A California state appeals court Friday overturned the lone conviction against an undocumented immigrant who shot and killed Kate Steinle on the San Francisco waterfront in 2015, a case that drew national attention and became a flashpoint in the debate over illegal immigration.

Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate, who was in the U.S. illegally and had been deported to his native Mexico five times, was acquitted in November 2017 of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and assault with a semi-automatic weapon. He was convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

On Friday, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco overturned that conviction, saying the judge failed to give the jury the option of acquitting Garcia-Zarate on the theory he possessed the weapon for only a moment.

tired of political judges

bring back the death penalty for judges who break the law and make decisions handed to them by politicians (which btw - was the original purpose for the public paid judge death penalty to exist)

Democrats represent illegals and not Americans. Democrats have now sent the message that it is open season on Americans. Come on in and murder Americans and democrats will protect you and financially support you.

He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around a gun it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and killed a man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial AND he is still being held awaiting Federal charges. The felony possession of firearm was the charge overturned. Why not understand the facts before screaming off with his head?

Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around a gun
> it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and killed a
> man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial AND he
> is still being held awaiting Federal charges. The
> felony possession of firearm was the charge
> overturned. Why not understand the facts before
> screaming off with his head?


God damn you're fucking libtarded.

President Trump FTW! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around a
> gun
> > it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and killed
> a
> > man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial AND
> he
> > is still being held awaiting Federal charges.
> The
> > felony possession of firearm was the charge
> > overturned. Why not understand the facts
> before
> > screaming off with his head?
>
>
> God damn you're fucking libtarded.

agreed - libtards cite facts in evidence and actually know something. Not what we need here. A final solution is to just round up illegals and execute them. Train cars could be useful...

Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around a gun
> it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and killed a
> man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial AND he
> is still being held awaiting Federal charges. The
> felony possession of firearm was the charge
> overturned. Why not understand the facts before
> screaming off with his head?

The trick here is the bullet richoched. Once it hit the cement, it was in God's hands, he had no control over it. That's the law. If a rock falls off a dump truck, if it hits your windshield, the dump tuck people are responsible. If if it hits the ground first, bouncing, and then hits your windshield, it was God's will, and not the dump trucks people's fault. That is the way the laws are written.

Just the facts maam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around a
> gun
> > it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and killed
> a
> > man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial AND
> he
> > is still being held awaiting Federal charges.
> The
> > felony possession of firearm was the charge
> > overturned. Why not understand the facts
> before
> > screaming off with his head?
>
> The trick here is the bullet richoched. Once it
> hit the cement, it was in God's hands, he had no
> control over it. That's the law. If a rock falls
> off a dump truck, if it hits your windshield, the
> dump tuck people are responsible. If if it hits
> the ground first, bouncing, and then hits your
> windshield, it was God's will, and not the dump
> trucks people's fault. That is the way the laws
> are written.

poor example. Gravel trucks are required to exercise ordinary car in loading and transporting gravel - it doesnt matter if it bounces off the pavement. The man might be guilty of involuntary manslaughter but they tried him on 2nd degree murder - laughable.

I am wondering what the OP wanted to happen?

Like, well, he was actually innocent of this charge, but since he is an illegal, were gonna overrule the jury (or judge, as the case may be) and have the charges stick?

Not how our laws work. Not sure that is how any country's laws have worked-ever.

If he's guilty of being an illegal, so be it. Charge him with that, and apply the appropriate penalty.

But if he didn't "do" what he was charged with, or, there were extenuating circumstances, what do you want to have happen?

Clearly, since OP posted this, I'm guessing he just wants some type of vigilante, made up on the spot "justice", but, no, that is not the way things work.

wtf do you want Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am wondering what the OP wanted to happen?
>
> Like, well, he was actually innocent of this
> charge, but since he is an illegal, were gonna
> overrule the jury (or judge, as the case may be)
> and have the charges stick?
>
> Not how our laws work. Not sure that is how any
> country's laws have worked-ever.

