San Francisco's Court Wants Drug Dealing Killer Freed...

[Galloism]

The OP hasn't permanently killed anyone, unlike Garcia-Zarate.

...has it temporarily killed someone?

Don’t worry, they’re only mostly dead.

[Cekoviu]

...has it temporarily killed someone?

Don’t worry, they’re only mostly dead.

Which is still slightly alive!

[Kowani]

I’m not talking about them having lower crime rates. I’m talking about the fact that they lower the overall crime rate. Never made any argument about the ones who do actually commit crime. They should be jailed like anyone else.

Relative to legal immigrants, you know those people who aren't trash and actually bother with the rules, they commit double the crime.

Firstly, I like how you just called a bunch of desperate people trash. Reaaal classy. Secondly, unless they re-enter, it’s a misdemeanor, not a felony. “The law is called illegal entry, and it makes unauthorized border crossings a crime. The law specifically bars entry into the U.S. at places other than through ports of entry, like an airport or bridge on the U.S.-Mexican border. A violation of the law, also known as Section 1325, is a misdemeanor with a penalty of six months in prison, though most are sentenced to time served. A second offense, or illegal re-entry, is a felony.” Source. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, we’re not talking about illegal immigrants relative to anyone else. We’re talking about their overall effect on crime rates. And what have we consistently found? They go down.

[Scomagia]

Relative to legal immigrants, you know those people who aren't trash and actually bother with the rules, they commit double the crime.

Firstly, I like how you just called a bunch of desperate people trash. Reaaal classy. Secondly, unless they re-enter, it’s a misdemeanor, not a felony. “The law is called illegal entry, and it makes unauthorized border crossings a crime. The law specifically bars entry into the U.S. at places other than through ports of entry, like an airport or bridge on the U.S.-Mexican border. A violation of the law, also known as Section 1325, is a misdemeanor with a penalty of six months in prison, though most are sentenced to time served. A second offense, or illegal re-entry, is a felony.” Source. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, we’re not talking about illegal immigrants relative to anyone else. We’re talking about their overall effect on crime rates. And what have we consistently found? They go down.

I find criminals trashy. I feel no guilt for saying so. Fuck them and fuck your excuses. Plenty of my extended family were desperate immigrants. They still followed the rules to get in because they aren't entitled cunts.

But do they go down at the same rate as useful immigrants who actually follow the rules? No. Illegal immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of legal immigrants. Its almost like one group is composed of more socially valuable people.

[Shofercia]

Why not deported if that's a safer option? What if someone like Garcia-Zarate was wanted in his country of origin for drug dealing, had a life sentence waiting for him, and all we had to do was extradite him?

Which do you think is less likely to have dangerous criminals escape from it, Mexican prisons or American ones?

Fair enough, but after he served his sentence here, can we deport him to serve his sentence there?

So why not deport them once they've served their sentence?

Yes. Deporting hardened criminals into lawless environments will certainly not screw over innocent people.

Whereas letting them roam the streets freely in the US will aid America's economic growth! /sarcasm

In order to establish this defense, the defendant must prove
that:
1. (He/She) possessed the firearm only for a momentary or
transitory period;
2. (He/She) possessed the firearm in order to (abandon[,]/ [or]
dispose of[,]/ [or] destroy) it;
AND
3. (He/She) did not intend to prevent law enforcement officials from
seizing the firearm.

The defendant has the burden of proving each element of this defense...

[Emphasis mine to show that I'm quoting Gravlen quoting a source]

So a drug dealer is going to somehow prove that he possessed a firearm in order to abandon/dispose of/destroy it... I wonder why the Judge thought that wasn't going to apply to this case? Meet San Francisco's illegal immigrant drug dealers, they're the friendly drug dealers, they don't shoot people, they just dispose of firearms after the bullets ricochet!

[Kowani]

Firstly, I like how you just called a bunch of desperate people trash. Reaaal classy. Secondly, unless they re-enter, it’s a misdemeanor, not a felony. “The law is called illegal entry, and it makes unauthorized border crossings a crime. The law specifically bars entry into the U.S. at places other than through ports of entry, like an airport or bridge on the U.S.-Mexican border. A violation of the law, also known as Section 1325, is a misdemeanor with a penalty of six months in prison, though most are sentenced to time served. A second offense, or illegal re-entry, is a felony.” Source. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, we’re not talking about illegal immigrants relative to anyone else. We’re talking about their overall effect on crime rates. And what have we consistently found? They go down.

