Illegal Immigrant exercises White Privilege

[Superman]

https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesm...einle-found-not-guilty-oRut_T7xu02PXpC6A-0pVA

Despite knowing that Jose Garcia Zarate fatally shot Kate Steinle, a jury just declared he was not guilty.


5-Time-Deported Illegal Who Fatally Shot Kate Steinle Found Not Guilty

San Francisco, CA - A jury decided on Thursday that Jose Garcia Zarate was not guilty for the fatal shooting of Kate Steinle in July 2015.

The case received national attention because Garcia Zarate was an illegal immigrant who had been previously deported five times, and he admitted that he fired the gun.

The incident happened as Steinle, 32, walked on a pier with her father and a friend, according to CNN.

As she was walking, she was fatally shot in the back by a .40 caliber bullet, which tore through her abdominal aorta.

Surveillance video showed Garcia Zarate fleeing the scene. He was later arrested and gunshot residue was found on this hands.

Prosecutors said that he was playing his own "secret version of Russian roulette" as he deliberately fired into a crowd with a stolen firearm.

Garcia Zarate admitted to police that he had fired the gun, but claimed that he was aiming at a seal. In different accounts, he also claimed that he had found the gun wrapped up in a cloth and that it accidentally discharged as he unwrapped it.

He also claimed that he had just stepped on the gun, causing it to fire.

Prosecutors said that, immediately after the shooting, Garcia Zarate threw the gun into the bay before fleeing.

Despite this evidence, a jury declined to convict him of first degree murder or involuntary manslaughter, and only found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

In addition to being a five-times-deported Mexican national, Garcia Zarate had just been released by the sanctuary city of San Francisco, who refused to turn him over to immigration authorities.

Do you think that San Francisco's sanctuary city status affected the jury's view on Garcia Zarate? We'd like to hear from you. Please let us know in the comments.

 

[Buster]

I hope his next 12 victims are the jury members. Only in Cali could you find 12 bleeding heart morons to reach this verdict.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Funny the California Libtards aren't so anti-gun when an illegal shoots a white person. Let a white person shoot an illegal though and they'll bring back the death penalty.

 

[IndySteel]

The Department of Justice filed an arrest warrant for Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, the illegal immigrant acquitted Thursday in Kate Steinle’s murder trial.





Winning!

 

[Steelr4evr]

I would take him back to the border,put two in the back of his head and drop him off... oops I was shooting at a cactus.

 

[Superman]

i see none of our illegal immigrant champions are posting in this. weird.

 

[Troglodyte]

Only in Cali could you find 12 bleeding heart morons to reach this verdict.

The Florida jury that acquitted Casey Anthony disagrees.

 

[Troglodyte]

i see none of our illegal immigrant champions are posting in this. weird.

Even if you buy the defense’s case, how is it not at least involuntary manslaughter?

 

[SCSteeler4life]

Even if you buy the defense’s case, how is it not at least involuntary manslaughter?

Mexican in California= get out of jail free card

 

[Steeltime]

Even if you buy the defense’s case, how is it not at least involuntary manslaughter?

It is manslaughter, and not a close call. We have all heard of the "felony murder rule," providing that any death stemming from one of the designated felonies (rape, robbery, arson, burglary, kidnapping) will constitute murder.

A lesser-known rule is generally termed the "misdemeanor-manslaughter" rule. That rule provides that for inherently dangerous misdemeanors, such as drunk driving or negligent use of a firearm among many others, a death stemming from the crime constitutes manslaughter. California's jury instruction on this issue provides:

580.Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense (Pen. Code, § 192(b))
When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill and does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.
The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk.
An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder. An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter. The defendant committed involuntary manslaughter if:
1. The defendant committed (a crime/ [or] a lawful act in an unlawful manner);
2. The defendant committed the (crime/ [or] act) with criminal negligence;
AND
3. The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person.
[The People allege that the defendant committed the following crime:
<insert misdemeanor/infraction)/noninherently dangerous (felony/felonies)>.
[The People [also] allege that the defendant committed the following lawful act with criminal negligence: <insert act
alleged>.]
Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:
1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;
AND
2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.
In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person
would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.
[An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without
the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In
deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence.]
[There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is
more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only factor that causes the death.]
Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.
[The People allege that the defendant committed the following (crime/[and] lawful act with criminal negligence): <insert alleged predicate acts when multiple acts alleged>. You may not find the defendant guilty unless all of you agree that the People have proved that the defendant committed at least one of these alleged acts and you all agree that the same act or acts were proved.]

In order to prove murder or voluntary manslaughter, the People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with intent to kill or with conscious disregard for human life. If the People have not met either of these burdens, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder and not guilty of voluntary

Arguably, waving a loaded gun around, "pointing it at a seal," dropping the loaded gun, stepping on the loaded gun, etc. all constitute a "conscious disregard for human life." At an absolute minimum, the dude's acted in a way that created a grave risk of harm.

