Kate’s Law Killer Judged Innocent – A Mockery

Sharing is Caring!

by Mark Angelides

When Kate Steinle was killed whilst walking on San Francisco’s pier 14 back in 2015, the ensuing case engulfed the nation in a debate rarely seen: What should happen to deported illegal immigrants if they try and re-enter the country? Yet the verdict has just come in, and will likely be even more contentious than the issues this case originally raised.
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate has been found not guilty of murder by the courts. In fact, he was acquitted of first and second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and even assault with a semi-automatic weapon. The only charge of which he was found guilty was being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Is this justice? Was it just a bad verdict? Or has there been political interference in the fate of Zarate?

He Killed Her

The facts of the case are pretty straight forward. Zarate had the gun in his hand, the gun was fired, and the bullet hit Kate Steinle killing her. The Defense team claimed that the gun was fired accidently and that Kate was hit via a ricochet; which if true, should remove the murder charge. But Zarate had an illegally owned weapon out in public and was presumably holding at outwards in an irresponsible manner (otherwise he bullet could not have traveled 78 feet and would have gone into the floor instead).
How is this not criminally negligent? The verdict sees Zarate only being punished for possessing a weapon. What of the punishment for being dangerously neglectful of handling the firearm? And more importantly, why does this verdict completely fail to address that someone was at fault for Kate’s untimely death?

The Politics

Zarate had been deported from the U.S. five times and re-entered again and again without facing any sterner penalties. This travesty led to the formulation of “Kate’s Law,” which would see sterner penalties for those who come back illegally after deportation. It has been lambasted by the leftist media who for some reason can’t see the benefits of removing criminals from society.
When the verdict was passes, defense attorney Francisco Ugarte said:
“From Day 1 this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment a program of mass deportation. It was used to catapult a presidency along that philosophy of hate of others. I believe today is a day of vindication for the rest of immigrants.”
No. It is a vindication for people who negligently kill innocents and who wish to evade punishment. This is an example of how the system failed Kate and her family; after all of the high-profile media surrounding the case, the leftist establishment has been pushing for this kind of verdict to offer a kick in the teeth of those who wish to see real justice done.
This was a political verdict to promote Sanctuary Cities. In retrospect, we should have seen this coming a mile off.


23 thoughts on “Kate’s Law Killer Judged Innocent – A Mockery

  1. 12 people sat through days of expert testimony and came to the unanimous conclusion that he did not aim the gun, that it was an accidental discharge, possibly without even the trigger being touched, that the gun was in fact aimed downwards and that he found the gun where he was sitting.
    He should not have touched it once he determined that it was a firearm but that is the only ‘crime’ that would stick.
    The prosecution could not even show negligence so Manslaughter was excluded.
    The equivalent would be that you get into a car, the petrol tank explodes and kills a bystander. Did static from your clothing set off the explosion? Could not be proved, and so what crime are you guilty of?
    The only possible crime is trespass as you should not be in the car.
    The fact that he is illegal is irrelevant to the crime.
    Just as the fact that he is male, or Mexican is irrelevant.

    • Gun experts claim this particular gun would never fire without the trigger being pulled pretty hard, but even that aside, picking up a gun without knowing how to handle it properly is negligent.
      The equivalent would be you get into a car, losen the handbrake (maybe without knowing what that thing is), the car rolls downhill and hits a bystander. Accident? Yes. Intentional? No. Negligent? Certainly. Involuntary manslaughter.
      The fact that he is male, Mexican and in the country illegally is indeed irrelevant for the case at hand (except he should face an extra charge for violating immigration laws). Both hitting him too hard (murder charge) and failing to see it for the manslaughter it is because of any of those facts (“can’t convict an illegal immigrant because I don’t want to be seen as racist”) would be wrong.

