Merged Woman Killed by Illegal Immigrant in San Francisco

[The Nimble Pianist]

So I'm being a little bit hyperbolic. He definitely deserves more than the the three months to three years he's given. And it all boils down to politics. I'm sick of this ****, and this is precisely why people like Trump are elected.

I'm a born San Franciscan and I love the fact that we are a sanctuary city. I hate the fact that the powers that be can play cards and end up with a young woman's life in their hands. Shame on them and all of the Supes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder, which applies to murder that is deliberate but not premeditated or that was caused by committing an inherently dangerous act.

Prosecutor Diana Garcia has sought to prove during the trial that Garcia Zarate, who had no connection to Steinle or known motive for shooting her, pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger deliberately.

However, Judge James Feng on Wednesday agreed to a request by Garcia to instruct the jury in first-degree murder as well as second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.

“The jury will be instructed on multiple theories of homicide,” District Attorney’s Office spokesman Alex Bastian said, declining to comment further.

First-degree murder typically requires that the murder be willful and premeditated, but can also apply to cases of “felony murder,” in which a defendant is involved in a dangerous crime that leads to a person’s death. It is unclear which theory Garcia might ask jurors to consider in closing arguments on Monday.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/...cle_682ba418-cb46-11e7-833f-e3ac71aafba3.html

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's too late anyway.
I'm sorry Kate lived in a place that just didn't care.

Maybe the feds will take action on sanctuary cities now?

Who am I kidding...

It is bad policy to take action based on anecdote rather than data.

 

[acbytesla]

The jury was instructed on the lesser charges, so they were in play.

Ok then,. Not sure what their reasoning was then. But then again, I wasn't a juror.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Yes.

Don't blame the California. Don't blame "sanctuary cities." Don't blame the jury.

Blame the stupid prosecutors.

Negligent homocide should have been easy. But they didn't want that. They wanted murder. And in wanting murder, they made claims that were easily doubted.

They were so determined to get murder charge that they didn't sufficiently allow the jury to come back with negligent homicide.

Did you see their claim? That he went to the pier with the gun specifically to shoot someone? That completely falls apart. They were stupid to even try it.

Blame the prosecutors for *********** it up.

I'm not blaming California, or sanctuary cities, or anything else you think I'm blaming. I'm blaming the city and couty of San Francisco, California. They are deliberately to blame.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm not blaming California, or sanctuary cities, or anything else you think I'm blaming. I'm blaming the city and couty of San Francisco, California. They are deliberately to blame.

I don't think they are.

If you mean by some theory of policy consequences, I think you have to first deal with the much more genocidal policy of permitting automobiles.

 

[Stacko]

Ok then,. Not sure what their reasoning was then. But then again, I wasn't a juror.

The case presented by the prosecution was for first or second degree murder. They didn't present arguments for negligent homicide because it would have undermined their attempts at overreaching for murder. They should have just gone for negligent homicide because that is what happened.

 

[varwoche]

I'm not blaming California, or sanctuary cities, or anything else you think I'm blaming. I'm blaming the city and couty of San Francisco, California. They are deliberately to blame.

On what basis? I can grasp the concept of blaming the prosecutors or the jury. But why the city/county?

 

[crescent]

The jury was instructed on the lesser charges, so they were in play.

I'm not blaming California, or sanctuary cities, or anything else you think I'm blaming. I'm blaming the city and couty of San Francisco, California. They are deliberately to blame.

The case presented by the prosecution was for first or second degree murder. They didn't present arguments for negligent homicide because it would have undermined their attempts at overreaching for murder. They should have just gone for negligent homicide because that is what happened.

Jury trials are a crap shoot. They always have been and always will be. That's why plea bargains are popular. Few criminal defendants ever go to jury trials.

Was there any attempt to allow him to plea bargain, to plead guilty to the negligent homicide charge in return for dropping to higher charges?

 

[theprestige]

It seems some folks have finally found their good guy with a gun.

 

[acbytesla]

The case presented by the prosecution was for first or second degree murder. They didn't present arguments for negligent homicide because it would have undermined their attempts at overreaching for murder. They should have just gone for negligent homicide because that is what happened.

I agree. The murder charges were absurd. You might be able to say that the defendant was reckless and stupid. And you can say he had no business being in the US. But he didn't have a violent past. It was an accident based on his stupidity. I'm not sure what an appropriate sentence for his actions should be but decades behind bars would be wrong.

 

[Civet]

I agree. The murder charges were absurd. You might be able to say that the defendant was reckless and stupid. And you can say he had no business being in the US. But he didn't have a violent past. It was an accident based on his stupidity. I'm not sure what an appropriate sentence for his actions should be but decades behind bars would be wrong.

