7:49 pm

    traitors?

    If you keep throwing that word around like it is spare change, what are you going to use for the real traitors? Last I checked more than half the country disagrees with you. I won’t bother to explain the reasoning since reasoning appears to be beyond you.

      Only took three percent to kick out King George…. And the redcoats were way tougher than you.

      Lewfarge in reply to YellowSnake. | December 1, 2017 at 8:00 pm

      They are giving aid and comfort to ENEMIES of the United States

        YellowSnake in reply to Lewfarge. | December 1, 2017 at 10:25 pm

        Trump is making us enemies and alienating friends. Even Teresa May told him to shut the F up.

        Milhouse in reply to Lewfarge. | December 2, 2017 at 7:56 pm

        They are giving aid and comfort to ENEMIES of the United States

        A, no, they’re not, you’re lying through your teeth. B, even if they were, that is not treason. Treason is taking up arms against the US, or adhering to an enemy of the US, which they have not done.

          Stop getting your legal information from comic books. Worse, stop spreading it around.

          Here’s the law:

          18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason US Code

          “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them OR — (get that “or,” it’s about to come into play:)

          — adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
          (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 3, 2017 at 3:51 pm

          That’s what I wrote, you moron.

      Being snarky, and in your mind articulate doesn’t make you right and certainly doesn’t win you friends, but I guess when all of your life is some sort of warfare of invalids then that is how you think. You can leave now troll … you provide nothing to any discussion you enter, and your obfuscating stench just makes people throw up in their mouths when the see your posts.

I wonder if he’ll stand trial on any Federal charge, or be deported.

Again, I advocate a law that would imprison ANY alien felon captured in the U.S. for life in a U.S. prison.

I hope he is it away forever

They are giving aid and comfort to ENEMIES of the United States

    Milhouse in reply to Lewfarge. | December 2, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    Again, A, no, they’re not, you’re lying through your teeth. B, even if they were, that is not treason. Treason is taking up arms against the US, or adhering to an enemy of the US, which they have not done.

      Are you EVER right?

      Here’s the law:

      18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason US Code

      “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them OR — (get that “or,” it’s about to come into play:)

      — adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
      (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

        The definition of treason is in the constitution, you moron. And it’s exactly what I wrote. And, ironically what you wrote, except that you didn’t write, you just cut & pasted it without reading, or you’d have noticed that it agrees with me. Treason is (1) waging war against the US, or (2) adhering to an enemy of the US. There is no third kind.

        Giving even an actually enemy of the US aid & comfort, for any reason other than adherence to that enemy is not treason.

Zarate’s a known flight risk. Best seize his passport whike he’s awaiting sentencing! 😉 😉 😉

Occasional Thinker | December 1, 2017 at 8:12 pm

A question for those with more legal knowledge. In some states, I don’t think all, if you are participating in a crime and there is a death you can be charged with murder regardless of how the death occurred. I believe the philosophy is, by engaging in the criminal activity, you contributed to the death. If you are in the country illegally, you are obviously participating in a crime and any injuries that occur during the commission of your crime could be considered proximate to your crime. Could this be applied in circumstances like this one?

    What you allude to is called the “felony murder rule”. IIRC it is a state law rule, not a Federal one.

    It doesn’t apply even to all state felonies. Fraud is an example.

“… ICE will work to take custody of Mr. Garcia Zarate and ultimately remove him from the country”

So, all the Feds have in mind for Mr. Zarate is the same thing as if there was no illegal gun and no dead body involved.

Color me unimpressed.

I find taking the law into our own hands abhorrent. Its a fundamental breakdown of our political system but what can be done when a sizable chunk of state and local governments are willing to acquit a 7 time felon 6 time deported with a stolen gun for the death of a women he killed. Politics is one thing . If you want open boarders than advocate for open boarders and I will oppose you but that is politics. This is nothing but nullification an issue I thought we settled in 1865. I did not vote for either Obama or trump….I am a liberation, but both were ELECTED president . Its just as bad when the feds seize power that rightfully belong to the states as it is when the states refuse to comply with what clearly is a federal issue, and to Acquit a murderer to make a political point ? Something has to give and if its the destruction of the Constitution and rule of law…what do we have a government for in the first place?

Zarate will be appearing as a special lecturer at harvard to its incoming bisexual class. If they don’t do their homework, they get shot in the back.

Bisexuals 400% More Prevalent In Harvard Freshmen Than General Population:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/01/bisexuals-400-more-prevalent-in-harvard-freshmen-than-general-population/

I think we should just be letting people know he was shooting at seals ( or sea lions? )
Let Peta take care of him.

Have there been any estimates yet as to the total cost in terms of $ and body count, building and auto destruction secondary to fires and stomping mobs, LE injured as a function of attempt to stop the white San Francisco folk from such destructive behiavior secondary to the jury decision (sic)? Or did the mayor decide to inhibit that behavior by failure to create a “safe space” in which said white folk could vent their anger?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend