Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
aztek

Jury acquits illegal immigrant

460 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77
1 minute ago, susieice said:

Yes. He was breaking the law by being where he should not be. If he had not been there, he would not have picked up the gun. 

Ok so you would hold an American teenager who broke curfew to the same standard. I might disagree but I cant be mad at intellectual consistency. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Ok so you would hold an American teenager who broke curfew to the same standard. I might disagree but I cant be mad at intellectual consistency. 

The difference is, an American teenager would at least belong in the country. He's breaking the law by being out after curfew. If he was obeying the law, he would not be there to find the gun.

The defendant in this case didn't even belong in the US. He broke the law by sneaking across the border even though immigration had repeatedly deported him. He shouldn't have been in the country and that wasn't an accident. He shouldn't have picked up the gun either, but how it went off is something where I have a problem deciding if I believe his story.

I will say, the gun should never have been left there either for him to find.

Edited by susieice
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Immigration is looking to deport Zarate again on release. It is questionable if he stole the gun or found it, like his defense attorney said. Was the gun not traced by it's serial number? Will see if I can find the answer. Anyhow, Zarate has a criminal record in the US and had just gotten out of prison 3 months before the shooting.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362718-us-immigration-officials-will-deport-undocumented-immigrant-acquitted

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
griss47

So, which was it?  Did he find the gun wrapped in a T-Shirt at the pier or did he steal it?  It can't be both and I don't recall seeing anything about officials recovering the gun.  If they haven't recovered the gun, how do they know it belonged to an officer?  Maybe I missed something in the news reports I saw on TV and read online.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Immigration was already looking for Zarate for his 6th deportation because of felony drug charges. The jury did find him guilty of possession of a weapon by a felon. 

This was not a good guy looking for a better life. They will be looking for custody after the sentencing or when he is released. If he gets time served waiting for trial it won't be long. How much you want to bet he comes back again?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/us/kate-steinle-killing-verdict/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Why are you saying that? A jury of his peers found him innocent. 

Right, but how much faith can we put in the ruling if the jury was not told all the pertinent facts such as his prior deportations? See below:

Quote

In order for the defense to prevail, they had to argue that Zarate simply found the gun lying around, picked it up like an idiot, and then accidentally fired the gun; afterward, he threw the gun in the bay because the noise scared him. That’s not believable in the slightest. In fact, the jury even acknowledged that Zarate was guilty of felony possession of the firearm, which had been stolen days before from a federal agent. It's hard to imagine why he committed a crime in possessing the firearm but not in firing it recklessly.

The verdict is also irrelevant to the general question as to whether Zarate should have been in the country at all. It is insane that Zarate had been deported five times, and that if he had been an American citizen subject to California’s legal system, he would have been in prison rather than on release; California has a three strikes law, so repeat felons are subject to longer sentencing.

Note the gun was stolen, not simply "lying around" as a result of Police negligence. There's your comment on the firearms aspect of this case.

Also note that ICE had requested custody of Garcia prior to the shooting but he was sheltered by a "Sanctuary City" law. I can't believe he was fully acquitted. This case fits the definition of "involuntary manslaughter" to the letter. I believe the ruling was meant to be more of a political statement that a just and honest verdict. 

Edited by Dark_Grey
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
8 minutes ago, griss47 said:

So, which was it?  Did he find the gun wrapped in a T-Shirt at the pier or did he steal it?  It can't be both and I don't recall seeing anything about officials recovering the gun.  If they haven't recovered the gun, how do they know it belonged to an officer?  Maybe I missed something in the news reports I saw on TV and read online.

Here's the controversy. The gun was stolen several days before the shooting from a car owned by an FBI agent. Zarate's attorney says he found the gun wrapped in a t-shirt on the pier. Looking to see if I can post the video of the shooting that was shown in court. May be graphic.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kate-steinle-murder-trial-agent-testified-he-secured-gun-that-was-later-used-in-shooting/

Edited by susieice
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Dark_Grey said:

Right, but how much faith can we put in the ruling if the jury was not told all the pertinent facts such as his prior deportations? See below:

Prejudicial information which isn't relevant to the case shouldn't be introduced in court. Him being an illegal immigrant was not relevant to the case. 

