Merged Woman Killed by Illegal Immigrant in San Francisco

[Giz]

In citing this info I emphasize that several studies indicate that the crime rate of undocumented immigrants in general is equal or somewhat less than that of USA citizens.

I've never seen that.

I've seen plenty of studies that legal immigrants have a lower crime rate than citizens. But that's legal, vetted, immigrants.

I've also seen a lot of studies that conflate legal and illegal immigrants. Are you sure?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've never seen that.

I've seen plenty of studies that legal immigrants have a lower crime rate than citizens. But that's legal, vetted, immigrants.

I've also seen a lot of studies that conflate legal and illegal immigrants. Are you sure?

If you count crossing the border illegally as one of those crimes like Trump is doing if ICE calling immigrants with no criminal history criminals is evidence of ....

Looking at the criticisms of the studies, there are plenty of criticisms of the criticisms. It's quite the mess to sort it all out. Counting who is in federal prison? That's not a representative sample. Counting people incarcerated, misses people deported and not charged.

The data is specious in oh so many ways. It will take a while for me to find decent source so how about you show us yours? Hopefully it's not The Hill article which describes all the flaws then uses its own flawed data.

 

[mgidm86]

Exactly!

Do these types of crimes not occur in non-sactuary cities? From what I could google undocumented immigrants have committed a broad variety of crimes, including first degree murder, in the vast portions of the USA that are not sanctuary cities. Many of these criminals were previously deported and yet were able to return. Conversely are most crimes in sanctuary cities committed by undocumented immigrants? No again. So sanctuary/non-sanctuary: there will be crime and at rates that will not be significantly different.

Even though San Francisco is a sanctuary city it is not on the border with Mexico and even more broadly as a municipality SF doesn't have any control over border crossings or international entry. ICE is not a sanctuary government organization, but is responsible for screening individuals entering the USA: it has repeatedly failed to prevent Lopez Sanchez re-entering the USA. Further there are clear exceptions in the SF sanctuary law allowing cooperation with Federal immigration officials for individuals who have committed violent or serious felonies within the prior 7 years.

In citing this info I emphasize that several studies indicate that the crime rate of undocumented immigrants in general is equal or somewhat less than that of USA citizens. And that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants protected by sanctuary cities are simply people like you and I- trying to make a good life for themselves and their children and adding to our society. Abolishing sanctuary status will not solve crime problems but will hurt many people who should not be hurt.

It doesn't matter what other crimes are committed in the rest of the country. This case got a lot of exposure because he is illegal and had been deported multiple times. It is just a single example of how poor immigration control can lead to problems. He should not have been here at all.

Among the things that slip through the immigration cracks are MS-13 gang members, drugs and human trafficking. And this guy. It's a problem that needs to be addressed. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Undocumented people can also bring in diseases, that is why we check them before handing out green cards. People want to hold anti-vax moms responsible for outbreaks yet let people from who knows where come in without being checked? Politically correct BS.

To answer a point by another poster, murder was not the only thing they charged him with. They also acquitted on an involuntary manslaughter charge. How could they charge him with possession of a firearm yet not hold him responsible for the shot fired?

Garcia Zarate said he found the stolen gun wrapped in a shirt under a chair on a pedestrian pier and that the weapon accidentally fired when he picked it up. The bullet ricocheted on the pier's concrete walkway before it struck Steinle.

His attorneys say the ricochet showed the shooting was an accident. Much of the testimony during the trial has focused on ballistics experts.

He originally said he was shooting at seals. But if it was an accident, and I agree it probably was, he should have been found guilty of something. Funny that SF could screw this one up. Funny.

 

[pgwenthold]

He originally said he was shooting at seals. But if it was an accident, and I agree it probably was, he should have been found guilty of something. Funny that SF could screw this one up. Funny.

"SF" did not screw this up. The prosecutors screwed up.

You can ask why. And the answer could be that they were under pressure from certain segments to throw the book at him, and they tried to convict him for things that were beyond what they could prove.

If the prosecutors had done their job, he would have been convicted of something more. But they didn't, so he wasn't.

That's not an immigration issue at all, except, perhaps, to try to overplay the immigration aspect.

You want to talk about immigration, talk about it. But it had nothing to do with the verdict in this case.

 

[fuelair]

It looks like he may have been acquitted because the jury doesn't know anything about guns, and jurors believed that the gun could just "go off" by itself several times if you handled it. The jurors apparently were not allowed to learn how the gun actually worked and how hard it was to cause it to fire. They were apparently not allowed to try to fire it.

