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

[Shofercia]

...And Trump is the bad guy. I can't fucking make this shit up: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/30/ ... e-killing/

An appeals court on Friday threw out the gun possession conviction against the man acquitted of murder in the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle on the San Francisco waterfront. The ruling by the First District Court of Appeal overturned the only guilty verdict San Francisco prosecutors won against Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate...

Unless you've been living under a rock or unless you've ignored all news coming from California, you already know the backstory: America's Sweetheart Kate Steinle was spending quality time with her family at the Pier, something that tens of thousands Californians do every single day. Slightly before that, a thuggish criminal, Garcia-Zarate, who was a felonious drug dealer, (I'm not talking about whether or not illegal immigrants should be allowed in California, but if you come to this state, illegally, and deal drugs, I don't give a fuck if you're going to be massacred in your home country, you deserve to be deported,) was legally rescued from ICE by the City of San Francisco.

ICE had Garcia-Zarate in custody, ready to be deported, until San Francisco's completely disgraced sheriff, one Ross Mirkarimi, (perhaps the only person dumb enough to work in Florida's election counting system,) demanded that Garcia-Zarate be handed over to San Francisco to be prosecuted for a Marijuana charge. Needless to say, Garcia-Zarate was sicked on the streets of San Francisco shortly after, where he found a gun, belonging to a federal agent: https://www.city-journal.org/html/san-f ... 15590.html

A barely literate drug dealer... with a second-grade education, no English, and a penchant for criminal aliases... The drug dealer changed his story several times during police interrogation, first saying that he had been aiming at a sea lion, then claiming that he didn’t even know that he was handling a gun. The gun had been stolen from the parked car of a federal law enforcement agent four days earlier...

So why's it relevant today? Because the Appeals Court dismissed the final point of the case against Garcia-Zarate, declaring him innocent as a lamb!

“It is undisputed that (Garcia-Zarate) was holding the gun when it fired,” wrote Judge Sandra L. Margulies, with two other judges concurring. “But that fact alone does not establish he possessed the gun for more than a moment. To possess the gun, (Garcia-Zarate) had to know he was holding it.”

How do you not know that you're holding a gun? Garcia-Zarate's a drug dealer, he's not someone who's never seen guns before, and even if it was in cloth, it's pretty darn easy to know a gun when you're feeling it. Him and that opinion writer Margulies are the only two people I've heard of, that know what a gun looks like, but don't know how to hold it. But fear not NSG, the real perpetrator is Donald Trump, because the Federal Government is justly bringing a Federal Case against Garcia-Zarate for a crime that Garcia-Zarate actually committed:

Garcia-Zarate’s attorneys have described the federal case against him as a political prosecution motivated by the Trump Administration’s anger at the San Francisco jury verdict.

Why won't Trump just let drug dealers shoot random Californians on piers? What a bastard! Sarcasm aside, for once, I am very thankful for what President Trump and the Federal Government are doing, because the only place that Garcia-Zarate belongs, is jail.

Kate Steinle:

Bit about her:

Steinle had just recently moved in with her boyfriend in San Francisco and commuted down the Peninsula to her job with Mountain View medical device company Medtronic. She was volunteering with an organization called Challenged Athletes Foundation in San Diego that helps disabled athletes reach their goals. “She just had that sincere, keen and genuine interest in our athletes,” said Ludwig’s father, Jeffery Essakow, who runs the nonprofit.

So where does NSG stand on this issue? Is it ok to pick up random things that shoot and kill strangers on piers? Is Trump doing this solely for votes? Has the City of San Francisco gone completely insane?

[Cannot think of a name]

That OP was more loaded than the gun.

[Loben The 2nd]

they want this man freed....why?

[Neutraligon]

How about more information on why the court of appeals did what it did, rather then this rant?

[Shofercia]

That OP was more loaded than the gun.

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

they want this man freed....why?