^^^^^^^
You are white huh

wtf do you want Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am wondering what the OP wanted to happen?
>
> Like, well, he was actually innocent of this
> charge, but since he is an illegal, were gonna
> overrule the jury (or judge, as the case may be)
> and have the charges stick?
>
> Not how our laws work. Not sure that is how any
> country's laws have worked-ever.
>
> If he's guilty of being an illegal, so be it.
> Charge him with that, and apply the appropriate
> penalty.
>
> But if he didn't "do" what he was charged with,
> or, there were extenuating circumstances, what do
> you want to have happen?
>
> Clearly, since OP posted this, I'm guessing he
> just wants some type of vigilante, made up on the
> spot "justice", but, no, that is not the way
> things work.

For starters, how about California enforce our laws? That woman would still be alive if they did. Libs hate Americans so they refuse to enforce our laws that protect our citizens.

train cars Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> President Trump FTW! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around
> a
> > gun
> > > it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and
> killed
> > a
> > > man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial
> AND
> > he
> > > is still being held awaiting Federal charges.
>
> > The
> > > felony possession of firearm was the charge
> > > overturned. Why not understand the facts
> > before
> > > screaming off with his head?
> >
> >
> > God damn you're fucking libtarded.
>
> agreed - libtards cite facts in evidence and
> actually know something. Not what we need here.
> A final solution is to just round up illegals and
> execute them. Train cars could be useful...

There was no man shot. Clearly, you are libtarded and stupid as fuck. Hang that fucker and hang Pelosi too.

the woman was hot too. Most he will get is involuntary manslaughter in his next federal trial. Worst would be like 4 years 3 hots and a cot. But I doubt they will be able to prove criminal negligence required for the manslaughter. bad shit happens, accidents happen, homeless immigrants are a problem...

all 1st world problems I assure you.

ordinary care Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just the facts maam Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around
> a
> > gun
> > > it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and
> killed
> > a
> > > man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial
> AND
> > he
> > > is still being held awaiting Federal charges.
>
> > The
> > > felony possession of firearm was the charge
> > > overturned. Why not understand the facts
> > before
> > > screaming off with his head?
> >
> > The trick here is the bullet richoched. Once it
> > hit the cement, it was in God's hands, he had
> no
> > control over it. That's the law. If a rock
> falls
> > off a dump truck, if it hits your windshield,
> the
> > dump tuck people are responsible. If if it
> hits
> > the ground first, bouncing, and then hits your
> > windshield, it was God's will, and not the dump
> > trucks people's fault. That is the way the
> laws
> > are written.
>
> poor example. Gravel trucks are required to
> exercise ordinary car in loading and transporting
> gravel - it doesnt matter if it bounces off the
> pavement. The man might be guilty of involuntary
> manslaughter but they tried him on 2nd degree
> murder - laughable.
The only way the truck driver or the company could be responsible for the crack in the windshield is if the rock fell straight from the truck onto your windshield.

If however, a rock falls off the truck, hits the road and then bounces upward and damages your windshield, there’s no chance the driver of that truck would take responsibility or offer to pay for a replacement windshield.

The reason being, once the rock hits the pavement, it’s then considered a road hazard.

This is the reason for having the sign on the back of the truck that reads “Warning – Stay back 100 feet.”

As with everything though, there are exceptions to every rule.

If you can somehow prove that the truck was illegally overfilled, you may have a better chance of getting somewhere with the driver, and/or the company.

The difficult thing is though, acquiring the proof.

ordinary care Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just the facts maam Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around
> a
> > gun
> > > it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and
> killed
> > a
> > > man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial
> AND
> > he
> > > is still being held awaiting Federal charges.
>
> > The
> > > felony possession of firearm was the charge
> > > overturned. Why not understand the facts
> > before
> > > screaming off with his head?
> >
> > The trick here is the bullet richoched. Once it
> > hit the cement, it was in God's hands, he had
> no
> > control over it. That's the law. If a rock
> falls
> > off a dump truck, if it hits your windshield,
> the
> > dump tuck people are responsible. If if it
> hits
> > the ground first, bouncing, and then hits your
> > windshield, it was God's will, and not the dump
> > trucks people's fault. That is the way the
> laws
> > are written.
>
> poor example. Gravel trucks are required to
> exercise ordinary car in loading and transporting
> gravel - it doesnt matter if it bounces off
> pavement.

