Playa del Carmen, Mexico's virtual guidebook written by locals
 

Go Back   www.Playa.info > Off Topic Stuff > General Off-Topic Stuff
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-03-2017   #31 (permalink)
añejo
 
Mnbruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: St. Louis Park,Mn.
Posts: 12,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
What felonies? The 20-year-old misdemeanor marijuana charge was dropped prior to his release from county jail (it's why he was released), and recreational marijuana is now legal in California anyway, making illogical the prosecution of a minor charge (misdemeanor) that was once illegal but now isn't.

The jury correctly found that he did not commit either murder or negligent manslaughter by picking up a gun that was wrapped in cloth and thus unidentifiable as a firearm until it discharged when he picked it up because, not knowing that it was a gun, he mishandled the bundle causing the gun to fire accidentally (and ricochet into Kate Steinle).

His confusing conviction by the same jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm is on shaky ground since he wasn't aware the cloth-wrapped bundle was a gun until he mishandled the bundle causing the gun to fire - if he didn't know it was a firearm when he picked the bundle up he can't very well be charged with being in possession of a firearm that he didn't know existed until it accidentally fired when he mishandled the bundle when he innocently picked it up.
Did they convict him of the gun charge because they felt they needed to find him guilty of something?
Mnbruce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017   #32 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnbruce View Post
Did they convict him of the gun charge because they felt they needed to find him guilty of something?
No, their verdict was based on his leaving the scene of the shooting and ditching the gun in the bay (Wikipedia: he was arrested about an hour after the shooting at Pier 40, about one mile south of Pier 14 and divers from The San Francisco Police Department Underwater Recovery Unit found the gun in the bay alongside Pier 14, the next day). He was therefore in possession of the gun from the time it fired until he dumped it in the bay instead of giving it to the cops. Making bad decisions while frightened is a common human error and potentially mitigating circumstance, but it is not an excuse for whatever act was done (in this case, the firing of the gun and death of Kate Steinle). The 'shaky ground' element is the determination of whether or not he was a felon at the time he was temporarily in possession of the gun after it was fired and until he dumped it. Returning to the US after being deported is (or may be, depending on the circumstances) a felony, and he had just been released after serving his prison sentence for that, making him a convicted felon in possession of a firearm during the time he unexpectedly found it until the time he dumped it in the bay. The determination of the facts in that sequence of events will likely be the key to further prosecution.
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017   #33 (permalink)
life=playa
 
Uno Mas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 596
Garcia Zarate was formally charged with first-degree murder and possession of illegal narcotics on July 6. Zarate admitted in a KGO-TV interview that he committed the shooting but said he found the gun wrapped in a T-shirt under a bench after taking sleeping pills he found from a trash can. He first claimed that he was aiming at sea lions, then that the gun had fired while he was picking up the wrapped package, and that Steinle's shooting was accidental.[26][20] He pleaded not guilty to the charges, and was held on $5 million bail.[27] Zarate's attorney, Matt Gonzalez, stated in court that the shooting was likely accidental.[28]
In an interview with a local TV station, Zarate said that the gun went off accidentally three times when he picked it up; at trial, the prosecution contended that the shots were intentional.[20]

He sure has an eye for finding things... Was the gun fired 3 times? That's what I saw reported.

Last edited by Uno Mas; 12-12-2017 at 10:30 AM..
Uno Mas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018   #34 (permalink)
lost on fifth
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
What felonies? The 20-year-old misdemeanor marijuana charge was dropped prior to his release from county jail (it's why he was released), and recreational marijuana is now legal in California anyway, making illogical the prosecution of a minor charge (misdemeanor) that was once illegal but now isn't.

The jury correctly found that he did not commit either murder or negligent manslaughter by picking up a gun that was wrapped in cloth and thus unidentifiable as a firearm until it discharged when he picked it up because, not knowing that it was a gun, he mishandled the bundle causing the gun to fire accidentally (and ricochet into Kate Steinle).

