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

a reply to: Plotus


not really, the state was original charge was murder, this seems to be a felony weapons charge. Two different crimes.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Unlike what uneducated liberal gun grabbers would have you believe...guns don't just 'discharge'. It takes an actual person pulling an actual trigger. Maybe they just don't understand how guns work in the People's Republic of Kalifornia.

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

Our corrupt government is really good at getting around that double jeopardy clause.

School zone anti gun laws for example can be combined with felony drug+gun possession to stack all sorts of charges on a guy who merely had a gun on him a block away from a school with a roach of weed.

This can take a guy down for over 10 years in prison.

a reply to: queenofswords

Will you feel the same if they find him not guilty on a federal level? It's possible. If he was acquitted with such overwhelming evidence, you should blame the prosecutor. He should have done a better job. Seems like the defense attorney did.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Who knows? He changed his story like 5 times!! I'm wondering if the prosecutor, Diana Garcia, did all she could do. Maybe in the coming days we will find out more on exactly how the jury reached their conclusion not to at least charge him with involuntary manslaughter.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: muzzleflash

Unlike what uneducated liberal gun grabbers would have you believe...guns don't just 'discharge'. It takes an actual person pulling an actual trigger. Maybe they just don't understand how guns work in the People's Republic of Kalifornia.

Does anyone know what kind of evidence was shown in the trial?

Did all the defense say was "yeah I shot her but it was totally an accident!" ?

a reply to: muzzleflash

Oh I agree, there's abuse every day. But when I read this guy walked a day or two ago, I was incensed. from the get...

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: muzzleflash

Who knows? He changed his story like 5 times!! I'm wondering if the prosecutor, Diana Garcia, did all she could do. Maybe in the coming days we will find out more on exactly how the jury reached their conclusion not to at least charge him with involuntary manslaughter.

Really ? The story kept changing?

The feeling I got from it was that they were afraid to convict him because it'd be racist to convict an illegal immigrant. That'd be oppressive and prejudice and bigoted. So therefore he's innocent (because he's an immigrant specifically, which is a protected class now).

Is this an accurate appraisal of the energies surrounding this case?

I ask because I don't know much, I'm just "feeling" the "aura".

Or ya know, it's the best way to tie up a loose end.

Here is what i don't get ATS, educate me.

This guy was deported 5 times, picked up on a 20 yr old pot charge then released onto the streets of Sf.

“The only reason he ended up in San Francisco is that the federal government decided to send him to San Francisco,” he said. But in 2015, they did something different: Instead of calling immigration officials, federal prison authorities called San Francisco about a 20-year-old marijuana charge against Garcia Zarate still on the books. Bier of the Cato Institute said that has never made sense. “It’s really mystifying, and there has not been a good answer, for why they chose this time to send him to San Francisco when in every other instance he was simply deported,” he said. Bier noted that after Steinle’s death, federal officials changed their policy so that ICE requests take priority over local county warrants. But at the time, the federal Bureau of Prisons sent Garcia Zarate to San Francisco. With no legal reason to hold Garcia Zarate, the sheriff’s department released him on April 15, 2015. He appears to have spent the next two months homeless, collecting cans along The Embarcadero so that he could earn money by recycling them.

He just happens to steal a loaded firearm from a federal agents vehicle sitting along the freeway while gathering recycling.

The .40-caliber Sig Sauer pistol had been stolen from a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger’s car after he drove into the city and parked along the Embarcadero.

He claims he was on drugs he found under a park bench?


Then, for no apparent reason, goes down to the pier and while pointing it at the ground discharges the weapon. The bullet skips, travels 80 ft and kills this poor woman.

two firearms experts, one who testified about the gun’s likely position at or below Garcia Zarate’s knees when the shot was fired, initially flying toward the pier. The other testified that several aspects of the shooting indicated an accidental discharge, including a single shot being fired, the ricochet and no apparent motivation for shooting

Now all of this happens within one month of Trump's comments about Mexico sending us rapists and killers and plays perfectly into the "build a wall" hysteria...so for a moment, skip the hate filled diatribe about liberal scumbags and silly walls and be honest.

If this guy was a war vet and not an illegal immigrant can anyone here tell me with any sincerity that half of ATS wouldnt b e screaming false flag until they were red in the face?

Isn't it just possible that this cat was setup to help win a racially charged election season?

Or should i believe that of all the things we generally agree would be done to win an election that this isn't one of them?

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: queenofswords

Will you feel the same if they find him not guilty on a federal level? It's possible. If he was acquitted with such overwhelming evidence, you should blame the prosecutor. He should have done a better job. Seems like the defense attorney did.

I dunno man.

How could an immigrant, especially a poor oppressed illegal one, be guilty of anything ever? See, we're just bigoted prejudiced Americans and suffer xenophobia.

