US to deport undocumented immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle death

[JORMBO]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/us/kate-steinle-killing-verdict/index.html

A Mexican man will be deported after he was found not guilty in the killing of Kate Steinle, whose death while out walking on a San Francisco pier reignited a national debate over immigration policy.

Jurors acquitted Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, of murder and involuntary manslaughter, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. They convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Click to shrink...

Prosecutors said Garcia Zarate deliberately fired into an unsuspecting crowd on the pier, killing Steinle, as she walked with her father.
But the defense attorney said the shooting was accidental, and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.
Garcia Zarate faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions.

Click to shrink...

Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier. He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when he unwrapped it, it accidentally discharged.
But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal. He also told police that he stepped on the gun, causing it to fire.

Click to shrink...

Illegal immigrant deported several times. Comes to the US again and happens to find a gun under the bench he is sitting under. "Accidentally" fires it and kills a US citizen, then gets to walk free. This seems crazy to me.

 

[Taurus Silver]

Seems like a solid decision.

 

[ReginOfFire]

How does something like this happen? Why was he let back in the first place after being deported once?

 

[Jtendo '82]

This will help Trump, for sure. Massive fuck up by those that let this dude back in.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Illegal immigrant deported several times. Comes to the US again and happens to find a gun under the bench he is sitting under. "Accidentally" fires it and kills a US citizen, then gets to walk free. This seems crazy to me.

Click to shrink...

why is any of the bolded at all relevant as to whether the court should find the man guilty or not

 

[Shard Shinjuku]

why is any of the bolded at all relevant as to whether the court should find the man guilty or not

Click to shrink...

No, no it was not.

 

[DanarchyReigns]

This will help Trump, for sure. Massive fuck up by those that let this dude back in.

Click to shrink...

He's been crying about this verdict on Twitter this morning. Screaming for the wall and blaming the Democrats (somehow)

 

[JORMBO]

why is any of the bolded at all relevant as to whether the court should find the man guilty or not

Click to shrink...

Because part of what makes this case stand out is he should not have been in this country in the first place. Yet he got in several times. That is why I mentioned it.

 

[WedgeX]

"Accidentally" fires it and kills a US citizen, then gets to walk free

Click to shrink...

This isn't a loaded sentence at all!

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Because part of what makes this case stand out is he should not have been in this country in the first place. Yet he got in several times. That is why I mentioned it.

Click to shrink...

Ok.

The part in your OP immediately before "This seems crazy to me" was "then gets to walk free" which made me think your outrage was aimed at the aquittal rather than at his being allowed to enter the country again. Consider rephrasing?

 

[Cat Dad]

Because part of what makes this case stand out is he should not have been in this country in the first place. Yet he got in several times. That is why I mentioned it.

Click to shrink...

I haven't read the linked article yet but is this your opinion OP or was there a previous court order banning this man entry into the U.S.?

Edit: upon reading the article guy has had prior convictions, but no order banning his re-entry into the U.S. Shame about the lady, but why was the agent's gun left out in the open in an unlocked car?

 

[Arttemis]

He admitted to the shooting. He has provided three separate accounts of how he found and fired the weapon. His sanity may be in question, but I find it hard to question his guilt.

 

[CaviarMeths]

why is any of the bolded at all relevant as to whether the court should find the man guilty or not

Click to shrink...

It may not be relevant to the court, but it's relevant to the political conversation surrounding the case. First line mentions the national debate about immigration policy.

 

[Afrikan]

Not that he should not be held accountable for firing a weapon in public, if he indeed aim at Seals. Doesn't matter, if you intentionally fire a gun in public you should be held accountable for what ever outcome happens.

But the defense attorney said the shooting was accidental, and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.

Click to shrink...

THAT ALL BEING SAID.... from not getting deep into this story when it first happened.... maybe I'm confusing this with a different case here in SF... but from online stories to Local TV coverage.... I was given the impression that he tried to rob the victim and her father...and gun fired off.... not this 80 feet off the ground shit. O_o WTF?

 

[Finale Fireworker]

For me, the fact he was an illegal immigrant is completely irrelevant. It had no bearing on the crime he committed, which he is almost surely guilty of. Whether he was here legally, illegally, or born here, doesn't seem to have any bearing on shooting into a crowd.

I mean, American-born citizens do that every single day with far greater efficiency.