I find criminals trashy. I feel no guilt for saying so.

So were escaping slaves trashy, then? They were criminals as well.

Fuck them and fuck your excuses. Plenty of my extended family were desperate immigrants. They still followed the rules to get in because they aren't entitled cunts.

Ah, legalism. My least favorite ideology.

But do they go down at the same rate as useful immigrants who actually follow the rules? No. Illegal immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of legal immigrants. Its almost like one group is composed of more socially valuable people.

Gonna want citations for all of that.

[Shofercia]

So we're supposed to believe that this guy unknowingly was holding a gun and accidentally shot a woman? How does that work?

Everybody, I think it's time to boycott San Francisco not just out of moral concern but also consideration for our own safety. Clearly we can no longer trust the city to protect us from violent crime if they think a man can accidentally murder someone.

Well, uh, involuntary manslaughter is a thing. It's just that this wasn't that.

But that wouldn't be murder - it'd be manslaughter

So we're supposed to believe that this guy unknowingly was holding a gun and accidentally shot a woman? How does that work?

Everybody, I think it's time to boycott San Francisco not just out of moral concern but also consideration for our own safety. Clearly we can no longer trust the city to protect us from violent crime if they think a man can accidentally murder someone.

1) You can totally accidentally kill someone. It's a thing.

2)Your beliefs are immaterial because you aren't on a jury.

3)The jury also doesn't have to believe him. The jury ABSOLUTELY DOES need to be informed of what it means if the guy just picked up the gun and accidentally shot her.

Was there a reasonable belief that he was trying to dispose of the gun? Destroy it? Abandon it? Remember, this thug is a drug dealer, not just someone who crossed the border illegally for a better life. "And in order to abandon this gun, I, uhh, picked it up..." hmm, let's try that with something else - "when I went on a joy ride, I, uhh, picked up the car to abandon it, I was just moving it to get its parking spot, and I didn't really know it was a car, even though I have a driver's license, because, uhh, cars look different, and that must've been a Prius!" And his beliefs do matter, since this thread is about the people's reaction to a specific event, and the set of events it set in motion. His beliefs regarding Garcia-Zarate are 100% on topic in this thread.

Well, uh, involuntary manslaughter is a thing. It's just that this wasn't that.

So I'm supposed to imagine that this guy went to the beach that day and was out walking around enjoying the weather when all of the sudden bang, he looks down and sees a gun in his hand which wasn't there a second ago. Then he looks ahead and sees a woman lying on the ground dead?

I'm not remotely buying this argument at all. Involuntary manslaughter is a thing but the scenario the court paints is not possible. It's clear as day that this guy murdered someone

"People don't kill, guns kill!"

So I'm supposed to imagine that this guy went to the beach that day and was out walking around enjoying the weather when all of the sudden bang, he looks down and sees a gun in his hand which wasn't there a second ago. Then he looks ahead and sees a woman lying on the ground dead?

I'm not remotely buying this argument at all. Involuntary manslaughter is a thing but the scenario the court paints is not possible. It's clear as day that this guy murdered someone

First of all, you don't even have the facts straight (despite them being readily available), so how can you say it's clear as day that he murdered someone?

Second, he was aquitted of murder, based on the actual facts of the case, so I guess it wasn't clear after all. This news story is not about that part of the case, however. This is about whether he, as a convicted felon, possessed a gun. He claims he picked up a bundle and it contained a gun, which he quickly threw away after it discharged. Is that sufficient to be called "possession"?

OJ was acquitted of murder, clearly he didn't do it too... riiight. Just because someone was acquitted, doesn't mean that they didn't do it. Also, Gravlen, which facts did he get wrong? Although he didn't mention all of the facts, but the ones he mentioned are correct. Let's go step by step:

1. I'm supposed to imagine that this guy went to the beach that day - that happened. Piers are located on the beach, and most people walk to the piers through the beach.
2. was out walking around enjoying the weather - not sure if he enjoyed the weather, but it's hard not to enjoy California's weather
3. all of the sudden bang, he looks down and sees a gun in his hand which wasn't there a second ago - Garcia-Zarate claimed that he didn't realize he was holding a gun as he pulled the trigger because it was wrapped in a piece of cloth. As thus, he would've heard the bang, and would've seen a gun in his hand, which wasn't there prior to the shooting, since he picked it up
4. Then he looks ahead and sees a woman lying on the ground dead - Kate Steinle's death is not in dispute.

