Kate Steinle killer found not guilty of murder

a reply to: face23785

if you believe this guy found a gun and bang it just went off i got some magic beans to sell you. look before the guy killed her he was in lock up on drug charges and the jail was told to hand him over to ice and instead they turned him loose.
who is to say he did not steal the gun or by it for off the street , what drug charges did he have was he caught with a doobie or was he dealing? the real question is if he admitted to killing woman even if by accident was he not at least charged with negligent homicide? if i was playing with a gun and it discharged i definitely would be charged and convicted.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It looks like the feds are going to do what the jurors could not - send the suspect to prison for possibly 10 years. He has multiple convictions for illegally entering the US. He will be charged again for illegally entering the US and because of his prior convictions the charge is now a felony with up to 10 years in prison.

Better than nothing. I'm still baffled how the jury couldn't see it was involuntary manslaughter.

It is entirely possible the jury instructions prevented them from considering a lesser offense / lesser included offense.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: face23785

if you believe this guy found a gun and bang it just went off i got some magic beans to sell you. look before the guy killed her he was in lock up on drug charges and the jail was told to hand him over to ice and instead they turned him loose.
who is to say he did not steal the gun or by it for off the street , what drug charges did he have was he caught with a doobie or was he dealing? the real question is if he admitted to killing woman even if by accident was he not at least charged with negligent homicide? if i was playing with a gun and it discharged i definitely would be charged and convicted.

What part of any of my posts makes you think I believe that? My posts make it pretty clear I think he should have at least been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. I'm well aware guns don't go off by themselves, and I would think the prosecution brought some firearm experts in to explain that to the jury.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It looks like the feds are going to do what the jurors could not - send the suspect to prison for possibly 10 years. He has multiple convictions for illegally entering the US. He will be charged again for illegally entering the US and because of his prior convictions the charge is now a felony with up to 10 years in prison.

Better than nothing. I'm still baffled how the jury couldn't see it was involuntary manslaughter.

It is entirely possible the jury instructions prevented them from considering a lesser offense / lesser included offense.

Every article I read on it said they acquitted him of involuntary manslaughter. They would've had to consider the charge to acquit him of it. What charges are going to be on the table are worked out before the trial.

Im a law abiding citizen with a ccw, no criminal record, and my guns are registered. If I went outside shot my gun at the street and the projectile ricocheted and killed someone I would get manslaughter even if I claimed accidental. I know with 99.99% certainty I would.

This was political and probably had something to do with her being a WHITE woman and him an illegal and the fact Trump was promoting this case.

Replace him as a white male with the same background (criminal record) and her with a POC. You dont think he woulda been charged with manslaughter? Hell yeah... If not just for fear of riots. Yeah I said it.

BTW if this guy had (accidentally) killed a sea lion he would have gotten up to a year in prison and up to a 100K fine....


Shows you what a caucasian American citizens life is worth in liberal S.F.. Guy should have gotten at least manslaughter.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Apparently the gun he held, he didn't know it was a gun so not even Involuntary Manslaughter.

I thought his original excuse was that he did not mean to kill her, that he was trying to shoot a sea lion.

YES! and I guarantee that the people of San Francisco would have been more outraged and sympathetic for the sea lion.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The initial breakdown/flaw occurred when the previously convicted felon who was deported multiple times prior got arrested for a marijuana charge... where the call to deport him for what I think is a 6th time was stopped because the sanctuary city laws block petty crimes from being associated to immigration.

If he were deported for that petty crime before, he'd still be working his way back to the U.S. from Mexico and that beautiful woman would be walking with her father's arm around her still.

Jury, schmury... that woman should be alive today. The sanctuary processes overly promote equal access to citizen rights, and there's too many loop holes to what's already a system of loops to begin with.

originally posted by: queenofswords
Sad, really. This illegal had been deported five times! Much of his life was spent behind bars for one thing or another.

In returning its verdict on the sixth day of deliberations, the San Francisco Superior Court jury found Jose Ines Garcia Zarate guilty of a single lesser charge of being a felon in possession of a gun. He will be sentenced at a later date.

They could have charged him with first degree murder, second degree murder, or involuntary manslaughter.

That's what I don't understand...I can get saying he didn't intentionally kill her, but HE DID KILL HER! Involuntary manslaughter should have been the the verdict at the very least...

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: CynConcepts
I am confused...how is it not possible for a jury to even find him with involuntary manslaughter? He had a gun in hand, shot that gun, and a human being died from such action!?!

I’m more confused with the idea that they can give the jury 3 options to choose from...
I’ve always thought the prosecution had to make a case for a specific charge.

This makes me wonder why they don’t do the multiple choice thing in all cases.