Good grief. Google "Rock" "Windshield" "Truck," an the first 10 hits say you are wrong. Misinformation. Do you work for the Trump administration?

Arlo in Wend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ordinary care Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just the facts maam Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > He picked up a shirt that was wrapped
> around
> > a
> > > gun
> > > > it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and
> > killed
> > > a
> > > > man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial
> > AND
> > > he
> > > > is still being held awaiting Federal
> charges.
> >
> > > The
> > > > felony possession of firearm was the charge
> > > > overturned. Why not understand the facts
> > > before
> > > > screaming off with his head?
> > >
> > > The trick here is the bullet richoched. Once
> it
> > > hit the cement, it was in God's hands, he had
> > no
> > > control over it. That's the law. If a rock
> > falls
> > > off a dump truck, if it hits your windshield,
> > the
> > > dump tuck people are responsible. If if it
> > hits
> > > the ground first, bouncing, and then hits
> your
> > > windshield, it was God's will, and not the
> dump
> > > trucks people's fault. That is the way the
> > laws
> > > are written.
> >
> > poor example. Gravel trucks are required to
> > exercise ordinary car in loading and
> transporting
> > gravel - it doesnt matter if it bounces off
> > pavement.
>
> Good grief. Google "Rock" "Windshield" "Truck,"
> an the first 10 hits say you are wrong.
> Misinformation. Do you work for the Trump
> administration?

Sorry you are confused - you said "If a rock falls off a truck..." in that case the carrier must exercise ordinary care. If the rock fell because the truck was improperly loaded and you can prove it they are liable. Period.

I think what you are referring to is if a truck kicks-up a rock from the road, they are not liable for this. For example if a truck is grossly overloaded and poorly secured gravel is falling off the truck there is no magic release of liability once the rock hits the ground if it bounces up and causes damage. Moreover if the truck is seeding the road with debris and another car kicks it up the again would be liable.

In the case of a ricocheting bullet at a distance it would be hard to prove intent based on the randomness of the aim - manslaughter yes but murder no.

in Trump's debate against maybe Biden, voters hate this liberal generosity. Might as well adopt the guy and make him San Fran's mascot. Damn shame!

Just the facts maam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around a
> gun
> > it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and killed
> a
> > man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial AND
> he
> > is still being held awaiting Federal charges.
> The
> > felony possession of firearm was the charge
> > overturned. Why not understand the facts
> before
> > screaming off with his head?
>
> The trick here is the bullet richoched. Once it
> hit the cement, it was in God's hands, he had no
> control over it. That's the law. If a rock falls
> off a dump truck, if it hits your windshield, the
> dump tuck people are responsible. If if it hits
> the ground first, bouncing, and then hits your
> windshield, it was God's will, and not the dump
> trucks people's fault. That is the way the laws
> are written.


Dumbest thing I ever read^^. The law says that maggot put the whole episode into reality. He was the impetus behind the event. Your reasoning is crazy logic. He was the causation factor. You're stupid.

So you are saying if I shoot some fool and bankshot that round, that I'm good?

follow the bouncing rock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arlo in Wend Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ordinary care Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Just the facts maam Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > He picked up a shirt that was wrapped
> > around
> > > a
> > > > gun
> > > > > it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and
> > > killed
> > > > a
> > > > > man 78 feet away. State can have a
> retrial
> > > AND
> > > > he
> > > > > is still being held awaiting Federal
> > charges.
> > >
> > > > The
> > > > > felony possession of firearm was the
> charge
> > > > > overturned. Why not understand the facts
> > > > before
> > > > > screaming off with his head?
> > > >
> > > > The trick here is the bullet richoched.
> Once
> > it
> > > > hit the cement, it was in God's hands, he
> had
> > > no
> > > > control over it. That's the law. If a
> rock
> > > falls
> > > > off a dump truck, if it hits your
> windshield,
> > > the
> > > > dump tuck people are responsible. If if it
> > > hits
> > > > the ground first, bouncing, and then hits
> > your
> > > > windshield, it was God's will, and not the
> > dump
> > > > trucks people's fault. That is the way the
> > > laws
> > > > are written.
> > >
> > > poor example. Gravel trucks are required to
> > > exercise ordinary car in loading and
> > transporting
> > > gravel - it doesnt matter if it bounces off
> > > pavement.
> >
> > Good grief. Google "Rock" "Windshield"
> "Truck,"
> > an the first 10 hits say you are wrong.
> > Misinformation. Do you work for the Trump
> > administration?
>
> Sorry you are confused - you said "If a rock falls
> off a truck..." in that case the carrier must
> exercise ordinary care. If the rock fell because
> the truck was improperly loaded and you can prove
> it they are liable. Period.


