Kate Steinle verdict (1 Viewer)

[Gawain]

Feels like 12 San Franciscans used their anger at the government to let a killer go free. Shaded of the OJ verdict and a real disgrace for the folks cheering the verdict.

Wonder how long before he is back in the USA?

 

[msommer]

Are you aware she was killed by a ricochet?

 

[Gawain]

Are you aware she was killed by a ricochet?

She was killed by a bullet. Look up the elements of manslaughter. Negligence is prominent.

 

[Dedfin]

Gotta support the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Dedfin]

She was killed by a bullet.

WRONG

 

[timschochet]

Seems like most of the anger here is from the side that wanted him convicted. 

 

[timschochet]

President Trump just tweeted that this outcome will result in a big rejection of Democrats in next year’s election, because they are weak on crime and “illegal immigration.” Looks like we know what the theme of his campaign will be...

 

[msommer]

She was killed by a bullet. Look up the elements of manslaughter. Negligence is prominent.

@Henry Ford had some comments re uncertainty whether California's involuntary manslaughter definition fit this case in the Trump thread

 

[TobiasFunke]

Crazy off-the-wall prediction about how this thread goes:

Almost every person who pointed to the George Zimmerman verdict as exonerating him will be outraged by this, and almost every person who was outraged by the Zimmerman verdict will say that we should defer to the process and the jury's decision here.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Just pretend his name is Cletus and it happened in Alabama.  Also he was juggling five revolvers.  While drunk.  And instead of a stranger it was his baby sister.

Assume we're all cool with the verdict (3 years) now?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Crazy off-the-wall prediction about how this thread goes:

Almost every person who pointed to the George Zimmerman verdict as exonerating him will be outraged by this, and almost every person who was outraged by the Zimmerman verdict will say that we should defer to the process and the jury's decision here.

Zimmerman did three years?

 

[timschochet]

Crazy off-the-wall prediction about how this thread goes:

Almost every person who pointed to the George Zimmerman verdict as exonerating him will be outraged by this, and almost every person who was outraged by the Zimmerman verdict will say that we should defer to the process and the jury's decision here.

Remember how angry conservatives were about Obama’s mild comments regarding that case? “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.” Contrast that with what Trump is tweeting right now. 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

President Trump just tweeted that this outcome will result in a big rejection of Democrats in next year’s election, because they are weak on crime and “illegal immigration.” Looks like we know what the theme of his campaign will be...

If it ain't broke don't fix it

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Me, I don't believe a word out of the killer's mouth.  His story, his changing account of events, its all unbelievable on its face more so when taken in context of his history, some of which was likely or possibly excluded from evidence.  That all said, and he is an example of lack of proper border control, I can't find a motive for him to have shot the young woman.  Lies aside, this does strike me as an accident.  The question becomes then what level of culpability, was he reckless, negligent, or unfortunate, and how does that fit into California's statutory scheme.

Not having been on the jury or privy to the investigations I simply have to hope that a jury picked from the land of fruits and nuts did justice. In my experience juries are not particularly smart, but they almost universally take their responsibility very seriously and they really do, almost universally,  try to render a just verdict with the law and the facts they have been given.

I'll watch here to see if folks think the defendant was overcharged, or whether the prosecution was inadequate, or whether the judge made evidentiary rulings effecting the outcome substantially.  I truly have not followed the matter at all closely and will find the perspective of others interesting.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Me, I don't believe a word out of the killer's mouth.  His story, his changing account of events, its all unbelievable on its face more so when taken in context of his history, some of which was likely or possibly excluded from evidence.  That all said, and he is an example of lack of proper border control, I can't find a motive for him to have shot the young woman.  Lies aside, this does strike me as an accident.  The question becomes then what level of culpability, was he reckless, negligent, or unfortunate, and how does that fit into California's statutory scheme.

Not having been on the jury or privy to the investigations I simply have to hope that a jury picked from the land of fruits and nuts did justice. In my experience juries are not particularly smart, but they almost universally take their responsibility very seriously and they really do, almost universally,  try to render a just verdict with the law and the facts they have been given.

