Kate Steinle killer found not guilty of murder

a reply to: THEREDUNDANT1

Involuntary manslaughter would have been the highest rational charge to place against him after the ricochet evidence was found, but unfortunately that gun (SIG P320) does have a problem with accidental discharge, so there was reasonable doubt that he was guilty of anything other than holding a gun he shouldn't have been, hence the firearm possession charge was the only thing that stuck.

Sig Sauer Safety Defect

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: DBCowboy

She wouldn't have died if the guy wasn't here illegally, accident or not.

She wouldn't have died if the feds did their effing jobs.

The dude was caught then released.

That verdict is an outrage.

Steinles family should bring criminal/civil charges against the state.

Before the shooting, officials in San Francisco released Garcia Zarate from custody instead of turning him over to immigration authorities.

a reply to: neo96

Unfortunately, they'll try,but I've already heard that, trying to over this and how the situation in California is, Expect Nothing.

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: THEREDUNDANT1

Involuntary manslaughter would have been the highest rational charge to place against him after the ricochet evidence was found, but unfortunately that gun (SIG P320) does have a problem with accidental discharge, so there was reasonable doubt that he was guilty of anything other than holding a gun he shouldn't have been, hence the firearm possession charge was the only thing that stuck.

Sig Sauer Safety Defect

Do you think if this charge of manslaughter would have been tried in a different city, the verdict might have played differently?

a reply to: DBCowboy

The guy admitted to it on tape. This is nothing more than letting a killer go free to spite the rule of law and further their identity politics.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Admitted to what on tape? That he held the gun that shot her? That's why he got convicted of illegally possessing a firearm. If you honestly think he's a killer than you think he has super powers, because nobody could intentionally bounce a bullet off the ground a hit somebody 80 feet away.

a reply to: Slanter



He admitted two, three..different version's on tape. His bouncing bullet killed her, ya he's a killer...Alright !

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: face23785

Blame the prosecution for that. They kept trying to paint him as a cold-blooded killer who set out to murder someone that day, even after forensics proved that pulling off that shot on purpose would have been near impossible. They wanted the conviction of a big bad illegal alien murderer. They probably could have gotten a involuntary manslaughter charge without the prosecution overreach.

It's the jury's job to weigh each charge against the evidence. After they agreed they couldn't support the prosecution's overzealous pursuit of the murder conviction, it was a relatively straight road to involuntary manslaughter.

a reply to: face23785

Agreed....

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: THEREDUNDANT1

Involuntary manslaughter would have been the highest rational charge to place against him after the ricochet evidence was found, but unfortunately that gun (SIG P320) does have a problem with accidental discharge, so there was reasonable doubt that he was guilty of anything other than holding a gun he shouldn't have been, hence the firearm possession charge was the only thing that stuck.

Sig Sauer Safety Defect

ETA: That's not the same gun. Anyway, that defect effects the gun when it is dropped. Did he claim he dropped the gun and it went off? He had about 14 different stories, so maybe he did at some point, but as I understand it it was established he was indeed holding the gun when it discharged. He pulled the trigger. The gun wouldn't have went off otherwise. As I pointed out a few pages ago, if the jury believed he didn't know it was a gun, they never would have convicted him of the felony possession charge. So he knew it was a gun and negligently he pulled the trigger on a crowded pier. It's involuntary manslaughter.

I thought from the very beginning.... involuntary Manslaughter........

a reply to: DBCowboy

She was shot in San Francisco...............a sanctuary city in a sanctuary state. Sad, but honestly, to me it just says stay out of the sanctuary cities cause they're reaping what they sow.

Now let's start ......Writing or Calling our .....Congressman and our Senator's about immigration and Sanctuary Cities!

a reply to: TonyS

I was going to type earlier...... I Happen To Believe In Ole Carma.....All I can say is God Help Em.......

a reply to: THEREDUNDANT1

Yep, bad policies have bad consequences. That's all there is to it.

It looks like the feds are going to do what the jurors could not - send the suspect to prison for possibly 10 years. He has multiple convictions for illegally entering the US. He will be charged again for illegally entering the US and because of his prior convictions the charge is now a felony with up to 10 years in prison.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It looks like the feds are going to do what the jurors could not - send the suspect to prison for possibly 10 years. He has multiple convictions for illegally entering the US. He will be charged again for illegally entering the US and because of his prior convictions the charge is now a felony with up to 10 years in prison.

Better than nothing. I'm still baffled how the jury couldn't see it was involuntary manslaughter.

This country is becoming lawless with criminals in the government both state and federal.

a reply to: face23785

Personal bias infected the jury, imo. Three immigrants were on the jury. Also, California....need I say more. I could say more: San Francisco.

Had they convicted him, it would have been seen as a win for the right and those that want to see stronger immigration controls, The Wall built, and sanctuary cities punished. It was easier to just let him walk.