It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.
There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.
But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However, given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me that the jury made the right decision.
The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.
Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.
The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement.
"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," according to a statement released by the Department of Justice.
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Edit: Pro tip how about not firing a gun in a public place in the first place. I hope he rots in prison for the other charges.
originally posted by: smurfy
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Edit: Pro tip how about not firing a gun in a public place in the first place. I hope he rots in prison for the other charges.
If the man fired it deliberately, nobody here said that he did, and who owned the fecking gun in the first place.
originally posted by: neo96
This guy should not have walked.
Felon, and stole federal property.( A firearm).
Even more interesting that California is a state that has the felony murder rule.
There are people rotting in prison for being in possession of federal property alone.
originally posted by: smurfy
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Edit: Pro tip how about not firing a gun in a public place in the first place. I hope he rots in prison for the other charges.
If the man fired it deliberately, nobody here said that he did, and who owned the fecking gun in the first place.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: neo96
If convicted on both counts, is that possibly 20 years, or is 10 the upper limit, period?
This individual reminds me of nuisance bears and there are lessons to be learned from the proper handling of nuisance bears. The first time a bear gets into someone's trash, fish and game or AK State Troopers investigate the incident to ensure the homeowner wasn't improperly handling their trash. The second time it happens, the bear is tagged and relocated. If a tagged bear gets into someone's trash, it is euthanized as a nuisance animal. If, at any point through this, the bear attacks a human or destroys property, it is immediately euthanized as it is obvious the bear is beyond redemption and poses a threat to the peace of the community.
Take from the nuisance bear lesson what you will, but people like Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate, who have proven time and time again to have zero respect for borders and laws are the human equivalent of a nuisance animal.
There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire.
You're completely correct...blame the prosecution. All along I have been saying that the prosecution/the state did not present a clear cut case with any sort of reasonable attempt to garner a conviction.
originally posted by: TheScale
originally posted by: smurfy
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Edit: Pro tip how about not firing a gun in a public place in the first place. I hope he rots in prison for the other charges.
If the man fired it deliberately, nobody here said that he did, and who owned the fecking gun in the first place.
ask the sfpd and why they havent tried to roundup those 6 guys and question or charge them with a crime. oh thats right its san fran the city of rainbows and unicorns just ignore the bums and feces