I'll watch here to see if folks think the defendant was overcharged, or whether the prosecution was inadequate, or whether the judge made evidentiary rulings effecting the outcome substantially.  I truly have not followed the matter at all closely and will find the perspective of others interesting.

 

[Thunderlips]

Isn't he getting jail time for something in this?  I thought I heard illegal possession or dischargin a firearm or something like that?

 

[Cjw_55106]

Seems like most of the anger here is from the side that wanted him convicted. 

I didnt follow this at all so help me out. Why would you have anger if you didnt want him convicted? 

 

[timschochet]

I didnt follow this at all so help me out. Why would you have anger if you didnt want him convicted? 

No reason that I can think of. The OP claimed that the jury responded out of anger. I don't agree.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Isn't he getting jail time for something in this?  I thought I heard illegal possession or dischargin a firearm or something like that?

It's 3 years but he has 2+ years served. It sounds like Zarate will just be deported.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No reason that I can think of. The OP claimed that the jury responded out of anger. I don't agree.

I trust in the jury process, also I'd think the prosecution would have ruled out people with feelings on the case from serving on the jury.

 

[timschochet]

Me, I don't believe a word out of the killer's mouth.  His story, his changing account of events, its all unbelievable on its face more so when taken in context of his history, some of which was likely or possibly excluded from evidence.  That all said, and he is an example of lack of proper border control, I can't find a motive for him to have shot the young woman.  Lies aside, this does strike me as an accident.  The question becomes then what level of culpability, was he reckless, negligent, or unfortunate, and how does that fit into California's statutory scheme.

Not having been on the jury or privy to the investigations I simply have to hope that a jury picked from the land of fruits and nuts did justice. In my experience juries are not particularly smart, but they almost universally take their responsibility very seriously and they really do, almost universally,  try to render a just verdict with the law and the facts they have been given.

I'll watch here to see if folks think the defendant was overcharged, or whether the prosecution was inadequate, or whether the judge made evidentiary rulings effecting the outcome substantially.  I truly have not followed the matter at all closely and will find the perspective of others interesting.

Mostly a reasonable post, but the bolded simply isn't true, and I'm rather sick of hearing it (not from you, but from President Trump and his supporters.)

There are roughly 12-15 million undocumented people living in this country, and the number of them who engage in violent crimes are a tiny tiny minority. Every study that has ever been done on this subject has suggested that most of these people, once here, are actually MORE law-abiding, by percentage, than those of us lucky enough to be born here. This man, even if he is guilty, is NOT any kind of example of lack of border control.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Pretty good article that fleshes out a bit more details of what was presented in court

Among other things - about the gun:

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)…

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 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. Those using the gun can only do so in double-action mode, which has a 10-pound trigger pull.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The prosecutors were under tremendous political pressure. People wanted Kate Steinle’s killer’s head on a platter, even before Donald Trump ever tweeted her name.

So it’s not that surprising that “San Francisco prosecutors told the jury that Garcia Zarate intentionally brought the gun to the pier that day with the intent of doing harm, aimed the gun toward Steinle and pulled the trigger,” as the Chronicle reported, adding that the Assistant District Attorney also “spent much of the trial seeking to prove the gun that killed Steinle couldn’t have fired without a firm pull of the trigger.”

This seems to be a classic example of prosecutorial overreach.They pushed hard for a first degree murder verdict, which requires not only proving that the defendant killed the victim, but that he did it intentionally, and that it was premeditated (planned or thought out beforehand).

Focusing their strategy on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter would have allowed the prosecutors to simply argue that Garcia Zarate acted in a criminally negligent way that resulted in Steinle’s death: he knew the object was a gun, he knew guns are dangerous, he should have known not to point it in the direction of people, etc.

Add to all of this that four-hour meandering police interrogation that allowed defense counsel to present their client as confused and intimidated by the police. Just one more little piece of the puzzle making it easier for defense counsel to portray their client as a naive fool who picked up a gun and caused a terrible accident rather than a vicious killer who stalked his victim.

