Post: #1

It was discussed in the Donald Trump thread but it deserves its own thread.

Quote:Jurors Thursday afternoon acquitted the illegal immigrant accused of killing Kate Steinle as she walked with her father on a crowded San Francisco pier of all charges except for felony possession of a firearm.

A spokesperson for the Superior Court of California made the announcement that the jury had reached a verdict shortly after 3 p.m. Shortly after 4:30 p.m., the shocking verdict was announced that Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was found not guilty of all charges except for the gun possession charge.

Jurors have been deliberating on the case since Tuesday, November 21, after prosecutors and defense attorneys finished their arguments whether Garcia Zarate was a hapless homeless man who killed Steinle in a freak accident or a calculated murderer intent on playing a sick game.

The jurors broke for the long Thanksgiving holiday weekend on Wednesday, November 22. Deliberations have been ongoing since the jury reconvened this past Monday.

The jury of six women and six men considered charges against Garcia Zarate that include murder, assault with a deadly weapon and being a felon in possession of a firearm in the death of Steinle, a 32-year-old Pleasanton native and San Francisco resident.

Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez spoke after the verdict was read, first taking a moment to offer condolences to the Steinle family.
“I hope that they do not interpret this verdict as diminishing in any way the awful tragedy that occurred,” said Gonzalez.

Gonzalez was also quick to ask that the jury’s decision be held in the proper regard.

“This jury’s verdict should be respected,” Gonzalez said. “They heard the evidence. They deliberated as a group. They heard read back testimony. They looked at the physical evidence and they rendered a verdict to the best of their abilities in accordance with the law.”

The attorney also anticipated the likely criticism that could be forthcoming from some high-profile politicians who had already commented on the case.

“For those who might criticize this verdict – there are a number of people who have commented on this case in the last couple of years; the Attorney General of the United States and the President and Vice President of the United States,” said Gonzalez. “Let me just remind them: they are themselves under investigation by a special prosecutor in Washington D.C. and they may soon avail themselves of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, so I ask that they reflect on that before they comment or disparage the results of this case.”

Sessions wasted no time attacking San Francisco’s Sanctuary City policies after the not guilty verdict in the high-profile trial was made public.

Sessions issued a statement placing the blame for Steinle’s July 1, 2015 death on the city’s Sanctuary City policies, which limit cooperation and communication between local law enforcement and immigration authorities.

“When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk,” Sessions said. “San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.”

Steinle was walking with her father and a family friend in July 2015 when she was shot, collapsing into her father’s arms. Garcia Zarate had been released from the San Francisco jail about three months before the shooting, despite a request by federal immigration authorities to detain him for deportation.

He had been deported five times and was wanted for a sixth deportation.

Alex Bastian, a spokesman for the San Francisco prosecutor’s office, said the “verdict that came in today was not the one we were hoping for” but it was the jury’s decision and prosecutors would respect it.

Jurors did find Garcia Zarate guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi said that charge carries a potential sentence of 16 months to 3 years.

Steinle’s death put San Francisco and its “sanctuary city” policy in the spotlight, as Democrats and Republicans lashed out at city officials for refusing to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.

During the presidential race, then-candidate Donald Trump cited the killing as a reason to toughen U.S. immigration policies. Trump later signed an executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities, a policy that a federal judge in San Francisco permanently blocked Monday.

But the politics of immigration were not allowed to come up in the month-long trial.

San Francisco Deputy District Attorney Diana Garcia said she didn’t know why Garcia Zarate fired the weapon, but he created a risk of death by bringing the firearm to the pier that day and twirling around on a chair for at least 20 minutes before he fired.

She said he then ran away while other people tried to figure out what had happened. The bullet ricocheted on the pier’s concrete walkway before it struck Steinle.

“He did kill someone. He took the life of a young, vibrant, beautiful, cherished woman by the name of Kate Steinle,” she said.

Gonzalez said in his closing remarks that he knows it’s difficult to believe Garcia Zarate found an object that turned out to be a weapon that fired when he picked it up.

But he told jurors that Garcia Zarate had no motivation to kill Steinle and as awful as her death was, “nothing you do is going to fix that.”

He urged jurors to pick apart the facts of the case, instead of swallowing a ludicrous narrative by the prosecution that relied on circumstantial evidence.

Garcia called the defense’s argument just as implausible and told jurors to look at the entire picture.