His confusing conviction by the same jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm is on shaky ground since he wasn't aware the cloth-wrapped bundle was a gun until he mishandled the bundle causing the gun to fire - if he didn't know it was a firearm when he picked the bundle up he can't very well be charged with being in possession of a firearm that he didn't know existed until it accidentally fired when he mishandled the bundle when he innocently picked it up.
After an alien has been legally "removed" from the United States, federal criminal law makes it a felony for that alien to reenter (or be found in) the country without approval of the government.

Illegal Reentry into the U.S. After Removal: Crime and Punishment - FindLaw

So there is his felony.

On top of that, he was on probation in Texas and violated the rules of his probation by leaving his registered county and being in possession of a firearm, both clear violations of his probation.

He first said that he found the gun and was "shooting at a seal" but after getting a lawyer who advised him that didn't sound "accidental enough" he changed his story saying it was wrapped up and went off as he picked it up, not even knowing that it was a gun. Then, after throwing the "unknown" gun into the bay, he ran. He changed his story more than once.

The jury was not allowed to hear that he had been deported 5 times nor his first version of the story about shooting at the seal. He is a repeat offender and a liar, why are you defending him?

Last edited by MasTequila; 01-23-2018 at 11:57 AM..
MasTequila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018   #35 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasTequila View Post
After an alien has been legally "removed" from the United States, federal criminal law makes it a felony for that alien to reenter (or be found in) the country without approval of the government.

Illegal Reentry into the U.S. After Removal: Crime and Punishment - FindLaw

So there is his felony.

On top of that, he was on probation in Texas and violated the rules of his probation by leaving his registered county and being in possession of a firearm, both clear violations of his probation.

He first said that he found the gun and was "shooting at a seal" but after getting a lawyer who advised him that didn't sound "accidental enough" he changed his story saying it was wrapped up and went off as he picked it up, not even knowing that it was a gun. Then, after throwing the "unknown" gun into the bay, he ran. He changed his story more than once.

The jury was not allowed to hear that he had been deported 5 times nor his first version of the story about shooting at the seal. He is a repeat offender and a liar, why are you defending him?
See my second post - you think that's defending him?
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2018   #36 (permalink)
lost on fifth
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
See my second post - you think that's defending him?
Your second post..

Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
No, their verdict was based on his leaving the scene of the shooting and ditching the gun in the bay (Wikipedia: he was arrested about an hour after the shooting at Pier 40, about one mile south of Pier 14 and divers from The San Francisco Police Department Underwater Recovery Unit found the gun in the bay alongside Pier 14, the next day). He was therefore in possession of the gun from the time it fired until he dumped it in the bay instead of giving it to the cops. The 'shaky ground' element is the determination of whether or not he was a felon at the time he was temporarily in possession of the gun after it was fired and until he dumped it. Returning to the US after being deported is (or may be, depending on the circumstances) a felony, and he had just been released after serving his prison sentence for that, making him a convicted felon in possession of a firearm during the time he unexpectedly found it until the time he dumped it in the bay. The determination of the facts in that sequence of events will likely be the key to further prosecution.
Returning to the US after a deportation is a felony, he did this five times. There is no "or may be, depending on the circumstances." A person can apply to re enter the US legally which he did not do, he therefore committed five felonies.

Illegal Reentry into the U.S. After Removal: Crime and Punishment - FindLaw

A convicted felon cannot legally be in possession of a firearm, in Texas after five years with no further convictions a felon can have a firearm only in his home. His throwing it in the bay instead of turning it over to the police has no bearing on the decision of the court, he was a felon in possession of a firearm. A felon who was violating his probation, a felon who had committed the same felony five times by re entering the US illegally. Do you really believe a word of his defense lawyer?