Thanks Trump!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Focusing their strategy on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter would have allowed the prosecutors to simply argue that Garcia Zarate acted in a criminally negligent way that resulted in Steinle’s death: he knew the object was a gun, he knew guns are dangerous, he should have known not to point it in the direction of people, etc.

I guess what I don't understand is that the jury could have found this anyway. I think they received the charge for involuntary manslaughter. I don't think that requires a passion element but not sure. I could understand how a DA could lose a jury by creating the impression that they were out to railroad the defendant while also doing such a bad job with the evidence that the jury became clouded and had nothing in the way of presented facts to rely on.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Even still - hypothetically if a man finds a gun in a crowded square, it's negligence to even put a finger on the trigger. And I seriously doubt a US BLM gun had a hair trigger. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

I guess what I don't understand is that the jury could have found this anyway. I think they received the charge for involuntary manslaughter. I don't think that requires a passion element but not sure. I could understand how a DA could lose a jury by creating the impression that they were out to railroad the defendant while also doing such a bad job with the evidence that the jury became clouded and had nothing in the way of presented facts to rely on.

Jury instruction <> prosecutor made the argument in closing (or at any other time).  Hell, for all I know, the prosecutor could have shot himself (herself?) in the foot, by insisting that this was an intentional act - thereby giving the jury the chance to say -   prosecutor told us it was not negligent.

Plus - not every accidental gun firing is negligence.  Jury could have found that the gun went off due to a design defect - of which the defendant would have had no knowledge - i.e. the hair-trigger.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Even still - hypothetically if a man finds a gun in a crowded square, it's negligence to even put a finger on the trigger. And I seriously doubt a US BLM gun had a hair trigger. 

And that is what the jury had to determine, and which the prosecutor had to prove.

In most of these cases where the jury gets blamed - its more the fault of the prosecutors doing an ineffective job, than it is a fault in the jury (or judicial system)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Jury instruction <> prosecutor made the argument in closing (or at any other time).  Hell, for all I know, the prosecutor could have shot himself (herself?) in the foot, by insisting that this was an intentional act - thereby giving the jury the chance to say -   prosecutor told us it was not negligent.

Plus - not every accidental gun firing is negligence.  Jury could have found that the gun went off due to a design defect - of which the defendant would have had no knowledge - i.e. the hair-trigger.

And that is what the jury had to determine, and which the prosecutor had to prove.

In most of these cases where the jury gets blamed - its more the fault of the prosecutors doing an ineffective job, than it is a fault in the jury (or judicial system)

I think I can buy the DA going for the home run and thereby screwing the jury's trust in him. 

Just on a rational level - and I admit not reading anything on this until this am - it's hard to imagine a US officer's gun not being in good working order. And we're likely not dealing with a rational actor. Homeless guy did crazy stupid thing is the best I can come up with, but still someone died as a result. 

 

[RBM]

Seems like most of the anger here is from the side that wanted him convicted. 

Any civilized person wanted him convicted Tim. This is a disgrace. Leftists took this country to such gutter levels in 8 years and it’s going to take a lot of work to bring it back but we are on our way and in 7 years just think of the positive change we will have made. 

 

[timschochet]

Any civilized person wanted him convicted Tim. This is a disgrace. Leftists took this country to such gutter levels in 8 years and it’s going to take a lot of work to bring it back but we are on our way and in 7 years just think of the positive change we will have made. 

I guess I’m uncivilized. I’ve been called worse. Nice to see you’re blaming this verdict on Obama. Why not? 

 

[whoknew]

I guess I’m uncivilized. I’ve been called worse. Nice to see you’re blaming this verdict on Obama. Why not? 

You don't think he should've been convicted of anything? I only know what I've read, but it seems like he at least should've been guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Not sure how the prosecutor ####ed that up.

 

[jonessed]

You don't think he should've been convicted of anything? I only know what I've read, but it seems like he at least should've been guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Not sure how the prosecutor ####ed that up.