[No they are not liable for damage if the rock hits the ground before hitting your car].
>
> I think what you are referring to is if a truck
> kicks-up a rock from the road, they are not liable
> for this.

[poor grammar . never use the word "this" without a qualifier afterwards]

For example if a truck is grossly
> overloaded and poorly secured gravel is falling
> off the truck there is no magic release of
> liability once the rock hits the ground if it
> bounces up and causes damage.

[wrong. The can be cited for overloading, but
not for any damage caused by a bouncing rock].

Moreover if the
> truck is seeding [sic] the road with debris and another
> car kicks it up the again would be liable.

{i am missing what you are tying to communicate here]
>
> In the case of a ricocheting bullet at a distance
> it would be hard to prove intent based on the
> randomness of the aim - manslaughter yes but
> murder no.


[gunshots are not like billiard shots.]

Stop thinking, it clearly is not working for you.

Form an auto glass company website. I am sure they get asked this question hundreds of times a day.

If a rock flies directly from the back of a track and hits your windshield, the company may be responsible for the damage. They can be found liable if you stayed 100 to 150 feet away from the truck and/or if you can show that the truck was overloaded and carrying more rock or gravel than they should have been. However, it is important to note that if a rock flies out of the truck, hits the road and then bounces up on your car, it is considered road debris. In this case, the trucking company is not responsible, even if you can show the rock came from their truck.

Now, guess who helped write that law?


Did you even check LexisNexis or WestLaw before making claims? I will bet he mortgage you didn't.

Now that's dumb! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just the facts maam Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sureokkkabsolutelygay Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > He picked up a shirt that was wrapped around
> a
> > gun
> > > it went off ricocheted off a curb hit and
> killed
> > a
> > > man 78 feet away. State can have a retrial
> AND
> > he
> > > is still being held awaiting Federal charges.
>
> > The
> > > felony possession of firearm was the charge
> > > overturned. Why not understand the facts
> > before
> > > screaming off with his head?
> >
> > The trick here is the bullet richoched. Once it
> > hit the cement, it was in God's hands, he had
> no
> > control over it. That's the law. If a rock
> falls
> > off a dump truck, if it hits your windshield,
> the
> > dump tuck people are responsible. If if it
> hits
> > the ground first, bouncing, and then hits your
> > windshield, it was God's will, and not the dump
> > trucks people's fault. That is the way the
> laws
> > are written.
>
>
> Dumbest thing I ever read^^. The law says that
> maggot put the whole episode into reality. He was
> the impetus behind the event. Your reasoning is
> crazy logic. He was the causation factor. You're
> stupid.

The courts disagree with your assertions. Again, did you bother to heck WestLaw or LexisNexis before making claims? I will bet you did not.

Okay, so my father works for the FMCSA (the federal authority for commercial vehicles) and here is his take on this. This truck can have all the stickers and signs they want on the truck telling you that they are not responsible for broken windshields but the fact is that the ONLY reason a rock is flying off a dump truck is because part of that load is not secured properly. Period, end of story. If the trucking company wants to argue this, kindly refer them the CFR part 393.100 and then let them argue, then call your local authorities and give them the information of the vehicle and file a crash report. Yes, this is a crash. That rock is part of the truck and it impacted your vehicle in the world of automobile crashes. I am a crash analyst, so I live in this world. Most, not all, states require all crashes where the combined damage is greater than $1000 to be reported. So tell the officer you aren't sure and you'd rather be safe than sorry. Advise the trucking company you will be doing this because a crash affects their safety rating with the FMCSA. 9 times out of 10, they will play ball if their intimidation tactics do not work on you and you go in educated.

