Jose Ines Garcia Zarate slides on murder charge
Yesterday a jury found that illegal alien Jose Ines Garcia Zarate who had been deported five times until he murdered 32-year-old Kate Steinle two years ago with a handgun that he had stolen from a federal law enforcement officer was not responsible for her death on the San Francisco pier. Zarate successfully convinced the jury that the gun went off by itself. From CNN;
Kate Steinle’s brother said the theft of the gun set off a series of system failures that culminated with the ruling.
“I’m not surprised. The system failed Kate from the start of this chain of events. Why would the verdict be any different?” Brad Steinle said. “From the drug charge. To being released. To not being detained by ICE. The BLM agent leaving a loaded weapon in an unlocked car. It is failure after failure.”
According to Fox News, the Justice Department is considering Federal charges against Zarate;
U.S. immigration officials had said they would deport Garcia Zarate – also known as Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez — who already had been deported five times and was wanted for a sixth deportation when Steinle was fatally shot in the back while walking with her father.
The undocumented felon could spend three years in prison for the firearm charge but has already been behind bars for over two years as the case has made its way through court.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores acknowledged Friday that the DOJ is looking at federal charges. She suggested a possible charge could be felony re-entry or a charge pertaining to a violation of supervised release.
“We’re looking at every option and we will prosecute this to the fullest extent of the law because these cases are tragic and entirely preventable,” Flores said on “Fox & Friends” Friday.
She also urged local governments to “reconsider” sanctuary policies.
This whole case highlights the failures of depending on the government to protect us from the worst criminals.
Category: Crime, Illegal Immigrants
But, but, we are a nation of immigrants! /s
Some stupid assed preacher was on Foxes Tucker show and quoting the Bible, Lev. where it says to be kind to their immigrants…! Someone clue in that a.h. and tell him these bastards ARE NOT immigrants, they are freaking invaders! This one should have received a bullet in the head the 2nd or 3rd time he came back here IMHO!! If they had buried the scumbag in the desert, that poor girl would be alive now!
…and the SJW howler monkeys WANT them here! /s
UFB.
Was it the same jury that O.J had?
MAGA 2020
I suppose it’s too much to ask a bunch of tie-dyed homos to form a lynch mob
What’s the over under on his next felony offense?
TAH Name Scrabble(Home Version)®™ basic scores are:
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate – 39
(AKA) Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez – 62
Can’t say I’m surprised he skated on murder – that’s hard to prove. But I can’t believe the jury didn’t convict him of the lesser included charge of negligent homicide. That should have been a “no brainer”, since as a felon he shouldn’t have been in possession of a weapon in the first place.
Screw California. I sincerely pity any TAH readers who have to live in that abomination of a legal jurisdiction.
I escaped a few years ago and hope to never be sent back there again.
At this point, being in Afghanistan is better than California. Come to think of it, I enjoyed being in Afghanistan for a year more than the 3 years I was in California. (Safer too)
Hondo,
This may be one of those cases the state never could have proved first degree murder (which is what they went for) and never actually argued for any underlying crime, the jury felt “what else is the state lying to us about?”
The defense offered a believable scenario to the jury and the state overcharged.
I hear what you are saying and agree with you to a large extent. But if a prosecutor doesn’t really put forth and explain lesser charges, detailing how the elements of the crime fits those lesser charges, it is hard for a jury to latch onto them and say “he did that.”
This should have been a no brainer conviction on some crime. The fact that it was not and that the prosecutors were beaten by public defenders says to me the prosecutors screwed up.
But that’s my opinion.
Yep. Sure seems like a conviction on some sort of heavy duty charge would be a slam dunk when you have a very public killing witnessed by a bunch folks that the defendant admitted to committing. Something went terribly wrong with the prosecution. Maybe the original investigation. And probably a few other things as well.
Or, the prosecution was on the side of the perp?
It is Kaliphornia after all, so I would not be surprised if the prosecution felt the poor nice illegal criminal should be given a second chance.
As politically-charged as this trial was, I can’t say I’d be terribly surprised if some element of this state’s ultra-left government leaned on the prosecutor. They want to pander to the two major bleeding-heart enclaves on the coast and scattered pockets of la raza fanatics.
Years ago, there was an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies where Jed and Jethro were “out back of the cement pond practizing ricochet shootin’.”