It’s impossible to know if the prosecutor screwed up or the jury was making a political statement.

He was a felon carrying a stolen firearm who shot and killed someone in public.  At the very least he should have received involuntary manslaughter.

 

[RBM]

I guess I’m uncivilized. I’ve been called worse. Nice to see you’re blaming this verdict on Obama. Why not? 

At least we’ve got 7 more years to straighten the mess out. 

 

[jonessed]

I think I can buy the DA going for the home run and thereby screwing the jury's trust in him. 

Just on a rational level - and I admit not reading anything on this until this am - it's hard to imagine a US officer's gun not being in good working order. And we're likely not dealing with a rational actor. Homeless guy did crazy stupid thing is the best I can come up with, but still someone died as a result. 

He was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter.  Seems an appropriate charge even if you believe the defendant’s story.

 

[Sinn Fein]

It’s impossible to know if the prosecutor screwed up or the jury was making a political statement.

He was a felon carrying a stolen firearm who shot and killed someone in public.  At the very least he should have received involuntary manslaughter.

  what was proven?  I think the only thing the defense conceded from above was that he was in possession of the firearm - and I thought he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a fire arm.

The defense contested everything else, and the prosecutor apparently failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[jonessed]

  what was proven?  I think the only thing the defense conceded from above was that he was in possession of the firearm - and I thought he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a fire arm.

The defense contested everything else, and the prosecutor apparently failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

They conceded everything I just stated.  He was a felon carrying a stolen firearm who shot and killed someone in public.

They argued that finding the gun was accidental, that he didn’t realize he had found a gun, and that pulling the trigger was not intentional because he didn’t know it was a gun.

 

[Sinn Fein]

He was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter.  Seems an appropriate charge even if you believe the defendant’s story.

My understanding is the defense story is that the gun went off accidentally - i.e. he had no intention to fire the weapon.  

Basic elements of involuntary manslaughter: 

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

Obviously we can accept the first element was proven.   As to the second and third legs, I think there are a wide range of acceptable outcomes based on what we think we know about the case.  Certainly there was evidence that the jury could have found him guilty of this charge - but nothing that demanded a guilty verdict here.  A jury could reasonably believe that simply handling the gun is not inherently dangerous or reckless.  And the jury could reasonably decide that the defendant's conduct in handling a gun that fired accidentally was a threat to the lives of others.

I can see why people want to believe this charge should have stuck, but I can equally see why a jury would vote to acquit - if the prosecutor spent all his/her time arguing that this was an intentional act.  If the jury decided that it was reasonable that the gun went off accidentally - then acquittal was the right verdict.

 

[jonessed]

My understanding is the defense story is that the gun went off accidentally - i.e. he had no intention to fire the weapon.  

Basic elements of involuntary manslaughter: 

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

Obviously we can accept the first element was proven.   As to the second and third legs, I think there are a wide range of acceptable outcomes based on what we think we know about the case.  Certainly there was evidence that the jury could have found him guilty of this charge - but nothing that demanded a guilty verdict here.  A jury could reasonably believe that simply handling the gun is not inherently dangerous or reckless.  And the jury could reasonably decide that the defendant's conduct in handling a gun that fired accidentally was a threat to the lives of others.

I can see why people want to believe this charge should have stuck, but I can equally see why a jury would vote to acquit - if the prosecutor spent all his/her time arguing that this was an intentional act.  If the jury decided that it was reasonable that the gun went off accidentally - then acquittal was the right verdict.

How is handling a loaded gun and pulling the trigger in a public place not dangerous or reckless?  It doesn’t matter if the gun went off accidentally.  Pulling it out and fiddling with it in public is obviously dangerous.

You are seriously reaching on this one.

 

[apalmer]

Any civilized person wanted him convicted Tim. This is a disgrace. Leftists took this country to such gutter levels in 8 years and it’s going to take a lot of work to bring it back but we are on our way and in 7 years just think of the positive change we will have made. 