You are also buying into the story that he "unexpectedly found it" along with sleeping pills that he also "found", this guy sure finds a lot of things. The gun was stolen, who steals a gun then just wraps it in a cloth and leaves it under a bench instead of at least selling it? This BS story doesn't pass the sniff test especially after he initially said that he was shooting at a seal and then lied and said that it accidentally went off without his even knowing that it was even a gun. He should have been found guilty of manslaughter, the jury should have been told of his repeated illegal entry and disregard of American law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
See my second post - you think that's defending him?
Yes, it sounds like you are defending him and buying into his second story of the events, after he lawyered up. There is no "may or may not be a felony" in this clear cut case of a repeat offender crossing back into the US illegally 5 times, then changing his story.

BTW, did you know that anyone can edit a Wikipedia description? Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a reference in many schools and universities.

Last edited by MasTequila; 01-24-2018 at 10:36 AM..
MasTequila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2018   #37 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasTequila View Post
Your second post..

Returning to the US after a deportation is a felony, he did this five times. There is no "or may be, depending on the circumstances." A person can apply to re enter the US legally which he did not do, he therefore committed five felonies.

Illegal Reentry into the U.S. After Removal: Crime and Punishment - FindLaw

A convicted felon cannot legally be in possession of a firearm, in Texas after five years with no further convictions a felon can have a firearm only in his home. His throwing it in the bay instead of turning it over to the police has no bearing on the decision of the court, he was a felon in possession of a firearm. A felon who was violating his probation, a felon who had committed the same felony five times by re entering the US illegally. Do you really believe a word of his defense lawyer?

You are also buying into the story that he "unexpectedly found it" along with sleeping pills that he also "found", this guy sure finds a lot of things. The gun was stolen, who steals a gun then just wraps it in a cloth and leaves it under a bench instead of at least selling it? This BS story doesn't pass the sniff test especially after he initially said that he was shooting at a seal and then lied and said that it accidentally went off without his even knowing that it was even a gun. He should have been found guilty of manslaughter, the jury should have been told of his repeated illegal entry and disregard of American law.

Yes, it sounds like you are defending him and buying into his second story of the events, after he lawyered up. There is no "may or may not be a felony" in this clear cut case of a repeat offender crossing back into the US illegally 5 times, then changing his story.

BTW, did you know that anyone can edit a Wikipedia description? Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a reference in many schools and universities.
I'm 'defending him' to the extent that I don't believe he intentionally shot, i.e., murdered, Kate Steinle, and neither did the jury, which correctly found him not guilty of murder 1, murder 2, and/or intentional manslaughter. You apparently differ with the jury's verdict and want him to be thrown under the bus for 'murder' based on his immigration status - 'if he hadn't been here this never would have happened' - true enough, but wholly irrelevant to the elements for a murder conviction. (The basic law school teaching example for determining 'proximate cause' is Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co.- Google it and give it a read, bearing in mind that it's a torts case, not criminal law.)

My statement that there 'may or may not be a felony' refers to his already-completed sentence for felony conviction for re-entry after prior deportation(s) - I frankly never understood from the media accounts whether the completed sentence applied to the current illegal re-entry or to a previous one - somebody out there will likely know the answer to that.

Thanks for the tip, but I'm pretty sure that by now everyone on this forum is well-aware that Wikipedia is an open-source reference subject to peer meddling (some good, some not) to which we generally give the due consideration it merits. So, just for the hell of it, here's the Wikipedia Palsgraf article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgr...d_Railroad_Co.

Last edited by beam-eye; 01-24-2018 at 12:43 PM..
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2018   #38 (permalink)
lost on fifth
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
I'm 'defending him' to the extent that I don't believe he intentionally shot, i.e., murdered, Kate Steinle, and neither did the jury, which correctly found him not guilty of murder 1, murder 2, and/or intentional manslaughter. You apparently differ with the jury's verdict and want him to be thrown under the bus for 'murder' based on his immigration status
I never said it was intentional or murder, but manslaughter is the least he should have been found guilty of and his immigration status doesn't have a thing to do with it. He shot a gun in a crowded public place, at first telling police that he was shooting at a seal, a point which you continue to ignore, that he lied.