Just because a San Francisco Jury got duped by his rock star lawyer, who could've probably kept thousands of poor black American males out of prison, but chose to defend Garcia-Zarate instead, doesn't mean that he didn't murder anyone.

[Scomagia]

I find criminals trashy. I feel no guilt for saying so.

So were escaping slaves trashy, then? They were criminals as well.

Fuck them and fuck your excuses. Plenty of my extended family were desperate immigrants. They still followed the rules to get in because they aren't entitled cunts.

Ah, legalism. My least favorite ideology.

But do they go down at the same rate as useful immigrants who actually follow the rules? No. Illegal immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of legal immigrants. Its almost like one group is composed of more socially valuable people.

Gonna want citations for all of that.

There was no legal process for a slave to become not a slave. So can that shit because it's really not applicable.

Yeah, everyone should just do what they want, I guess, rules be damned.

Here's a source for ya: https://www.immigrationresearch.org/rep ... cide-sexua

Furthermore, conviction rates for legal immigrants were 262 per 100,000 and 782 per 100,000 for undocumented immigrants

So yeah, more than double the crime rate than for legal immigrants

[Plzen]

As a non-American, let me make sure I have a sound understanding of this case.

So San Francisco took a person, who was about to be deported, out of ICE custody in order to try him for a crime. This seems reasonable to me.
The person was convicted in a trial, but the conviction was later overturned because of procedural issues in the original trial. That also seems reasonable to me.
Then the person was just... let go?

If a person was taken off deportation in order to try and hold him responsible for a crime and it later turned out that he should not be held responsible for said crime, doesn't that nullify the original reason for taking him off deportation? That is to say, why was he let go on the street instead of returned to ICE custody?

[Gravlen]

In order to establish this defense, the defendant must prove
that:
1. (He/She) possessed the firearm only for a momentary or
transitory period;
2. (He/She) possessed the firearm in order to (abandon[,]/ [or]
dispose of[,]/ [or] destroy) it;
AND
3. (He/She) did not intend to prevent law enforcement officials from
seizing the firearm.

The defendant has the burden of proving each element of this defense...

[Emphasis mine to show that I'm quoting Gravlen quoting a source]

So a drug dealer is going to somehow prove that he possessed a firearm in order to abandon/dispose of/destroy it... I wonder why the Judge thought that wasn't going to apply to this case?

Yes, that is a good question, considering the fact that the jury is supposed to make a determination about the available evidence, not the judge.

The Attorney General further contends the trial court was not required to instruct on momentary possession because defendant’s conduct in throwing the gun in the water, briskly walking away from the scene, and evading police officers when confronted, combined with his affirmative response when asked if he threw the gun in the water so no one would find it, strongly suggests “that he disposed of the gun, not for any salutary purpose, but to evade detection by law enforcement.” But defendant also stated in his police interview that he threw the gun in the water to stop it from firing. There was conflicting testimony about his conduct in leaving the scene, and his response to the question about throwing the gun away so no one would find it did not specifically mention police or law enforcement. Indeed, defendant immediately followed his affirmative response to that question by stating, “Because by leaving it there just going off, well I didn’t have any other choice but to throw it down.[¶] ...[¶] So that it would fall down because it kept going off by itself.” Given defendant’s theory he found the gun not knowing what it was, the jury may have reasonably construed his affirmation he wanted to keep others from finding it asconcern with public safety, consciousness of guilt, or something else. This presents a classic conflict of the evidence, the resolution of which is squarely within the province of the jury.

On this record, given defendant’s statements to the police about the gun being wrapped in cloth, his intent to dispose of it to stop it from firing, the surveillance video showing a gun landing in the water seconds after it was fired, Lisa S.’s testimony to the same effect, and expert opinion the gun could have accidentally discharged, substantial evidence supported a momentary possession defense.

[Kowani]

So were escaping slaves trashy, then? They were criminals as well.
Ah, legalism. My least favorite ideology.

Gonna want citations for all of that.

There was no legal process for a slave to become not a slave. So can that shit because it's really not applicable.

Wrong. Now, answer the question.

Yeah, everyone should just do what they want, I guess, rules be damned.

Rules are a means, not an end.

Here's a source for ya: https://www.immigrationresearch.org/rep ... cide-sexua

Furthermore, conviction rates for legal immigrants were 262 per 100,000 and 782 per 100,000 for undocumented immigrants

So yeah, more than double the crime rate than for legal immigrants

“There is less research on illegal immigrant criminality, but what research there is shows that illegal immigrants have lower incarceration rates nationwide and in the state of Texas relative to native-born Americans, although they have the same rates of re-arrest in Los Angeles County. Consistent with those findings, immigration enforcement programs targeting illegal immigrant criminals have no effect on local crime rates, which indicates that they are about as crime prone as other residents.”

