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.

 

Kate Steinle killer Zarate will be taken into custody by federal authorities on two new charges

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

No more Sanctuary Cities.
It's got to end.



Barnard: "Did you shoot Kate Steinle, the lady who was down at Pier 14."
Sanchez: "Yes."
Barnard: "You did shoot her?"
Sanchez: "Mm hm," he said with a nod.

Steinle was shot and killed near the Ferry Building on Wednesday. Sanchez tells ABC7 News that the shooting was an accident. He says he was wandering on Pier 14 after taking sleeping pills he found in a dumpster.

Barnard: "Where did you get the gun?"
Sanchez: "In the ground. When the... when the... over there in the bench, um, um, I put my leg and I see the one T-shirt and then see over there something like that."

He claims a gun was wrapped in that T-shirt and that it went off when he picked it up.

"Then suddenly I heard that boom boom, three times," Sanchez said.

He claims he kicked the gun into the San Francisco Bay, lit up a cigarette, and walked off, not knowing he shot someone until he was arrested by police hours later. Sanchez reportedly first told police he was shooting at sea lions.

He appeared frail and nervous when he talked about returning to the U.S. after being deported back to his native Mexico five times.

Barnard: "Why did you keep coming back to the U.S., why did you come back to San Francisco?"
Sanchez: "Because I was looking for jobs in the restaurant or roofing, landscaping, or construction."

Sanchez said he knew San Francisco was a sanctuary city where he would not be pursued by immigration officials.

Sanchez: "Yeah, I'm feeling sorry for everybody."
Barnard: "You feel sorry for everybody? Including Kate Steinle's family?"
Sanchez: "Yeah."


abc7news.com...
edit on 8-1-2018 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

Just because he was charged doesn't mean a defense lawyer couldn't have made the argument made here and had the thing thrown out.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Oh, the goalposts are over there now?



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: proteus33
sorry going to cuss WTF HE HAD GUN IN HIS DAMN HAND HOW COULD YOU NOT HAVE EVIDENCE HE WAS BRANDISHING IT ? SMMFH.


Brnadishing is a legal term for openly displaying and/or waving the firearm about. There wasnt any video evidence he did this as per the juror that was interviewed.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Irrelevant to both what I said and the OP in general.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: proteus33
sorry going to cuss WTF HE HAD GUN IN HIS DAMN HAND HOW COULD YOU NOT HAVE EVIDENCE HE WAS BRANDISHING IT ? SMMFH.


Brnadishing is a legal term for openly displaying and/or waving the firearm about. There wasnt any video evidence he did this as per the juror that was interviewed.


Goes to what I said in the other/original thread about the warrants: it boggles my mind that the prosecutor was able to convince that jury that Zarate had the gun in his possession (as evidenced by the conviction for possession by a felon) yet somehow couldn't convince them that his handling of it was negligent.

So...he handled the gun enough to be in possession of it...but his handling of it was not negligent/reckless, but it also was not intentional....




posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


I agree. I stated earlier that this was prosecutorial incompetence, the juror even stated that if it would have been say felony possession of a firearm he felt that the jury would have convicted on the manslaughter charge. People are railing about the judge but it really is the prosecutor who should come under scrutiny.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yep. Hell, even the lesser version of manslaughter would've been more palpable than a complete acquittal. Little solace to the family but at least it would've been a damn conviction for the death.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Yep. Hell, even the lesser version of manslaughter would've been more palpable than a complete acquittal. Little solace to the family but at least it would've been a damn conviction for the death.


I'm sure the family would have taken that over the prosecutorial blunder perpetrated by this nudnik.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Bah. I'm sure they'll take comfort in knowing the DA feels bad about not being able to get a conviction for anything substantial, and that he believes his homicide team really, really tried their best.





top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join