December 14, 2017

San Francisco – Kate Steinle’s Killer Walks

A San Francisco jury has acquitted Jose Garcia Zarate, the illegal migrant accused of killing Kate Steinle as she walked with her father on a crowded San Francisco pier in 2015. He was acquitted of all charges except for felony possession of a firearm. The penalty for that offense is a potential sentence of 16 months to 3 years. Since the judge, Samuel Feng ruled that Zarate’s time served will count against any sentence, what this means in effect is that Kate Steinle’s killer walks. He’ll serve little or no jail time.

Kate Steinle on the other hand got the death penalty. And her loved ones get to serve a life sentence every time they think of her and how cruelly her life was snuffed out.

I have to admit I suspected something like this, since I’ve been following the case. Here’s why.

Zarate is a four time felon, and felony possession of a firearm is a federal offense. This case should have been tried in a federal court. The reason it wasn’t? Remember, California is a sanctuary state for illegal migrants. The state refused to give him over to federal authorities after he was arrested because they claimed it would violate the laws of San Francisco and the State of California.

The second reason is because while Zarate was being tried, the real culprit on trial was the state of California’s sanctuary policies. They had to be defended at all costs. Let’s not forget
that the only reason Zarate was on the San Francisco pier that day was because local authorities who had him in custody for drug offenses refused to hold him for deportation after ICE requested it. They simply let him go.

READ  The Bookworm Beat 12/9/17 -- the illustrated edition and open thread

In California, the encouraging and sanctioning of illegal migrants is important politically.

Compared to that, Kate Steinle, really, was just an inconvenience, a problem to be disposed of. And it’s also fairly obvious that the defense and the prosecution were colluding and working together to get today’s verdict.

The first sign of this was the prosecution charging Zarate with murder, rather than manslaughter or even involuntary manslaughter. Murder implies that what happened to Kate Steinle was deliberate and planned. It was a ridiculously easy charge for the defense to knock down in front of the jury. After all, as they pointed out, Zarate had no motive to murder Kate Steinle, did he? And the shot that killed her was a ricochet off the pier walkway, wasn’t it?

Either the prosecutor was deliberately chosen because he was either inexperienced or not overly bright, or he was told by his superiors to do this. There’s no other explanation.

We’re also being told by the usual suspects not to second guess the jury who heard all the evidence. But who chose that jury? And who decided what evidence they heard?

In court trials, jurors are chosen by a process known as voir dire, where jurors are asked questions to discern whether they might have biased opinions or experience that might render them unable to come up with a fair verdict. And each attorney is allowed to exclude a certain number of potential jurors form the jury for any reason they want. So the lawyers picked this jury and since they both essentially were going fop rth esame verdict, they almost certainly constructed it withthat verdict in mind. They also decided what evidence the jury got to hear.

READ  Did the Kate Steinle prosecutor argue for a felony murder conviction?

For instance, Zarate’s defense was that he ‘found’ this gun picked it up and it went off accidentally.

Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that they just don’t ‘go off’ when you pick them up. You have to pull the trigger.

The gun in question was a P239, stolen from the Bureau of Land Management.It isn’t the sort of item you find laying around on a public walkway. And it has 10 lb trigger pull in dual action and 4 lb in single action. A gun with those stats doesn’t just ‘go off.’

You have to pull the trigger.

I doubt the jury got to hear that information from the prosecutor.

This by itself, of course doesn’t prove murder. I doubt Zarate intended to kill Kate Steinle, any more than a drunk driver intends to kill anyone. But that doesn’t relieve Zarate of responsibility for manslaughter. Or California of being what amounts to an accessory

Kate Steinle’s killer walks, thanks to the State of California. In the end, this is going to cost them dearly.

Rob Miller

 

 

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications.

Follow him on Twitter here and on Facebook here.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply