DOJ files arrest warrant for illegal immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle case

This is breaking news. It looks like we might actually see justice from the DoJ for the first time this decade.

The Department of Justice filed an arrest warrant for Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, the illegal immigrant acquitted Thursday in Kate Steinle’s murder trial.

Link

a reply to: Metallicus

Finally a DOJ with some gumption!

Let JUSTICE be served.

a reply to: Metallicus

What about the trial did you find unjust out of curiosity? What is the warrant for?

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Metallicus

Finally a DOJ with some gumption!

Let JUSTICE be served.

It's amazing isn't it?

Under Obama you knew that Justice was not going to happen.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Metallicus

What about the trial did you find unjust out of curiosity? What is the warrant for?

The news is just breaking. If you follow the link the details aren't available yet. I think the major take away is that this scum bag isn't going to just get away with murder.

ETA: Details are now available in the updated article at the link.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The Department of Justice released a statement saying: "There is an existing federal detainer that requires this defendant to be remanded into the custody of US Marshals Service to be transported to the Western District of Texas pursuant to the arrest warrant."

JUSTICE SERVED!

Oh, wait. Not quite.

Lock his snip up!

Lock his snip up!

Throw away the key.

a reply to: Metallicus

Yea no it's for a supervised release violation.

The warrant says Zarate violated his supervised release on a federal sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S.by possessing the gun that killed Kate Steinle on July 1, 2015. The warrant was originally issued July 14 of that year but an amended warrant was unsealed Friday following the verdict. The warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for the western district of Texas says Zarate was sentenced in Texas on May 12, 2011 to 46 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, for illegally re-entering the U.S.

CBS

a reply to: Metallicus

The poster in the other thread may have been right after all.

Felony murder....(from wiki)

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), he/she is guilty of murder.

A felon in possession of a gun and discharging that gun in a public place resulting in the death of this young woman sounds like felony murder to me.

a reply to: Metallicus

This reminds me of when the Obama Administration stepped into Ferguson Missouri to indict the police officer who was found not guilty by the jury.

This isn't a good thing if true. The fed should not be relitigating this case. They should deport him and build the wall to keep him out.

a reply to: Templeton

They're not. They're going after him for what he was found guilty of: having a gun and violating his release.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yep...reading further, that's all it is.

www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: Shamrock6

Thanks. The link doesn't want to show content for users with an ad blocker it seems. So not really breaking.

This case was bungled, imo. I guess the DOJ is just cleaning up the aftermath.

originally posted by: Templeton
This isn't a good thing if true. The fed should not be relitigating this case. They should deport him and build the wall to keep him out.

I don't know if they are re-litigating it yet.
It seems unclear what the warrant is for exactly.

I think they are just throwing the book at him hoping something/anything will stick.

a reply to: theantediluvian


While I may not be Metallicus (I'm pretty sure that I am not this person) I responded in another thread about this (as seen here) , and quoted below:

If this is true then the Coroners report would be able to show this. though I think that since this person had a handgun to begin with is an item that should have been looked at. If the person was deported 5 times from the country, than how did he legally have a firearm?

This case looks (to me at least) as a case of a state legal system trying to give the middle finger to the President, rather then applying the law. If a white middle class guy had been convicted of trespassing on federal property 5 times, then shot a person with a fire arm (accidental or intentional), would he had been treated the same way?

I'm not going to dwell on the basic point of did he/didn't he, but rather that charges against from the DoJ makes sense given that he is a repeat offender, not a citizen, and shouldn't have had a firearm to begin with. The fact that the State didn't bother to charge him with this crime, and that the Feds had to seems to go along with California's anti-Trump mentality (well not the people for the most part, but the people in Sacramento seem to be fairly anti-Trump).

I'll just go back to my quoted point; "if a white middle class guy that has been convicted of trespassing on Federal property 5 time, had been involved with the shooting of a person (accidental or not), would he have been treated the same way?"

The fact that ICE will try and take custody of this guy, and the fact that he is currently being held in a sanctuary city, leaves me to wonder if the guy will just be back on the street while the city and state argue with the federal Government about state rights vs the Constitutional law.

I am anti illegal as the next guy, but isn't this 'Double Jeopardy' ?



The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), he/she is guilty of murder.




And.... I'm all on board with that...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Templeton

They're not. They're going after him for what he was found guilty of: having a gun and violating his release.

Ok, hmmm.

Anyone here actually followed this case very closely and know a lot of details?

My question =
Did this guy actually just "happen" to find a gun and pick it up, it discharged, and he shot someone?
Or does everyone think this sounds like complete BS and that this jury is retarded for buying into the extremely lame excuse story (which is my initial reaction to hearing this "I just picked it up and it went off by accident" crap).

I have not been following this hardly at all so, what say you?

originally posted by: Plotus
I am anti illegal as the next guy, but isn't this 'Double Jeopardy' ?

No, different charges.