I know Trump hit a home run with his base by that tweet but don't forget that every law that gets bent or changed in order to punish those you disagree with can be used against you or those you agree with when the political tables turn, as they always do. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

This article is about the surveillance video of Zarate taken from a fire station.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kate-steinle-murder-trial-video-footage-of-suspect-shown-in-court/

I may not be right that the FBI agent lost a gun. This link says it's a BLM agent.

My bad. It was BLM.

Edited by susieice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

This case fits the definition of "involuntary manslaughter" to the letter. I believe the ruling was meant to be more of a political statement that a just and honest verdict. 

I would agree with you if he had carried the gun to the pier that day, IDK that this guys story which the jury seemed to believe, fits the definition of involuntary manslaughter.  

Not being in the jury room its a little hard to say whether I personally believe or disbelieve his story. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

I am skeptical that a jury- even a liberal one, would find a true murderer not guilty simply because of his immigration status.  The big issue with this case was the fact that it was publicized towards a specific political agenda.  The outrage is stemming more from the fact that the verdict didn't match the agenda more than any concern of whether justice was truly served. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I am skeptical that a jury- even a liberal one, would find a true murderer not guilty simply because of his immigration status.  The big issue with this case was the fact that it was publicized towards a specific political agenda.  The outrage is stemming more from the fact that the verdict didn't match the agenda more than any concern of whether justice was truly served. 

The agenda was San Francisco's sanctuary city status. This was an illegal who was repeatedly deported by Immigration for crimes committed in the US. He was just released from prison 3 months before the shooting and was wanted by Immigration for felony drug charges. If they want to protect people like this, city officials need to accept the responsibility when more crimes are committed. It should not be that poor victim and her family. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, susieice said:

The agenda was San Francisco's sanctuary city status. This was an illegal who was repeatedly deported by Immigration for crimes committed in the US. He was just released from prison 3 months before the shooting and was wanted by Immigration for felony drug charges. If they want to protect people like this, city officials need to accept the responsibility when more crimes are committed. It should not be that poor victim and her family. 

I'm confused.  I wasn't aware he was on trial for all that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

In terms of jurisprudence, Justice was served. 

However, in terms of the 'big picture', I can't imagine the family and friends of Kate Steinle thinking that Justice was served. 

The "system" has just created a rod for its own back. Future juries will remember this case, and it may well influence future verdicts on anyone who looks Mexican. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, RoofGardener said:

In terms of jurisprudence, Justice was served. 

However, in terms of the 'big picture', I can't imagine the family and friends of Kate Steinle thinking that Justice was served. 

 

Eh, there's a reason why the lady wears a blindfold.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I'm confused.  I wasn't aware he was on trial for all that?

He was wanted for all that and protected by a sanctuary city policy that refused to co-operate with Immigration. If a city wants to protect someone like that, they will have to accept the responsibility of whatever that person may do. Read the links posted. They are clear. This woman and her family paid the price. I would have words with San Francisco if I were them.

Edited by susieice
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
On 12/2/2017 at 7:39 AM, susieice said:

That's the problem.

 

On 12/2/2017 at 7:57 AM, Mr.United_Nations said:

If youre guilty of a previous crime then you"ll never be innocent.

 

Once a cheat always be a cheat

There's a concept in law you might have heard of. Innocent until proven guilty. 

Not innocent until proven guilty of something else. 

Not innocent until proven guilty unless he's from another country. 

And not innocent until proven guilty or the president says so. 

That concept has been the bedrock of western law for over 800 years. DON'T waste that. 

