Kate Steinle’s accused killer found not guilty

[J.Wilkins]

That’s not fair. He probably hates brown people like half as much as a real Nazi

It's not about ethnicity, it's about the Göbbels tactics that Trump used to win. We are not at fault for anything, THEY are.

 

[J.Wilkins]

you really need banned. you are wrong on everything you fucking post about, from guns, to hunting to laws in the US. calling people nazis for no reason other than you have no argument. just STFU.

I need to be banned because you are an idiot proclaiming that I'm wrong for having the wrong opinions? Sucks you can't send us to the gas chambers, doesn't it Nazi Boi.

 

[ch33zw1z]

you really need banned. you are wrong on everything you fucking post about, from guns, to hunting to laws in the US. calling people nazis for no reason other than you have no argument. just STFU.

lol, snowflake.

 

[brycejones]

you really need banned. you are wrong on everything you fucking post about, from guns, to hunting to laws in the US. calling people nazis for no reason other than you have no argument. just STFU.

It's pretty rich you calling for someone to be banned after all the bull shit you've posted over the years. If you want a safe space you should probably join Connor's forum you poor triggered snowflake.

 

[rudder]

And if it was you, would the woman be any more or less alive? Would you be any more or less responsible?

You nazi twats are so fucking transparent and don't get me wrong on this, the nazi twat part is your "he's not one of ours, therefore he is guilty" not about what ethnicity the person in question belongs to.

On the outside yeh... one could see this as an illegal immigrant witchhunt. However, this guy was deported several times. He had multiple felonies. His story about finding a gun and having it accidently go off is bullshit. If this were anywhere else other than San Francisco he would be a convicted murderer.

 

[pcgeek11]

I didn't say you cared if he was an illegal immigrant but it's pretty obvious the DOJ does.

Do you think the DOJ should step up and start prosecuting some of the police officers who have been acquitted recently? Some of those seem to be pretty grave injustices.

It is very possible that they should. I would stand behind it if there was injustice yes.

 

[woolfe9998]

According to the jury it was a good shoot. I also learned today that you can't murder someone with a ricochet. I guess all those Las Vegas victims that were killed by ricochets weren't actually murdered, they must have committed some kind of suicide like Kate Steinle did by walking into the path of a ricochet.

If there's an intent to kill, then you could murder someone by ricochet. Murder requires the element of intent. Intent was present in Vegas, not here.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yea I am bit surprised he didn't get convicted of manslaughter. That is what I would have voted for. Guns don't just "go off". You have to put your finger on the trigger and pull. I have never put my finger inside the trigger guard unless I intended to fire (and this includes unloaded weapons). I believe putting your finger inside the trigger guard is a negligent act and you should then be criminally liable for accidental discharge.

I would not be opposed to every accidental discharge ending in death being prosecuted as manslaughter. It sure would help put a muzzle on the gun nutters.

As crazy as this may sound I agree with you 100% on this.

 

[pcgeek11]

Look at the email I just received.😱 These guys just don't waste any time.

Sniped

Thanks for the link!

 

[Jaskalas]

How the fuck does a gun go off three times by "accident?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Steinle#Investigation

"Garcia Zarate said that the gun went off three times when he picked it up."​

Wow... so he really did pull the trigger multiple times. And why is he firing a gun in a public crowd if not intending to kill someone, as he happened to do? The three shots sells me on murder charges unless a gun expert is willing to testify that such faulty !@#$ actually happens on a single "accidental" press.

 

[deathBOB]

On the outside yeh... one could see this as an illegal immigrant witchhunt. However, this guy was deported several times. He had multiple felonies. His story about finding a gun and having it accidently go off is bullshit. If this were anywhere else other than San Francisco he would be a convicted murderer.

There is no doubt he found the gun. There was tape of the people who stole it hiding it.

 

[Jaskalas]

So now we are adding new things into it. I haven't read anything about the weapon being defective.

Experts at the trail testified that the gun was normal, not defective.

 

[sandorski]

"Garcia Zarate said that the gun went off three times when he picked it up."​

Wow... so he really did pull the trigger multiple times. And why is he firing a gun in a public crowd if not intending to kill someone, as he happened to do? The three shots sells me on murder charges unless a gun expert is willing to testify that such faulty !@#$ actually happens on a single "accidental" press.

Does the gun have Burst Fire?

 

[pcgeek11]

Does the gun have Burst Fire?

No, it does not.

 

[woolfe9998]

This is not based on any legal precedent that I am aware of. Are you claiming that firing a gun at a seal (so presumably at the water, basically) is sufficient recklessness to make someone guilty of involuntary manslaughter by definition? Does that basically mean that any time someone fires a gun they are placing themselves at risk of this conviction?

If not, it comes down to who you believe.

OK, I'll clarify this here. The aspect of CA manslaughter law that PCGeek is referring to here is similar to the felony murder rule. You could even call it "the misdemeanor manslaughter rule." Like felony murder, there has to be a causal link between the underlying crime and the person's death. Causation under the law must be both factual and proximate. Factual cause is a simple "but for" test. But for his illegal possession of the gun, the victim wouldn't have died. We seem to have that here. Proximate causation, however, requires that there be no unforeseeable supervening events in between the illegal act and the person's death. So, for example, if a drunk homeless man bumped into the defendant while he was holding the gun, and this caused the discharge, he might be able to argue a lack of proximate causation. But if he was horsing around with that gun, and discharged it however accidentally, then it's going to be manslaughter.