As the shot that tragically killed Steinle was a ricochet shot, it is hard for me to imagine anything higher than manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Nothing, and I mean nothing that I have seen about the shooter could convince me that his actions fit the elements of first degree murder. No one says “I am going to plan on killing that there woman by bouncing a bullet off a pier.” It makes no sense.
The shooter is guilty of something, but either by design or incompetence, the prosecutors in this politically charged trial allowed him to walk.
From what I’ve read and heard, 1st degree, 2nd degree AND involuntary manslaughter were all options for a guilty verdict.
In this case, you have a jury, a judge, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, who all live in a whiner baby city full of liberal dickbags who don’t give a shit about anyone else but who they “feel” like should be protected. Such as, illegal felons who go there to escape and be safe.
The rules that the judge required, like not allowing the jury to consider his prior 5 or 6 felony convictions, the fact he was kicked out of the country 6 times, that he was an illegal alien, etc., is ridiculous.
I’m sure the family would LOVE to do a wrongful death suit against California or San Francisco, but they’d never get a jury in those parts to side with them against their great communist dictatorship.
Even in California, 1st degree murder requires intent and there was no intent by the defendant. It is just impossible for me to believe that the shooter intended to kill a woman by bouncing a shot off the concrete.
However, Patterico who is a state prosecutor in CA says that in that state, the charging document simply says “murder” and not a degree of murder. The degree is essentially argued at trial.
In addition, Patterico relates that jury instructions read:
The instructions that a judge reads to jurors say, in part:
Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:
1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;
AND
2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.
In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.
If that is the law in CA, then the jury may have gotten the verdict right. There may not have been anything for them to hang their hat on.
Prior convictions are never allowed in a case other than to impeach a witness if they take the stand. The shooter did not take the stand so the priors were never going to come in at the trial. Priors are only allowed during sentencing, and frankly, that is the way it should be.
As for your comment on California and San Francisco being culpable in this death because of their unwillingness to follow immigration and criminal law, I totally agree.
As much as I hate Glocks, they don’t “just go off” unless you pull the trigger. Meaning he was either deliberately murderous or criminally negligent. This bastard should hang.
Alas, all it takes is one juror out of twelve being an ignorant moron.
I stand corrected. I had thought the weapon was a Glock. Evidently it was a SIG. The point remains valid. Firearms do not discharge unless subjected to an external force that drops the hammer/striker. Few weapons in existence today will have that reaction to any input other than a pull of the trigger. Those that do, like the notorious videos of the drop-firing P320, still require the external force of dropping the weapon from sufficient height and impacting a hard surface. Even the absurdly-unsafe Nambu Type-94, with its exposed sear bar wouldn’t just discharge for no apparent reason.
I shoot a Sig.
It doesn’t just ‘go off’ by itself.
The DA trigger weight is enough for safety, but not terrible for accuracy IMHO. The SA is light, and if the wetback had the hammer back he could have touched it off unintentionally.
And if he weren’t handling it in the first place, it wouldn’t have gone off either.
In the Army that’d be an easy negligient discharge confirmation. We had a couple of those in my unit in Iraq. After the fact we did functions checks on the weapons and they were fine.
Though one was in desperate need of cleaning, there was nothing wrong with them. They went off because someone had their nose picker on the trigger and the safety off.
But in San Francisco, guns have a magic ability to kill people without anyone doing anything to them. Unless you’re a white heterosexual male conservative, then you’re an evil hitler spawn and everything is your fault.
TOH- your 100% right. After going to South Florida gun shows for around 10 years I’ve never seen or heard of a guns going off and shooting the hundreds of people that go there including the open carry vendors.
He wasn’t convicted because there were 6..count’em 6 so called immigrants on the jury, most likely illegal mexican aliens…no way they are going to find him guilty!!imho
It’s a sanctuary city, so if the DA went for a manslaughter conviction, the jury of peeps would still find the perp not guilty. Even with a 12 hour deliberation, which I believe was a put on to make it look legit. This is my opinion.?SARC. This shit can’t get any better.
The defense attorney parlayed the jury’s ignorance of firearms into a successful “the gun just went off” defense.
And the best the Feds can come up with is glorified jaywalking? Build that wall- around San Francisco.