See, the problem with this dataset is that it only gives a few types of crimes from which it draws its conclusions, but the majority of illegal immigrants are getting caught with immigration charges. Try again.

[Plzen]

Is entering or remaining within sovereign US territory as a non-US citizen without the approval of the US government a crime by US law?

If so, then the rate of criminality among illegal immigrants are 100,000 per 100,000. I fail to see what the debate is here.

If not, then what exactly is the justification for not making that a crime?

[Galloism]

Is entering or remaining within sovereign US territory as a non-US citizen without the approval of the US government a crime by US law?

If so, then the rate of criminality among illegal immigrants are 100,000 per 100,000. I fail to see what the debate is here.

If not, then what exactly is the justification for not making that a crime?

I mean, by that definition, the rate of criminality among all adults is basically 100,000 per 100,000.

There's not a person alive today who hasn't committed a crime unless they're below the age of responsibility and so can't.

[Shofercia]

So if somehow you're confused by that OP which managed to mention Trump 6 times, that the defendant was a thug who deserved to be deported, told us how special the victim was, and also gave us a picture to see how pretty and white she was, but made no effort whatsoever to explain what actually happened or what it actually means here you go:

Guy was charged with firearm possession and shooting a lady. He was acquitted for the shooting but found guilty for possessing the gun. The gun charge was successfully appealed on pretty good and well established grounds.

Why court love immigrant?
1) The lower court fucked up.

The guy said he didn't know it was a gun and he accidentally fired it the moment he picked it up, he was employing the codified and well established Momentary Possession Defense. Don't feel bad if you don't know what the momentary possession defense is because neither did the jury, they were not told by the judge that it was a thing they had to think about that was a mistake and was a really bad one. The court doesn't want him freed because they like illegal immigrants more than white ladies, they just want due process to exist at more than a theoretical level.

2) The guy doesn't necessarily skate on this.

Nothing stops the state from trying him again. This appeal doesn't mean his defense was correct and he should be aquitted now it means the case can be retried and his defense MUST BE CONSIDERED by the jury. If after examining all the evidence that we arm-chair legal analysts just don't have a jury says "yeah he didn't know that was a gun when he picked it up" THEN he gets acquitted and THEN he goes free.


Trump good, president good!
No. See there's a thing called double jeopardy where if you spend years of your life and vast sums of money defending yourself against an accusation of criminal wrongdoing you can't be found not guilty then dragged into court the next day so they can try to get you again. There's also a thing called dual sovereignty where if you spend years of your life and vast tums of money defending yourself against accusations of criminal wrongdoing in a STATE court you can TOTALLY be found not guilty then dragged into FEDERAL court the next day so they can try to get you again. I personally think it kind of sucks regardless of whose doing it but it's totally constitutional.

Why do the federal government and Trump give the two fucks about a firearms possession case? Same reason OP does, a scary immigrant shot a white lady. If they can get the fucker when those evil liberal californians that OP railed against can't then it's good press. This is totally and 100% a political move.

Yes, ensuring that a murderous drug dealer goes to jail is just an 100% political move... /sarcasm. In reality, he's just a drug dealing thug who also happened to be an illegal immigrant. If he was just a run of the mill drug dealer, he'd be serving his time, probably 25 to life, and that'd be the end of it. However, since Trump's election, California's leadership went on a spree favoring illegal immigration, going as far as attempting to declare California a sanctuary state. So instead of getting a tough prosecutor and a public defender, as would be the case for American Citizens doing the same thing, he got a rock star lawyer and an idiotic prosecutor: https://www.pressreader.com/usa/san-fra ... 6456564807

As a non-American, let me make sure I have a sound understanding of this case.

So San Francisco took a person, who was about to be deported, out of ICE custody in order to try him for a crime. This seems reasonable to me.
The person was convicted in a trial, but the conviction was later overturned because of procedural issues in the original trial. That also seems reasonable to me.
Then the person was just... let go?

If a person was taken off deportation in order to try and hold him responsible for a crime and it later turned out that he should not be held responsible for said crime, doesn't that nullify the original reason for taking him off deportation? That is to say, why was he let go on the street instead of returned to ICE custody?

