Kate Steinle killer found not guilty of murder

a reply to: theantediluvian

Are you sure it wasn’t because of the immigrants on the jury and because California is sending a message that it will protect illegal immigrants even if they murder someone?

I mean, yeah, your logical breakdown of the actual facts is plausible...
But surely our emotional anti-immigrant, anti-liberal conjecture and conspiracy theories are much more likely, right?

/sarc

originally posted by: queenofswords
They could have charged him with first degree murder, second degree murder, or involuntary manslaughter.

Garcia Zarate, 45, faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors also were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions.

Link


And incredibly, the prosecution failed to convince the jury of any of those.

Makes me wonder if the prosecution even tried.

This is an emotional thing for many and I sympathize with that.

The low dirty dog that kills the sterling beauty.

We want revenge, understandable.

But it’s an ugly world we live in were most of the time there’s no happy endings, there's no justice.

That will all have to be in another world, another time...

WillTell

If there are any decent people with common sense left in San Fran, maybe they should protest this unjust verdict.

# whitelivesmatter

This might fly well with the residents of California but, a majority of this country will not take kindly to the end result.

This could potentially enflame more division and conflict.

It’s just not right on so many levels.

He killed a citizen of a country he was in illegally...barely any punishment??!!!

The world has gone completely mad!

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
I wonder if the prosecutor is to blame for intentionally throwing the case, by charging him with murder, knowing the evidence was not there, when something smaller may have stuck? Or can they still do that during a trial? Add another charge instead? I need to brush up on my law!

The jury had the option of giving a guilty verdict on either 1st degree, 2nd degree, or involuntary manslaughter. They chose none of them. They convicted him on the felony gun possession charge only. This jury, imo, was sending America a message: We are California...we are sanctuary San Francisco...we will protect this illegal immigrant no matter what.

Ahh thank you. I see now. I should have read the story more. Pretty messed up. Especially given the guy's history. Ah well that is their state. I feel sorry for the decent folks there who for whatever reason cannot leave.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: theantediluvian

Are you sure it wasn’t because of the immigrants on the jury and because California is sending a message that it will protect illegal immigrants even if they murder someone?

I mean, yeah, your logical breakdown of the actual facts is plausible...
But surely our emotional anti-immigrant, anti-liberal conjecture and conspiracy theories are much more likely, right?

/sarc

Have fun with this.

Just pause and think though, if he wasn't here because he'd been deported several times previously, Kate may have very well lived.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Here's what happened for those who haven't been following. The prosecution went full tilt, claiming with no evidence that Zarate was at the pier to kill somebody, that he aimed the gun at Kate Steinle and shot her.

The defense pretty much hinged on the fact that the bullet that killed Kate Steinle was a ricochet.

Briefly, the bullet that killed Ms. Steinle was flattened on one side. The day after the shooting, the crime scene team found a chip in the concrete approximately 12 to 15 feet from where Zarate was believed to have been sitting and some 78 feet from where Steinle was standing when the bullet struck her.

The theory put forth by the prosecution witness, now retired SFPD crime scene investigator John Evans, was that it was a "skip shot" that resulted from the shooter pulling the gun off target while pulling the trigger. In other words, that it was plausible that he was aiming at her, ricocheted the shot and still managed to hit his intended target (Kate Steinle).

That's not a very good case for murder. Though it should have been a good case for involuntary manslaughter.

KQED - Bullet Trajectory and Ricochet Shot Central to Steinle Murder Trial
KTVU - Prosecution witness testifies on bullet ricochet in Steinle murder trial

Appreciate the details.

He still was here illegally, with a fire arm and took a life.

Barely a punishment for doing so.

I’m sorry but, I can’t wrap my brain around that at all

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: queenofswords
They could have charged him with first degree murder, second degree murder, or involuntary manslaughter.

Garcia Zarate, 45, faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors also were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions.

Link


And incredibly, the prosecution failed to convince the jury of any of those.

Makes me wonder if the prosecution even tried.

I would love to hear some statements from the jury as to why this was not involuntary manslaughter in their minds.

originally posted by: Willtell

But it’s an ugly world we live in were most of the time there’s no happy endings, there's no justice.

Too often true.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Interesting thought, MME.

Did Prosecutor Diana Garcia give the closing arguments? I would like to hear what she said and how she said it.

The prosecution has failed this city!

Where's the Arrow when you need him?

I have no words for this verdict.

Maybe they'll find his head in a garbage dump someday.

In one of his stories he said he was shooting at the sea lions. Isn't that a life sentence in Cali?

a reply to: DBCowboy
I cannot believe you made me click fake news to get background information on the victim. WTH man?? I could have literally died! Next time, background in OP please!

California wants to secede and be on their own...

Go for it! Do it already.

Most of the country wouldn’t miss ya. Disgusting lot of quasis

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
If there are any decent people with common sense left in San Fran, maybe they should protest this unjust verdict.