There are like 2 or 3 handguns that ever discharged unintentionally; a single action Ruger with a defective sear (which had to be cocked first) the civilian version of the Sig 320 at a specific angle and another firearm I don’t recall. But we all know guns do not “go off.”
You could drop one from 10000 feet from a plane onto a runway and it wouldn’t discharge.
We see law enforcement spokespersons and heads of agencies perpetuate this lie.
I hate this state. Unfortunately I’m 12 years from retirement.
Quoting the San Francisco Examiner: Most police agencies don’t make records public, but those that do reveal disturbing data. In a four-year period (2012-2015), the New York City Police Department reported 54 accidental firearm discharges, 10 involving SIG Sauers. Los Angeles County reported more than 80 accidental discharges between 2010 and 2015, five involving SIG Sauers. From 2005 to January 2011, the San Francisco Police Department reported 29 accidental discharges (a time when it issued SIG Sauers as its primary sidearm). Accidents aren’t limited to police in New York City, Los Angeles or San Francisco. – In 2002, a San Fernando police officer dropped his SIG Sauer, causing an accidental discharge that killed him, refuting claims the trigger must be pulled to fire the gun. – In 2008, an officer in Connecticut accidentally discharged his SIG Sauer while holstering it. – In 2011, a security guard in St. Louis dropped his SIG Sauer, unintentionally shooting someone. – In 2012, a New York transit officer accidentally discharged his SIG Sauer while holstering it. – In 2014, a federal air marshal in New Jersey unintentionally shot himself while handling his SIG Sauer service weapon. – In 2015, a Pennsylvania state trooper and firearms instructor accidentally killed another trooper with his SIG Sauer while conducting safety training. – In 2016, a tactical response training instructor near Sacramento dropped his SIG Sauer, firing a bullet into a student’s truck. – In 2017, a sheriff’s deputy in Michigan accidentally discharged his SIG Sauer, striking a schoolteacher in the neck. Even at SIG Sauer’s own training academy in New Hampshire, the arms manufacturer has admitted to accidental discharges causing injury in both 2016 and 2017. … The SIG Sauer in Lopez Sanchez’s case has three features prone to accidents: 1. No safety lever, making it perpetually ready for firing. 2. Manufacturer-issued trigger pull of 4.4 pounds of force (in single-action mode), which is among the lightest on the market. 3. An unlabeled decocking lever despite being essential to disengage the single-action mode. (The SIG Sauer safety manual urges “DO NOT THUMB THE HAMMER DOWN the consequences… Read more »
None of which matters at all. He knew that the weapon was not his when he obtained it. He was not desperate to defend himself from the woman he shot, which would excuse his picking up that handgun that had been following him around.
And, to reiterate what I’ve said previously: as a felon, he was legally barred from firearms possession. By merely picking it up, he committed a Federal felony.
Seems to me that felony murder should apply here. In some ways, it’s a pity that we don’t have a Federal felony murder statute. I’m not in favor of having one – but in this case, it would certainly come in hand if the Federal courts try him for being a felon in possession.
Here’s an explanation of the law from blogger/prosecutor Patterico who explains why it isn’t felony murder and why the verdict was plausible based on California law. There’s some good news too – a federal statute that bar possession of a firearm by an illegal alien could get him up to 10 years. https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2017/12/01/lawsplainer-california-homicide-statutes-relevant-steinle-murder-case/
Actually, all Patterico does there is to say that the law concerning felony murder (presumably he’s talking about CA’s felony murder law) is “complicated”, and then asserts that this case did not qualify as a felony murder case. He doesn’t explain either CA’s felony murder law or why this particular case would not qualify.
However, I’m reasonably certain that it would qualify under a properly-crafted hypothetical Federal felony murder statute. That was the whole point of my previous comment.
Whether having such a Federal felony murder law would be a good idea or not is another issue. I tend to believe not; murder generally shouldn’t be a matter of Federal concern, and I’m loath to see Congress make it a Federal matter. But in this case, such a hypothetical statute would be . . . useful.
There already is a sort of federal felony murder statute, and that’s 18 U.S.C. 1111. It covers murder in the “special and maritime jurisdiction of the United States”–and allows a first degree (and possibly capital) conviction for murder “committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery.”
