Kate Steinle killer found not guilty of murder

originally posted by: Jiggly
hopefully 4chan does their job and finds all the jurors responsible for this horrible verdict

As much as I disagree with the verdict, getting revenge on the jurors won't bring justice to the dead woman.

Right now, everyone will just have to accept that.

Justice doesn't always prevail.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: face23785

Ok, what's the California State sentence for conviction on Felony firearm possession ?

Since he's convicted of that specific crime.

18-24 months. I think I heard.

He might get "time served" and walk on that too.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: face23785
I could see there not being enough evidence for a murder conviction, but for Christ's sake he admitted to firing the gun (in one of his 4 or 5 different stories he told throughout this). He said he was aiming at a seal. You still recklessly fired a gun in a public area and it resulted in someone's death. That's textbook involuntary manslaughter. That must have been the most gullible jury in history.

Yeah a no-brainer but it's San Fran.

I thought enough signatures were gathered for California to leave the USA.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The jury had the options to convict on Murder 1, Murder 2 and involuntary manslaughter. So they had a lesser option with involuntary manslaughter.

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

Domestic Terrorist CNN is portraying this verdict as a defeat of President Trump. What a callous, dangerous group of idiots.

So the defense claims that the bullet ricocheted, and is cleared of involuntary manslaughter at the least. But he's found guilty of weapons charges, which had he just followed the law and refrained from having that weapon (LOL) she would be alive.... I don't even.

But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.Text

He told police that he stepped on the gun, causing it to fire.

Well?! Which is it CNN?!

Burn the justice system to the ground and start over. Smdh.

Illegally enters country for 6th time
Finds gun
Shoots it into crowd
Kills woman
Throws gun into SF bay
Caught on camera fleeing the scene

... is only charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

Don't worry guys, SF is going to deport this criminal who's already been deported 5 times in the past... and some people still can't figure out we why want the wall.

Immigration status was not a factor in the prosecution since that is a federal crime.

The prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The fundamental question is based on intent. If the suspect had no intention of killing then murder is extremely difficult to prove. The next thing to look at is jury instructions by the judge. There are some prosecutions where a jury can only reach a verdict that is restricted to the specific criminal statute and not a lesser included offense.

IE it is possible the jury was instructed they could only consider the murder charge and not the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. A double edged sword in any prosecution where the case is flimsy to start out with.

The suspect claimed the gun accidentally discharged. As the prosecutor how do you prove the suspect intended to discharge a firearm at another human resulting in death?

While I think the jury got it wrong the fault lies with the prosecution and their inability to make there case that supported what they charged.

Personally speaking I believe any political entities that endorse and support sanctuary city status should be included as co-defendants when illegal immigrants violate the law. They are actively undermining federal law and should be liable, just as law enforcement can be held liable for failing to take a certain action.

I'VE read up too page ( 5 ) going back to finish after this post, there's a lot of people here ( That If You Don't Live In San Francisco? You Should Move There! )

nvm

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: face23785

Firstly, I must apologise.

All I was trying to do was ask questions and elaborate my own opinions.
I didn’t intend to put words in your mouth.

I agree with you that certain people’s standards do change depending on the issue.

Don't forget, they convicted him of felonious possession of a firearm. If they believe the nonsense story that it was wrapped in a shirt and he picked it up not knowing what it was and it "just went off" (which by the way, doesn't happen in real life), they would have acquitted him of that too.

I’m not going to argue the particulars of whether that is possible because I haven’t the slightest clue.
I will say that the expert the defence used to testify said it is possible.
His testimony is quoted a few pages back.

As for convicting him of felony possession, I admit that does seem to give plausibility to the idea that he knew what it was and recklessly discharged it.
But I do wonder, if instead of that, that the felony possession conviction is based on the fact that he threw the gun into the water, therefore it was deemed the gun was in his possession, yet still not an indication of recklessness to also go for the manslaughter conviction.

That’s just a theory of course. Maybe I’m way off.

Don't sweat it. You make a good point, although I really don't think that's the case. If he did accidentally pick it up, he has to put it down at some point, and I think a reasonable jury would take that into account as to whether it was felonious possession. Obviously they didn't take the fact that he threw the gun in the water and ran as evidence that he was guilty of murder or manslaughter, just that he was scared on account of he just "accidentally" shot someone. Why wouldn't they take the same reasoning into account for the felony possession charge? It just doesn't add up. They had to believe he willingly possessed the gun. No one would convict you if someone tossed a gun into your lap, because the circumstances were beyond your control. They obviously didn't believe these circumstances were beyond his control, ie they didn't believe the defense's explanation.

So the guy gets sent back to Mexico.