The semi-automatic handgun used to kill Steinle was stolen from a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger a week before the shooting.

Before the shooting, Garcia Zarate had finished a federal prison sentence for illegal re-entry into the United States and was transferred in March 2015 to San Francisco’s jail to face a 20-year-old charge for selling marijuana.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/11...der-trial/

Should have been manslaughter at the minimum. The jury wanted to make a statement.

Post: #2

Post: #3

ICE should deport him immediately, preferably releasing him a few miles above Mexico City. Instead he will get the cushy prison experience of being a mexican gang member and all the free services provided by the California taxpayers.

Post: #4

Insane as it seems, I think this was jury nullication because the jury members were so strongly in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to stay in spite of committing crimes. It's similar to European women who get raped by a refugee then decide not to report it because they don't want the guy deported.

Hopefully the jury members will experience some karma for this.

Post: #5

This makes my blood boil. Liberals are literally voting for Americans' deaths.

If Trump created a huge new deportation force tomorrow, I'd sign up.

Post: #6

This is the type of shit we need to get pissed off about and push our politicians out who don't want to get rid of ALL illegal immigrants.

Post: #7

A few more of these verdicts, and race relations today will seem like Kumbaya.

G

Post: #8

It's time to burn San Francisco to the ground. The city is a hotbed of seditious and anti-American activity.

And break apart those tech companies using anti-trust laws.

Post: #9

Jesus CHRIST, and this was open and shut. I'm genuinely shocked.

Post: #10

Someone tweeted the best explanation of the verdict.

The crucial two facts were that Kate was standing about fifteen feet in front of her killer, and the bullet ricocheted off the ground before it hit her in the back. Aorta shot, she had no chance to live. (A third crucial fact was that there was gun powder residue on his right hand.)

Due to prosecutorial overreach, the jury was given a choice between First Degree Murder, some form of Manslaughter, and Not Guilty. (The Manslaughter laws are convoluted in California, which was supposedly a reason that no Manslaughter verdict happened.)

Kate's killer gave the following story, (paraphrase, not direct quotes), "I was walking along the sidewalk. I tripped over something wrapped in a tee shirt. It was a gun. I picked it up. It went off by accident."

Jury Conclusion: The ricochet PLUS the Malicious Intent needed for a Murder Conviction EQUALS a Not Guilty verdict.

-------

I think it's all bullshit.

If you've taken any philosophy course, (high school, college, or just informal philosophy club), you've considered the question, "Is it moral to kill baby Adolf Hitler to prevent the Holocaust?"

I'm not saying Kate's killer is Hitler, but I mention that question to explain my Guilty Verdict.

First off, what would YOU do if you found a gun wrapped in a tee shirt? You'd call the cops, of course. (I'm Machavellian enough to think Free Gun For Me! But I'm also Machavellian enough to think Police Sting Operation. So I would feel tempted, but then call the cops.)

So this establishes that Kate's Killer picked up the gun because he intended to commit a crime with it. Killing Kate? Probably not. Almost certainly not.

But, would you convict a man of a crime he didn't commit to prevent him from committing a crime that he intends to commit?

Fuck yeah, I would, without feeling bad about it.

And after the guilty verdict, when the news tells me the guy I convicted had previously been convicted of seven felonies, I'd drink some scotch to celebrate my deduction skills.

-----

Do I think the people of San Francisco deliberately let the guy go to say "Fuck Trump"? Not really. I think the jury injected Angelic Intentions and Un-knowledge into Kate's Killer's head, and engaged the "Did he intend to kill her?" question, seriously.

Do I support Trump's base getting super angry and demanding even more political concessions in Kate's name? 100% yes.

Post: #11

Post: #12

Social Justice Warriors always double down.

This is one of Kate's Killer's lawyers.

Post: #13

This is like the first Dirty Harry movie where they refuse to punish criminals, ironic that was set in SF as well.

Post: #14

Molyneux has renounced his aversion to Nationalism this week, not just in light of this. About time.

Post: #15

We need a gofundme to pay a guard to make sure he's gang-raped daily in prison.

Post: #16

And when he gets out...?

#RWDS

Post: #17

Quote:"I was walking along the sidewalk. I tripped over something wrapped in a tee shirt. It was a gun. I picked it up. It went off by accident."

