I have to say that I usually tell everyone to respect the jury’s findings after a trial. The jury got to see all of the evidence, and we did not. I have a much harder time doing that with the Zarate case. The jury in that case found a convicted felon not guilty of every charge involved with the killing of a young woman, with the exception of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

There was a comment on a recent post of mine, where an anonymous poster said:

Based on what I’ve read of the case, the jury verdict not to convict for murder seems correct. That the prosecution didn’t go for negligent homicide instead suggests he overreached for personal political gain.

Let’s see what we can find…

To me, the most damning piece of evidence was the security video of the shooting and its immediate aftermath:

During his testimony, video provided to him that was recorded from a distance was played for the jury. It showed Steinle falling, the suspect walking away and something splashing in the water.

So we have video of the suspect shooting the victim and then disposing of the evidence by throwing it into the ocean. The fact that he tried to conceal what happened is evidence that he knew that he had committed a crime. The suspect freely admitted that he had a firearm, he fired it (saying, “It just went off.” when he picked it up.) The firearm that he had was stolen. He is a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He admitted to both in open court. He claims he “found” the firearm lying under a bench.

He was charged with manslaughter, which is the negligent or careless actions that result in the death of another. At the very least, he should have been convicted of that. My feeling here is that he was found not guilty by reason of being a liberal avatar for Trump hate.

Also to blame is the government of California.  The victim’s family sued the state, claiming that their refusal to enforce the law (pdf warning) led directly to the killer being there to kill their daughter. A liberal California judge threw out the suit.

The result here is that a woman is dead, killed for doing nothing but walking in a tourist area. Her killer will be released, likely immediately, and criminals will continue to cross into our nation and kill our citizens.

Categories: Uncategorized


Brass · December 2, 2017 at 11:24 pm

Jury had three immigrants and everyone was in their 20s and 30s. Being that age and from San Fran, I'd be willing to bet none of them had ever even held a gun, let alone knew how to operate one. The defense hit a home run by blaming the gun.

Anonymous · December 3, 2017 at 11:36 am

Subsequently read that manslaughter/ negligent homicide WAS on the docket. WTF…..I need to stick to media with better coverage. You are correct; this was a perversion of justice. Still maintain that adding the murder charge was a stretch; not including it may have allowed the prosecution to hammer the facts. His actions resulted in her death.

Comments are closed.