It's San Francisco, more specifically the First District Court of Appeals that also covers San Francisco. My guess? They're trying to emulate Rosie and the Supremes - Rose Bird was very anti death penalty, so sometimes she made up the law to overturn death penalty convictions, which were legal in the State of California at the time. The voters eventually took notice: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/06/us/e ... usted.html

Rose Elizabeth Bird, the 49-year-old Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was removed from the bench by a margin of 2 to 1. Associate Justices Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso, the court's first Hispanic member, drew more votes than Chief Justice Bird, but not enough to give them the majority needed to keep their jobs. Their Last Day Is January 5. All will leave the bench Jan. 5, when Mr. Deukmejian, a conservative whose views on social issues closely parallel those of President Reagan, can seat three new justices on the highest court in the nation's most populous state. His nominations are subject to affirmation by a panel of legal experts and voter confirmation in 1988. The most likely candidate expected to succeed Chief Justice Bird is Associate Justice Malcom Lucas, a former law partner of Mr. Deukmejian who is also a conservative. The three justices were the first ever removed from the court by voters since Californians amended their Constitution in 1934 to require appointed appellate judges to be reconfirmed periodically by voters.

How about more information on why the court of appeals did what it did, rather then this rant?

I linked the article, and provided the quote. I didn't want the OP to be too long, but here's Margulies' opinion as quoted in Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/30/ ... e-killing/

Garcia-Zarate’s lawyers argued under the theory of “momentary possession” that he had never truly possessed the gun that killed Steinle because he didn’t realize the object he was holding was a firearm until it went off. They cited statements from Garcia-Zarate that the gun had been wrapped in a bundle of cloth, making it difficult to see what it was, and that he tossed it into San Francisco Bay immediately after the weapon went off because he wanted to make it stop firing.

“It is undisputed that (Garcia-Zarate) was holding the gun when it fired,” wrote Judge Sandra L. Margulies, with two other judges concurring. “But that fact alone does not establish he possessed the gun for more than a moment. To possess the gun, (Garcia-Zarate) had to know he was holding it.” The court, Margulies wrote, could not definitively say whether Garcia-Zarate knew he was holding a gun before it went off. But, she wrote, “It is reasonably probable at least one juror may have reached a different conclusion if the jury had been instructed on the momentary possession charge.”

They appealed because Judge Feng refused to instruct the Jury on the defense of Momentary Possession, which was not applied, (at least not to my knowledge,) to any case where the perpetrator actually held the gun as it fired, had previous experience with guns, and wasn't a young kid. I highly doubt that it was ever used as a defense for a drug dealer.

[US-SSR]

The question answers itself: had a young white male unintentionally shot dead an undocumented alien on a San Francisco pier, would it have made a sound in Trump's Twitterverse?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

wha

[United Muscovite Nations]

They're not freeing him, they just have to have a retrial because of faulty instruction of the jury. He'll probably be retried and then convicted again.

[Fartsniffage]

That OP was more loaded than the gun.

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

they want this man freed....why?

It's San Francisco, more specifically the First District Court of Appeals that also covers San Francisco. My guess? They're trying to emulate Rosie and the Supremes - Rose Bird was very anti death penalty, so sometimes she made up the law to overturn death penalty convictions, which were legal in the State of California at the time. The voters eventually took notice: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/06/us/e ... usted.html

Rose Elizabeth Bird, the 49-year-old Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was removed from the bench by a margin of 2 to 1. Associate Justices Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso, the court's first Hispanic member, drew more votes than Chief Justice Bird, but not enough to give them the majority needed to keep their jobs. Their Last Day Is January 5. All will leave the bench Jan. 5, when Mr. Deukmejian, a conservative whose views on social issues closely parallel those of President Reagan, can seat three new justices on the highest court in the nation's most populous state. His nominations are subject to affirmation by a panel of legal experts and voter confirmation in 1988. The most likely candidate expected to succeed Chief Justice Bird is Associate Justice Malcom Lucas, a former law partner of Mr. Deukmejian who is also a conservative. The three justices were the first ever removed from the court by voters since Californians amended their Constitution in 1934 to require appointed appellate judges to be reconfirmed periodically by voters.

How about more information on why the court of appeals did what it did, rather then this rant?

I linked the article, and provided the quote. I didn't want the OP to be too long, but here's Margulies' opinion as quoted in Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/30/ ... e-killing/

Garcia-Zarate’s lawyers argued under the theory of “momentary possession” that he had never truly possessed the gun that killed Steinle because he didn’t realize the object he was holding was a firearm until it went off. They cited statements from Garcia-Zarate that the gun had been wrapped in a bundle of cloth, making it difficult to see what it was, and that he tossed it into San Francisco Bay immediately after the weapon went off because he wanted to make it stop firing.