But I feel like, for others, the fact he was an immigrant is the only thing that matters at all. This story sucks because it exactly fits the description Republicans are looking for: a repeat offender from Mexico committing random acts of violence. Like, that sucks.

I'm reading the thread for other opinions, but this is fresh information for me, so I will refrain from posting further until I've had some time to let it sit in my mind for a while.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Ok.

The part in your OP immediately before "This seems crazy to me" was "then gets to walk free" which made me think your outrage was aimed at the aquittal rather than at his being allowed to enter the country again. Consider rephrasing?

Click to shrink...

I think they're outraged at both. Obviously the murder is the more heinous crime but with his criminal record he probably should not have been allowed back in the US. And, in the context of establishing a history to explain the murder, a person's criminal history is probably relevant.

Republicans only care about this case because he was an illegal immigrant though, so none of it really matters. They'll focus on his miscarriage of justice while ignoring the next dozen mass shootings by a white American.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

this needless death could so easily have been avoided if guns were forbidden :(

 

[Htown]

this could so easily have been avoided if guns were forbidden

Click to shrink...

yes, if the entire political and cultural history of the United States were different things might not have gone the same way

 

[JORMBO]

I think they're outraged at both. Obviously the murder is the more heinous crime but with his criminal record he probably should not have been allowed back in the US. And, in the context of establishing a history to explain the murder, a person's criminal history is probably relevant.

Republicans only care about this case because he was an illegal immigrant though, so none of it really matters. They'll focus on his miscarriage of justice while ignoring the next dozen mass shootings by a white American.

Click to shrink...

Yes I find it baffling we would let a guy with a criminal history illegally into the country six times. Then I also find it baffling he does not get any charges for the murder, even if it was an "accident" as he claimed and he was protecting San Francisco from those evil seals.

 

[ahoyhoy]

For me, the fact he was an illegal immigrant is completely irrelevant. It had no bearing on the crime he committed, which he is almost surely guilty of. Whether he was here legally, illegally, or born here, doesn't seem to have any bearing on shooting into a crowd.

I mean, American-born citizens do that every single day with far greater efficiency.

But I feel like, for others, the fact he was an immigrant is the only thing that matters at all. This story sucks because it exactly fits the description Republicans are looking for: a repeat offender from Mexico committing random acts of violence. Like, that sucks.

Click to shrink...

I would equate this to a violent felon who, while paroled, goes on to murder someone. Like the person in this case questions can be raised as to whether or not the authorities who released/let them back in should be held accountable for their actions and whether we should rethink our parole/deportation systems prevent such things from happening again.

 

[Donos]

Not that he should not be held accountable for firing a weapon in public, if he indeed aim at Seals. Doesn't matter, if you intentionally fire a gun in public you should be held accountable for what ever outcome happens.



THAT ALL BEING SAID.... from not getting deep into this story when it first happened.... maybe I'm confusing this with a different case here in SF... but from online stories to Local TV coverage.... I was given the impression that he tried to rob the victim and her father...and gun fired off.... not this 80 feet off the ground shit. O_o WTF?

Click to shrink...

Just read a german article about this case and it stated that a lot of misinformation and wrong accusations were thrown around (especially from alt right and trump supporters about the case.

 

[SolidSnakex]

this needless death could so easily have been avoided if guns were forbidden :(

Click to shrink...

Going with the gun control angle for this case just doesn't make sense. Particularly given that your scenario isn't even remotely realistic for America. Japan is typically the country that people point toward as an ideal scenario (albeit still unrealistic) for America and gun control, and it doesn't even forbid guns.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Going with the gun control angle for this case just doesn't make sense. Particularly given that your scenario isn't even remotely realistic for America. Japan is typically the country that people point toward as an ideal scenario (albeit still unrealistic) for America and gun control, and it doesn't even forbid guns.

Click to shrink...

it shouldn't really make any less sense than going for the "protect our borders" angle

from an outside observer's perspective the fact that the american debate immediately jumps at the border angle is just another example of how fucked up the overton window is in the us

 

[F34R]

For me, the fact he was an illegal immigrant is completely irrelevant. It had no bearing on the crime he committed, which he is almost surely guilty of. Whether he was here legally, illegally, or born here, doesn't seem to have any bearing on shooting into a crowd.

I mean, American-born citizens do that every single day with far greater efficiency.

But I feel like, for others, the fact he was an immigrant is the only thing that matters at all. This story sucks because it exactly fits the description Republicans are looking for: a repeat offender from Mexico committing random acts of violence. Like, that sucks.