I was recently told in this forum that President Trump is "restoring respect for the rule of law".  Trial by jury is, of course, an integral part of the rule of law.  Therefore, in a spirit of cooperation with the goals of our leader and his followers, I fully accept and respect the jury's verdict.

 

[RBM]

I was recently told in this forum that President Trump is "restoring respect for the rule of law".  Trial by jury is, of course, an integral part of the rule of law.  Therefore, in a spirit of cooperation with the goals of our leader and his followers, I fully accept and respect the jury's verdict.

Of course you do because for some sick reason seeing a murderer here illegally go free is more important to you than some innocent, young girls life. Absolutely sick way to think but that’s the garbage we’re up against. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

How is handling a loaded gun and pulling the trigger in a public place not dangerous or reckless?  It doesn’t matter if the gun went off accidentally.  Pulling it out and fiddling with it in public is obviously dangerous.

You are seriously reaching on this one.

  jury did not think so...

It was disputed whether he pulled the trigger or if the gun fired accidentally.  Prosecutor did not prove the case.  If you have a problem - take it up with the DA.

Obviously you are on a very slippery slope when you assert that handling a gun is "inherently dangerous"  I'll assume that you have not thought through the ramifications of accepting that guns are inherently dangerous to handle.  I tend to agree with you here - but I suspect that most who are opposed to this verdict would not like the outcome if we accepted that guns are inherently dangerous on their face....

 

[apalmer]

Of course you do because for some sick reason seeing a murderer here illegally go free is more important to you than some innocent, young girls life. Absolutely sick way to think but that’s the garbage we’re up against. 

I've never reported anyone for a post, but your characterization of me ceratinly seems to merit it.

 

[Snickers]

  jury did not think so...

It was disputed whether he pulled the trigger or if the gun fired accidentally.  Prosecutor did not prove the case.  If you have a problem - take it up with the DA.

Obviously you are on a very slippery slope when you assert that handling a gun is "inherently dangerous"  I'll assume that you have not thought through the ramifications of accepting that guns are inherently dangerous to handle.  I tend to agree with you here - but I suspect that most who are opposed to this verdict would not like the outcome if we accepted that guns are inherently dangerous on their face....

I'd be great with it

 

[RBM]

I've never reported anyone for a post, but your characterization of me ceratinly seems to merit it.

I’m sure you haven’t. Keep cheering on this verdict reporter. 

 

[jonessed]

  jury did not think so...

It was disputed whether he pulled the trigger or if the gun fired accidentally.  Prosecutor did not prove the case.  If you have a problem - take it up with the DA.

Obviously you are on a very slippery slope when you assert that handling a gun is "inherently dangerous"  I'll assume that you have not thought through the ramifications of accepting that guns are inherently dangerous to handle.  I tend to agree with you here - but I suspect that most who are opposed to this verdict would not like the outcome if we accepted that guns are inherently dangerous on their face....

Guns are pretty obviously dangerous to handle in public.  Not sure why that’s controversial for you.

I’m supportive of the federal charges to add time to his sentence.  They can’t get him for manslaughter obviously, but apparently they have a nice lineup of other charges that can keep him locked up.

 

[apalmer]

I’m sure you haven’t. Keep cheering on this verdict reporter. 

Since you insist on it, you've got it.

 

[RBM]

Since you insist on it, you've got it.

Nothing new. And on this forum the guy cheering on this verdict will be normalized. Par for the course. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

"The main issue is that the defense was able to present a credible case that the shooting was an accident, and the prosecution aggressively overplayed their hand. Add in a misguided police interrogation strategy and you have reasonable doubt"

Read this and thought this pretty much summed it up. I dont like that the guy was here, but that alone doesn't make him guilty, at least not of the charges.

 

[Zow]

Of course you do because for some sick reason seeing a murderer here illegally go free is more important to you than some innocent, young girls life. Absolutely sick way to think but that’s the garbage we’re up against. 

#######it

 

[boots11234]

Apparently in CA it’s ok to for illegal aliens to kill Americans.