I'd consider something like 24 months fair for an involuntary manslaughter charge. Particularly given that he had no business having a gun in the first place. I'm told by prosecutors that SF has a reputation for a having a tough jury pool making it a bit harder than average to get a conviction. While I absolutely think that first-degree murder was out of line and involuntary manslaughter made all the sense in the world, I didn't follow the case closely enough to have a good idea of exactly what evidence the jury heard.

 

[Armitage72]

"We don't like your verdict. We're going to try now."

DOJ considering federal charges.

Increased authority for the states... as long as they're doing the right things.

 

[Dr. Keith]

He didn't merely pick up a gun and have it go off...

Also, if I pick up a gun and fail to check to see if it is loaded, and it merely goes off and kills someone while I am playing with it, I will be put in jail for that.
For me, an adult male, it would clearly be negligence to play with a loaded firearm and kill someone.

Don't we have lots of examples of people accidentally shooting friends and family and not getting any jail time? Isn't the common refrain that "they have suffered enough"?

 

[Dr. Keith]

The case presented by the prosecution was for first or second degree murder. They didn't present arguments for negligent homicide because it would have undermined their attempts at overreaching for murder. They should have just gone for negligent homicide because that is what happened.

Agreed. Giving instructions for charges that were not explored by the prosecutor is a waste of time. They weren't told how those charges could be applied and they aren't going to just go off into the wilderness on their own.

If the prosecutor told a story that wasn't credible then the jury is not likely to convict on any charges. It is all about who they can believe in the courtroom, who has credibility. Someone should be losing their job for pushing for more than they could prove.

Either that, or this guy is some wicked good sharpshooter if he can hit a person off of a ricochet.

 

[pgwenthold]

Don't we have lots of examples of people accidentally shooting friends and family and not getting any jail time? Isn't the common refrain that "they have suffered enough"?

coughDickCheneycough

Didn't die, but still shot someone else. No consequences, because, hey, he was a white guy...

 

[Stacko]

On what basis? I can grasp the concept of blaming the prosecutors or the jury. But why the city/county?

It certainly looks like the prosecutors are to blame. They appear to have caved to political pressure in pursuing murder charges. That left them claiming it was premeditated killing of a random victim while their own forensics said that the bullet ricocheted off of the pavement 100 yards from her.

 

[Giordano]

Yes.

Don't blame the California. Don't blame "sanctuary cities." Don't blame the jury.

Blame the stupid prosecutors.

Negligent homocide should have been easy. But they didn't want that. They wanted murder. And in wanting murder, they made claims that were easily doubted.

They were so determined to get murder charge that they didn't sufficiently allow the jury to come back with negligent homicide.

Did you see their claim? That he went to the pier with the gun specifically to shoot someone? That completely falls apart. They were stupid to even try it.

Blame the prosecutors for *********** it up.

Exactly! If anything it was the intense political and public pressure to get tough on the "evil illegal immigrant stereotypes" trumpeted by Trump and other conservatives that led to the unjustified prosecution over-reach. This in turn led to a correct decision by the jury- the guy did not commit murder and so he was set free. Sure he was guilty of several other serious crimes, but he was not charged with them and the jury could not conflict him of what he was not charged. He will be deported and this time I suspect for keeps.
This case illustrates the importance of keeping politics and demigod posturing out of the criminal justice system, both to avoid punishing the innocent and to avoid helping the guilty to go free.

 

[Giz]

He will be deported and this time I suspect for keeps.

Why would this deportation be any more permanent than the prior 5? This smacks of wishful thinking.

 

[PhantomWolf]

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/...cle_682ba418-cb46-11e7-833f-e3ac71aafba3.html

Prosecutor Diana Garcia has sought to prove during the trial that Garcia Zarate, who had no connection to Steinle or known motive for shooting her, pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger deliberately.

And this is where they lost the case. When you argue this you argue for Murder and leave the Jury no room for a guilty on the Negligent Homicide.

The Jury had two stories to choose from.

1) That Zarate brought the gun to the pier, pointed it at Steinle and deliberately shot her.

or

2) That Zarate found the gun at the pier and that it went off accidentally while pointed at the ground, the bullet ricocheting off the concrete and hitting Steinle unintentionally.

The Jury is there to determine the truth of each story based on the facts given to them, they aren't there to concoct a third or fourth story based on their own imaginings (it's not like they are in Italy). They had to choose if option 1 or option 2 fit the facts, and then if option 2 did, they had no other choice but to find Not Guilty.

The Prosecution screwed the pooch on this one, they argued for Murder and missed. It's like having a Full house in Poker and tossing the pair in hopes of picking up Four of a Kind, then getting beaten because your opponent has a Straight.