      • “Gonzalez pointed out that between 2005 and 2011, San Francisco Police Department officers reported 29 accidental discharges of service weapons similar to the weapon used to kill Steinle. Evans countered that in most accidental discharge cases, the gun was handled improperly and fired with a finger on the trigger.”
        “The defense has argued that the Sig Sauer is prone to accidental discharges, and called its own forensic firearms expert who testified that the facts of the shooting point to an accidental discharge.
        Gonzalez told jurors it doesn’t take much effort to pull the trigger of the Sig Sauer, comparing it to the trigger of a squirt gun.”
        “… hat’s because the SIG Sauer operates exactly as designed. It’s an elite handgun intended for law enforcement and military personnel who may need to fire it with split second notice. Hence, it has a hair trigger in single-action mode. Even among well-trained users, it has a lengthy history of accidental discharges.
        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).”
        “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.”
        “No safety lever making it perpetually ready for firing,
        Manufacturer-issued trigger pull of 4.4 pounds of force (in single-action mode), which is among the lightest on the market.
        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 can be serious injury or death — only and ALWAYS use the decocking lever.”)”
        “New York City requires officers using SIG Sauers to disable its single-action function because the hair trigger is too dangerous. ”
        You got any more BS you want to spout?

        • I’m not a gun expert myself (I don’t even own one), so I’m not going to make the final call here — it’s the expert you’re citing vs. the one who told me about this gun:
          “The gun has no safety and is commonly referred to as double action single action gun. – Cock the hammer back and the trigger pressure drops to about 4 lbs, and does have a short travel distance to fire a shot. Leave the hammer up and the pull weight is ~10 lbs and it is a rather long pull – this is the real safety feature of the gun. It is one of the safest guns and Sigs of this design are used by Feds and police everywhere across the country – second only to Glock as far as I know.”
          I think it’s pretty hard to accidentally trigger 4.4lbs, much less 10 — but I’ll leave this to the gun experts to determine.

        • Thanks PJ for admitting his finger was on the trigger. Now, how is he not responsible? Stating it was an “accidental discharge” is not an excuse because it cannot be proven either way. The ILLEGAL lied and said he was going to shoot sea lions, then he admitted it was a lie. So, he knew what a gun was and what it could do. Got it. Sounds like the killing was likely intentional. Thanks for proving to everyone here that despite your pseudo-intellectual legal babble, he had malicious intent with the firearm.

          • What part of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ do you not understand?
            What part of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ do you not understand?
            Nowhere did I state that his finger was on the trigger.
            At 4.4 pounds, the trigger could be activated by dropping or by banging the grip, no proof was entered that he did ‘pull’ the trigger, and even if he had, even extreme carelessness is not grounds for indictment according to the FBI.
            The prosecution has to prove ‘intent’ for murder, or gross negligence for manslaughter.
            ‘Sounds like’… was likely intentional’ WTF?
            ‘he had malicious intent’ Good grief, a rock is more intelligent.

    • “days of expert testimony and came to the unanimous conclusion that he
      did not aim the gun, that it was an accidental discharge, possibly
      without even the trigger being touched, that the gun was in fact aimed
      downwards and that he found the gun where he was sitting.”
      False, liberal slime. “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.” Read that quote again, because reasonable doubt cannot be achieved with the facts of this case. The bullet was not a ricochet. Essentially, the “experts” and “Bronx Jurors” want the world to believe that this illegal alien had a child’s lever of reasoning and responsibility. “Gee, he just found the gun” and “Gee, it just went off” are not grounds for reasonable doubt for an adult. Now, if this ILLEGAL was functionally RETARDED then we might have reasonable doubt. Nice try leftist.

      • Lord Jesus help us.
        You are clearly the world expert on ‘a child’s lever of reasoning and responsibility.’
        The prosecution expert said the bullet hit the ground 70ft from the victim and ricocheted into her back, there is no dispute about this.
        It is impossible to fire a bullet into the ground or concrete and know where the bullet will be 70ft after the ricochet.
        Funny how you are expert on ‘functionally RETARDED’ also.
        You clearly know nothing of guns or the law.

  2. “the gun was fired accidently and that Kate was hit via a ricochet” — that is the very definition of involuntary manslaughter. Killed someone without meaning to.
    Hope her family has decent lawyers so they can at least hit him with a multi-million wrongful death civil suit.

    • If you drink and drive, WITHOUT the intention of killing anyone isn’t that considered a serious crime??? Of course it is.

  3. I supposed that, God forbid, if the libertards ever get their gun control laws passed that they will include a clause to exempt illegal immigrants

  4. Yep, another California ‘political case’ just like the O.J. Simpson farce. Don’t want to be seen as ‘persecuting negroes and illegals’…

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.