“Felon in possession of a firearm” is as you see not on the list, and I think that does make sense given the nature of the doctrine…you don’t really commit a murder in the course of possessing a firearm, even if you commit the murder with the firearm you unlawfully possess. Though the separate crime ought to increase the sentence accordingly (as will the repeat-offender background that includes the original felony conviction).
True, but doesn’t seem to be applicable here. San Francisco isn’t within the “special territorial and maritime jurisdiction” of the US as defined by 18 USC 7. As I read 18 USC 1111, it only applies within that defined special and territorial jurisdiction. I was speaking of a hypothetical Federal felony murder statute that would be generally applicable within all Federal jurisdictions. (Again: not in favor of one, but such a properly-crafted hypothetical law would be useful in this particular case.)
Hondo, I don’t know about that one.
I don’t agree with legislation based on teh feelz because such laws invariably produce more harm than good. In this example, I would hate to see such a law repurposed by a different leaning DOJ to go after say, folks who legally use firearms to defend self and or property and are no-billed / prosecution declined / found not guilty at the state or local level. You know, if the President had a son and all of that.
Certainly you’re right. However, I think this statute does illustrate another point about felony murder…it’s murder “in the course of” another crime (e.g., you wanted to rape or rob someone; you used a gun to subdue her; you were prepared to kill if she resisted; she did and you did.) It’s not just murder “connected with” or “at the same time as” another crime…which is why not all felonies are really suitable to a felony-murder rule.
(This is especially true now as felony-murder is one of the things that can make a charge capital…but the courts have been so jealous of what you’re allowed to execute people for, that you should tailor that kind of statute pretty narrowly anyway..at least until the happy day when the jurisprudence changes.)
Traditionally, the felony murder rule requires the death to occur in the course of the commission of an inherently dangerous felony of robbery, rape, burglary, murder or kidnapping, IIRC from my Criminal Law classes.
Right. Even if he didn’t intend to shoot her, he was in possession of a stolen firearm and was pointing it someplace he shouldn’t. Three intentional felonies right there, even before the bullet left the barrel!
It being the fault of the inanimate object fits the lefty agenda better.
It matters in this sense:
The defense claimed that he found the weapon underneath a bench he sat on after 6 people got up and left sitting there.
The history of this particular model of weapon and its accidental discharges fits more into the narrative that the defense put forth than the prosecution put forth.
That’s why this matters. The prosecution told a tale that the jury didn’t believe while the defense gave them a tale which they could believe and that is “reasonable doubt.”
If he had not handled the firearm AT ALL, it wouldn’t have gone off because of him. Yes, the prosecutor sucked in this case and the jury were probably all prime picks for the defense. At the end of the day, he’s a felon, he knows he’s a felon and he knows he isn’t supposed to have a firearm, yet he possessed it for an amount of time enough to cause a negligient discharge.
There is no such thing as an accidental discharge, it is a negligient discharge. Even if the negligience is in the safety features.
All of your example cases show that there was interaction between a human and the firearm which is why they went off, even if they went off after being dropped. A human dropped the firearm and it went off. (Though I’m thinking there is more to that story because that just doesn’t sound right at all.)
He may have known he was a felon, but there is no evidence he knew that him handling a firearm was illegal.
Secondly, while the prosecution said he had the gun for awhile, his statement was that he found the gun under a bench after a group of people left the bench together..
It is very plausible that they were the ones that stole the gun minutes before from the BLM officer’s car and then suddenly went “oh crap. If they catch us with this, we are in deep doo-doo.”
It seems that the prosecution could never prove the narrative that he had the gun for a long time or that he was the one that broke into the officer’s car. If they cannot prove that element of their theory of the crime, that’s reasonable doubt right there.
It’s a lousy verdict on several levels, but the more you get into it, it may be the correct verdict based on the flawed laws in CA.
Your timing is off, GC. According to the BLM guy, he lost the Sig when somebody broke into his SUV in the vicinity of Pier 5 on the night of June 27. He was eating dinner with his family at the time. Kate Steinle was shot on during the day on July 1 while she was walking on Pier 14.
San Francisco has an odd numbering system for it’s piers along the Embarcadero. The Ferry Building is Pier 1. Those north of it are given odd numbers, those to the south are numbered even. The actual distance between Pier 5 and Pier 14 is about one-quarter mile.
