Approximately two and a half years ago, on a pier in San Francisco, California, illegal alien Jose Ines Garcia Zarate (previously known as Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez), who had been deported five times and had re-entered the country even so, shot and killed natural-born American citizen Kate Steinle. At his trial, he claimed that he had just found the gun, picked it up, “and it just went off.” Just like that. No intent to harm anyone. Certainly not young, beautiful Kate Steinle.
However, Garcia Zarate’s story has changed a few times. The above is only the most recent edition.
The gun Garcia Zarate used to kill Kate Steinle had been issued to John Woychowski, an employee of the Bureau of Land Management based in southern California. He testified that it had been stolen from his locked car:
Woychowski, who lives in the small town of Imperial, was traveling through San Francisco on June 27, 2015, and had parked his car downtown when the Sig Sauer .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol was stolen from the vehicle, according to Bureau of Land Management officials. He was on duty the night it was stolen, and his car was locked, they said.
This BLM “ranger” was “on duty” – in San Francisco? But not carrying his service weapon? I can find no mention of whether Woychowski has been disciplined for leaving his service weapon unguarded in a public place. Why was a weapon issued to him, anyway? To keep up with the ever more heavily armed Departments of Agriculture and Education?
Kate Steinle’s father was with her when she was shot and killed. Did he testify about the circumstances? Did he see Garcia Zarate aim at his daughter? Did he see Garcia Zarate pull the trigger? I’ve yet to locate coverage that mentions these things.
I doubt we’ll ever know, beyond a reasonable doubt, the entire train of events that culminated in what happened on that pier. But as of this morning, we know this: a jury acquitted Garcia Zarate of the charges of second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Neither did it impose on him a verdict for involuntary manslaughter, which would have been consistent with his claim that the gun “just went off.” It convicted him solely on the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, for which he’ll be imprisoned for a maximum of three years. At the conclusion of his sentence, he’ll be deported...for the sixth time.
There are persons who have no problem with federal employees who carry guns. There are also persons who have no problem with illegal immigration and an uncontrolled border. Those two sets probably intersect. How many of them serve on California juries?
I once explored the possibility of relocating to California. This morning – for quite a few mornings before this one, really – I’m unutterably grateful that I failed.
There’ll be a lot of ranting and fulminating over this verdict. It will have at least two perceptible consequences:
- Increased national support for President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall;
- Increased preening on the Left over having “saved” an illegal from the justice system.
As for the state of California, it’s already experiencing a net outflow of self-supporting American citizens and a net inflow of illegal aliens from various parts of Central and South America. That will probably continue for a while. So will the state’s “sanctuary” policy, under which it shields its large illegal alien population – probably well into the millions – from deportation by federal immigration officials.
Somehow, I doubt that any California politicians who’ve entertained presidential fantasies will profit from these developments. National sentiment in favor of tightened border control is stronger than ever. However, no politician can afford to back that policy and win elected office in California. Yet it’s clearer than ever that sensible Americans should stay away from California, even for a brief vacation. And with that, I yield the floor to my colleagues and Gentle Readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment