Kate Steinle

[sean miguel]

RIP to this poor woman but it turns out that the right wing media has failed to point out was that the round that killed her was a ricochet with the initial impact being 80 ft. away. So unless the perp was legally blind, first degree murder was off the table. Should he have been here to begin with? No. But as far as the jury in his murder case is concerned, I don't see what other verdict they could have come up with other than manslaughter or negligent homicide and that's iffy considering his claim of an accidental discharge.

interesting that Hannity and others never mention that it was a ricochet which KIND OF makes a difference. Based on their description, I always thought that the perp took square aim on her back.

 

[Johan]

RIP to this poor woman but it turns out that the right wing media has failed to point out was that the round that killed her was a ricochet with the initial impact being 80 ft. away. So unless the perp was legally blind, first degree murder was off the table. Should he have been here to begin with? No. But as far as the jury in his murder case is concerned, I don't see what other verdict they could have come up with other than manslaughter or negligent homicide and that's iffy considering his claim of an accidental discharge.

interesting that Hannity and others never mention that it was a ricochet which KIND OF makes a difference. Based on their description, I always thought that the perp took square aim on her back.

Takes some courage ffor anyone to admit he was wrong. Glad you did. Also glads to see you calling out Hannity's and other right-wing medias' BS
Do you think they would have mentioned it if the shooter was a WASP US citizen ?

Hey enema fox you cunt

Why don’t you leave this country of ours. You are a pussy and you always will be.

The man hsas the honesty to admit he was wrong and to call out Fox News BS and your reaction is to insult him.
Asshole !

 

[sean miguel]

Thanks, Johan.

Here's the take from an alternate juror in the case:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/06/kate-steinle-murder-trial-jury-didnt-botch-216016


So he was sitting on the park bench when the weapon was fired and the round hit the pavement 12 ft in front of him, ricocheted another 78 ft and struck Ms. Steinle. I don't see how first degree murder was ever a charge here.

But again, if the San Francisco Sheriff's department had held Mr. Zarate for ICE as requested, he wouldn't have been on that park bench discharging that weapon. I'm glad he didn't get put away for murder but he shouldn't have been here.

 

[Rey C.]

When I first heard this story, it was reported that Jose Inez Garcia Zarate had intentionally fired in her direction. That may have come from him telling two different stories about what happened. At first he said that he found the gun and (intentionally) shot at a sea lion. Then he said that he found the gun, didn't know what it was facepalm and it went off when he picked it up. Problem that I see with the second story is that the gun apparently went off not once (accidentally), but three times. It was one of those shots that ricocheted and killed Kate Steinle. I've been around firearms all of my life. And unless the weapon is a full-auto or select fire, or has a catastrophic malfunction (in which case it would likely discharge all of the rounds in the magazine), it cannot and will not accidentally discharge more than once without the trigger being pulled before each discharge. Despite that fact, the jury acquitted Zarate of all murder (first and second degree) and manslaughter charges, and simply convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm (and it probably broke their little bleeding hearts to even do that).

One juror defended the decision to acquit by saying that it was just a freak accident. No how. No way. If you pick up a gun and pull the trigger three times in a crowded area, and you kill or injure someone, it is not an accident. So now he gets deported AGAIN. And I suppose that he'll be able to skip back across the border again, if he so chooses. As long as he can make his way back to San Francisco, they'll probably give this poor fellow three hots & a cot at taxpayers' expense. Though I consider myself to be a (largely) law & order person, should Jose Inez Garcia Zarate get "accidentally" double tapped in the chest with a .40 S&W while in Mexico, or upon his next illegal re-entry into the U.S., I'd consider that to be fitting, poetic justice.

IMO, the city of San Francisco was partially to blame by providing sanctuary to a convicted felon, who had been deported multiple times and kept re-entering the U.S. illegally. And maybe ICE was somewhat to blame in not considering that San Francisco would not be fully cooperative in holding Zarate, so they could pick him up and drop him off in Mexico for the umpteenth time. But the one thing that is without doubt is that the Steinle family has suffered an unnecessary and tragic loss. And a young girl, just beginning her walk through life, had that journey cut short by a worthless, drug dealing piece of human filth.

 

[sean miguel]

When I first heard this story, it was reported that Jose Inez Garcia Zarate had intentionally fired in her direction. That may have come from him telling two different stories about what happened. At first he said that he found the gun and (intentionally) shot at a sea lion. Then he said that he found the gun, didn't know what it was facepalm and it went off when he picked it up. Problem that I see with the second story is that the gun apparently went off not once (accidentally), but three times. It was one of those shots that ricocheted and killed Kate Steinle. I've been around firearms all of my life. And unless the weapon is a full-auto or select fire, or has a catastrophic malfunction (in which case it would likely discharge all of the rounds in the magazine), it cannot and will not accidentally discharge more than once without the trigger being pulled before each discharge. Despite that fact, the jury acquitted Zarate of all murder (first and second degree) and manslaughter charges, and simply convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm (and it probably broke their little bleeding hearts to even do that).

One juror defended the decision to acquit by saying that it was just a freak accident. No how. No way. If you pick up a gun and pull the trigger three times in a crowded area, and you kill or injure someone, it is not an accident.

In everything I'm reading on the case it says Zarate fired only a single shot. The shooting was also captured on a surveillance camera.

 

[Rey C.]

ABC 7 News Jose Inez Garcia Zarate Jailhouse Interview

Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, who was also known as Juan Francisco López-Sánchez

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.

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.

 

[sean miguel]

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) --
The single bullet that struck and killed Kate Steinle, 32, in broad daylight on San Francisco's Pier 14 in July appears to have ricocheted off of the pier walkway prior to hitting her, according to expert testimony provided Wednesday during the second day of the murder suspect's preliminary hearing.

Officials say the gun Francisco Lopez Sanchez is accused of firing was not actually pointed at Steinle, but at the ground.

San Francisco police criminalist and ballistics expert Gerald Andrew Smith displayed the gun that was used in the shooting. It was a black Sig Sauer P239 .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol that had been recovered by divers from the San Francisco Bay near Pier 14 the day after the homicide.

Smith said one round had been fired from the seven cartridge magazine clip and that the gun was still functioning normally.

http://abc7news.com/politics/bullet...at-pier-14-appears-to-have-ricocheted/958526/

 

[Rey C.]

So Zarate/Sanchez lied on himself about how many times the gun discharged? What an odd fellow. I initially said that Zarate had told two different stories. Now it looks like he had different versions of different versions of two different stories.

But no matter:

Smith said one round had been fired from the seven cartridge magazine clip and that the gun was still functioning normally.

Under cross examination, public defender Matt Gonzalez repeatedly asked Smith if it was possible the gun could accidentally discharge without Sanchez pulling the trigger. "No matter how the trigger was pulled, that's the only way the gun could have been fired," Smith said.

Whether he was shooting at sea lions or rubbing it for luck, the trigger was pulled. And he was the one holding the gun. So whether it was once or three times, the round that struck and killed Kate Steinle was fired as a result of Zarate pulling that trigger. How a jury allowed someone to just walk away from that, I still cannot understand and will never agree with.

I wonder how long it will be before he's back wandering the streets in the U.S.?

 

[Supafly]

Okay. I am looking at all this from across the ocean. Why do we talk about this in P&R?

This is one person that has pretty much no role in neither politics nor religion, aight?

 

[Rey C.]

Okay. I am looking at all this from across the ocean. Why do we talk about this in P&R?

This is one person that has pretty much no role in neither politics nor religion, aight?

It became a political lightning rod when it was (mis)reported by Fox and others, mainly because he was an illegal alien felon, who was shielded by a sanctuary city (San Francisco). And that gave him the opportunity to snuff out an innocent life. Animus is correct in how it was first characterized. I heard the same thing: that Zarate actually aimed and fired at Kate Steinle. I learned about the ricochet a long time ago, but it looks like the number of shots fired remained in question (mainly because of Zarate's own lies). The Trump campaign (and others) spoke of this case and used it as a prime example of why our border and illegal immigrant issue is also a public safety issue.

While it seems that there are still some misconceptions about the facts of this particular case (as Animus has pointed out), and although I don't agree with all of Trump's positions on immigration, I do FULLY agree that a sovereign nation must have control of its borders. I was supposed to attend a CART IndyCar race in Toronto, Canada many years ago with a group of people who were coming from far & wide across the U.S. One gentleman was a successful restaurant owner from Las Vegas. He was denied entry into Canada because of a drug possession conviction in Nevada way back in the mid 80's. Here was a guy with a six figure income, who just wanted to see a car race. But because of that conviction, no go. Fair or unfair, wise or unwise, that's just how it was, and still is (I guess) in Canada. It's their country and their rules. As far as I know, Toronto could not have (legally) established itself as a Canadian sanctuary city and allowed racing fans with foreign drug convictions to attend the race for that weekend and then leave. That San Francisco and a good many other American cities are bending over backwards and, despite the risks to public safety, allowing convicted felons (sometimes violent) to wander the streets (and they refuse to allow them to be deported or arrested by ICE) is in itself criminal, IMO. So I have no issue with Trump/Sessions cutting off certain Federal funds to these cities. Why should they be able to pick & choose what Federal laws they follow? Was that allowed in the 1950's and '60's when certain southern states did not want to respect the laws protecting the civil rights of Black Americans? No! And rightly so. The National Guard was sent in. As illegal immigration continues to be a problem, and some of those immigrants show themselves to be bad actors, the day may come when that sort of face-off may need to happen again.