On 12/2/2017 at 9:27 AM, aztek said:

 

So you're I'm favour of intimidating the jury. That's illegal. According to the logic above you must now be guilty of encouraging all crimes. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, susieice said:

He was wanted for all that and protected by a sanctuary city policy that refused to co-operate with Immigration. If a city wants to protect someone like that, they will have to accept the responsibility of whatever that person may do. Read the links posted. They are clear. This woman and her family paid the price.

True, but he isn't the sanctuary city and he wasn't on trial for all that.

I understand what you are saying.  My point, however is that your argument is that very political agenda that this verdict didn't support and that is the true reason for your outrage.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
Just now, Setton said:

 

There's a concept in law you might have heard of. Innocent until proven guilty. 

Not innocent until proven guilty of something else. 

Not innocent until proven guilty unless he's from another country. 

And not innocent until proven guilty or the president says so. 

That concept has been the bedrock of western law for over 800 years. DON'T waste that. 

So you're I'm favour of intimidating the jury. That's illegal. According to the logic above you must now be guilty of encouraging all crimes. 

Setton, I'm sure if I repeatedly cross the border into England and commit crimes, I will be deported. If I continually do that, I will go to jail and then be deported. I don't belong there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The "system" has just created a rod for its own back. Future juries will remember this case, and it may well influence future verdicts on anyone who looks Mexican. 

I really hope we're mature enough as a nation to not go down that path again. This time around the inverse will happen depending on location and we'll have a situation where fat, rich white guys cant get a fair trial on the coasts and anyone poor or carrying a dark complexion cant get a fair trial in the heartland. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

True, but he isn't the sanctuary city and he wasn't on trial for all that.

I understand what you are saying.  My point, however is that your argument is that very political agenda that this verdict didn't support and that is the true reason for your outrage.

Wrong!!! I'm outraged because that woman and her family paid the price for a criminal to hide in a sanctuary city. Understand? All that man's crimes should have prompted San Francisco to turn him over to Immigration. They would not. That makes them responsible for what happened. The man didn't belong there. San Francisco needs to man up. If they want to shelter criminals, it's up to them, but it's also up to them to take responsibility.

Edited by susieice
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
6 minutes ago, susieice said:

Wrong!!! I'm outraged because that woman and her family paid the price for a criminal to hide in a sanctuary city. Understand? All that man's crimes should have prompted San Francisco to turn him over to Immigration. They would not. That makes them responsible for what happened. The man didn't belong there. San Francisco needs to man up. If they want to shelter criminals, it's up to them, but it's also up to them to take responsibility.

One "like" isn't enough for this!

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, susieice said:

Wrong!!! I'm outraged because that woman and her family paid the price for a criminal to hide in a sanctuary city. Understand? All that man's crimes should have prompted San Francisco to turn him over to Immigration. They would not. That makes them responsible for what happened. The man didn't belong there.

Stop and look at what you are saying and tell me, "Does that have anything to do with the trial?"

The man was found not guilty by a jury- not a sanctuary city.  You are upset because you believe he should be guilty because of his previous crimes, his legal status, and the fact that the city was a sanctuary city.  For the jury to come out and say it was an accident is contrary to your belief and that is why you are mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Stop and look at what you are saying and tell me, "Does that have anything to do with the trial?"

The man was found not guilty by a jury- not a sanctuary city.  You are upset because you believe he should be guilty because of his previous crimes, his legal status, and the fact that the city was a sanctuary city.  For the jury to come out and say it was an accident is contrary to your belief and that is why you are mad.

Thanks for that. "Innocent" and "not guilty" are 2 different things entirely, as I cringed when reading that. Obviously somebody doesn't have personal experience of the US justice system.

The rest of your post I don't agree with however. San Francisco bears responsibility IMO.

Edited by .ZZ.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

The trial should have never happened. The killing should have never happened. If San Francisco wants to accept convicted criminals and give them sanctuary, that's up to them. But they also have the responsibility for the consequences. I don't care about political agendas. Let's try common sense and decency. If you can't comprehend this I can see why everyone is upset with the left. It's written plainly and in language that is understandable. I don't need words put into my mouth for me.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.