It's not multiple choice as much as subsections of the same law. One crime can have "lesser included offenses. And every crime has a number of elements that must be proven. For example, felony theft has the elements of: 1)intent; 2
) to permanently deprive someone; 3) of their property; 4)of a vakue over x dollars. Misdemeanor theft is a lesser included offense if, say, the jury believes the value is less than x. With homicide, the degree usually relates either to the defendant's mental state (intent v. gross nefligence v. simple negligence,) or who the victim is. e;;, cop or federal judge, or in some cases, what was used to kill. For example, in Califotnia if you blow someone up with a bomb, it's 1st degree but if you use a gun, it's 2nd degree.

a reply to: face23785

Was his admittance of trying to shoot a seal coerced or under duress? I don't understand how that was overlooked by the jury unless it was unable to be used by the prosecution.

a reply to: TheLead

The defense argued that it was. He told numerous versions of events. How you pick which one is true is beyond me. To me, you'd have to throw everything he said out and just look at the physical evidence. He picked up the gun. Obviously the jury believed he knew he picked up a gun, because if they believed he picked it up not knowing what it was they would have acquitted him on the felony possession charge. It so follows that if he knew he was holding a gun, the trigger doesn't accidentally pull itself. I'm sure the prosecution could have produced some firearms experts to explain to the jury that guns don't just go off by themselves.

If you follow all that, it's involuntary manslaughter.

a reply to: face23785

As I understand it they did have a gun expert explain the poundage it takes on both single action and double action to fire the weapon and that the gun itself functioned properly.

I know personally of an incident of someone I know pulling a gun out and the hammer partially cocking and and releasing which discharged the weapon.

I however, cannot envision this scenario playing out as they say. I know it means nothing, but it just doesn't add up imo.

You make a great point, the felony possession shows intent to possess a weapon illegally. Whether you intended to kill doesn't matter for involuntary manslaughter, just the fact that you created the situation for someone to be killed and they were is enough.

This scenario can be observed as it pertains to intoxicated driving in which a death occurs. Although you didn't intend to kill someone you created this situation in which it occurred.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: face23785

As I understand it they did have a gun expert explain the poundage it takes on both single action and double action to fire the weapon and that the gun itself functioned properly.

I know personally of an incident of someone I know pulling a gun out and the hammer partially cocking and and releasing which discharged the weapon.

I however, cannot envision this scenario playing out as they say. I know it means nothing, but it just doesn't add up imo.

You make a great point, the felony possession shows intent to possess a weapon illegally. Whether you intended to kill doesn't matter for involuntary manslaughter, just the fact that you created the situation for someone to be killed and they were is enough.

This scenario can be observed as it pertains to intoxicated driving in which a death occurs. Although you didn't intend to kill someone you created this situation in which it occurred.

That certainly can happen if you're pulling it out of your pocket or out of a holster and the hammer catches your shirt (this is one reason why I prefer guns that don't have an external lever for the hammer. In a real-world defensive scenario, you're not going to manually cock the gun, you're just going to pull the trigger. That # is for the movies). However, things like that happen generally with quick motions. If he was just handling it while it was wrapped in a shirt, that wouldn't happen. But again, even if you wanted to believe that, if the jury believed that the gun was still wrapped in a shirt and he didn't know what it was, he should have been acquitted of the felony possession charge. So obviously they didn't believe that, based on the evidence. That means they acknowledge he knew he was illegally possessing a gun and it so follows that the discharge is his fault, no matter how it happened.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Apparently the gun he held, he didn't know it was a gun so not even Involuntary Manslaughter.

Guess he thought he was holding either a banana or a fish....

..and here we have a "FISH GUN"

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yet another reason why the Democratic party should be snuffed out. They cause innocent deaths and want to let in more and more illegals and refugees to kill your children, so they can make excuses for them....all so they can have free stuff, and try to appear like they are more "caring" than you are...but they don't care about their own people clearly. So, as they stand on their soap boxes lecturing everyone every day, just know that there couldn't be a more hypocritical bunch. They preach tolerance and acceptance...unless you disagree with them. Then they are the most intolerant people alive.

a reply to: DBCowboy


The irony is, if the girls father snapped, hunted down and shot this dirt bag dead, HE would get convicted of murder.

a reply to: face23785

I'm totally with you on that. My friend was pulling it out of his pocket. I'm sure he realized there was draw on the weapon, but didn't realize the draw he was feeling was loading the hammer.

That's why in this scenario it seems very implausible if not impossible for him to not know.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yet another reason why the Democratic party should be snuffed out. They cause innocent deaths and want to let in more and more illegals and refugees to kill your children, so they can make excuses for them....all so they can have free stuff, and try to appear like they are more "caring" than you are...but they don't care about their own people clearly. So, as they stand on their soap boxes lecturing everyone every day, just know that there couldn't be a more hypocritical bunch. They preach tolerance and acceptance...unless you disagree with them. Then they are the most intolerant people alive.

Do you care about stopping murders, or only ones committed by illegals?

originally posted by: ZenTam

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Apparently the gun he held, he didn't know it was a gun so not even Involuntary Manslaughter.

I thought his original excuse was that he did not mean to kill her, that he was trying to shoot a sea lion.

YES! and I guarantee that the people of San Francisco would have been more outraged and sympathetic for the sea lion.

Had they charged him for attempted murder of a sea lion he'd be locked away forever.

Sad

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: face23785



. Whether you intended to kill doesn't matter for involuntary manslaughter, just the fact that you created the situation for someone to be killed and they were is enough.

In most states, it is enough - but not in California. Cal has the strange requirement that not only is a lack of due care necessary but the act that caused the death must itself be illegal . Shooting a gun is not in itself a crime. In almost every other state, the facts presented would support an IM verdict.