Ethics Observations On The Acquittal Of Kate Steinle’s Illegal Immigrant Killer

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a serial illegal Mexican immigrant who had been deported five times and was wanted for a sixth deportation, shot young Kate Steinle in the back in 2016. Since this occurred shortly after Donald Trump, announcing his candidacy for President, had decried Mexico “sending us murderers” across the border, Zarate took on the role of Trump’s  Willie Horton.  Zarate admitted to the shooting, but said that he had just found the gun on the street, and fired accidentally. The jury found him not guilty on murder and manslaughter charges, but he was convicted on a gun charge.

Ethics Observations:

The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!…The jury was not told the killer of Kate was a 7 time felon. The Schumer/Pelosi Democrats are so weak on Crime that they will pay a big price in the 2018 and 2020 Elections….A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration.

Ugh. The question before the jury was whether Zarate murdered Steinle, not whether immigration enforcement is too lax, not whether he was a bad guy, not what previous crimes he had committed. The verdict was no more disgraceful that O.J.’s acquittal, George Zimmerman’s acquittal, Casey Anthony’s acquittal, the acquittals in the Freddie Gray case, or any other acquittal where the prosecution does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nobody not on the jury or the courtroom has any basis or justification to attack the verdict.

The President’s comments are embarrassingly ignorant or dismissive of the basic principles of our criminal justice system.

  • Attorney General Jeff Sessionsstatement following the verdict was better, but still wrong:

“While the State of California sought a murder charge for the man who caused Ms. Steinle’s death—a man who would not have been on the streets of San Francisco if the city simply honored an ICE detainer—the people ultimately convicted him of felon in possession of a firearm.When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk. San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle. I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.”

This “but for” argument is a “Back to the Future”/”Terminator” con. The fact that it was Zarate who picked up an abandoned gun that discharged and killed Steinle—this is what the jury concluded—and not a Cub Scout, a fumble-thumbed bank teller, a stoned gay guy or Pablo Sandoval is 100% moral luck.  Yes, if Zarate was in Mexico—or Iowa—Steinle might be alive today. Or maybe not.  Also if the US gave more aid to Mexico and it wasn’t such a hell hole that its citizens keep coming here illegally, she might be alive. Maybe if Zarate’s mother had been killed by an android from the future before she met Zarate’s father…

The reason to enforce immigration laws is that they are important laws and should be enforced. Steinle’s death and Zarate’s acquittal don’t affect those facts one way or the other.

  • Public defender Francisco Ugarte didn’t cover himself with ethics glory either, saying,

“From day one, this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment a program of mass deportation. Nothing about Mr. Garcia Zarate’s ethnicity, nothing about his immigration status, nothing about the fact that he is born in Mexico had any relevance as to what happened on July 1, 2015.”

Now that’s going too far. U.S. citizens have every right and reason to hate the fact that a woman is dead by the hand of one of the millions of illegal immigrants who don’t belong here. “Foment a program of mass deportation” is a deceitful and inflammatory way of saying “to support the security of our borders” and “the integrity of our laws.” Zarata is Mexican, he had been deported five times, San Francisco believes in treating such thugs as the salt of the earth, he shouldn’t have been here, and a woman died. None of that is ‘”irrelevant.” Not a single U.S. citizen should be killed by or the victim of any crime at the hands of any illegal immigrant, from Mexico or anywhere else. Most American agree. All sane, responsible  Americans do.

  • Even worse was his co-counsel, defense attorney Matt Gonzalez, who decided to pass along some typical “resistance” style misinformation:

“For those who might criticize this verdict – there are a number of people who have commented on this case in the last couple of years; the Attorney General of the United States and the President and Vice President of the United States. Let me just remind them: they are themselves under investigation by a special prosecutor in Washington D.C. and they may soon avail themselves of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, so I ask that they reflect on that before they comment or disparage the results of this case.”

None of them are, in fact, “under investigation,” and it is annoying to hear a leftist hack like Gonzalez speak of the presumption of innocence when his party, his ideological compatriots and about 90% of San Francisco have presumed President Trump to be guilty of something nefarious without any evidence whatsoever for all of 2017. Gonzalez’s client was holding a gun when it fired and killed a young woman. That’s called “smoking gun evidence.” It wasn’t enough this time, but until the jury verdict came in, a presumption that Zarata was responsible for Kate Steinle’s death was completely reasonable, unlike “the resistance’s” assumptions based on ridiculous Facebook ads and the fact that Hillary and the Democrats had their actual corruption exposed because they had the cyber-competence of a cocker spaniel.

Gonzalez also made me gag by invoking “the rights of immigrants.” His client is an illegal immigrant, and had no right being in the country once, not to mention five times after being sent home. The context of the comment was, as are all deceitful identification of  illegal  immigrants, designed to confuse the public. Zarata had a right to a fair trial, representation by an attorney, and judgment by a jury. He does not, as San Francisco asserts, have a right to come here or stay here.

19 thoughts on “Ethics Observations On The Acquittal Of Kate Steinle’s Illegal Immigrant Killer

  1. Can Steinle’s survivors pursue civil damages? (Makes me wonder whom they might sue…)

    Is the conviction that Zarate received based on a California law that is intended to uphold the principle of “use a gun, go to jail?” (Did such a law ever pass in California? I lost track – thought it did get passed.)

    • From what I’ve read, the gun charge was simply “felon in possession of a firearm”. He could have been charged with that even if he hadn’t fired the gun.

      I’m really surprised that they couldn’t make the manslaughter charge stick. He fired the gun; Steinle died. What more is needed? I was under the impression that intent is not necessary for an involuntary manslaughter conviction.

      • Some other analyses I’ve read, suggest that the prosecutors hammered on the Murder charge too hard (particularly in closing arguments) and may not have sufficiently explained/convinced the jury on the viability of Manslaughter. The speculation is that they thought making Manslaughter sound too attractive might cause the jury to reject Murder and take the Manslaughter route instead, but making the jury feel that acquittal or Murder conviction were the only options would prompt them to convict on the higher charge.

        If true, then the strategic decision backfired. Whether you consider that mere moral luck on the result of a calculated strategy, a failure of the system to convict a criminal, or just desserts to a greedy prosecutor, probably depends on your opinion of prosecutors pursuing the highest possible conviction as their goal as opposed to presenting all plausible charges equally for a jury’s decision.

  2. “..Zarate took on the role of Trump’s Willy Horton. ”

    For the record, it was spelled “Willie” and he was never known by that name outside of the news media. In fact, he hated that he’d been labelled with it after the controversy.

    • I think there’s a difference between using that argument to take away the Constitutional rights of citizens and using it to enforce the law.

    • No, that’s different. The rationalization is “This is worth doing if it saves one life” This is “This should be done, and even one life lost because it isn’t is too many.”

      Big difference.

  3. I found CNN’s coverage of the verdict fascinating. A melancholic Don Lemon, and his host of somber analysts, urged the community to respect the jury’s verdict: the evidence just did not support the crimes with which García-Zarate was charged, and even though it is hard to accept (because an innocent woman lost her life), the unfortunate price of democracy, liberty, and freedom is that, occasionally, a guilty man walks free (which does not mean García-Zarate is innocent, just that the prosecution didn’t prove its case beyond a reasonably doubt). Otherwise, we run the risk of mob rule, and our precious freedoms belong to everyone, even those charged with horrendous crimes against the community.

    I don’t recall that being the message when Officer Wilson was acquitted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.