One of the problems with the narrative of events is that a lot of it comes from Garcia Zarate with little corroboration. He said the shooting was an accident; he said he found the weapon under a bench; he first said he was shooting at a seal, then said the Sig fired itself, and so forth. And during the course of Garcia Zarate relating his sad story, it’s as if no one bothered to wonder if a guy who amounted to a career criminal might not be telling the truth. Even after being deported five times, he continued to play the poor pitiful me victim card, and everybody bought into it.
Personally, although I’ve sometimes been accused of suggesting the medieval, I’d support the idea of taking Senor Garcia Zarate out to the Farallon Islands and letting the pendejo swim with the great whites. Feeding a shark being, after all, an environmentally friendly thing to do…
Of course, you are right. I read the timeline off another site and didn’t check it. That is my bad.
While the shooter may be a creep and a criminal, he doesn’t have to prove anything. He doesn’t have to prove where he found the gun, that he was shooting at seals, the gun went off or anything. It is up to the prosecution to prove his guilt, and not for him to prove his innocence.
When you read accounts of the tales the prosecution told, I am not sure that I would believe them, but that is just me.
That doesn’t mean that I believe that the shooter was not guilty of something and shouldn’t pay a penalty, but rather that the jury was hamstring by bad or inept prosecution (either by design or incompetence) and bad laws in the state.
Thanks for catching the mistake.
I read through the San Francisco OpEd quoted.
As a Sig Sauer owner, I have some familiarity with the operating system, which – incidentally – is not that different from that of the WWII Walther P38 save that the P38 includes a safety that will both drop the hammer and lock the trigger, and the P38’s DA trigger pull is horrendous for any kind of aimed first shot.
There are a number of questions that come to mind.
First, in what state was the weapon when these reported ND occurred? Had the drop-hammer been employed?
Since the drop-hammer employs a hammer-block in its functioning, dropping the firearm with the hammer down is not likely to cause a problem.
With the lighter SA trigger, dropping a firearm with the hammer cocked could easily jar the trigger sufficiently to cause a ND.
As with anything mechanical, failures can and do occur. Cars do have the wheels come off from time to time. But that does not mean that the car is inherently unsafe.
But in the vast majority of NDs the root cause is an ID-10-T error. Someone violated a safety rule.
See:
https://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/1354124-Causes-and-cures-for-the-negligent-discharge/
for a good professional discussion in a LEO environment of NDs.
The SF OpEd makes it sound like the Sig is made to go off at the slightest impulse. Bull hockey. IMHO the tone of this OpEd is that of an libtard with an ax to grind – or two or three. “Don’t blame the poor
illegal alien criminalundocumented immigrant. It is guns that are evil.”If the faults in Kalifornia would do their job, this shyt hole would fall in the ocean!
Oh man, another reason not to visit CA. Love what they’ve done with the place, between the libs and the illegals. If they want to secede, let ’em. They’ll be bankrupt within 6 months. How the hell did they arrive at that verdict? He confessed to firing the gun didn’t he?
Nope. His defense was “it just went off by itself.”
I just wanted to be the first asshole to ask why this is posted on a primarily mil/poser blog!
Is that known as a pre-emptory strike?
Yes, it complements the post-emptory fisting I’m suffering from this morning
Pussy
I was going to ask if you’re still hanging loose and staying busy, but it appears that you are.
Oh yeah, I’ve had a few months to celebrate cellblock diversity and inclusion….I’m so loose I just let fly at random into my life support system’s jumpsuit…mustard brown is the new orange
I take it as a warning to all veterans to avoid California and for those who live there to escape while they can.
Some of us living in California look at it as the Alamo. You know if Reagan was alive he’d still be living here too. You aren’t native here so maybe you don’t understand.
Actually, I was born there and spent a few of my younger years in different cities around the state. I just grew up more in other places. 😉
And I’m glad I did.
If they deport this scumbag for the umpteenth time and he sneaks back in over the border again and they catch him…he should be on the bullet behind the ear on site list, no trial-no jury just execution, he has already worn out his welcome.
And after seeing the videos of the liars for hire that defended this asshole, maybe they should suffer a grievous crime at the hands of an illegal in Kalifornication sanctuary city/state, I’ll bet they would change their tune really quick on the whole sanctuary thing.
And here in NJ the governor elect wants to turn NJ into sanctuary state…he will be a one term governor if he tries to get that past in the legislature, I will even get up off my ass and go out and protest that nonsense
It appears to me that Californicate is well on its way to making itself Mexico again – complete with the narcos ruling the countryside.