Nope, that's not what happened. Garcia-Zarate was about to be deported, and San Francisco requested that he be turned over to the city on an unrelated, decade old, marijuana charge. San Francisco never had the intent to try him, and they let him go the next day, without informing ICE. I should note that no one requested that San Francisco make the request to ICE, that was SF's choice, so yes, the City of San Francisco legally sprang the would be murderer from jail.

After he was let go by San Francisco, he roamed the streets, went to the pier, found a gun, and shot Kate Steinle; she died as a result. He was arrested and charged by the City of San Francisco. However, unlike most US Citizens, he got a rock star defender in Tony "Orange Man Bad" Serra, who, despite his incoherent anti-Trump ramblings, is a damn good attorney. On the prosecutorial side the City of San Francisco heroically mangled the interrogation by failing to utilize proper translation, (even though getting a Spanish-English translator in California is not difficult,) and didn't particularly put up much of a fight at trial. Nevertheless, he was convicted on the gun possession charge.

However, his rock star lawyer found a loophole, and claimed that the case should be overturned because Judge Feng failed to instruct the Jury that Garcia-Zarate should be freed if by picked up a gun, he actually intended to abandon it, destroy it, or get rid of it - because when drug dealers pick up guns, they totally want to destroy said guns, or at least they do according to Serra's logic, who has a record of successfully defending drug dealers. The appeals court agreed, and that's where we're at.

[Plzen]

Nope, that's not what happened. Garcia-Zarate was about to be deported, and San Francisco requested that he be turned over to the city on an unrelated, decade old, marijuana charge. San Francisco never had the intent to try him, and they let him go the next day, without informing ICE. I should note that no one requested that San Francisco make the request to ICE, that was SF's choice, so yes, the City of San Francisco legally sprang the would be murderer from jail.

After he was let go by San Francisco, he roamed the streets, went to the pier, found a gun, and shot Kate Steinle; she died as a result. He was arrested and charged by the City of San Francisco. However, unlike most US Citizens, he got a rock star defender in Tony "Orange Man Bad" Serra, who, despite his incoherent anti-Trump ramblings, is a damn good attorney. On the prosecutorial side the City of San Francisco heroically mangled the interrogation by failing to utilize proper translation, (even though getting a Spanish-English translator in California is not difficult,) and didn't particularly put up much of a fight at trial. Nevertheless, he was convicted on the gun possession charge.

However, his rock star lawyer found a loophole, and claimed that the case should be overturned because Judge Feng failed to instruct the Jury that Garcia-Zarate should be freed if by picked up a gun, he actually intended to abandon it, destroy it, or get rid of it - because when drug dealers pick up guns, they totally want to destroy said guns, or at least they do according to Serra's logic, who has a record of successfully defending drug dealers. The appeals court agreed, and that's where we're at.

Procedure is procedure, and we have due process for a reason. I can understand that last part, and I do agree with the San Francisco appeals court that there was enough cause to overturn the conviction, however distasteful this situation is.

The problem I find with this situation is why is it possible for San Francisco to take someone off ICE custody for a trial and let him go? ICE should have had the authority to reclaim this person if there was no trial, since a trial was why he was out of ICE custody in the first place.

[Kowani]

Is entering or remaining within sovereign US territory as a non-US citizen without the approval of the US government a crime by US law?

Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor. Along with other such notable offenses like public intoxication, desecrating the flag of the United States, losing explosive material, and entering a train to commit a crime.

Overstaying a visa, however, is not.

If so, then the rate of criminality among illegal immigrants are 100,000 per 100,000. I fail to see what the debate is here.

Yeah…no. Ignoring the fact that most people commit crimes everyday without being charged, which would drive up everyone’s rates that high, the law is a means, not an end.

If not, then what exactly is the justification for not making that a crime?

It should be a civil offense, not a criminal one.

[Shofercia]

[Emphasis mine to show that I'm quoting Gravlen quoting a source]

So a drug dealer is going to somehow prove that he possessed a firearm in order to abandon/dispose of/destroy it... I wonder why the Judge thought that wasn't going to apply to this case?

Yes, that is a good question, considering the fact that the jury is supposed to make a determination about the available evidence, not the judge.

