View Full Version : Zararte found not guilty
For the murder of Kate Steinle. WTF
Come on, you weren't in the courtroom to hear the evidence presented. Besides, they did find him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and he will likely be deported (again).
I wasn't in the court room either but I did just read some of the statements made by the defence attorney. They said he found an "object" on the ground that happened to be a gun and it went off when he picked it up. That's complete bs, that at least as to be some nth degree murder.
Aloha_Shooter
11-30-2017, 19:17
Typical CA jury. They found him guilty of possessing an evil device (gun) but of course he himself wasn't guilty firing the dang thing resulting in the death of an innocent woman. The public defender was just full of bovine or equine fecal matter. Yet another reason to avoid the Nonsense State.
BushMasterBoy
11-30-2017, 19:43
72675
hollohas
11-30-2017, 20:27
Those bleeding hearts on the jury would rather let a criminal go free than be responsible for negative headlines about an illegal. The ruling is outrageous.
DavieD55
11-30-2017, 20:31
Not surprised in the least...
Great-Kazoo
11-30-2017, 20:40
Those bleeding hearts on the jury would rather let a criminal go free than be responsible for negative headlines about an illegal. The ruling is outrageous.
Replace a couple of words in your reply and it's exactly what the left was saying after the Zimmerman trial and D. Wilson grand jury findings.
What some people seem to forget is. The DA has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the defendant IS guilty. Clearly the jury was not convinced that was the case.
BushMasterBoy
11-30-2017, 20:54
From what I understand, the gun was found by a homeless person digging in the trash. It was in a paper bag. The gun went off and killed a woman. The origin of the gun was some law enforcement type left it unsecured in a vehicle. The vehicle was burglarized and the gun was stolen by another person. This statement by me is based only on the information provided by the media. I think I read too much. Feel free to disagree.
If im Kate's dad, im going hunting.
hollohas
11-30-2017, 21:08
What some people seem to forget is. The DA has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the defendant IS guilty. Clearly the jury was not convinced that was the case.
People get convicted in accidental shootings all the time. Might not be homicide, but not guilty for any any responsibility in her death is hard to believe.
That about matches to what I'm reading too. I don't know what to think though. You stumble across a gun by mistake, set it off and kill someone. You're guilty of possession of a firearm but not the death? I don't really know the laws that well and clearly wasn't on the jury but something just doesn't add up. It seems like the guy possessed the pistol long enough to get a guilty verdict. Long enough to pull the trigger, one way or the other. Are they saying someone else actually had the pistol when it went off?
It was professor Plum in the conservatory with the candle stick.
hollohas
11-30-2017, 21:20
You're guilty of possession of a firearm but not the death?
Exactly right. He just "stumbled" across it accidentally while searching through the trash and that's enough to convict him of possession? But the fact that it "accidentally fires" while he's holding doesn't mean he killed her?
Yeah, no. Two of the public defenders came out afterwards and specifically mentioned Trump and his focus on the case and illegals. You can't tell me the jury just magically remained impartial all while the defense attorneys themselves spent as much time commenting on Trump as they did on the actual guy they were defending.
Replace a couple of words in your reply and it's exactly what the left was saying after the Zimmerman trial and D. Wilson grand jury findings.
What some people seem to forget is. The DA has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the defendant IS guilty. Clearly the jury was not convinced that was the case.
I'm not a lawyer but to find him not guilty of anything related to the non-accidental death of a person, IMO, is a travesty. He wasn't claiming self defense. People get convicted of involuntary manslaughter all the time for "accidents" and should of been the minimum in this case, IMO.
Great-Kazoo
11-30-2017, 22:38
People get convicted in accidental shootings all the time. Might not be homicide, but not guilty for any any responsibility in her death is hard to believe.
I'm not a lawyer but to find him not guilty of anything related to the non-accidental death of a person, IMO, is a travesty. He wasn't claiming self defense. People get convicted of involuntary manslaughter all the time for "accidents" and should of been the minimum in this case, IMO.
I agree with both of you. However like the Zimmerman trial, the DA pushed too hard for a conviction of a greater crime. Had the DA went for manslaughter there would have been convictions, IMO, both cases.