 

[Buster]

The Florida jury that acquitted Casey Anthony disagrees.

While I agree she was guilty, from what I know, the evidence was not as obvious.

 

[Superman]

Even if you buy the defense’s case, how is it not at least involuntary manslaughter?

you tell me, manbun. these are your people. the very same ones who share your morality and virtues.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Arguably, waving a loaded gun around, "pointing it at a seal," dropping the loaded gun, stepping on the loaded gun, etc. all constitute a "conscious disregard for human life." At an absolute minimum, the dude's acted in a way that created a grave risk of harm.

You’d think CA would at least give him the death penalty for shooting at a sea lion.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

you tell me, manbun. these are your people. the very same ones who share your morality and virtues.

Justice and the law don't matter. What was important was to extend a middle finger to Trump and show him that illegal immigrants are good, even if they shoot Americans.

 

[Troglodyte]

you tell me, manbun. these are your people. the very same ones who share your morality and virtues.

As your immoral majority proves that having turned a blind eye to child molesting priests has made it easier to turn a blind eye to child molesting politicians, you want to preach morality and virtue? Save it for your God.

 

[Superman]

As your immoral majority proves that having turned a blind eye to child molesting priests has made it easier to turn a blind eye to child molesting politicians, you want to preach morality and virtue? Save it for your God.

My God? You simple-minded fool. I’m not exactly the church going type. Not that I have never been, nor do I shun those who do, it’s just not my thing for very personal reasons. I’ve openly expressed my views on religion, which may run counter to what a large portion of this board believes. However, unlike shitheels such as yourself, I won’t belittle people who practice Christianity or any other actual religion. I draw the line at accepting Islam as an actual religion, too.

But, back to the topic, why does your side - your Californians - have so much disdain for YOUR President that they release a felon for shooting a fellow Californian? Why did your side let him loose? Can you answer that, Flog?

 

[Troglodyte]

My God? You simple-minded fool. I’m not exactly the church going type. Not that I have never been, nor do I shun those who do, it’s just not my thing for very personal reasons. I’ve openly expressed my views on religion, which may run counter to what a large portion of this board believes. However, unlike shitheels such as yourself, I won’t belittle people who practice Christianity or any other actual religion. I draw the line at accepting Islam as an actual religion, too.

But, back to the topic, why does your side - your Californians - have so much disdain for YOUR President that they release a felon for shooting a fellow Californian? Why did your side let him loose? Can you answer that, Flog?

You simple minded fool. I never said you were religious, I inferred the immoral majority were your people just as you claim 12 people in California I’ve never met are mine. I don’t belittle all Christians, just the hypocrites that are putting authority figures or political agendas before victims.

Trump was the Mark Furman of this verdict. I don’t agree with it, but had he acted presidential, the defense never would have been able to use his rhetoric as a basis of their theory.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Trump was the Mark Furman of this verdict. I don’t agree with it, but had he acted presidential, the defense never would have been able to use his rhetoric as a basis of their theory.

But they're idiots because one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

 

[Troglodyte]

But they're idiots because one doesn't have anything to do with the other

Trump specifically referred to the case as an example of the illegal immigration problem, so it had at least something to do with it. There’s nothing that prevents idiots from serving on a jury, but there is a right to a “jury of your peers”, so you have verdicts like this and OJs.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Trump specifically referred to the case as an example of the illegal immigration problem, so it had at least something to do with it. There’s nothing that prevents idiots from serving on a jury, but there is a right to a “jury of your peers”, so you have verdicts like this and OJs.

But according to the law he was guilty of involuntary manslaughter at the very least. However a jury of Libtard Californians wanted to say "Neener, neener, neener" to Trump, justice and the law be damned.
Just remember, you reap what you sow.

 

[MTC]

Cali is so liberal-guilt.
It's insane. The most vile scumbag can get away with a ton cause the residents will find something on him to feel sorry

 

[Superman]

Trump specifically referred to the case as an example of the illegal immigration problem, so it had at least something to do with it. There’s nothing that prevents idiots from serving on a jury, but there is a right to a “jury of your peers”, so you have verdicts like this and OJs.

since we've determined that this guy DID kill her and should have had at the least involuntary manslaughter charges applied, could you please tell the class how this fuckup could have shot the American citizen if he had not been in the country?

 

[Steeltime]

since we've determined that this guy DID kill her and should have had at the least involuntary manslaughter charges applied, could you please tell the class how this fuckup could have shot the American citizen if he had not been in the country?

He's a dreamer. Dreaming of sponging off public assistance, selling drugs, and killing a few people, granted, but still a dreamer.