The Attorney General further contends the trial court was not required to instruct on momentary possession because defendant’s conduct in throwing the gun in the water, briskly walking away from the scene, and evading police officers when confronted, combined with his affirmative response when asked if he threw the gun in the water so no one would find it, strongly suggests “that he disposed of the gun, not for any salutary purpose, but to evade detection by law enforcement.” But defendant also stated in his police interview that he threw the gun in the water to stop it from firing. There was conflicting testimony about his conduct in leaving the scene, and his response to the question about throwing the gun away so no one would find it did not specifically mention police or law enforcement. Indeed, defendant immediately followed his affirmative response to that question by stating, “Because by leaving it there just going off, well I didn’t have any other choice but to throw it down.[¶] ...[¶] So that it would fall down because it kept going off by itself.” Given defendant’s theory he found the gun not knowing what it was, the jury may have reasonably construed his affirmation he wanted to keep others from finding it asconcern with public safety, consciousness of guilt, or something else. This presents a classic conflict of the evidence, the resolution of which is squarely within the province of the jury.

On this record, given defendant’s statements to the police about the gun being wrapped in cloth, his intent to dispose of it to stop it from firing, the surveillance video showing a gun landing in the water seconds after it was fired, Lisa S.’s testimony to the same effect, and expert opinion the gun could have accidentally discharged, substantial evidence supported a momentary possession defense.

The Judge is allowed discretion on what evidence to allow; otherwise, a well funded defendant could just spam evidence over a minor charge, thus enabling one System of Justice for the rich, and another for the poor to become even worse. From your source: But defendant also stated in his police interview that he threw the gun in the water to stop it from firing.

Except it already fired before it was thrown in the water. Also: it would fall down because it kept going off by itself.

So there's this gun, just laying on the pier, the gun sees Garcia-Zarate, and randomly starts firing. Did it also get triggered by illegal immigration? In what World do you see the Jury buying that defense? This is like complaining about the referee's decision to give a soccer penalty in the 90th minute of the game, when your team is losing by five goals - what're they going to do, score five goals in extra time?

[Plzen]

Yeah…no. Ignoring the fact that most people commit crimes everyday without being charged, which would drive up everyone’s rates that high, the law is a means, not an end.

It should be a civil offense, not a criminal one.

You live in a relatively free democracy. If the law is distasteful, get it changed.

I honestly wish the police would start cracking down on minor offences more, if nothing else to give people the motivation and political will to actually repeal those nonsensical old laws instead of keeping them around as a non-enforced legal gray area forever.

I'm not familiar with the distinction between civil and criminal offences. Enlighten me, please.

EDIT: NationStates is being unusually stubborn today; revised multiple times to get the formatting right

[Galloism]

Yes, that is a good question, considering the fact that the jury is supposed to make a determination about the available evidence, not the judge.

The Attorney General further contends the trial court was not required to instruct on momentary possession because defendant’s conduct in throwing the gun in the water, briskly walking away from the scene, and evading police officers when confronted, combined with his affirmative response when asked if he threw the gun in the water so no one would find it, strongly suggests “that he disposed of the gun, not for any salutary purpose, but to evade detection by law enforcement.” But defendant also stated in his police interview that he threw the gun in the water to stop it from firing. There was conflicting testimony about his conduct in leaving the scene, and his response to the question about throwing the gun away so no one would find it did not specifically mention police or law enforcement. Indeed, defendant immediately followed his affirmative response to that question by stating, “Because by leaving it there just going off, well I didn’t have any other choice but to throw it down.[¶] ...[¶] So that it would fall down because it kept going off by itself.” Given defendant’s theory he found the gun not knowing what it was, the jury may have reasonably construed his affirmation he wanted to keep others from finding it asconcern with public safety, consciousness of guilt, or something else. This presents a classic conflict of the evidence, the resolution of which is squarely within the province of the jury.

On this record, given defendant’s statements to the police about the gun being wrapped in cloth, his intent to dispose of it to stop it from firing, the surveillance video showing a gun landing in the water seconds after it was fired, Lisa S.’s testimony to the same effect, and expert opinion the gun could have accidentally discharged, substantial evidence supported a momentary possession defense.

The Judge is allowed discretion on what evidence to allow; otherwise, a well funded defendant could just spam evidence over a minor charge, thus enabling one System of Justice for the rich, and another for the poor to become even worse. From your source: But defendant also stated in his police interview that he threw the gun in the water to stop it from firing.

Except it already fired before it was thrown in the water. Also: it would fall down because it kept going off by itself.

So there's this gun, just laying on the pier, the gun sees Garcia-Zarate, and randomly starts firing. Did it also get triggered by illegal immigration? In what World do you see the Jury buying that defense? This is like complaining about the referee's decision to give a soccer penalty in the 90th minute of the game, when your team is losing by five goals - what're they going to do, score five goals in extra time?