Unless the hippies wise up (doubtful) they, too, will be gifted with the heads-on-the-doorstep decorations that are so common in Mexico today.
I’ve called Southern California “North Mexico” for like ten years now because it pretty much is. But it looks like that North Mexico Border is at least up to the Bay area now.
Who was the incompetent asshat that left his/her firearm where this wet (or anyone else) could get to it? WTF happened to them?
The buggering bastards of SF—geezuss! I can remember when it was a great city—40’s,50’s, even into the 60’s. Goddam’ I’m pissed. Praying for Kate’s family and the Decent folks remaining in Frisco–if any.
I also have been asking that. Unsecured weapon = total fuck up
There was evidence that the bullet ricocheted off the ground before striking Steinle – so if the shooting was unintentional, I’m not surprised at the acquittal on the murder charge. A negligent discharge still should have supported a manslaughter conviction, though. A former prosecutor and current defense attorney who I respect (Ken White)speculated that the prosecutor may have been so focused on obtaining a murder conviction that he may not have adequately presented the lesser included offense of manslaughter to the jury.
I linked this above but I’ll put it here too as it responds to my point about negligence and manslaughter – under California law it takes more than mere carelessness to support manslaughter, but more like recklessness.
https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2017/12/01/lawsplainer-california-homicide-statutes-relevant-steinle-murder-case/
“According to Fox News, the Justice Department is considering Federal charges against Zarate;”
Anyone wanna bet against me in that California will refuse the extradition for a federal case and protect him? (Tougher odds that they’d set him free to keep him away.)
California and Maryland. Happy to say that I made it out of both states…
And unlike a lot of others I didn’t bring any liberal insanity baggage with me to NC.
I can only dream of some undocumented type capping him. +10 on Vaarkman’s comment – one in his ear and leave the body where it falls…pour encourager les autres.
Well, he’ll be deported (again), so there’s that.
I live in a fermented cesspool of human ignorance and decay.
Geographically Kaliforniraqistan is a beautiful place.
But we need to have a great purge.
Since this shit magnet is dirt poor, there’s no way for the family of Kate to recover any money or recompense like they did with Orenthal.
So the feds are only “considering” charges? WTF? How have they not been filed already?
Enforce the damned laws. It’s your job. I really don’t know how some of these prosecutors can sleep at night.
It seems they didn’t expect him to not be found guilty of at least one of the death charges. It seems like most of the US didn’t expect it, except a handful in Cali who already knew they were going to give the guy a break because he didn’t “intend” to do anything.
There is nothing out there that the Government cannot fuck up on.
It seems fairly obvious to me the acquittal of Garcia Zarate was a political statement, and had little to do with justice for Kate Steinle. The indication lies in the answer to a simple question: If the roles of defendant and victim had been reversed, and all other circumstances were the same, would the jury have generated the same outcome?
If you look at today’s headlines, the majority focus on the President’s reaction to the verdict in San Francisco. Given such, it’s not hard to imagine that Garcia Zarate might have been the one sitting in the courtroom, but it was actually Donald Trump who was on trial for the crime of opposing open borders and sanctuary cities.
Nobody except the one’s who were there know what went on during six days of jury deliberation, but it’s not hard to guess. What likely happened was that there were a few members of the jury, ethnically simpatico or otherwise, who would not have convicted Garcia Zarate under any circumstances. And it was likely that such a minority of jury members presented everyone else with the limited options of acquittal or a hung jury as the only alternatives.
Maybe it was a little O.J. all over again, is that what you are saying? If so, you could be right about that. I also have a great deal of difficulty believing he accidentally pulled a trigger with 4.4 pound trigger pull, even if it was a SIG, even if he didn’t intend to shoot her or anyone else on that pier.
Mine wasn’t a direct comparison to O.J.’s case. In that situation, you had indeed a predominately black jury who needed to come in with an acquittal, but the inclination was more about avoidance of convicting a black celebrity, and causing rioting similar to what happened with Rodney King. There was a racial aspect, but there wasn’t an immigration or sovereignty/jurisdictional aspect.
