California: Multiracial Jury Fails to Punish Invader Who Murdered White Woman

by David Sims

ON 1 July 2015, Kathryn Michelle Steinle was walking along a beach in San Francisco, California, having a conversation with her father. While they were strolling along on a pier, she was shot and killed by Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, an illegal Mexican immigrant and convicted felon (with seven previous felony convictions) who was illegally in the United States for the sixth time. He has used the alias “Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez.”

San Francisco is one of those “sanctuary cities,” run for the benefit of foreigners by elected officials who betray their country and who defy the law for leftist political reasons.

Jose Inez Garcia Zarate’s first story was that he was shooting at sea lions and hit the young White woman, Kate Steinle, by accident.

He changed his story later — and more than once. A more recent story is that he found an abandoned shirt and picked it up. The gun, a Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistol, had been wrapped in the shirt, he said, and it fired accidentally when he picked up what he thought was merely a piece of cloth, which resulted in Kate Steinle being killed by the wildest coincidence. That was his second story.

Apparently, it did not matter to the jury that Jose Garcia Zarate changed his story and that, therefore, at least one of his accounts to the police must be perjury, making him a lying false witness. At some point in time, Zarate told police a third version of events in which the gun fired when he stepped on it.

What we know is that when the gun fired, the bullet traveled part of the way toward Kate Steinle, struck the concrete surface of the pier and ricocheted, then traveled the rest of the way to Miss Steinle and killed her. This indicates that Zarate was intentionally firing in her general direction, but for one reason or another he had the elevation of the gun wrong for a direct hit. The ricochet hit is what we used to call “a lucky shot.” Or unlucky, in this case.

The charge made against Garcia Zarate that seems most likely to be true is, therefore, that of second-degree murder. If he had aimed the gun directly at Miss Steinle, he’d have committed first-degree murder. Instead, Zarate fired the gun recklessly, knowing that there was a chance of injury to his victim, but without aiming the gun in order to make sure that she was hit. Miss Steinle died as the result of his shooting. This is the textbook definition of second-degree murder.

If any White person, even if he were a citizen and had a clean prior record of lawful behavior, had done the same thing, he’d have been convicted of second-degree murder, and possibly even first-degree murder. No excuses would have been made for a White US citizen who fired a pistol at someone and killed her because of a bullet ricochet.

After shooting Miss Steinle, Zarate threw or kicked the gun into the ocean water, where it was recovered later by police. He was seen on video cameras running away, and he was arrested an hour later about a mile away from the scene of the shooting.

Even if Zarate shot Kate Steinle completely by accident, he’s still guilty of negligent manslaughter, which is a crime in itself, albeit a lesser one than murder. However, there should have been sufficient evidence against him to have led to his conviction for second-degree murder at trial.

Instead, the trial jury acquitted Garcia Zarate of first degree murder, of second degree murder, of involuntary manslaughter, and of assault with a deadly weapon. They convicted Zarate only of being a felon illegally in possession of a firearm, for which the maximum penalty is three years in prison. Which is very strange. Why? Because if you really do believe his story about a Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistol, which requires a firm pull on the trigger to fire — i.e. a force substantially greater than its own weight would supply — going off “all by itself,” then you wouldn’t find him illegally in possession of a gun that he had not known was wrapped up inside a discarded shirt. The dishonesty (or stupidity) of the jurors shows up as much by what they convicted him of as it does by what they they acquitted him of.

That jury was composed of six men and six women, and three of the jurors were themselves immigrants. The breathtaking acquittals of Zarate on every charge except gun possession indicates that they were simply a thoroughly biased group of anti-Whites who granted Zarate an immunity to any penalty for wrongful homicide (and for perjury) because he is a Mestizo and an illegal immigrant, and who disregarded Miss Steinle’s right to live because she was a White US citizen.

But that’s how it is, quod erat demonstrandum.

It would be worthwhile to find out who the idiots on the trial jury were, if only to find out what made them such idiots and weed their like out of any future juries.

If the law does not fulfill its obligation to protect us, nor to avenge us if its protection fails, then we have no obligation to respect or obey said law. When such is the case, hang the law. Destroy it. Destroy the government that made it. Kill all enemies. And then start over.

* * *

Source: Author