If Zarate was to shoot someone, too bad it wasn't this 300 lb. wad of chewed bubblegum:

 

[Supafly]

Ah, I see. That is my perspecrive, too. Here in Germany, Europe in General, we are really struggling with how to deal with the spectrum of issues of refugees and how they come in and how they get handled.

Of course, people like that rainbow lady are always a drag, and that picture made me laugh so hard

 

[Will E Worm]

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/image...3083567c9fcb32e38879a386100492437329fb6ec.jpg



Idiots like her are a huge problem in any country.

 

[georges]

Court Overturns Conviction Of Five-Time Deported Immigrant Who Shot Kate Steinle
https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/31/...ush&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push

 

[Rey C.]

Court Overturns Conviction Of Five-Time Deported Immigrant Who Shot Kate Steinle
https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/31/...ush&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push

To possess the gun, defendant had to know he was holding it,” the appellate court wrote.

I don't even know what that means. How would he not know that he'd just picked a gun up? All that means is the California court was determined to overturn his conviction. If courts used that same standard in rape cases, where consent is in question, the concept of date rape would be out the window. She wasn't kicking and screaming... defendant didn't know that he was raping the female.

 

[Johan]

It means there's no proof that the guy had the gun in his hands when kate Steinley was shot.

 

[Rey C.]

No, that's not what it means. It was clearly in his hands, otherwise the gun couldn't have gone off. The court apparently went back to one of his previous fairytales and chose the one that allowed him an out: He claims a gun was wrapped in that T-shirt and that it went off when he picked it up.

That's how they got to "to possess the gun, defendant had to know he was holding it.” It was in his hands, but wrapped in a t-shirt, so he couldn't see it and didn't know that he was in possession.
Pretty darn slick lawyerin', if I do say so myself.


Shakespeare - Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

 

[Straight Shooter]

To possess the gun, defendant had to know he was holding it,” the appellate court wrote.

I don't even know what that means. How would he not know that he'd just picked a gun up? All that means is the California court was determined to overturn his conviction. If courts used that same standard in rape cases, where consent is in question, the concept of date rape would be out the window. She wasn't kicking and screaming... defendant didn't know that he was raping the female.

LOL. Daily Caller. Do you think it was intentional that they left out the fact that when he picked up the gun it was wrapped in rags? C'mon Rey you're better than this. Here's a better article from an actual news site

A California appeals court on Friday reversed a conviction against a Mexican man in the country illegally who was acquitted in the 2015 murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 46, did not get a fair trial when he was convicted of being a felon in possession of the gun used in the shooting, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District ruled Friday.

The San Francisco Superior Court judge who oversaw the murder case disallowed his argument that he never had legal possession of the deadly weapon.

"Because the error was prejudicial, we are compelled as a matter of law to reverse," the appeals court said in its ruling.

Garcia Zarate initially told police he was sitting in a chair on San Francisco's Pier 14 on July 1, 2015, when he inadvertently stepped on the gun, which was wrapped in rags, and it discharged.

"There was a, a rag and stuff and I stepped on it and then it fired and then I grabbed it and then tossed it," he said, according to the appeals court ruling.

He later said he picked up the gun and it went off. He tossed it into the bay because he was afraid it would go off again, he said.

"Under defendant’s theory of the case here, he sat in a chair, bent over to pick up an object wrapped in rags, did not know that the object was a gun, the gun fired, and as soon as it fired, he immediately threw the gun in the water in order to stop it from firing," the appeals court found. "If believed by the jury, these facts describe an accidental discovery and abandonment."

Steinle,32, was walking on the pier with her father and a friend when she was struck in the back by the bullet and died. There was evidence, according to the appeals court ruling, that the fatal round ricocheted off concrete before striking Steinle.

Garcia Zarate had been deported five times and had served time in federal prison for re-entering the country illegally. He was facing deportation at the time of the shooting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...rturns-conviction-kate-steinle-death-n1048551

 

[Johan]

C'mon Rey you're better than this

Is he ?
You're he's better than that ? 'cause I'm not convinced at all...

 

[Rey C.]