“It is undisputed that (Garcia-Zarate) was holding the gun when it fired,” wrote Judge Sandra L. Margulies, with two other judges concurring. “But that fact alone does not establish he possessed the gun for more than a moment. To possess the gun, (Garcia-Zarate) had to know he was holding it.” The court, Margulies wrote, could not definitively say whether Garcia-Zarate knew he was holding a gun before it went off. But, she wrote, “It is reasonably probable at least one juror may have reached a different conclusion if the jury had been instructed on the momentary possession charge.”

They appealed because Judge Feng refused to instruct the Jury on the defense of Momentary Possession, which was not applied, (at least not to my knowledge,) to any case where the perpetrator actually held the gun as it fired, had previous experience with guns, and wasn't a young kid. I highly doubt that it was ever used as a defense for a drug dealer.

So it's a procedural issue. That's what should happen when courts fuck up with legal procedure. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed and all that.

[Trotskylvania]

They're not freeing him, they just have to have a retrial because of faulty instruction of the jury. He'll probably be retried and then convicted again.

Legal news reporting is only slightly less maddening than science news reporting. So many icky due process rights getting in the way of the throbbing hard-on for revenge justice

[United Muscovite Nations]

They're not freeing him, they just have to have a retrial because of faulty instruction of the jury. He'll probably be retried and then convicted again.

Legal news reporting is only slightly less maddening than science news reporting. So many icky due process rights getting in the way of the throbbing hard-on for revenge justice

Smh, why can't we just go back to lynchings like in the good old days!

[Trotskylvania]

Legal news reporting is only slightly less maddening than science news reporting. So many icky due process rights getting in the way of the throbbing hard-on for revenge justice

Smh, why can't we just go back to lynchings like in the good old days!

Fun for the whole family

[Shofercia]

They're not freeing him, they just have to have a retrial because of faulty instruction of the jury. He'll probably be retried and then convicted again.

Legal news reporting is only slightly less maddening than science news reporting. So many icky due process rights getting in the way of the throbbing hard-on for revenge justice

He came to the US, illegally, in part to deal drugs. He was about to be deported, but then San Francisco used a legal mechanism to prevent his deportation. As a result, he ended up on a pier, with a gun, lost by a Federal Agent, which fired, and killed an innocent woman, who was the very definition of America's Sweetheart. None of those facts are in dispute. His defense is "even though as a drug dealer I probably know what guns look like, I totes didn't like realize what I was holding was a gun, and, erm, it was somehow fired, and, uhh, bullet ricocheted and killed this lady... but I was hoping for sea lion..."

And the appellate court's like: "well, uhh, that might be a legit defense, we think it's reasonable to think that the Jury should've been instructed for that defense cause there would be a Juror that would've bought it, this is San Francisco after all, so, uhh, send case back!"

I wonder if San Francisco's even going to retry that charge, or just let him off scot free, and then wonder why the Federal Government is going after him for criminal charges.

Smh, why can't we just go back to lynchings like in the good old days!

Fun for the whole family

Yes, clearly placing a felonious drug dealer behind bars after he touched a gun and it fired killing an innocent victim is the very definition of lynching /sarcasm

[Aclion]

Why does SF even have the authority to take someone from federal custody?

[Galloism]

Why does SF even have the authority to take someone from federal custody?

Well, if they're wanted for a crime, we don't want to have them deported to a country where they'll be free.

Of course, things went awry and the case got thrown out, but the justice system isn't perfect.

[Shofercia]

Why does SF even have the authority to take someone from federal custody?

The way it's supposed to be used is that if a drug crime was committed in a state, the state would be able to try the perpetrator before deportation. We're also talking about a genuine desire of local authorities to try drug offenders for actual crimes committed, rather than victimless crimes like a decade old marijuana charge.

When the law written, I doubt that the writers thought that SF's former Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, would be using it to spring drug dealers from ICE's deportations. Not even the people of San Francisco could stomach that bullshit, and voted Mirkarimi out by a vote of 61% to 39%, a complete embarrassment for Mirkarimi; the vote took place in November of 2015, four to five months after the murder of Kate Steinle.

In other news the family of Kate Steinle sued the City of San Francisco, but the lawsuit was dismissed: https://www.dailywire.com/news/12285/ju ... es-barrett

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.

Lopez-Sanchez was one of the aliases used by Garcia-Zarate. I should also note that no one forced Sheriff Mirkarimi to demand that ICE turn over Garcia-Zarate to San Francisco, since the charge was decade old, and it was a marijuana charge.