[snip]
Yeah, no. Two of the public defenders came out afterwards and specifically mentioned Trump and his focus on the case and illegals. You can't tell me the jury just magically remained impartial all while the defense attorneys themselves spent as much time commenting on Trump as they did on the actual guy they were defending.
This.
Some of you are really slow learners. Libs are telling us about the dimensionality of the world they are forcing on us.
KevDen2005
11-30-2017, 22:57
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html
Here's a link for everyone.
Wow, look at all the conservatives rioting in the streets of SF.
[Sarcasm2]
I agree with both of you. However like the Zimmerman trial, the DA pushed too hard for a conviction of a greater crime. Had the DA went for manslaughter there would have been convictions, IMO, both cases.
Except, according to reports, he was acquitted of murder, involuntary manslaughter as well as assault with a deadly wepon.
CNN link from KevDen
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.
I thought that the fear of felons possessing firearms was that they'd kill someone. Guess not.
Trump Calls Acquittal in Sanctuary City Murder 'Disgraceful' (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-calls-acquittal-in-sanctuary-city-murder-disgraceful/ar-BBFZmo2)
Jumpstart
12-01-2017, 05:54
Jailhouse confession of guilt
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/30/five-times-deported-illegal-alien-jose-zarate-found-not-guilty-in-murder-of-kate-steinle/
JohnnyDrama
12-01-2017, 07:20
Wrong on so many levels. This is what sanctuary cities are about. I feel bad for her family.
hollohas
12-01-2017, 08:17
I wonder if there will be a civil suite coming against the city since they let him go free despite his record and the Feds requests...
Now we know the precise definition and purpose of sanctuary cities.
The key issue here is the bullet ricochet off the ground. The prosecutor never argued otherwise.
The key issue here is the bullet ricochet off the ground. The prosecutor never argued otherwise.
To the specifics of this case you are correct but the true key issue that this person was in our country in the first place.
The key issue here is the bullet ricochet off the ground. The prosecutor never argued otherwise.I'm pretty sure that if any of us "citizens" had done the same thing, we'd not be let off the hook like this. Regardless of the ricochet, whose finger pulled the trigger? Guilty!
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Great-Kazoo
12-01-2017, 09:12
Now we know the precise definition and purpose of sanctuary cities.
Having spent a week on the CA coast last month. Sanctuary state is a better description. Literally........
hollohas
12-01-2017, 09:24
The key issue here is the bullet ricochet off the ground. The prosecutor never argued otherwise.I fail to see how that is any less criminally negligent than someone having a ND that ricocheted off a wall??
For example:
-NYPD officer Peter Liang was convicted of manslaughter in 2016 for a 2014 ND that ricocheted off a wall and killed Akai Gurley inside a NYC apartment building. The conviction was later downgraded to criminally negligent homicide.
Bottom line. If someone is negligently dicking around with a gun and kills someone, no matter what flight path the bullet takes, they should be held liable.
I fail to see how that is any less criminally negligent than someone having a ND that ricocheted off a wall??
For example:
-NYPD officer Peter Liang was convicted of manslaughter in 2016 for a 2014 ND that ricocheted off a wall and killed Akai Gurley inside a NYC apartment building. The conviction was later downgraded to criminally negligent homicide.
Bottom line. If someone is negligently dicking around with a gun and kills someone, no matter what flight path the bullet takes, they should be held liable.
Only if the person charged is a US citizen, illegals are exempt.
I thought that the fear of felons possessing firearms was that they'd kill someone. Guess not.
I would say "Boom" for this point and it's clarity. Well said!
But it's not as simple as the typical anti-gun BS. Looking deeper... What do identity politics and Lib policies say should have happened here? What are Libs on Twitter saying for the last few years? That's were my head is and last night I was fairly pissed because I firmly believe those are in play.
The life of an American, a beautiful (read privileged) white woman, was worth less than defending the sanctuary shitty. The public defender publicly stated this after the trial by invoking Trump. And what that means should scare anyone who's paying attention because (again) the highest laws now come second to Lib politics.
The key issue here is the bullet ricochet off the ground. The prosecutor never argued otherwise.
And who does the DA serve? You think that was just a mistake? He didn't know better?