Tells all his lowlife buddies:

"Guys...I know this great place called SF...You can even kill a young girl there...and they find you innocent and treat you like a hero!"..."Check it out!"

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The jury had the options to convict on Murder 1, Murder 2 and involuntary manslaughter. So they had a lesser option with involuntary manslaughter.

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

Domestic Terrorist CNN is portraying this verdict as a defeat of President Trump. What a callous, dangerous group of idiots.

If that's what they're doing, then they are undermining the justice system. The president ought not have anything to do with a criminal case or how it's decided. This should be solely about the family, the accused, the facts, and what the law says.

If the fact of who the president was had anything to do with what the jurors did or the judge, then this is a mistrial.

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: face23785

Ok, what's the California State sentence for conviction on Felony firearm possession ?

Since he's convicted of that specific crime.

Went and looked,

California being generally anti-second amendment in its public stance seems very lenient on Felony firearm possession with 16 month to maybe three years penalty - it's not a wonder they have issues with revolving criminals.

The 3 strikes revised law says "conviction for serious or violent felony" gets double max sentence.

Does this rise to a California definition of "serious" just what the h does that mean anyway.

If you look at a lot of anti-gun state laws you'll find they're soft on repeat offenders. Because gun control is about feeling good about confronting the "gun lobby" and passing useless laws that do nothing but make those law-abiding silly gun clingers jump through a myriad of hoops to own a gun, not about public safety. Having hefty penalties for actual criminal users of firearms would be racist, so we can't do that.

Now California does have a pretty stiff penalty if you commit murder with a gun. I believe you automatically get an additional 20 years on top of the murder sentence. But that's the whole essence of this case isn't it? Why does it have to get all the way up to murder before we throw the book at you? Everyone makes mistakes, and I believe in rehabilitation and second chances. But this was not this guy's second chance. 4th, 5th, 6th chance isn't the charm. This guy had so many warning bells it's a systemic failure of our immigration and justice system that he was even able to commit another crime in this country. One of his previous run-ins with our system should have resulted in more substantial measures, and he shouldn't have been on the loose. He had plenty of chances, he obviously was not interested in turning his life around. We need to take bolder steps on repeat offenders before they kill someone. But again, that would be racist right?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The jury had the options to convict on Murder 1, Murder 2 and involuntary manslaughter. So they had a lesser option with involuntary manslaughter.

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

Domestic Terrorist CNN is portraying this verdict as a defeat of President Trump. What a callous, dangerous group of idiots.

If that's what they're doing, then they are undermining the justice system. The president ought not have anything to do with a criminal case or how it's decided. This should be solely about the family, the accused, the facts, and what the law says.

If the fact of who the president was had anything to do with what the jurors did or the judge, then this is a mistrial.

It's well known San Fran is a pretty liberal city. Odds are most, if not all, the jurors were liberals. If the liberals in the CNN studios in New York were thinking that, makes me wonder what was going through the mind of the jurors too. If they took any of that into account, retrial.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: face23785
I could see there not being enough evidence for a murder conviction, but for Christ's sake he admitted to firing the gun (in one of his 4 or 5 different stories he told throughout this). He said he was aiming at a seal. You still recklessly fired a gun in a public area and it resulted in someone's death. That's textbook involuntary manslaughter. That must have been the most gullible jury in history.

Yeah a no-brainer but it's San Fran.

I thought enough signatures were gathered for California to leave the USA.

We can only dream. In all fairness, there are plenty of good people in Cali. I know it's easy for me to say but I wish they'd just recognize the state is a lost cause and move.

I also think, we need a list of all ( illegals ) and send ......Bail Bond Recovery......people..... ( Bounty hunters ) after them....would be a hell of a lot faster, thinning the herd.... I have two cousins that would be happy to start Today!

originally posted by: THEREDUNDANT1
I also think, we need a list of all ( illegals ) and send ......Bail Bond Recovery......people..... ( Bounty hunters ) after them....would be a hell of a lot faster, thinning the herd.... I have two cousins that would be happy to start Today!

Good luck with that. We can't even get blue states to cooperate on securing our election system after they've been crying for a year about election interference. They won't cooperate with anything that actually makes sense.

face23785

I know it's Crazy!

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Apparently the gun he held, he didn't know it was a gun so not even Involuntary Manslaughter.

I thought his original excuse was that he did not mean to kill her, that he was trying to shoot a sea lion.

He had to change his story because he would be in jail for attempting to harm a sea loin.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Apparently the gun he held, he didn't know it was a gun so not even Involuntary Manslaughter.

I thought his original excuse was that he did not mean to kill her, that he was trying to shoot a sea lion.

He had to change his story because he would be in jail for attempting to harm a sea loin.

Sea Lion's are more precious in California than humans?