[Aclion]

"Judge Spero decided that the sheriff is not beholden to either state or federal law.
"

*angry supremacy clause noises*

[Trotskylvania]

Legal news reporting is only slightly less maddening than science news reporting. So many icky due process rights getting in the way of the throbbing hard-on for revenge justice

He came to the US, illegally, in part to deal drugs. He was about to be deported, but then San Francisco used a legal mechanism to prevent his deportation. As a result, he ended up on a pier, with a gun, lost by a Federal Agent, which fired, and killed an innocent woman, who was the very definition of America's Sweetheart. None of those facts are in dispute. His defense is "even though as a drug dealer I probably know what guns look like, I totes didn't like realize what I was holding was a gun, and, erm, it was somehow fired, and, uhh, bullet ricocheted and killed this lady... but I was hoping for sea lion..."

And the appellate court's like: "well, uhh, that might be a legit defense, we think it's reasonable to think that the Jury should've been instructed for that defense cause there would be a Juror that would've bought it, this is San Francisco after all, so, uhh, send case back!"

I wonder if San Francisco's even going to retry that charge, or just let him off scot free, and then wonder why the Federal Government is going after him for criminal charges.

Fun for the whole family

Yes, clearly placing a felonious drug dealer behind bars after he touched a gun and it fired killing an innocent victim is the very definition of lynching /sarcasm

If the law does not bind each and every subject, including those tasked with enforcing it, then there's no point in the exercise at all. We have due process rights in the United States. They are not always followed. Sometimes they are, like right now.

If jury instructions are improper, they destroy the whole point of the exercise of due process. You can whine and complain all you want about it. Suck it up, buttercup, this is how the bureaucracy of justice works.

But you patently don't care about justice. So cut the charade. You do not have the moral high ground here, you are openly and flagrantly arguing that the exercise of retribution is more important than the very fundamental laws of the United States, to bedrock principles of justice.

[Purgatio]

As if Americans needed more proof of how dangerous it is to allow illegal immigrants to roam free in the country without proper background checks on their identities at the border, or why 'sanctuary cities' essentially give the death penalty to innocent victims like Kate Steinle.

If we were living in a sane, just world, this Garcia-Zarate violent thug would rot in jail for years and years before being deported back to wherever the hell he came from. Sadly, we don't live in a sane, just world.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

As if Americans needed more proof of how dangerous it is to allow illegal immigrants to roam free in the country without proper background checks on their identities at the border, or why 'sanctuary cities' essentially give the death penalty to innocent victims like Kate Steinle.

If we were living in a sane, just world, this Garcia-Zarate violent thug would rot in jail for years and years before being deported back to wherever the hell he came from. Sadly, we don't live in a sane, just world.

You seem to be acting as though things like this are the norm for illegal immigrants.

[Purgatio]

As if Americans needed more proof of how dangerous it is to allow illegal immigrants to roam free in the country without proper background checks on their identities at the border, or why 'sanctuary cities' essentially give the death penalty to innocent victims like Kate Steinle.

If we were living in a sane, just world, this Garcia-Zarate violent thug would rot in jail for years and years before being deported back to wherever the hell he came from. Sadly, we don't live in a sane, just world.

You seem to be acting as though things like this are the norm for illegal immigrants.

All illegal immigrants, by definition, are willing to countenance breaking the law. That makes them an extant threat to any law-abiding citizens and also not at all surprising when one of them commits a gruesome and horrible murder like this. Rest in peace, Kate Steinle. I hope your family finds solace in a terrible and tragic time like this.

[Galloism]

You seem to be acting as though things like this are the norm for illegal immigrants.

All illegal immigrants, by definition, are willing to countenance breaking the law. That makes them an extant threat to any law-abiding citizens and also not at all surprising when one of them commits a gruesome and horrible murder like this. Rest in peace, Kate Steinle. I hope your family finds solace in a terrible and tragic time like this.

Notably, in San Francisco (and the US generally) illegal immigration is a fairly minor misdemeanor - roughly akin to like jaywalking, speeding, spitting on the sidewalk, or having a wardrobe malfunction.

Not that this guy isn't a piece of work, but illegal immigration is not more serious than the crimes committed by every citizen without exception at least a few times a year.

[-Astoria]

A bit leading, the OP's post.