The judge didn't block evidence. He gave the jury incorrect legal advice when the jury had a question about the law, so the jury acted on that incorrect legal advice instead of going with the actual law.

What's the alternative? Just let judges make up the law as they go?

[Shofercia]

Is entering or remaining within sovereign US territory as a non-US citizen without the approval of the US government a crime by US law?

If so, then the rate of criminality among illegal immigrants are 100,000 per 100,000. I fail to see what the debate is here.

If not, then what exactly is the justification for not making that a crime?

That's true, but we're talking about felonious crimes, rather than mere misdemeanors. In the US crimes fall into three categories: infractions, (skipping a red light,) misdemeanors (between infractions and felonies,) and felonies - usually bad and/or violent crimes that most Americans never commit. I've never committed a felony.

Nope, that's not what happened. Garcia-Zarate was about to be deported, and San Francisco requested that he be turned over to the city on an unrelated, decade old, marijuana charge. San Francisco never had the intent to try him, and they let him go the next day, without informing ICE. I should note that no one requested that San Francisco make the request to ICE, that was SF's choice, so yes, the City of San Francisco legally sprang the would be murderer from jail.

After he was let go by San Francisco, he roamed the streets, went to the pier, found a gun, and shot Kate Steinle; she died as a result. He was arrested and charged by the City of San Francisco. However, unlike most US Citizens, he got a rock star defender in Tony "Orange Man Bad" Serra, who, despite his incoherent anti-Trump ramblings, is a damn good attorney. On the prosecutorial side the City of San Francisco heroically mangled the interrogation by failing to utilize proper translation, (even though getting a Spanish-English translator in California is not difficult,) and didn't particularly put up much of a fight at trial. Nevertheless, he was convicted on the gun possession charge.

However, his rock star lawyer found a loophole, and claimed that the case should be overturned because Judge Feng failed to instruct the Jury that Garcia-Zarate should be freed if by picked up a gun, he actually intended to abandon it, destroy it, or get rid of it - because when drug dealers pick up guns, they totally want to destroy said guns, or at least they do according to Serra's logic, who has a record of successfully defending drug dealers. The appeals court agreed, and that's where we're at.

Procedure is procedure, and we have due process for a reason. I can understand that last part, and I do agree with the San Francisco appeals court that there was enough cause to overturn the conviction, however distasteful this situation is.

The problem I find with this situation is why is it possible for San Francisco to take someone off ICE custody for a trial and let him go? ICE should have had the authority to reclaim this person if there was no trial, since a trial was why he was out of ICE custody in the first place.

Welcome to Sanctuary City Policies being completely abused by ideologues. Yes, that should be the case. However:

San Francisco has declared itself a "sanctuary city," which means it openly defies federal immigration authorities by barring all city employees from cooperating with the feds on their efforts to deport illegal immigrants. It is precisely that lawless "sanctuary city" policy which allowed criminal illegal alien Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez — a repeat drug offender whom the city set free despite a federal request for detainment — to kill 32-year-old legal citizen Kathryn Steinle. Now a judge has decided that the city cannot be sued for the death of Kate.

AP reports that though San Francisco clearly defied federal authorities by releasing Lopez-Sanchez despite federal requests that he remain behind bars, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero dismissed the wrongful death claims filed by the Steinle family against the city and Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. Lopez-Sanchez killed Steinle just three months after San Francisco officials dropped drug charges and released him despite the federal request for his detainment by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Sheriff Mirkarimi specifically pointed to the city's sanctuary law in a 2015 memo to deputies, which, as AP explains, "prohibited them from providing certain information to federal immigration authorities, including the date an inmate is released, according to Spero’s ruling." The Steinle family lawsuit points out that Kate's killer should never have gone free, citing the city's sanctuary policies as the reason he was roaming free. But Judge Spero decided that the sheriff is not beholden to either state or federal law.

"Spero said in his ruling on Friday that neither the state nor federal law cited in the lawsuit prevents the sheriff from restricting his deputies’ communications with immigration officials about an inmate’s release date," explains AP. Lopez-Sanchez is pleading not guilty, claiming that he accidentally shot Kate in the back with a weapon that had been left in a vehicle by a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger. Though Spero rejected the wrongful death charged against the city and Mirkarimi, he did allow a negligence claim against the ranger for allowing the weapon to be easily accessible to move forward.

This means that the Federal Government has to honor a state's request for extradition, whereas the state can simply ignore the Federal Government's request to return the criminal to justice. This system could be used to legally release violent illegal immigrants criminals from jail, (again, a very tiny percent of the overall illegal immigrant population,) and no one would be punished as a result. Fucked up? Yep.