These two theories of manslaughter, the illegal act theory and the reckless conduct theory, may overlap to some extent, but they aren't exactly the same. If you have committed an underlying crime, the state doesn't have to show so much in terms of how negligent you were. All they have to show is that there wasn't something unforeseen and unexpected which caused the death.

PCGeek is incorrect to conclude that there is no possible defense here, but it's also true that it's much harder to defend against the charge when you have the illegal act.

Caveat: I know very little about the facts of this case, and am not offering an opinion on the jury's verdict.

 

[werepossum]

Intentionally shoot/kill someone due to perceived threat + allowed to Walk = God damned hero!
Accidentally shoot and ricochet kills a bystander + allowed to Walk = RAGE!!!

Murica

Face it, his Immigrant status was/is all that matters here.

Certainly his immigration status was all that mattered to the jury. If a law abiding NRA member had killed an innocent woman with a ricochet they'd be inventing new levels of homicide for which to convict him.

 

[werepossum]

My sarcasm detector is screaming like a little bitch with a spider in her hair.

lol +1

 

[werepossum]

If you took this exact same situation and replaced an illegal immigrant with a police officer conservatives would be perfectly happy with the verdict.

Some of us would be so incredibly far right as to actually imply that a police officer might possibly have a right to go armed that a five time-deported illegal alien felon doesn't have, if you can believe that.

tl/dr: Dumbass

 

[werepossum]

How the fuck does a gun go off three times by "accident?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Steinle#Investigation

Simple. The first two didn't hit her.

 

[Zaap]

"Garcia Zarate said that the gun went off three times when he picked it up."​

Wow... so he really did pull the trigger multiple times. And why is he firing a gun in a public crowd if not intending to kill someone, as he happened to do? The three shots sells me on murder charges unless a gun expert is willing to testify that such faulty !@#$ actually happens on a single "accidental" press.

There's so many conflicting BS statements of this guy.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html

Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier. He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged.
But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.

He told police that he stepped on the gun, causing it to fire.
Prosecutors said Garcia Zarate immediately tried to cover his tracks by throwing the gun into the San Francisco Bay, then fleeing the scene.

So he's claimed it was an accident, that he actually AIMED and fired it, stepped on it and it went off, and on and on...

Any way you slice it, he's lying about what he did with the gun- but why would he lie about aiming and firing it?

I guess we're supposed to buy a gun went off accidentally multiple different times- from being unwrapped and stepped on and even put down still firing completely on its own (!) (another ridculous claim of this guy) vs. being fired intentionally or absent-mindedly, but still willfully pulling the trigger.

Murder was probably never going to be proved in this case, but I've seen where even ultra-left leaning liberal rags in San Francisco have the honesty to admit he should have gotten involuntary manslaughter.

 

[Jaskalas]

Simple. The first two didn't hit her.

Evidence at trial suggested it was a ricochet that hit and killed her. So it stands to reason that she was not directly targeted.

I just cannot wrap my head around 3 accidental shots. This is a murder the people of California approved of.

 

[werepossum]

Firing a weapon at a body of water is negligent if it ricochets off and kills someone I could see where it could be used as a basis for involuntary manslaughter. It would be very much like the dumbass that killed a woman walking her dog late evening when he mistook her for a deer.

This is pre-Internet so it might be hard to find, but there was a woman killed while driving along California's coastal highway who was killed by a ricochet off water. A policeman driving behind her noticed her car gradually drifting right until it bumped up against a concrete barrier. When it finally stalled, he ran to check on the driver and found her dead, without a mark on her. An autopsy revealed cause of death to be a thirty caliber rifle bullet which entered behind her left ear, causing instant death. The long bullet and low velocity did not penetrate fully into her brain, which coupled with the instant death and drop in blood pressure led to no discernable bleeding, and her long blond hair effectively hid the entry until the autopsy. I read a very interesting long article while sitting in a doctor's office about the search to find her killer, which was extremely difficult since they did not even know where she had been killed. They eventually identified the killer as a man who had been target shooting his Enfield at floating jugs in the ocean. He was firing out toward open water, but the curvature of the coastline meant that the bullet's path crossed the highway almost three miles away IIRC. The bullet entered an open rear window and instantly killed the victim. It took several months and a massive amount of police resources, but they did eventually find the shooter and charged him with involuntary homicide. (Presumably he wasn't a member of a protected victim class.)

 

[werepossum]

Second hand bullets.

lol +1

 

[sdifox]

Everyone on AT P&N knows it was actually the gun's fault. It is always the gun's fault.

She was smoking. Do you know how many people die from second hand smoke?

 

[werepossum]

Evidence at trial suggested it was a ricochet that hit and killed her. So it stands to reason that she was not directly targeted.

I just cannot wrap my head around 3 accidental shots. This is a murder the people of California approved of.

Or he just aimed too low. That IS what they teach you in infantry school: Aim low, so that if you miss you might still get a hit with a ricochet. (Although I believe the actual reason for this advice is that people under stress tend to shoot high.)