[Shofercia]

He came to the US, illegally, in part to deal drugs. He was about to be deported, but then San Francisco used a legal mechanism to prevent his deportation. As a result, he ended up on a pier, with a gun, lost by a Federal Agent, which fired, and killed an innocent woman, who was the very definition of America's Sweetheart. None of those facts are in dispute. His defense is "even though as a drug dealer I probably know what guns look like, I totes didn't like realize what I was holding was a gun, and, erm, it was somehow fired, and, uhh, bullet ricocheted and killed this lady... but I was hoping for sea lion..."

And the appellate court's like: "well, uhh, that might be a legit defense, we think it's reasonable to think that the Jury should've been instructed for that defense cause there would be a Juror that would've bought it, this is San Francisco after all, so, uhh, send case back!"

I wonder if San Francisco's even going to retry that charge, or just let him off scot free, and then wonder why the Federal Government is going after him for criminal charges.




Yes, clearly placing a felonious drug dealer behind bars after he touched a gun and it fired killing an innocent victim is the very definition of lynching /sarcasm

If the law does not bind each and every subject, including those tasked with enforcing it, then there's no point in the exercise at all. We have due process rights in the United States. They are not always followed. Sometimes they are, like right now.

If jury instructions are improper, they destroy the whole point of the exercise of due process. You can whine and complain all you want about it. Suck it up, buttercup, this is how the bureaucracy of justice works.

But you patently don't care about justice. So cut the charade. You do not have the moral high ground here, you are openly and flagrantly arguing that the exercise of retribution is more important than the very fundamental laws of the United States, to bedrock principles of justice.

Claiming that one of twelve San Francisco Jurors would be dumb enough to fall for the "uhh, I didn't realize that I was holding a gun when I was holding a gun" excuse is an interpretation that could've gone either way, since Judge Feng ruled one way, and Margulies opined differently, although claiming that it's reasonable to assume that a Juror would have a moment of idiocy in a high profile case is hardly comforting for the Justice System.

The facts were presented in Court, Trotskylvania, and Garcia-Zarate failed to disprove the facts. He had his day in Court. Unlike poor black American citizens, he had decent attorneys rather than overworked public defenders. One of his attorneys, Tony Serra, went to Stanford and Berkeley, and something tells me that's not the attorneys taht US citizens get. And even with a rock star in the legal World, like Mr. Serra, Garcia-Zarate still failed to disprove the facts.

I'm not new to debating Trotskylvania, and I'm well aware of the debate tactic that you're so pathetically misusing. The way it's supposed to work, bubbles, is that you're supposed to ignore the actual case, trot out platitudes, and take a dig at your opponent, while actually making it look like you care about the case. That last part - you failed, since you forgot to link it back to the original case.

In fact, your sad little post says nothing about the case at hand. The first point is that the law is supposed to treat everyone equally - very true. Except Garcia-Zarate got VIP treatment with a rock star attorney, so it's kind of hilarious, in a very sad way, that you're arguing that he would've been mistreated, had the appeal been rejected. Your second paragraph talks about how improper Jury Instructions can taint the entire case - again true, but not really relevant here. How many drug dealers do you know that got off scot free from shooting innocent people because they claimed that they didn't know they were holding a gun? Last time I checked, prior to this case, the number was zero. It wasn't a Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine type of Jury Instruction, it was, at best, an irrelevant technicality.

Since I actually care about Justice, unlike you, I want you to pay attention to what I'm doing. Rather than spouting commonly said things while ignoring the actual case and insulting a fellow debater, I'm talking about what actually happened. And yes, this does affect me, since I own a beach house, and tend to hang out on a pier, so I'd rather not get shot by a drug dealer, be they homegrown or imported.

You, on the other hand, are perfectly fine with a drug dealing killer going free, and are actually attempting to claim that a Jury Instruction that could've only affected the "I'm a drug dealer who doesn't know what a gun feels like" defense is somehow related to the "very fundamental laws of the United States, to bedrock principles of justice" - lolwut? He had his day in Court. He got off on a technicality. If the same thing happened to a banker who killed an illegal immigrant for shits and giggles, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Cut the charade Trotskylvania, you don't have the moral high ground, and you never will.

[Kowani]

You seem to be acting as though things like this are the norm for illegal immigrants.

All illegal immigrants, by definition, are willing to countenance breaking the law. That makes them an extant threat to any law-abiding citizens and also not at all surprising when one of them commits a gruesome and horrible murder like this. Rest in peace, Kate Steinle. I hope your family finds solace in a terrible and tragic time like this.

Reminder that illegal immigrants lower crime rates.