[Purgatio]

The Judge is allowed discretion on what evidence to allow; otherwise, a well funded defendant could just spam evidence over a minor charge, thus enabling one System of Justice for the rich, and another for the poor to become even worse. From your source: But defendant also stated in his police interview that he threw the gun in the water to stop it from firing.

Except it already fired before it was thrown in the water. Also: it would fall down because it kept going off by itself.

So there's this gun, just laying on the pier, the gun sees Garcia-Zarate, and randomly starts firing. Did it also get triggered by illegal immigration? In what World do you see the Jury buying that defense? This is like complaining about the referee's decision to give a soccer penalty in the 90th minute of the game, when your team is losing by five goals - what're they going to do, score five goals in extra time?

The judge didn't block evidence. He gave the jury incorrect legal advice when the jury had a question about the law, so the jury acted on that incorrect legal advice instead of going with the actual law.

What's the alternative? Just let judges make up the law as they go?

Except that under the law even if the lower court judge gives legally-erroneous jury instructions as in this case, the outcome isn't always vacating the conviction. In law school we learn the basic distinction between 'wrong' and 'remedy'. The jury instructions were wrong, but if the appellate judge finds the facts were so clear and unambiguous no jury could acquit the guy even if the jury instructions had been correct, the appropriate remedy would be to remand the case but require the trial judge to give the jury a directed verdict to convict, not vacate the conviction entirely and let the murderous bastard go free.

[Galloism]

Except that under the law even if the lower court judge gives legally-erroneous jury instructions as in this case, the outcome isn't always vacating the conviction. In law school we learn the basic distinction between 'wrong' and 'remedy'. The jury instructions were wrong, but if the appellate judge finds the facts were so clear and unambiguous no jury could acquit the guy even if the jury instructions had been correct, the appropriate remedy would be to remand the case but require the trial judge to give the jury a directed verdict to convict, not vacate the conviction entirely and let the murderous bastard go free.

It appears the appellate judge didn't find the facts so clear and unambiguous as to do so.

[Shofercia]

The Judge is allowed discretion on what evidence to allow; otherwise, a well funded defendant could just spam evidence over a minor charge, thus enabling one System of Justice for the rich, and another for the poor to become even worse. From your source: But defendant also stated in his police interview that he threw the gun in the water to stop it from firing.

Except it already fired before it was thrown in the water. Also: it would fall down because it kept going off by itself.

So there's this gun, just laying on the pier, the gun sees Garcia-Zarate, and randomly starts firing. Did it also get triggered by illegal immigration? In what World do you see the Jury buying that defense? This is like complaining about the referee's decision to give a soccer penalty in the 90th minute of the game, when your team is losing by five goals - what're they going to do, score five goals in extra time?

The judge didn't block evidence. He gave the jury incorrect legal advice when the jury had a question about the law, so the jury acted on that incorrect legal advice instead of going with the actual law.

What's the alternative? Just let judges make up the law as they go?

Let Judges decide if certain Jury Instructions are actually needed, rather than demand that the Judge provide every single Jury Instruction that is somehow remotely relevant. We have the "more prejudicial than probative" rule for evidence, why not apply something like that to Jury Instructions?

[Galloism]

The judge didn't block evidence. He gave the jury incorrect legal advice when the jury had a question about the law, so the jury acted on that incorrect legal advice instead of going with the actual law.

What's the alternative? Just let judges make up the law as they go?

Let Judges decide if certain Jury Instructions are actually needed, rather than demand that the Judge provide every single Jury Instruction that is somehow remotely relevant. We have the "more prejudicial than probative" rule for evidence, why not apply something like that to Jury Instructions?

What is the judge decides wrongly about which jury instructions are actually needed? What should be the remedy?

[Purgatio]

Except that under the law even if the lower court judge gives legally-erroneous jury instructions as in this case, the outcome isn't always vacating the conviction. In law school we learn the basic distinction between 'wrong' and 'remedy'. The jury instructions were wrong, but if the appellate judge finds the facts were so clear and unambiguous no jury could acquit the guy even if the jury instructions had been correct, the appropriate remedy would be to remand the case but require the trial judge to give the jury a directed verdict to convict, not vacate the conviction entirely and let the murderous bastard go free.

It appears the appellate judge didn't find the facts so clear and unambiguous as to do so.

See, and that's the problem. Hence why people are understandably outraged at this ridiculous ruling.