LOL. Daily Caller. Do you think it was intentional that they left out the fact that when he picked up the gun it was wrapped in rags? C'mon Rey you're better than this. Here's a better article from an actual news site.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...rturns-conviction-kate-steinle-death-n1048551

Well yes, he claimed that it was wrapped in rags or a t-shirt. But I'm not aware that it was ever established as fact. I mean, he claimed a great number of (conflicting) things. By initially claiming that he'd fired the gun three times (when in fact it was only once), he even lied on himself, and made it harder on himself. When he claimed that he was shooting at some sea lions, he made it harder on himself. So I don't know whether the pistol was wrapped in a rag/garment or not when he picked it up - and neither does anyone else... except for Sanchez/Zarate. But having been around firearms since I was 6, I can say with full confidence that if you pick up a pistol wrapped in a t-shirt or rag, you will not be able to pull the trigger without reasonably knowing that you're holding some type of firearm. In order to fire this weapon (DA/SA SIG-Sauer P239), you'd have to insert some portion of your finger inside the trigger guard, secure your hand around the grips and apply approximately 10 lbs of pressure to the trigger. The first shot (which is all he got off) requires a long double-action trigger pull to cock the hammer and fire the pistol. It would take a heavy dose of suspension of disbelief to make his story(s) fit with the physics and mechanics of that firearm.

As I said previously, he came up with enough fairytales to write a book. But in its infinite wisdom, the appeals court decided that the story that would enable him to escape the charge should have been given more weight. So, they gave it more weight... and away he goes. :wave:


Here's a few of his bedtime stories, and I'm not even sure that I was able to assemble them all.

Sanchez reportedly first told police he was shooting at sea lions.

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.

Garcia Zarate initially told police he was sitting in a chair on San Francisco's Pier 14 on July 1, 2015, when he inadvertently stepped on the gun, which was wrapped in rags, and it discharged.

"There was a, a rag and stuff and I stepped on it and then it fired and then I grabbed it and then tossed it," he said, according to the appeals court ruling.

He later said he picked up the gun and it went off. He tossed it into the bay because he was afraid it would go off again, he said.

Smith said one round had been fired from the seven cartridge magazine clip and that the gun was still functioning normally.

Under cross examination, public defender Matt Gonzalez repeatedly asked Smith if it was possible the gun could accidentally discharge without Sanchez pulling the trigger. "No matter how the trigger was pulled, that's the only way the gun could have been fired," Smith said.

See it how you will, as will I. As a believer in having a nation of laws, I'll accept the court's decision, even if I don't agree with it. I see Sanchez/Zarate as a lying dirtbag, who took an innocent girl's life because of his carelessness. I mainly feel sorry for the girl's family because they've had to relive this horrible tragedy yet again. Hopefully he won't harm anyone else. But odds are, he probably will. Maybe he and George Zimmerman will cross paths and get into a gunfight where they both get gut-shot and die slowly. There, that's a happy ending.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Well yes, he claimed that it was wrapped in rags or a t-shirt. But I'm not aware that it was ever established as fact. I mean, he claimed a great number of (conflicting) things. By initially claiming that he'd fired the gun three times (when in fact it was only once), he even lied on himself, and made it harder on himself. When he claimed that he was shooting at some sea lions, he made it harder on himself. So I don't know whether the pistol was wrapped in a rag/garment or not when he picked it up - and neither does anyone else... except for Sanchez/Zarate. But having been around firearms since I was 6, I can say with full confidence that if you pick up a pistol wrapped in a t-shirt or rag, you will not be able to pull the trigger without reasonably knowing that you're holding some type of firearm. In order to fire this weapon (DA/SA SIG-Sauer P239), you'd have to insert some portion of your finger inside the trigger guard, secure your hand around the grips and apply approximately 10 lbs of pressure to the trigger. The first shot (which is all he got off) requires a long double-action trigger pull to cock the hammer and fire the pistol. It would take a heavy dose of suspension of disbelief to make his story(s) fit with the physics and mechanics of that firearm.

The gun was in single-action mode, Smith said, typical for a gun that had been fired. A gun in double-action mode requires extra pressure on the trigger to cock the hammer and fire the bullet, while a gun in single-action mode already has the hammer cocked and requires less trigger pressure.

This is a key point of contention in the case. If the gun was in single-action mode at the time of the shooting, said defense attorney Matt Gonzalez of the city public defender’s office, it’s more likely that Garcia Zarate could have pulled the trigger accidentally when he grabbed the bundle or unwrapped the cloth around the gun. Prosecutors dispute evidence of an accidental shot.

Woychowski testified that he always left the pistol in double-action mode, but he also said the gun was typically in single-action mode when he loaded it, and couldn’t definitively say he remembered putting it back in double-action mode before it was stolen.

In any event, Gonzalez said, no one knows what happened to the gun in the four days between the burglary and the shooting.

https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Trigger-of-gun-that-killed-Kate-Steinle-had-to-be-12321189.php