We don't know what the jury instructions were, but I have a difficult time believing they were anything having to do with a sanctuary city or a slant otherwise. My one experience sitting on an attempted murder jury, more than half of the jurors didn't want to convict on what I thought was pretty clear evidence. It was a real circus and I find myself less and less surprised at decisions like this. Keep in mind that jury duty and YouTube, Facebook, and news article comments come from the same pool of people.
68Charger
12-01-2017, 09:41
I'm pretty sure that if any of us "citizens" had done the same thing, we'd not be let off the hook like this. Regardless of the ricochet, whose finger pulled the trigger? Guilty!
^^^ THIS- if it was a Trump supporter on trial, they would have made an example out of him.
I'm sure the jury was just as impartial as I am towards Kalifornia "peers" that would be on a jury. If I ever find myself on trial there, I'd argue they likely couldn't find any "peers" in that state.
People get convicted in accidental shootings all the time. Might not be homicide, but not guilty for any any responsibility in her death is hard to believe.
Agreed.
I'm not a lawyer but to find him not guilty of anything related to the non-accidental death of a person, IMO, is a travesty. He wasn't claiming self defense. People get convicted of involuntary manslaughter all the time for "accidents" and should of been the minimum in this case, IMO.
At the very least it should have been Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter- still carries a prison sentence. Let's just hope that the deportation sticks this time... and he's deported AFTER the wall goes up.
I never could understand defense attorneys. I understand the need for them, but I couldn't fathom what kind of person could defend some of the evil people out there- and I'm pretty well acquainted with several Public Defenders, who are actually great people, just their mentality is beyond my comprehension.
Wow, look at all the conservatives rioting in the streets of SF.
[Sarcasm2]
Conservatives in San Francisco... [LOL] That's a good one!
I would say "Boom" for this point and it's clarity. Well said!
But it's not as simple as the typical anti-gun BS. Looking deeper... What do identity politics and Lib policies say should have happened here? What are Libs on Twitter saying for the last few years? That's were my head is and last night I was fairly pissed because I firmly believe those are in play.
The life of an American, a beautiful (read privileged) white woman, was worth less than defending the sanctuary shitty. The public defender publicly stated this after the trial by invoking Trump. And what that means should scare anyone who's paying attention because (again) the highest laws now come second to Lib politics.
And who does the DA serve? You think that was just a mistake? He didn't know better?
I can guess who the DA serves, it wasn't Kate or her family, that is for sure. The verdict came out exactly like the DA, the pubic defender, and the mayor of SF wanted it to. When a person is beholden to PC they don't know any better.
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-01-2017, 14:01
I feel bad for her family.
This in spades. A father lost his daughter, and the whole family has been made political pawn. All he wanted was a little time with her, and he got to watch her, helplessly, die in his arms. Awful.
Aloha_Shooter
12-01-2017, 14:35
Conservatives in San Francisco... [LOL] That's a good one!
I know of one. Well, technically in a suburb of San Francisco. Owns a VP9 and voted against Clinton/Obama ...
68Charger
12-01-2017, 14:36
I know of one. Well, technically in a suburb of San Francisco. Owns a VP9 and voted against Clinton/Obama ...
It was plural, you're going to have to do better than the one...
Great-Kazoo
12-01-2017, 17:08
Except, according to reports, he was acquitted of murder, involuntary manslaughter as well as assault with a deadly wepon.
CNN link from KevDen
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of 1st degree murder and The lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.
They cleared him of any wrongdoing The original charge was 1st degree.
I agree with both of you. However like the Zimmerman trial, the DA pushed too hard for a conviction of a greater crime. Had the DA went for manslaughter there would have been convictions, IMO, both cases.
In both these cases the juries were given all options. 1st degree, 2nd degree and manslaughter. Both juries chose to acquit. One was a self defense claim. The other was a, I was shooting at sea lions. No don't say that, that's negligent and reckless. Let's go with the gun just went off, the gun did it not me. I think we both feel it was a bad verdict. We just may differ on who's to blame for that verdict.
Great-Kazoo
12-01-2017, 20:13
In both these cases the juries were given all options. 1st degree, 2nd degree and manslaughter. Both juries chose to acquit. One was a self defense claim. The other was a, I was shooting at sea lions. No don't say that, that's negligent and reckless. Let's go with the gun just went off, the gun did it not me. I think we both feel it was a bad verdict. We just may differ on who's to blame for that verdict.
