RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Breaking: California Appeals Court Overturns Sole Conviction Against I - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Breaking: California Appeals Court Overturns Sole Conviction Against I Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,989
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 02 September 2019 - 11:03 AM

Breaking: California Appeals Court Overturns Sole Conviction Against Illegal Alien Who Killed Kate Steinle



https://www.teaparty.org
September 2, 2019






https://www.teaparty.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/katie1-2.jpg





Article:



A California state appeals court on Friday overturned the one conviction against the illegal alien who shot and killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco in 2015.

The illegal alien killer Garcia-Zarate remains in custody and is still facing federal charges.

Fox News reported:

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 which drew national attention and became a flashpoint in the debate over illegal immigration.

Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate, who was in the U.S. illegally 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 because the judge failed to instruct the jury on one of Garcia-Zarate's defenses. Garcia-Zarate remains in custody and is facing federal gun charges.

Full Story

0

#2 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,720
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 02 September 2019 - 11:29 AM

<censored> Kalifornia.

:nuts:
0

#3 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,566
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 02 September 2019 - 11:48 AM

So. An illegal alien can shoot and kill an American citizen in a sanctuary city, and be convicted of NOTHING. Hey leftists here, that sound about right to you? That sound like a sacrifice you’re willing to make?
0

#4 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,191
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 12:26 PM

Sounds to me like at minimum he denied her civil rights.
0

#5 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,300
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 02 September 2019 - 12:33 PM

 zurg, on 02 September 2019 - 11:48 AM, said:

So. An illegal alien can shoot and kill an American citizen in a sanctuary city, and be convicted of NOTHING. Hey leftists here, that sound about right to you? That sound like a sacrifice you’re willing to make?


I think the problem - on BOTH sides - is that once the term "illegal alien" was used, it became about THAT rather than the crime itself, and doing a proper prosecution along with proper jury instruction went out the window. And here we are.

Heck, even Fox News got into over-hyping it:

Quote

Fox News reported:

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 which drew national attention and became a flashpoint in the debate over illegal immigration.

Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate, who was in the U.S. illegally 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.


"Assault... Weapon" "... (semi) (OMG!)AUTOMATIC Weapon". You wouldn't know from the story that it was a handgun. A Sig-Sauer P239 to be precise. (But was it an assault P239? :bang:)

If a guy commits a crime, then prosecute it for the crime that it is. All else is irrelevant.
0

#6 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 31,199
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 12:37 PM

 RedSoloCup, on 02 September 2019 - 11:29 AM, said:

<censored> Kalifornia.

:nuts:

:yeahthat: :exactly:

The land of fruits and nut's progtards deserve everything bad that happens to them.
0

#7 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 14,883
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 01:33 PM

When is someone going to come out and speak the truth ?

Mexico has been a lawless nation for years and only grows more so. The influence of Hollywood, the 9th circuit and radical academics has turned the west coast into a breeding ground for the incursion of lawlessness from south of the border. Combine that with globalism and diversity madness and it becomes easy to understand where we are headed. There will be a lot of blood, sweat and tears shed to keep the ship afloat.

Prayers would also be in order.
0

#8 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,418
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 02 September 2019 - 01:42 PM

 zurg, on 02 September 2019 - 11:48 AM, said:

So. An illegal alien can shoot and kill an American citizen in a sanctuary city, and be convicted of NOTHING. Hey leftists here, that sound about right to you? That sound like a sacrifice you’re willing to make?


The murder question was decided by a jury of his peers, and we must accept the verdict or so I've been told.

The decision on gun question hasn't been sufficiently explained, at least in this article, but he's still being held on federal gun charges.
0

#9 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,300
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 02 September 2019 - 03:03 PM

 Ladybird, on 02 September 2019 - 01:42 PM, said:

The murder question was decided by a jury of his peers, and we must accept the verdict or so I've been told.

The decision on gun question hasn't been sufficiently explained, at least in this article, but he's still being held on federal gun charges.


The charge was "possession of a firearm by a felon". At one point the jury asked the judge to define "possession", does possession require a specific amount of time? Judge replied that, No, there's not a specific defined time. Technically, that's true. Possession is not defined it terms of "time" but in terms of having "control" over it. By definition, YES, he "possessed" it.

HOWEVER - and this is where the judge erred - Part of Ca Standard jury instruction is that "Possession" is not necessarily illegal if it's only momentary or incidental.

