On Nov. 30, Mexican citizen Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was cleared for the murder of the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. Though the jury convicted him for unlawful possession of a firearm, which carries a sentence of up to three years, he was found not guilty of murder and the lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. The weapon in question was a semiautomatic pistol that had been stolen from a Bureau of Land Management ranger vehicle. Before the killing, Zarate had entered the United States illegally six times, had a history of nonviolent crimes (though I keep hearing conflicting reports that he had a history of felonies instead,) and the sheriff at the time said he was following San Francisco’s sanctuary policy, which limited the cooperation of local law enforcement with immigration authorities. Garcia Zarate was homeless after being released from jail on a marijuana charge weeks earlier and had been wandering around San Fran’s Pier 14. His intent and how he obtained a weapon to begin with was the subject of the trial.
In the video of Garcia Zarate’s police interrogation, he gave varying stories about whether he was present on Pier 14 that night. He said that he shot the gun at seals, another time that it went off accidentally when he stepped on it, and another time he found the gun wrapped in a cloth on the pier and that it discharged accidentally as he held it. Garcia Zarate’s signed confession from that police interrogation was admitted into evidence at the trial, but defense lawyers questioned its validity, arguing that police had lied, saying they recovered the weapon and found a DNA match that implicated him, which had not happened at the time. One side said the shooting was deliberate, the other side the bullet ricocheting off the concrete before striking Steinle. The prosecutors contended he hurled the gun into the bay to hide his crime, while the defense said he was scared by the noise of the weapon. Since all the evidence was not clear enough for a conviction, Garcia Zarate was acquitted.
Now, this trial was highly politicized, particularly by the anti-immigration crowd who want to use Steinle’s death to demonize pro-immigration causes. When the news of the acquittal came around, the expected xenophobic and nativist outrage came pouring out onto social media, cursing the special snowflake SJWs, blaming the corrupt Left, etc… What came unexpectedly however was when it was reported on Dec. 1 that the Department of Justice issued a warrant for Garcia Zarate after his acquittal of the murder charges. Here are some further details:
In the warrant, DOJ officials point to an “existing federal detainer” requiring Garcia Zarate “be remanded into the custody of US Marshals Service to be transported to the Western District of Texas.”
Garcia Zarate is currently being held in state custody in California where he is scheduled to be sentenced in mid-December. Depending on the sentence he receives for the gun charge, a DOJ official confirmed that Garcia Zarate could be taken into federal custody then or after he serves his sentence.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement deputy director Tom Homan has previously said that, following the conclusion of the case, ICE “will work to take custody of Mr. Garcia Zarate and ultimately remove him from the country.”
The Feds Have Issued A Warrant For The Man Acquitted Of Kate Steinle's Murder
www.buzzfeed.com/…
December 1, 2017
He still killed an innocent woman — accidentally or not — and hurt her family, who have since been put through such ghoulish sensationalism in the name of political gain. He still broke the law by illegally carrying a gun and even entering the country illegally, so it appears the DOJ is well within the law to kick Garcia Zarate out. My problem with the warrant is this:
Despite whatever argument comes up to defend this warrant, the fact that this DOJ came out so quickly after a man’s acquittal is insulting and a bit worrying. It seems the same side of “law and order” that told everyone to respect the judicial process, even when seemingly unfair and unjust verdicts were handed down, are now okay with thinly veiled politically-motivated meddling in that same judicial process. Where was this rapid response by the DOJ when people like corrupt LEO’s or the wealthy were acquitted in slayings of the poor or POCs? Was there a response at all? If so, how often and what did they do about that can come close to equaling this recent response?
This current response was to rally Drumpf’s base. This was to make the anti-immigration side feel better about what they felt amounted to a loss; to make an example out of an immigrant who they feel that represents so many others. This was not to find justice for Kate Steinle but to fulfill a part of the larger narrative of the savage outgroup that must be gotten rid of to make America great again. It makes me wonder, how far will this Department of Justice go to please the base? How many more will become examples of the administration’s grandstanding, because the base feels what they believe is being “soft” on immigration or crime will lead to more of what they see as “injustice” perpetrated by the “other?”