I blame the DA AND the Justice system, both federally more so state. How many times did this poor undocumented alien have legal troubles yet be released time and time again. CA like we see in denver coddles the illegals yet demands payment from it's legal citizenry .
BPTactical
12-02-2017, 07:45
The real crime committed in this case?
The fact that San Francisco, City of was contacted weeks before the incident by ICE regarding him re deportation charges.
San Francisco, City of willfully ignored the request.
San Francisco, City of is directly responsible for Kate Steinle's death.
A nearly identical case occurred in Denver regarding a gent who was murdered at a light rail station at 10th & Sheridan by an illegal who had been in the custody of Denver, City and County of, who ignored an ICE request as well.
IIRC that perp was found guilty however.
The time is here kids.
The time is here when our local governments willingly put The "Rights" of an individual who should not even be in the country in the first place above their own citizens.
I don't understand.
I don't understand how someone who is not a citizen, who is here unlawfully has any "Rights" here in the first place.
I don't understand how the people who were voted into office place their constituents rights secondary.
I don't understand how laws are so arbitrarily enforced.
I just don't understand.
I feel so badly for Kate's family, San Francisco, City of clearly demonstrated that her loss meant nothing.
This is how vigilantes are made.
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-02-2017, 09:34
Good post, Bert.
And even if Kate meant nothing, I can tell you my first reaction: Well, I guess I’ll never take MY daughter for a walk on fisherman’s wharf. Obviously tourism means nothing either?
Don't think I'm defending anyone here, because I'm definitely not, especially in this case, but the concept of Rights must extend to absolutely everyone, by the very definition of the word, otherwise you're only talking about privileges.
Her poor family.
My heart broke for her father, who had to relive his daughter dying in his arms all over again. For nothing.
BPTactical
12-02-2017, 13:16
Don't think I'm defending anyone here, because I'm definitely not, especially in this case, but the concept of Rights must extend to absolutely everyone, by the very definition of the word, otherwise you're only talking about privileges.
Pure fucking bullshit.
Living in this country is a privilege.
Not a citizen here?
In the country illegally?
Deported multiple times?
Convicted felon?
Murder an innocent CITIZEN?
FUCK HIS "RIGHTS" .
If rights aren't inalienable and God given, then every single thing you see as a right is really just a privilege that someone else has the power to remove from you. If you don't believe in rights, that's fine, but no more bitching about your rights concerning, well anything, because you don't really have them. Makes for a more complicated world to live in, but I prefer rights and complications to the alternative.
The real crime committed in this case?
The fact that San Francisco, City of was contacted weeks before the incident by ICE regarding him re deportation charges.
San Francisco, City of willfully ignored the request.
San Francisco, City of is directly responsible for Kate Steinle's death.
A nearly identical case occurred in Denver regarding a gent who was murdered at a light rail station at 10th & Sheridan by an illegal who had been in the custody of Denver, City and County of, who ignored an ICE request as well.
IIRC that perp was found guilty however.
The time is here kids.
The time is here when our local governments willingly put The "Rights" of an individual who should not even be in the country in the first place above their own citizens.
I don't understand.
I don't understand how someone who is not a citizen, who is here unlawfully has any "Rights" here in the first place.
I don't understand how the people who were voted into office place their constituents rights secondary.
I don't understand how laws are so arbitrarily enforced.
I just don't understand.
I feel so badly for Kate's family, San Francisco, City of clearly demonstrated that her loss meant nothing.
This is how vigilantes are made.
I understood that the feds had him first prior to all this and released him to SF on request for prosecution of some local offense there, and then SF wouldn't release him back to ICE when they requested, and just turned him loose. They are 100% culpable in this case.
I do believe NATURAL rights are inalienable and God given, but I also believe some of those rights can be curbed, restricted or stripped if your actions encroach on another's natural rights. He repeatedly encroached on others natural rights, including the ultimate right to Kate Steinle's life. But that's just my opinion.