Another aspect to this is that back when San Francisco adopted a sanctuary policy, there was no empirical data to support the law enforcement advantage of it. Basically what happened is that the good idea fairy suggested it to the city/county Board of Supervisors. Among the cops at the time, those doing investigations, such as detectives, thought it might be okay, but those on patrol thought it was stupid. To this day, as far as I’m aware, nobody has ever done a study which has demonstrated a net benefit of having a sanctuary policy.
A further consideration is that San Francisco has very lax rules for voter registration. It’s probably more difficult to get a library card than to sign up to cast a ballot. Voter rolls also act as the larger jury pool, which means it should be no surprise if there were one or more illegal immigrants on the Garcia Zarate jury. And we’re all supposed to believe that such “peers” of the defendant are going to do the ethically right thing in deciding on a verdict?
Not to go all conspiracy theory, but it seems to me the real risk in a larger sense is that if a foreign power such as Mexico wanted to invade the U.S., and didn’t have the resources to resort to military force, at least one strategy would be to support sanctuaries for illegals. None of which, it might also be mentioned, contradicts what groups such as La Raza have said in the past.
Perry- a number of years ago one of the OJ jurors came out and admitted that because of the rodney King deal, the jury found OJ innocent to balance out the injustice of the persecution of blacks.
Why does he have two names?
Did he lie about his name too?
Not surprised.
Yef, do you TRY to be that dense or does it come to you naturally?
Being a clueless moron comes to him naturally, as we saw with the inappropriate dumbass comment that he made yesterday on the “Rob Riggle: 12 Strong” thread.
He’s also not smart enough to stay out of here today.
Somewhere out there is a tree that has worked to give him oxygen and he owes it a HUGE apology. I see Yef as the type that one’s 1SG would ask him to go AWOL or whose parents would ask to run away!
API, do you always have these knee-JERK reactions (emphasis on the JERK) to people you’ve decided you don’t like for whatever reason? Even when they make legitimate posts?
I will be the first to admit that sometimes Yef makes some ill-advised posts, but considering that he is not originally from this country and English is not his first language, a good portion of his misunderstandings and faux pas are excusable. Educate him and move on. No need for snark or downright vitriol. He is not Lars.
I find it hard to believe that someone who’s an NCO in the Army today hasn’t run across a few hyphenated last names among soldiers of Hispanic ancestry, Yef. Did you consider that the practice may be common in the Hispanic community, and that’s possibly the reason?
If Yef is not originally from the U.S. of A., he may not have run across the naming conventions of the Hispanic culture.
There are a lot of cultural quirks there that, until one learns about them, can be quite confusing.
Plus add the fact that criminals like to have a supply of aliases around to try to confuse folks.
I’m gonna give Yef the benefit of the doubt this one time, and assume that he was asking about the aka thing with this bag of shits names..From the original post..”Garcia Zarate – also known as Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez “.. That would indicate that this murdering illegal did in fact go by two names, one of them false, not a hyphenated name, as is common in Latin America
Thank you. This is what I was asking.
This dude have two names. The Garcia Zarate and the Lopez Sanchez.
I don’t know how that works but it looks to me like he lied to someone, otherwise why two names?
Somewhere there is a SPC that should be wearing Yef’s chevrons.
I had a Puerto Rican girlfriend years ago and she had 4 freakin’ last names. She explained why to me once but I was so confused I forgot about 10 seconds later. But more importantly, she was smokin’ hot. So I had that goin’ for me.
The other names (there were more than two) were aliases from the name on his birth certificate.
See
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/08/kate-steinle-murder-suspect-undergoes-name-change/
for more details.
Little birdies tell me that he’s going to be charged for illegal re-entry. Max 10 years.
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1912-8-usc-1326-reentry-after-deportation-removal
What a travesty.
media and ‘sanctuary cities’ have a problem differentiating between LEGAL entry and ILLEGAL entry (never mind the SIX times this degenerate entered without our permission)
I would not visit San Fran if you gave me an air ticket, a five star hotel and a truck load of cash to spend.
The west coast is becoming a haven for scum. LA, SF, *Portland and Seattle.
It is so bad in Portland that many businesses are moving out of downtown or threatening to do so. Meanwhile, the city council, comprised of those who welcome ‘diversity’, sit on their six and nod appreciably as it all deteriorates.
I am certain had he shot someone here in the ‘City That Works” the finding would have been the same (and no doubt same in Seattle)