Clearly he's innocent by default and it's actually we who killed that girl by virtue of our systemic racism.

I just nailed it right?

originally posted by: muzzleflash
I just nailed it right?

Not even close.

You just regurgitated the nonsense people actually believe that is not based in reality.

a reply to: queenofswords

They couldn't even get a guilty verdict for an ADW charge. I'm not completely fluent in the California Penal Code, but the lack of conviction for even ADW tells me that not only did the prosecutor make a piss-poor case for intent, she couldn't even prove that he acted recklessly with his handling of the firearm as would be the case for an involuntary manslaughter charge.

That leaves me wondering what kind of case she made at all, if she was somehow able to convince the jury that yes the criminal had a gun (because they found him guilty of having a gun) yet somehow failed to convince them that his handling of it was reckless?

SADLY.....YES

originally posted by: Thorneblood

Isn't it just possible that this cat was setup to help win a racially charged election season?

Speak of the Devil.

That's exactly what I was saying too.
It was our systemic racism that killed that girl.
We as a nation pulled that trigger.

Or, maybe they are all actors?

The scenario where illegal interlopers do anything illegal is so unlikely we shouldn't even really bother with considering it.

just wondering..... you ever been to Cali ? It's a whole nother .....something..a reply to: introvert

a reply to: Metallicus

There are limits to what the federal government is going to be able to charge this man with. Most likely it's going to be something immigration related like felony reentry that has nothing to do with the death of Kate Steinle.

In my opinion, it's the politicization of incident that leads you to believe that it was a murder in the first place. There was absolutely no proof given that Zarate had any intent to shoot anyone, let alone kill Kate Steinle.

Have you read any of the expert testimony in the case?

SFGate - Crime lab expert supports theory of Steinle killing being accident; or not

The homeless man accused of fatally shooting Kate Steinle on San Francisco’s Pier 14 had just one gunshot residue particle on his hands when he was arrested an hour after the incident — which could possibly mean the gun he handled went off accidentally when he picked it up in a cloth, a forensic consultant testified in court Monday.

However, James Norris, a former head of the San Francisco police crime lab, emphasized that accidental firing was just one of many possibilities, given the evidence gathered in the case.

Based on the evidence, the gun was pointed at the ground and fired at about knee-height, 11/2 feet to 2 feet from the ground, Norris said.

The round struck the cement pier about 12 feet from Zarate. It then ricocheted, traveling another 78 feet before striking Kate Steinle.

He wasn't convicted of murder because there was no evidence to support it. The theory put forth by the prosecution could best be described as cockamamie. The prosecution speculated that he brought the gun to the scene without providing any evidence. The prosecution speculated that he was there with the gun, with the intention of killing a person — again without any actual evidence.

They presented a tourist's photo of Zarate seated in a swivel chair and smiling which they characterized as "leering!" They brought on a witness who claimed that Zarate had been laughing and smiling at some point prior to the shooting. Smiling and laughing, the prosecution would have you believe, because he was about to engage in some sort of "Russian roulette" (their words). Just absurd speculation supported by absolutely nothing.

To explain the firing position and the ricochet?

The prosecution speculated that he was holding the gun between his knees to conceal his shot and that when he pulled back on the trigger, he caused the barrel of the gun to drop. At the same time, they argued that when this was happening, he was targeting Kate Steinle (because he's a monster set on murder despite having no history of violence) and though he flubbed the shot entirely, the ricocheted round traveled in a straight line to his intended target 90 feet away — a "skip shot" — hitting his target.

The of course needed him to be targeting Kate Steinle to prove first degree murder. The only reason any otherwise rational human being could swallow that much bull# is because of a deep-seated desire to believe that Zarate was a crazed assassin.

It's horrible that Kate Steinle died but I believe that if Zarate had been a citizen — just some random homeless guy with a history of drug problems and a second grade education, who collected cans and bottles for change — looking at that evidence, you would draw a completely different conclusion.

The evidence fits the defense's theory far far far better than it does the prosecution's. He found the gun wrapped in a t-shirt under the seat. As he was unwrapping the gun, there was an unintentional discharge. The round ricocheted 12 feet from where he was sitting, curved a bit to the right and continued 78 feet where it struck Kate Steinle.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: muzzleflash
I just nailed it right?

Not even close.

You just regurgitated the nonsense people actually believe that is not based in reality.

Which nonsense?

Because I just regurgitated two completely different paradigms - theirs and yours.

Please explain.

sorry wrong thread ..

originally posted by: Plotus

just wondering..... you ever been to Cali ? It's a whole nother .....something..a reply to: introvert

Yes, I've been to Cali. Not sure how that matters, considering that what the other member described is completely untrue.

Laws apply to everyone and no one is protected from the law.