TLDR; Stickers do not matter. He is liable.

Let's get the facts straight. The California Court of Appeals did not overturn "all charges" against Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate in connection with the death of Kate Steinle.

The allegations were that Kate Steinle was killed by a ricochet bullet fired by a gun in the possession of Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate. The state of California charged Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate with murder, manslaughter and illegal possession of firearm by a felon. The charges went to trial. The prosecution presented its evidence and the defense presented its evidence. The jury retired to deliberate, and when they returned they found Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate guilty of the possession charge and not guilty of all other charges. The defense appealed the one guilty verdict. The defense claimed that the jury should have been instructed on a temporary possession defense to the possession charge. The Court of Appeals agreed, "reversed the conviction" on the one charge Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate was convicted of, and returned the case to the trial court for a new trial on the possession charge.

If the prosecution had not opposed the offering of the defense's temporary possession instruction and the trial judge had not mistakenly sided with the prosecution, Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate would still be convicted. As it is the charge of illegal possession against Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate still stands in the California court system. The other charges against Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate were disposed of when the jury found him not guilty. In addition there are unlawful possession charges against Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate that are pending in the Federal court system.

Cop here, companies stick those warning notices on their trucks because they know it will deter many people from filing police reports. Short answer, the company is liable for the insecure load and any damage caused by same.

the evidence was CLEAR

he had an illegal weapon (that he found it in the sand was NOT proven)

he shot illegally to kill*

he wasn't supposed to be in the USA he'd already been arrested and ejected by california**

* his testimony was that it was not a hit job and he thought it was an animal: HOWEVER - IT'S ILLEGAL AS HELL to discharge a fire-arm inside a city to shoot at protected animals. anyone would know a swimmer could have been hit and - being in the water, would not be seen.

** if california doesn't want you in USA: nobody does, which obviously democrats apologized for the minute they found out the victim was a pretty white girl and the perp one of their prized illegal aliens

ANY WAY YOU CUT IT THIS GUY WAS GUILTY

ANY WAY YOU CUT IT all charges were dropped

why: is because like berkeley students violently preventing white kids from getting to class and berkeley cops helping the illegal aliens do it? it's a damn embarassement

the Court is part of a terror group who wants citizens to fear illegal aliens and to fear justice

it's a good reason to give the judge a death penalty

for dropping all charges purely for political reasons

all charges is all charges: they were ALL DROPPED

many more Kates will die with this "political terrorism" continuing

many Kates will die hereon

all charges dropped?

the TRESSPASS CHARGE was not even filed?

the part about his being an illegal alien that california let go ?

about the State of California owning her family perhaps hundreds of millions as in get the fuck out of town you dirty politicians hundreds of millions ?

.

question from a local nigga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you are saying if I shoot some fool and
> bankshot that round, that I'm good?


That is exactly what they are saying. If you are in battle and are gathering head counts and the enemy dies from shrapnel from a grenade. It is an act of God, God gets the kill not you.
That shrapnel was directed by a superior force. Libtard logic. That's exactly why this country is in such dire straits.

we just expect some asshole political judge would allow an insanity plea for a political cause

BUT ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED

the issue here is ALL

Name one charge that was dropped. Murder prosecuted. Manslaughter prosecuted. Possession prosecuted. Prosecuting charges doesn't guarantee the case will be decided the way you want.

2eefr3re Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all charges dropped?
>
> the TRESSPASS CHARGE was not even filed?
>
> the part about his being an illegal alien that
> california let go ?
>
> about the State of California owning her family
> perhaps hundreds of millions as in get the fuck
> out of town you dirty politicians hundreds of
> millions ?
>
> .

Only if your an illegal alien. Better yet, a multiple crime illegal alien like this murderer. If you're an American though, California will probably execute you.