Click to shrink...

The problem is this guy has been deported multiple times, and has been convicted of multiple felonies already. He was released from jail in April 2015, and the ICE detain request was ignored by the Sheriffs department. July 1st, 2015, Garcia Zarate accidentally shot Kate Steinle. So yeah, I think him being an illegal immigrant is completely relevant. That's my opinion.

 

[ned_ballad]

Yes I find it baffling we would let a guy with a criminal history illegally into the country six times. Then I also find it baffling he does not get any charges for the murder, even if it was an "accident" as he claimed and he was protecting San Francisco from those evil seals.

Click to shrink...

Prosecution shot for 1st degree murder. It was obviously not a pre-meditated murder, so 1st made no sense.

Had the prosecution went for manslaughter, he'd be found guilty. But they didn't. They shot for the moon and missed.

 

[CrazyIvan1978]

Illegal immigrant deported several times. Comes to the US again and happens to find a gun under the bench he is sitting under. "Accidentally" fires it and kills a US citizen, then gets to walk free. This seems crazy to me.

Click to shrink...

What if he had killed a non-US Citizen would that have been okay then?

 

[Deleted member 176]

yes, if the entire political and cultural history of the United States were different things might not have gone the same way

Click to shrink...

Somehow that would probably be easier to do than building the WALL

Going with the gun control angle for this case just doesn't make sense. Particularly given that your scenario isn't even remotely realistic for America. Japan is typically the country that people point toward as an ideal scenario (albeit still unrealistic) for America and gun control, and it doesn't even forbid guns.

Click to shrink...

Why Japan over Australia, another large former British colony?

 

[Officer Big Mac]

So he'll be back and then they'll use it to revive this debate again. He's homeless and was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon and served his time for that already. He's got nothing to lose.

 

[SolidSnakex]

it shouldn't really make any less sense than going for the "protect our borders" angle

from an outside observer's perspective the fact that the american debate immediately jumps at the border angle is just another example of how fucked up the overton window is in the us

Click to shrink...

This guy was criminal in America long before this murder even took place. It's why he got deported in the first place. He had four felonies for possession and manufacturing heroin.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

This guy was criminal in America long before this murder even took place. It's why he got deported in the first place. He had four felonies for possession and manufacturing heroin.

Click to shrink...

non-violent crimes all

meanwhile the entire purpose of guns is to kill

 

[PhoenixDark]

why is any of the bolded at all relevant as to whether the court should find the man guilty or not

Click to shrink...

Because he needs to be deported and is, thankfully.

 

[F34R]

Prosecution shot for 1st degree murder. It was obviously not a pre-meditated murder, so 1st made no sense.

Had the prosecution went for manslaughter, he'd be found guilty. But they didn't. They shot for the moon and missed.

Click to shrink...

The jury found him not guilty on 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and assault with a deadly weapon. He was found guilty on felon in possession of a firearm. So no, obviously the manslaughter charge wouldn't have changed the verdict.

 

[ned_ballad]

The jury found him not guilty on 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and assault with a deadly weapon. He was found guilty on felon in possession of a firearm.

Click to shrink...

How'd they not get him on involuntary manslaughter?

 

[F34R]

How'd they not get him on involuntary manslaughter?

Click to shrink...

Because the jury believed that it was an accident.

 

[Deleted member 17092]

Why is the OP on this so slanted?

Did he cross the border at a checkpoint or somewhere else? As in did some one actually "let him in" or did he let himself in?

As far as him not being picked up by ICE/Sheriff's, I'm sure they have a lot on their plate and sometimes things do fall through the cracks believe it or not.

As far as the charges being dismissed, it sounds like the police essentially interrogated a false confession out of him, thus you got a sympathetic jury and a man acquitted. And yeah if it was an accident, the jury did the right thing here. Involuntary isn't the same thing as accidental. Involuntary manslaughter would typical still involve some degree of criminal intent/negligence. Literally every fatal car accident would have an involuntary manslaughter charge tacked on if the charge could be applied to pure accidents with no real fault. An accidental gun discharge is a little trickier, but given it wasn't even his gun I could see how a jury would consider it a straight up accident.

I don't really see what's suprising in any of the above.

 

[Officer Big Mac]

How'd they not get him on involuntary manslaughter?

Click to shrink...

Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

I guess #2 was not met or prosecutors were unable to prove it. Defendant claimed the gun went off accidentally 80 yards away and ricocheted off the pavement.

