California Lawmakers move to become "Sanctuary State"

That was a huge issue in this case, I believe, because the defense continually made it about his status as an immigrant. I forget the statement exactly that he made after the trial, but it was something to the effect that this ruling shows we are going to reject policies that target people because of their immigration status. Because, you know, if he had been a citizen, no one would have cared if he'd shot a weapon in a public space and accidentally killed someone, right? Is it really a CRIME to accidentally kill someone now??? What kind of a police state are we living in, anyway?

(BTW that reminded me of a totally unrelated Simpsons quote from Mr. Burns: "If it's a crime to love my country, then I'm guilty! And if it's a crime to steal a trillion dollars of government money and hand it over to a third world dictator, then I'm guilty. And if it's a crime to bribe a jury to ensure a not guilt verdict, then I'll soon be guilty of that, too!")

 

Least DOJ stepped up to get some justice for Steinle, even if indirectly...

Feds bring charges against illegal immigrant who killed Kate Steinle, indict him on 2 charges

“A federal grand jury indicted Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate today for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and for being an illegally-present alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition,” the Department of Justice announced.

Zarate faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail for each charge."

 

How is the Calexit movement going in their state? Anything we can do to encourage them to secede?

 

The defendant testified that the gun was under a bench wrapped in fabric. He picked it up not knowing what it was, and it went off by accident. He then panicked and threw the gun in the water. Video surveillance of the scene was inconclusive, but not inconsistent with his story.

Of course, we will never know if that is what really happened. But if it is what really happened, his acquittal on all charges was justifiable.

The best evidence against him was a series of confessions, with his story changing several times before settling in on his final story. Having not heard any of those stories first hand, I can't speak to which may have been more credible. But I am not naive enough to think that an arrestee's first statement to the police is always the truth.

 

It's the West Coast elitist attitude that shines through in the idea that because he's not an American, he can't be expected to know what a gun is. Or for that matter, a gun wrapped in a cloth. Or that he shouldn't put his finger near the trigger. At one point, he claimed that he stepped on the gun and it went off. "Those people bless their hearts are just unsophisticated and not very advanced. All the Mexicans I see in movies just use machetes, so I'm sure he wouldn't understand the mechanics of a pistol..."

For that matter, that anyone would just leave a gun lying under a bench wrapped in a cloth, when apparently you could do just what the guy eventually did - throw it in the water.

The whole story makes no sense at all. I have no doubt the guy didn't intentionally shoot the woman, but this idea that he just happened to find a gun, and it just happened to go off without him having done anything that was negligent or dangerous... I don't buy that. Again, I didn't hear all the evidence. But I sincerely doubt that verdict happens anywhere but a sanctuary city.

 

It had been stolen from law enforcement 4 days earlier. You don't think it's possible that whomever stole it (if not Zarate) could have tried to hide it with the intent of retrieving it later?

 

It's possible but not under a bench wrapped in cloth where anybody could find it.

 

It's also "possible" that the cop (agent?) whose gun it was planted it under the bench with the intent of framing a homeless guy for stealing his gun. It's "possible" that the cop was cleaning his gun on the bench, hid it while going to pick up some chowder and forgot about it. A lot of things are "possible."

Regardless, how it got there has nothing to do with the point, which is that its ridiculous that someone can point a gun in the general direction of people, have it go off and kill someone, and have absolutely no consequences.

Where are all the "guns are dangerous" people on this? Here's your example of how a gun apparently "just decided to kill someone with no help from the person holding it." You'd think this would be the poster case for why we should ban handguns. But not a peep. I find that interesting. You think if a US citizen had done this, there wouldn't be protests on the Capital steps stating that we need to ban firearms? Progressives are fantastic about staying on message - and this one has been about how a poor, hapless migrant man is being railroaded by evil conservatives. Pushing two different causes in one case dilutes the message too much.

 

Yeah, when I steal handguns from federal officers, I hide them under public benches and leave them there for FOUR DAYS, because I figure if no one's found it by then, then I won't get in trouble for having it...

 

If that's what happened, you are 100% right. But what if he didn't point it in the general direction of people? What if he picked something up not knowing what it was, and it went off? That's what the defense argued.

It sure is easy to win a debate when you get to make up your arguments AND the other side's arguments as well.

As I said, the weak part of the defense was the defendants' evolving story of what really happened. That's viable evidence of guilt, but it is far from conclusive.

 

As I understand it, there was video footage showing someone -- NOT THE DEFENDANT -- putting the gun under the bench previously. Both the prosecutor and the defense agreed that the gun was under the bench BEFORE the defendant got there. The prosecutor said the defendant picked the gun up and pointed it, and that it went off (whether on purpose or by accident) shortly thereafter. The defendant says that the gun went off as the defendant picked the gun up. The video evidence was inconclusive.

 

Must be the world's dumbest criminal.

 

That may be. But it's on video.

 

Who needs facts when you start with a desired outcome? They just get in the way.

 

How does that explain the jury convicting him of possessing a firearm? Apparently they concluded he was aware of the gun and made a decision to possess it.

If they bought he picked up a shirt not knowing the gun was in it and it fell and went off, then he had no knowledge of or intent to possess the gun.

Basically this jury wanted to let the dude off but knew they couldn't clear him on all counts due to the outrage that would follow. So they chose a lessor charge not punishing him for the death.

 

Nothing of the sort. Most people wouldn't think a criminal would be dumb enough to do something like that. There's now video evidence that there was one that dumb.

 

It is my understanding that the prosecutor argued that his post-shooting conduct of panicking for a while, then throwing the gun in the water, was enough to violate the possession statute.

 

Despite not having all of the facts, you are reaching firm conclusions about (a) whether the defendant was guilty and (b) why the jury let him off the hook. Both of these conclusions say more about you than they do about the defendant or the jury.

 

Yes because you know me so well. My opinion, which is my right to have and state, was formed by reading about the case. Although I haven't spent any time on it after the first few days post decision.

Just like you, of course I don't have all the specific details of what went on in court or what the thought process of each juror was.

I'm sure you'd be surprised to know from what I read the murder charge would've been tough to arrive at. Involuntary was good to go.

My opinion not agreeing with yours (after both reading on the subject) leading you to the statement you made about me says tons about you, Homie.

Keep up the good Libby fight and protecting criminally convicted illegals who harm Americans. Never mind the long rap sheet of convictions while illegally on our soil, the multiple deportations and defiant returns, and the jury being selected from a population in the most pro-sanctuary city in the country.

 

I believe that was his final story of three.

 

If by "good to go" you mean that the evidence would have supported a conviction, I agree. But if by "good to go" you mean he was clearly guilty, I don't agree.

My objection is not that your opinion disagrees with mine. My objection is that you have such a firm opinion. Any reasonable person possessing the level of knowledge you or I have would conclude that they don't know enough to form a firm opinion. The fact that you have reached such a firm opinion indicates your willingness to form an opinion based on what you WANT the answer to be.

All too many liberals are arguing that this guy was clearly innocent and was prosecuted unfairly. That's bs too. By all accounts, the evidence was murky and the verdict could've gone either way.

Some left wingers are arguing that the guy shouldn't be deported. That's nuts, which even most liberals concede. He is not the type of person we want to be granting any form of leniency to.

 

I didn't say the defendant put it there. The point is that whoever stole the gun put it there. The suggestion I was responding to was that he did it with the intention of coming back for it. That would have to be an incredibly stupid person - which granted does not rule it out.

As I understood it, the video wasn't conclusive. But as I said earlier, I really don't care who put it there. That's not relevant to the discussion unless you're trying to pin the stolen weapon on the illegal immigrant - which I wasn't.