That certainly did not help! I do wish they could not throw potential jurors out because they know things.

 

[fuelair]

What I find interesting is how differently everyone would approach the case if it was just some random American who picked up the gun.

I prefer if it was more how they would approach it if it was an American who had previously arrested, was not allowed to have/use a gun, but picked it up and did as the person did anyway and with the same result. In both cases I firmly believe decent jail time at a minimum and no concern if the family of the young lady later had the problem taken care of. I guess it is because of my attitude if I had a daughter and same happened to her. Would not have happened at all if the shooter had done the intelligent thing and tossed the gun into the ocean.

 

[fuelair]

Interesting spot to plant your flag on this issue, considering that term is not uncommon in explaining gun-related deaths that result in no criminal charges.

I merely note that if your finger is not on the trigger it is really, really hard to have an accidental discharge - so..........

 

[fuelair]

It doesn't matter what other crimes are committed in the rest of the country. This case got a lot of exposure because he is illegal and had been deported multiple times. It is just a single example of how poor immigration control can lead to problems. He should not have been here at all.

Among the things that slip through the immigration cracks are MS-13 gang members, drugs and human trafficking. And this guy. It's a problem that needs to be addressed. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Undocumented people can also bring in diseases, that is why we check them before handing out green cards. People want to hold anti-vax moms responsible for outbreaks yet let people from who knows where come in without being checked? Politically correct BS.

To answer a point by another poster, murder was not the only thing they charged him with. They also acquitted on an involuntary manslaughter charge. How could they charge him with possession of a firearm yet not hold him responsible for the shot fired?



He originally said he was shooting at seals. But if it was an accident, and I agree it probably was, he should have been found guilty of something. Funny that SF could screw this one up. Funny.

If he was shooting at seals I suspect a load of San Franciscans would have been after him big time!!!

 

[Civet]

What I find interesting is how differently everyone would approach the case if it was just some random American who picked up the gun.

For me, the only major difference is that I want this guy deported (again) once he's done his time. If he was an American, we'd just be stuck with him. I also tend to be more concerned about criminals having access to rehabilitation resources if they're going to remain in the country after being released.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Undocumented people can also bring in diseases, that is why we check them before handing out green cards. People want to hold anti-vax moms responsible for outbreaks yet let people from who knows where come in without being checked? Politically correct BS.

This must be the latest ignorant garbage being amplified by the alt-right since it came up in another thread. It's patently false and if you had the most basic knowledge in public health you'd know that.

With the exception of the politically motivated, not disease control motivated requirement people with HIV aren't supposed to immigrate here, the only disease immigrants are checked for is TB. And guess what, that's the nature of TB, not the nature of immigration. We also test a number of populations for TB that have nothing to do with immigration. Illegal immigrants are by no means the people perpetuating the TB problem in the US, poverty and homelessness is.

We don't check tourists or other travelers for any diseases. There have been temporary events like checking people arriving by air for SARS and concern about people coming from West Africa during their ebola epidemic. None of that had anything to do with illegal immigration being an issue with these diseases.

You really should get your facts straight before spreading this lie further.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"SF" did not screw this up. The prosecutors screwed up.....

Or maybe the defense actually had a case.

Beyond reasonable doubt should not vary based on political propaganda or dislike for an accused person.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I merely note that if your finger is not on the trigger it is really, really hard to have an accidental discharge - so..........

But not impossible. People drop guns that then go off.

Accidental discharge

On occasion, an accidental discharge can occur by means other than the finger pulling the trigger, such as dropping a loaded weapon. Because of this possibility, most currently produced pistols are designed with a "drop-safety" or firing pin block, a mechanism inhibiting or isolating the firing pin, preventing accidental discharge if the firearm is dropped. However, most long guns do not have drop-safeties. ...

Accidental discharges not involving trigger-pull can also occur if the firearm is mechanically unsound: poor maintenance, abuse, inept "gunsmithing," or the use of substandard materials or defective ammunition in the gun may all lead to breakage.

And there is this: Sig Sauer issues voluntary recall after unintentional discharge wounds officer

“Recent events indicate that dropping the P320 beyond U.S. standards for safety may cause an unintentional discharge,” Sig Sauer said in a statement. “As a result of input from law enforcement, government and military customers, SIG has developed a number of enhancements in function, reliability, and overall safety including drop performance. SIG SAUER is offering these enhancements to its customers. Details of this program will be available at sigsauer.com on Monday, August 14, 2017.”...