 

[Drek]

Yes I find it baffling we would let a guy with a criminal history illegally into the country six times. Then I also find it baffling he does not get any charges for the murder, even if it was an "accident" as he claimed and he was protecting San Francisco from those evil seals.

Click to shrink...

What do you mean by "let"? Do you think someone met him at the border, looked up his criminal history, then said "nah, you seem like a good guy, go on in!"

This case demonstrates how the U.S. immigration system is a top down failure.

Deportation doesn't work. A wall isn't going to change shit about that.

The antagonistic stance taken by Republicans and ICE is what created sanctuary cities, as they worked to force law abiding residents to live in the shadows, perpetually in fear of being discovered.

Meanwhile we do effectively nothing to improve the conditions that lead to illegal immigration. We fail to police those who hire them without any documentation. We fail to construct a legitimate guest worker program that would fill this void. We fail to assist Mexico in reaching a comparable standard of living and stability to the U.S., which would provide a bulwark against additional Central and South American immigrants coming en masse. And lastly we continue to prosecute an unjust "war" on drugs against our own citizens which directly leads to empowering Central and South American drug cartels that have made large areas in these countries uninhabitable.

The myopic view that force/enforcement will solve this problem hasn't solved this problem in over two decades now.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

I guess #2 was not met or prosecutors were unable to prove it. Defendant claimed the gun went off accidentally 80 yards away and ricocheted off the pavement.

Click to shrink...

Could see it not fulfilling 3 too depending on how the case was prosecuted

 

[Invisible Cities]

7th time's a charm?

 

[Kinthey]

I don't understand how this can not at least be considered manslaughter.

 

[Monsieur Paul]

The fact that he was deported several times just shows the efficiency of deportation as an anti immigration measure.

 

[Drek]

I don't understand how this can not at least be considered manslaughter.

Click to shrink...

If there was physical evidence of the bullet ricocheting off the pavement that'd make it pretty easy to understand.

 

[Luchashaq]

Honestly he belongs in prison.

If there was physical evidence of the bullet ricocheting off the pavement that'd make it pretty easy to understand.

Click to shrink...

IDGAF, if you are stupid enough to fire off a gun in public accident or not you should be held responsible PERIOD. The fact that Trump is using this as trash justification for the wall has no bearing on where this fuck should end up.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I don't understand why this case is so special.

 

['3y Kingdom]

I don't understand how this can not at least be considered manslaughter.

Click to shrink...

If, as he argued, he simply found and carelessly picked up the gun when it went off, that does not necessarily demonstrate reckless disregard for others.

 

[dynamitejim]

I don't understand why this case is so special.

Click to shrink...

It's ok to politicize gun deaths if you're Republican.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

I mean, wouldn't the reckless endangerment portion of this situation be the fault of the agent for leaving their gun in that location unattended, rather than this guy for picking it up? The physical evidence seems to support the defense's version of events, so it's not that surprising he was acquitted. The prosecution can claim whatever they want about his knowledge or motivations, but when the actual evidence suggests the opposite that seems like reasonable doubt.

 

[Drek]

Honestly he belongs in prison.



IDGAF, if you are stupid enough to fire off a gun in public accident or not you should be held responsible PERIOD. The fact that Trump is using this as trash justification for the wall has no bearing on where this fuck should end up.

Click to shrink...

His defense team argued that the gun was wrapped up, he picked up the unidentifiable package, an while unwrapping it to see what was inside it discharged. If that narrative was corroborated by physical evidence I don't see how you'd charge someone with involuntary manslaughter for that based on the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

I'd personally find the investigation into how the gun got there more interesting than anything after that, as after it was on the pier there isn't going to be great physical evidence. I would hope police attempted to find how the gun was originally stolen from a land management staffer's vehicle and the chain of events that got it onto the pier. If they did so and still found no link between the theft of the gun and the suspect we're getting pretty well into simply not enough evidence to make a verdict beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Luchashaq]

His defense team argued that the gun was wrapped up, he picked up the unidentifiable package, an while unwrapping it to see what was inside it discharged. If that narrative was corroborated by physical evidence I don't see how you'd charge someone with involuntary manslaughter for that based on the definition of involuntary manslaughter.
.

Click to shrink...

This is one of the least believable defenses on the level of "Affluenza", anyone who has ever handled a gun in their life know they don't just go off.

 

[Lord Brady]

Just tie him to a rocket and shoot it into the sun. Fucking moron.