Therefore he is and should have been found guilty of manslaughter just like a drunk driving and "accidentally" killing someone. His reckless actions caused the death of an innocent woman. The fact that he changed his story does not suddenly make him innocent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
My statement that there 'may or may not be a felony' refers to his already-completed sentence for felony conviction for re-entry after prior deportation(s)
Felonies do not magically disappear like Hillary's emails, they stay a part of your record unless you have them expunged which he didn't. Completing a sentence does not make the felony disappear, hence the question "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" on job applications.

Every time this man re entered the country illegally was another (5) felony.
MasTequila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2018   #39 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasTequila View Post
I never said it was intentional or murder, but manslaughter is the least he should have been found guilty of and his immigration status doesn't have a thing to do with it. He shot a gun in a crowded public place, at first telling police that he was shooting at a seal, a point which you continue to ignore, that he lied.

Therefore he is and should have been found guilty of manslaughter just like a drunk driving and "accidentally" killing someone. His reckless actions caused the death of an innocent woman. The fact that he changed his story does not suddenly make him innocent.

Felonies do not magically disappear like Hillary's emails, they stay a part of your record unless you have them expunged which he didn't. Completing a sentence does not make the felony disappear, hence the question "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" on job applications.

Every time this man re entered the country illegally was another (5) felony.
Your comment that "his immigration status doesn't have a thing to do with it" is correct. It also negates any presumed argument that because he was an illegal alien the San Francisco Sheriff should have released him to ICE, which presumably would have prevented the entire chain of events from happening (hence the title and purpose of this Trumped-up 'Sanctuary City' thread).

You are also correct that "The fact that he changed his story does not suddenly make him innocent" - but, of course, it also doesn't automatically make him 'guilty' either. As SCOTUS noted in Tennessee v Gardner, even some 'normal', 'innocent' people have been known to inexplicably lie, confabulate, speculate, boast, confess to things they didn't do, run from a police stop, or describe non-existent people, things, and events to the police, all kinds of goofy behavior brought on during the excitement ('heat') of the moment, and the cops are not allowed to shoot them just because they do otherwise inexplicably goofy things (unless, of course, they are fleeing felons, in which case they are at risk of being shot dead).

Garcia Zarate was charged with intentional manslaughter, not negligent manslaughter, so the jury therefore did not consider his guilt or innocence of negligent manslaughter. In order to prove negligent manslaughter the prosecution would need to show he knew what was in the 'bundle of rags' (if there was one) before he picked it up, and that in picking it up he recklessly handled it negligently causing the gun inside the bundle of rags to fire. The prosecution did not do so.

Your comparison to a drunk driver accidentally killing someone while driving imputes to the drunk driver the essentially universally-known duty to use due care while operating a 3-ton killing machine, the negligent breach of that duty, and any resulting harm, injury and/or damage resulting from failure to exercise duty of due care. Picking up a bundle of rags (or a falling box that, unknown to members of the general public, contains explosives and explodes on impact) conveys no such duty of due care to or from the public-at-large (see Palsgraf).

The prosecution undoubtedly presented that evidence in examining him at trial, the defense elicited his response, and the jury considered the testimony of both sides (including what he may or may not have told the police during his apprehension and arrest) and found for the defendant.

You say "Every time this man re entered the country illegally was another (5) felony", and "Completing a sentence does not make the felony disappear", but you also say "...his immigration status doesn't have a thing to do with it". There's some cognitive dissonance in there someplace...
__________________
Beam-Eye, be my baby

Last edited by beam-eye; 01-26-2018 at 06:36 PM..
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #40 (permalink)
añejo
 
TAPPY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 22,639
I wonder if more cities will follow !

City in California votes to exempt itself from state's sanctuary law
TAPPY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #41 (permalink)
¡No mames güey!
 
roni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mérida, Yucatán
Posts: 77,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAPPY View Post
I would think so, particularly from more conservative areas like Orange County. There is certainly no uniformity of thought on this.
roni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #42 (permalink)
añejo
 
TAPPY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 22,639
Sure seems that more cities in Cali are not liking the state sanctuary law - not just Orange county.

There are some pretty passionate non conservatives taking a big stand on this !
TAPPY is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.