When Kate Steinle was killed whilst
walking on San Francisco’s pier 14 back in 2015, the ensuing case
engulfed the nation in a debate rarely seen: What should happen to
deported illegal immigrants if they try and re-enter the country? Yet
the verdict has just come in, and will likely be even more contentious
than the issues this case originally raised.
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate has been
found not guilty of murder by the courts. In fact, he was acquitted of
first and second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and even
assault with a semi-automatic weapon. The only charge of which he was
found guilty was being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Is this justice? Was it just a bad verdict? Or has there been political interference in the fate of Zarate?
The facts of the case are pretty
straight forward. Zarate had the gun in his hand, the gun was fired, and
the bullet hit Kate Steinle killing her. The Defense team claimed that
the gun was fired accidently and that Kate was hit via a ricochet; which
if true, should remove the murder charge. But Zarate had an illegally
owned weapon out in public and was presumably holding at outwards in an
irresponsible manner (otherwise he bullet could not have traveled 78
feet and would have gone into the floor instead).
How is this not criminally negligent?
The verdict sees Zarate only being punished for possessing a weapon.
What of the punishment for being dangerously neglectful of handling the
firearm? And more importantly, why does this verdict completely fail to
address that someone was at fault for Kate’s untimely death?
Zarate had been deported from the
U.S. five times and re-entered again and again without facing any
sterner penalties. This travesty led to the formulation of “Kate’s Law,”
which would see sterner penalties for those who come back illegally
after deportation. It has been lambasted by the leftist media who for
some reason can’t see the benefits of removing criminals from society.
When the verdict was passes, defense attorney Francisco Ugarte said:
“From Day 1 this case was used as a
means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment a program of mass
deportation. It was used to catapult a presidency along that philosophy
of hate of others. I believe today is a day of vindication for the rest
of immigrants.”
No. It is a vindication for people
who negligently kill innocents and who wish to evade punishment. This is
an example of how the system failed Kate and her family; after all of
the high-profile media surrounding the case, the leftist establishment
has been pushing for this kind of verdict to offer a kick in the teeth
of those who wish to see real justice done.
This was a political verdict to promote Sanctuary Cities. In retrospect, we should have seen this coming a mile off.
Californium breaking off and falling into the ocean looks better and better everyday.
No comments:
Post a Comment