Officer Sheperis’ lawsuit also included 11 other instances where Sig Sauer firearms were alleged to experience unintentional discharges due to dropping.

But that is not the same gun as the one in this case.

However, the defense said the discharge was accidental, not that it occurred when the gun was dropped.
Gun in Kate Steinle killing designed to prevent accidental discharges, expert testifies

“If this gun was dropped, the only way for it to discharge is if something pulled the trigger during the dropping of the gun,” Smith said.

But Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said that the gun could have discharged on accident when Garcia Zarate found it on the pier wrapped up in something like clothing.

The prosecutor needs to prove intent for the jury to convict Garcia Zarate on second-degree murder.

“I’m not saying that it’s impossible that his finger caused it,” Gonzalez told reporters outside the courtroom. “But it’s also possible that in the movement of whatever this was wrapped in, the fabric was also in there and being pulled back.”

The bullet trajectory was down toward the ground, not consistent with shooting at a seal (police interrogation resulted in that misinformation) or at anyone on the pier.

 

[Ranb]

Fine, call it negligent discharge.

Of course I will. Calling it an accident is sugar coating the actions of a person who caused the death of another person. Since when was this forum in favor of this kind of thing when it came to the irresponsible use of guns?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Of course I will. Calling it an accident is sugar coating the actions of a person who caused the death of another person. Since when was this forum in favor of this kind of thing when it came to the irresponsible use of guns?

I can't answer for anyone else but I am completely capable of using the term accidental discharge without it imparting a connotation on a person that committed the accidental discharges.

 

[pgwenthold]

Of course I will. Calling it an accident is sugar coating the actions of a person who caused the death of another person. Since when was this forum in favor of this kind of thing when it came to the irresponsible use of guns?

The current discussion in this thread is in regards to the verdict of the trial. In that respect, whether it is called accidental or negligent is irrelevant. The prosecution made a case for murder, and they couldn't prove it. As such, the jury acquitted.

If the prosecution had made a case for negligent homocide, then we could argue negligence vs accidental and it would matter. And they probably could have gotten a conviction.

 

[Ranb]

The current discussion in this thread is in regards to the verdict of the trial. In that respect, whether it is called accidental or negligent is irrelevant. The prosecution made a case for murder, and they couldn't prove it. As such, the jury acquitted.

If the prosecution had made a case for negligent homocide, then we could argue negligence vs accidental and it would matter. And they probably could have gotten a conviction.

I understand what you're saying. I've served on six juries and have seen both good, bad and non existent prosecution/defense. My "sugar coating" comment was directed as some of the people posting in this thread. An accidental discharge could be a result of conditions beyond the control of the person involved; a negligent discharge is not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand what you're saying. I've served on six juries and have seen both good, bad and non existent prosecution/defense. My "sugar coating" comment was directed as some of the people posting in this thread. An accidental discharge could be a result of conditions beyond the control of the person involved; a negligent discharge is not.

While you post with certainly the discharge was negligent, and you posted evidence accidental discharge wasn't likely, you are ignoring the following facts:

Beyond reasonable of doubt is the level that must be met.

The defense put forth a scenario in which the gun went off while it was still wrapped in the cloth/tee shirt.​

Even if you show the gun would not fire if dropped, can you show it is impossible for the cloth to be pushed into the trigger?

There is no evidence Zarate was playing with the gun with his finger on the trigger. There are some videos and none shows Zarate with the gun. They do show him leaving shortly after the gun was fired.

I think he was guilty of not stopping to render aid or to stick around to help. He did throw the gun in the water and left in a hurry. But it is understandable why he would be afraid to hang around. They did charge him with being in possession of the firearm and that makes sense given he had to be in possession of it to throw it into the water.

 

[Ranb]

A pistol that is discharged while held in the hand does so because the trigger is pulled. It is extremely rare that something else causes the gun to discharge. As far as I know no one in court has suggested that the gun discharged while the defendant was not holding it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A pistol that is discharged while held in the hand does so because the trigger is pulled. It is extremely rare that something else causes the gun to discharge. As far as I know no one in court has suggested that the gun discharged while the defendant was not holding it.

So, as expected, you ignore what was presented to the jury and the legal burden of proof to repeat your confirmed-bias belief about what happened.

Try again: Is it possible to pick up something inside of a cloth/tee shirt without knowing what is inside at first?

Is it possible with a gun model that has multiple records of either accidental or inadvertent discharge to have the material it is wrapped in bunched up against the trigger which results in inadvertent pressure against the trigger?

 

[Ranb]

What your saying was actual testimony?