# whitelivesmatter

They won't. It is California. They are probably celebrating, setting up a GoFundMe account for poor Mr. Illegal Killer so he can fight any possible deportation.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
The prosecution has failed this city!

Where's the Arrow when you need him?

I have no words for this verdict.

Maybe they'll find his head in a garbage dump someday.

In one of his stories he said he was shooting at the sea lions. Isn't that a life sentence in Cali?

If he had actually killed a sea lion instead of a person, he would have definitely done more time.

Freaking backwards AF!!!

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
If there are any decent people with common sense left in San Fran, maybe they should protest this unjust verdict.

# whitelivesmatter

My friend ALL liver matter!

When we as a human race finally get beyond the self, my race, my tribe, my religion and realize that were all one race.

Then and ONLY then, will there be an end to tragedy’s like this woman’s death and this immigrant’s sordid life.

When this woman whose race may be different from mine and this man whose race may also be different become to me as if they were of my race then we will have reached the promise land….the Mountaintop.

…And sad stories like this will fade away

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: CynConcepts
I am confused...how is it not possible for a jury to even find him with involuntary manslaughter? He had a gun in hand, shot that gun, and a human being died from such action!?!

I’m more confused with the idea that they can give the jury 3 options to choose from...
I’ve always thought the prosecution had to make a case for a specific charge.

This makes me wonder why they don’t do the multiple choice thing in all cases.

I didn't realize that either.

Double Jeopardy maybe? Possibility of new evidence at a later date can at least bring a lesser charge.

Multiple cases multiple monies?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think the ricochet favored the defense's claim that he accidentally discharged the firearm. For involuntary manslaughter, the action that resulted in the death has to have been reckless.

The defense argued that he was unwrapping the gun and that it then discharged. The defense's expert witness pretty well summed it up:

KQED - Steinle Trial Defense Expert Says Facts of Shooting Suggest Accidental Discharge

Forensic firearms consultant Alan Voth spent 35 years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, he testified on Wednesday, including decades as a forensic firearms analyst. He said he has studied — and published articles on — accidental gunshots and estimated he personally investigated about 100 cases involving unintentional discharges.

He also said he had accidentally fired his own weapon five times.

“If you handle firearms long enough, you’re going to have an unintentional discharge,” Voth testified. “The only unknown is where the bullet is going to go.”

He described what he called eight “indicators” of a potential accidental shooting:

* Firing a single shot
* Training of the individual involved
* The presence of self-inflicted wounds
* Whether there is an apparent “lack of deliberate aiming”
* An “illogical” initial striking point of the bullet
* No apparent motivation for firing the shot.
* A lack of planning before the shot
* The actions of the shooter after the shot was fired

Given the round ricocheted 12-15 feet from the shooter, an accidental discharge seems a reasonable conclusion as opposed to him firing a round off a the pier intentionally (which would clearly be reckless). The prosecution meanwhile spun this whole yarn about him going to the pier intent on killing a person and sitting on the bench "playing Russian Roulette." From what I read, the "evidence" of this theory was a witness who said that prior to the shooting he saw Zarate laughing and smiling at people as they strolled past.

Fox News - Jurors in Kate Steinle trial continue to deliberate case that sparked sanctuary city debate

In closing arguments last Monday, Deputy District Attorney Diana Garcia told jurors Zarate deliberately shot a stolen gun towards Steinle while "playing his own secret version of Russian roulette."

She also cited testimony from one witness who said the 54-year-old appeared to be smiling or laughing to himself as evidence that he had decided in advance to shoot someone.

That's just absurd. *However* there was apparently testimony that the weapon couldn't have accidentally discharged:

CBS SFBayArea - Firearm Expert Doubts Steinle Murder Weapon Discharged Accidentally

The semiautomatic handgun was in good condition with no modifications, Smith said.

The gun has no external safety mechanisms to prevent firing. Instead, it can be placed in single-action mode, where the hammer is cocked, or double-action mode, where the trigger pull both cocks and releases the hammer, making it somewhat harder to fire, he said.

Its trigger pull, or the amount of force needed to pull the trigger, was measured at between 4.8 and 5.5 pounds in single-action mode or 9 to 9.8 pounds in double-action mode. Those levels were within half a pound of the manufacturer’s specifications, Smith said.

I can't find the article now but I believe I read earlier that during the deliberation, the jurors had requested to handle the gun the request was denied so I'm assuming that they gave this some consideration.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
The prosecution has failed this city!

Where's the Arrow when you need him?

I have no words for this verdict.

Maybe they'll find his head in a garbage dump someday.

In one of his stories he said he was shooting at the sea lions. Isn't that a life sentence in Cali?

If you or I had just walked onto the pier and fired a weapon that was stolen from a BLM agent, and NOT hit anyone ... We would probably still be in jail.