Illegal immigrant acquitted of murder of Cal Poly grad

December 1, 2017

Kate Steinle

A San Francisco jury acquitted a Mexican national Thursday of murdering Cal Poly grad Kate Steinle, prompting an angry reaction from President Donald Trump and other federal officials. [Cal Coast Times]

In July 2015, Steinle, 32, was walking with her father along a pier in San Francisco when she was shot in the back and killed. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, a repeat felon who had been deported five times, then admitted to shooting Steinle.

A few months prior to the shooting, Garcia Zarate was let out of jail and allowed to stay in the United States following an arrest because San Francisco, as a sanctuary city, does not comply with federal immigration detainer orders. Steinle’s death quickly became a national controversy, and Trump repeatedly spoke out about the issue during his presidential campaign.

At trial, prosecutors argued that Garcia Zarate intentionally shot and killed Steinle. The defense argued that Garcia Zarate accidentally fired the stolen gun that was in his possession.

On Thursday, the jury acquitted Garcia Zarate of charges of murder, involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

“A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our country are so angry with illegal immigration,” Trump tweeted after the verdict was announced. “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.”

Read entire article at Cal Coast Times.







Loading...

12 Comments

  1. George Bailey says:

    He only came for a better life.

    (-8) 8 Total Votes - 0 up - 8 down
  2. Jorge Estrada says:

    If Kate was hit by a ricocheted bullet, then that trajectory should be included in every statement (big difference than being shot). I still believe that a fair trial can’t be held under the sanctuary status that San Francisco and the State of California overshadows.

    (-3) 11 Total Votes - 4 up - 7 down
  3. copperhead says:

    Democrats are still in shock that trump won the presidency. This, and other situations like it, is the reason why! Putting the lives of criminal foreigners over the lives of innocent Americans. What an absolute slap in the face to this family. I will never set foot I SF again.

    (24) 38 Total Votes - 31 up - 7 down
    • Snoid says:

      Sin city if ever there was. But that’s progressiveness. Keep moving forward until things are so FUBAR’ed from a lacking of morals or ethics, you become public enemy #1 to your own nation. The blood of this innocent woman is on the hands of the people of SF.

      (11) 15 Total Votes - 13 up - 2 down
  4. shelworth says:

    I just gotta wonder if he was a 50 year old, white male, US citizen, would the verdict have been the same?

    (24) 34 Total Votes - 29 up - 5 down
  5. laftch says:

    Clearly by admission and definition he is guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter. The State of California and more specifically the city of San Francisco are responsible for Kate’s homicide. Civil action should be pursued against both entities on grounds of negligence by not enforcing the law.

    (57) 65 Total Votes - 61 up - 4 down
  6. aft50s says:

    Shot while trying to escape.

    (27) 39 Total Votes - 33 up - 6 down
  7. sloweb says:

    From what I have read about the case, which I admit not to be extensive, it seems like the prosecution did not try very hard. As I understand at least one of them has political ambitions. Convicting the guy in SF would not be popular or helpful there.

    (30) 44 Total Votes - 37 up - 7 down
  8. c.d.cox says:

    Try the pos for a felon in possion of a weapon.

    (11) 13 Total Votes - 12 up - 1 down
  9. Jorge Estrada says:

    In a sanctuary city and sanctuary state, how would an illegal alien get a fare trial? I believe it should have been moved to a non-prejudice state.

    (-5) 55 Total Votes - 25 up - 30 down
    • sloweb says:

      I agree Jorge. Moving the location would certainly had been more fair for the victim’s family and to justice.

      (39) 51 Total Votes - 45 up - 6 down

Leave a Comment