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2017 edition)
CALCRIM No. 2511. Possession of Firearm by Person Prohibited Due to Conviction - Stipulation to Conviction


[If you conclude that the defendant possessed a firearm, that possession
was not unlawful if the defendant can prove the defense of momentary
possession. 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
by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a different standard of
proof than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant must prove
that it is more likely than not that each element of the defense is true.
If
the defendant has not met this burden, (he/she) has not proved this defense]


Now, could the defense have met this burden? Maybe or maybe not. PROBLEM IS, the jury wasn't instructed that they were allowed to even consider it.

The judge clearly erred. It's not surprising he was struck down 3-0.
0

#10 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,285
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 03:20 PM

 zurg, on 02 September 2019 - 11:48 AM, said:

So. An illegal alien can shoot and kill an American citizen in a sanctuary city, and be convicted of NOTHING. Hey leftists here, that sound about right to you? That sound like a sacrifice you're willing to make?


Only if it's not them or their immediate family / friends, if it is then they will be looking for a paycheck. Want to bet they release him so that the Fed's can't get him?
0

#11 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,285
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 03:22 PM

 Ladybird, on 02 September 2019 - 01:42 PM, said:

The murder question was decided by a jury of his peers, and we must accept the verdict or so I've been told.

The decision on gun question hasn't been sufficiently explained, at least in this article, but he's still being held on federal gun charges.


So it was a Jury of mexican's in Kalifornia Illegally? Am I getting that right? The jury should have been in MEXICO. He should have NEVER been here in the first damn place and that girl should still be alive.
0

#12 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,073
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 02 September 2019 - 03:31 PM

 zurg, on 02 September 2019 - 11:48 AM, said:

So. An illegal alien can shoot and kill an American citizen in a sanctuary city, and be convicted of NOTHING. Hey leftists here, that sound about right to you? That sound like a sacrifice you’re willing to make?

according to one of our leftists, it's a small price to pay
0

#13 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,073
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 02 September 2019 - 03:32 PM

just take him out
0

#14 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,149
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 03:46 PM

 zurg, on 02 September 2019 - 11:48 AM, said:

So. An illegal alien can shoot and kill an American citizen in a sanctuary city, and be convicted of NOTHING. Hey leftists here, that sound about right to you? That sound like a sacrifice you’re willing to make?

 Howsithangin, on 02 September 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

according to one of our leftists, it's a small price to pay


Howsit beat me to it: We've been repeatedly assured it's a "small price to pay" for "doing the right thing".

And it's nauseating that anybody could resort to such lunacy as an "argument".

<_<

This post has been edited by MontyPython: 02 September 2019 - 03:47 PM

0

#15 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,394
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 02 September 2019 - 03:59 PM

Who TF is paying this scum's legal bills? How proud they must be to pay attorneys to piss on an innocent bystander's grave.
0

#16 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,566
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 02 September 2019 - 04:30 PM

 Ladybird, on 02 September 2019 - 01:42 PM, said:

The murder question was decided by a jury of his peers, and we must accept the verdict or so I've been told.

The decision on gun question hasn't been sufficiently explained, at least in this article, but he's still being held on federal gun charges.

So you’re defending him. Nice. No shame, huh?

Regarding the federal charges, I specifically said “sanctuary city”, because that’s what it’s all about.
0

#17 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,418
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 02 September 2019 - 09:44 PM

 zurg, on 02 September 2019 - 04:30 PM, said:

So you’re defending him. Nice. No shame, huh?

Regarding the federal charges, I specifically said “sanctuary city”, because that’s what it’s all about.


How is stating what occurred "defending" him? Is it that you must demonize anyone you disagree with, even if it's with bull<censored>?
0

#18 User is offline   Italian Biker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,163
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 03 September 2019 - 11:23 AM

View Postzurg, on 02 September 2019 - 11:48 AM, said:

So. An illegal alien can shoot and kill an American citizen in a sanctuary city, and be convicted of NOTHING. Hey leftists here, that sound about right to you? That sound like a sacrifice you’re willing to make?

I agree that her death was not murder, but manslaughter(wait, womanslaugher for the feminists). The gun was not pointing at her and it was a ricochet. But IMO, the prosecutor purposely did a terrible job, likely due to his opinions on illegal immigration.
0

#19 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 31,199
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 03 September 2019 - 11:29 AM

View PostLadybird, on 02 September 2019 - 09:44 PM, said:

How is stating what occurred "defending" him? Is it that you must demonize anyone you disagree with, even if it's with bull<censored>?

He nailed it.

Once again our resident champion of criminals weighs in.
0

#20 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 17,249
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 03 September 2019 - 11:36 AM

Ladybird isn't 'defending' him. Not even close.

I note the angry in here ignored the first poster to write a calm post on this was Dean. All Ladybird and Dean have pointed out, correctly, that this is a <censored>-up by the judge. Blame him, not Ladybird.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users