I don't think that being here encroached on anyone's rights, but that is a completely different conversation. Certainly shooting the lady did. Just so we're clear on where I stand (based on what I've read in this thread), the jury screwed up and didn't make the correct decision. He pulled the trigger that fired a bullet that killed a person. Regardless of if it was an accident, or if he was even aiming at the person, or whatever else, the result was still that as a DIRECT result of his actions (pulling the trigger), another person died. That makes him directly responsible for her death. I find the decision to charge with felony possession, but not the actual consequences of that possession to be mind-boggling and insulting to the legal system and everyone involved. What a circus.
If rights aren't inalienable and God given, then every single thing you see as a right is really just a privilege that someone else has the power to remove from you. If you don't believe in rights, that's fine, but no more bitching about your rights concerning, well anything, because you don't really have them. Makes for a more complicated world to live in, but I prefer rights and complications to the alternative.
A citizen's rights are protected by governments, which have been given their authority by those citizens, via State and Federal constitutions. Based on your argument, if someone has entered the country illegally, how do these protections apply?
If the Feds were doing one of the few things they were chartered to do by the US Constitution, defending our borders, none of these issues would up for debate. If anyone just has to illegally enter our country to receive the full protection of our governments, how can you argue that we are a sovereign nation at all?
Our Constitutions are not suicide pacts.
A citizen's rights are protected by governments, which have been given their authority by those citizens, via State and Federal constitutions. Based on your argument, if someone has entered the country illegally, how do these protections apply?
If the Feds were doing one of the few things they were chartered to do by the US Constitution, defending our borders, none of these issues would up for debate. If anyone just has to illegally enter our country to receive the full protection of our governments, how can you argue that we are a sovereign nation at all?
Our Constitutions are not suicide pacts.
I'm not sure that I will be able to answer your questions in a way that is satisfactory. The part I've bolded is the real crux of the issue, but I'm not equipped to drill down into the details of every nook and cranny of how this is applied.
I was simply replying to BPTactical's post where he was questioning how rights work. I've shared my opinion that either people have rights, or they don't. And rights are either equal or they're not rights. Everything beyond that gets very murky, very fast, as your questions have pointed out. In an attempt to not come off as too tongue in cheek, I'm sure places like North Korea don't have these issues, but at what cost?
The Founders of this country were very astute and well-read on the various attempts at creating governments throughout history. Natural Law was also well understood. They also were very aware of human nature. What they originally built was a magnificent construct that was minimally involved in people's everyday lives.
It has since been turned on its head with the Federal government being invasive in many aspects of our daily lives. State sovereignty has been usurped. New laws are created at a breakneck pace and are selectively enforced. What we have now is a total mess and it's no accident.
My personal feeling is that if you don't belong here, you have no right to stay here. Whatever country you came through to get here, that's your next stop. Period. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. If Mexico or Canada allowed you to pass through, they can deal with you however they see fit. Whatever happens to you when you get there is your problem, not ours.
The Founders of this country were very astute and well-read on the various attempts at creating governments throughout history. Natural Law was also well understood. They also were very aware of human nature. What they originally built was a magnificent construct that was minimally involved in people's everyday lives.
It has since been turned on its head with the Federal government being invasive in many aspects of our daily lives. State sovereignty has been usurped. New laws are created at a breakneck pace and are selectively enforced. What we have now is a total mess and it's no accident.
My personal feeling is that if you don't belong here, you have no right to stay here. Whatever country you came through to get here, that's your next stop. Period. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. If Mexico or Canada allowed you to pass through, they can deal with you however they see fit. Whatever happens to you when you get there is your problem, not ours.
I'm not sure I'd disagree with any of that.
Update:
Just as they should, the Feds are pursuing federal gun charges against this guy and then will remove him from the US (again) after his federal case finishes. Finally, considering it's a federal crime for an illegal to be in possession of a firearm. I just hope they toss him across the border AFTER the wall is finished, then maybe he won't be able to come back... again.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/05/new-immigration-gun-charges-filed-against-illegal-immigrant-acquitted-in-kate-steinle-trial.html
Great, more tax dollars poured into a federal case. Maybe we should just put him in a big cannon at a 45% angle and fire him across the border. Angle it up or down, as long as he gets across the border, I don't care how many bounces it takes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.