And, no doubt, to the Mentally Damaged California Liberal (which I don't say lightly, as it is my birthplace) this made perfect sense. After all, that is what they believe guns do and why they must be banned or locked up at all times- because if you merely pick one up and touch it anywhere or look at it wrong it will "just go off". It's not like you have to deliberately pull the trigger or anything silly like that.

Not only will the cesspool of California leftists not care that this scumbag got off, I would not be surprised in the least if they instead used this to say "see, look how dangerous guns are".

It really sickens and angers me what California has turned in to, as I used to love it very much. I have great memories growing up, generations of family history and businesses, father and grandfathers and great grandfathers all making their mark on that once sublime sun-drenched land, in ways that people here would probably recognize if I could say more.

Most people probably don't realize that once upon a time California was the beacon of freedom in U.S., somewhere you could go and carve out your place and do and build and be basically whatever you could imagine, mostly unmolested, even as recently as the fourth quarter of the 20th Century. Now if you are a Californian and American Citizen you must struggle and fight for your basic constitutional rights, like the 2nd Amendment, that citizens elsewhere in the country don't even have to think about. We don't even need to speak about how terrible it is economically for regular good Americans there. The complete decimation of the California Dream is as incredible as it is sad.

For a long time I had thought I'd end up going back and living there permanently some day, but that's long over now and it sucks man.

My Father is ok thankfully, for now, but I don't think he'll ever get over the sadness of his sons leaving the state for good, and our particular and long line of some great California men ending with him, permanently.

Post: #18

(12-01-2017 01:59 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Do I think the people of San Francisco deliberately let the guy go to say "Fuck Trump"? Not really.

I'm of the opinion that is exactly what happened.

The government failed this girl and her family many times over here. The guy should never have been in the country and the gun should never have been in his possession.

First, San Francisco has been overrun by car break ins over the last few years. My sister lives in the area. Everyone's car gets broken into. Google it. The city is more concerned with being politically correct and open minded that they don't protect anyone anymore. Go there, there's heroin addicts vomiting in the sidewalk, and the cops walk up and give them a clean syringe. For this BLM (not that one) guy to leave his gun like he did was pure stupidity.

Second, CA has some felny-murder type charges that they should have used here. Just him holding the gun would have made him eligible for second degree of it.

So yes, the fact that they've let their own city go to shit to maintain their liberalness mixed with the screwball charges, says to me thus was a big giant fuck you to trump.

If this one doesn't turn some liberals attitudes around nothing is going to.

Aloha!

Post: #19

Continuing from Donald Trump thread:

(12-01-2017 03:11 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:While Zarate's immigration status brought the case into the national spotlight, jurors did not hear evidence about that, and it was not a factor in the trial.

How on earth can a previous (worse, ongoing) crime possibly "not be a factor in the trial"? If I were a rapist who went to rob a bank, you can bet that my history of sexual assault would be brought up at trial.

(12-01-2017 03:14 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  @HCE

According to the laws in pretty much every state, if a previous crime is not considered "materiel to" the current crime being prosecuted, jurors don't get to hear about it - because bias.

Someone correct me if this is wrong, but this doesn't seem to be a cornerstone of law like ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. It's just an extenuating or aggravating circumstance.

For example, if I play with a gun and it fires and hits a passerby, being wanted for armed robbery would make it much worse - it clearly shows that my actions were not accidental, but a pattern of malicious behavior.

What is wrong with this line of thought?

Post: #20

In a city like SF is it unreasonable to suggest that the prosecutor took a dive?

If he was promised a cushy promotion then who knows.

Post: #21

If he's been in jail since the shooting that's probably time served enough. Worst that happens is they deport him, then he comes right back, like the five other times he did it. Stupid.

Probably against popular opinion here, but I'm beginning to think there are some things Trump needs to stay quiet about. You're dealing with irrational people, San Francisco lawyers in this case, and they turn around and do stupid shit just to fight back.

Aloha!

Post: #22

If you get caught entering illegally more than 3x there needs to be a more severe punishment to deter subsequent reentry. Jail or sending them back again and again is not working. Maybe we can put his head on a spike on the wall.

Post: #23

Post: #24

A photo of the alleged jury is on twitter. Thoughts?

Post: #25

In that photo I see at least a few children, and shorts brah would not be permitted. Seems unlikely.

I do note the couple happy latino women, because what a celebratory time.