Header Image (book)


Monday, March 19, 2018

Sinking Their Own Ship

The sense of entitlement on crack cocaine — and this murderer is not even an American citizen.

Photo by: Michael Macor
In this July 7, 2015, file photo, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, right, is led into the courtroom by San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, left, and Assistant District Attorney Diana Garciaor, center, for his arraignment at the Hall of Justice in San Francisco. Garcia Zarate, a homeless undocumented immigrant acquitted of killing Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier ,is scheduled to be sentenced on a lesser gun charge Friday, Jan. 5, 2018. (Michael Macor/San Francisco Chronicle via AP, Pool, File)

From Illegal immigrant charged in Kate Steinle death accuses government of ‘vindictive’ prosecution (Washington Times, March 15, 2018):
The illegal immigrant accused in the shooting death of Kate Steinle is charging the federal government with “vindictive prosecution” and collusion with city and state authorities, and using President Trump’s tweets and public statements by him and his attorney general to make his case.

In a filing this week in federal court in San Francisco, lawyers for Jose Garcia-Zarate demanded that that the federal government hand over its communications with local law enforcement agencies — the San Francisco police, district attorney’s office and sheriff’s office — to let him prove collusion and double jeopardy.

Attorney J. Tony Serra accused Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions of using his client as a political punching bag and said their words suggest that Mr. Garcia-Zarate is being unjustly prosecuted.
Read the rest HERE.

Related reading and a must-read: The Murder Shaking San Francisco's Liberal Soul (the Daily Beast, July 10, 2015).

Is it any wonder that more and more Americans are fed up to their eye teeth with these illegal aliens?



  1. This is the handiwork of his criminally-insane defense attorneys.

    Where are they getting their money? Who funds all this?

    1. George Soros –– or one of the many Unseen Hands just like him –– of course. Who else?

  2. Blame the prosecutors who were hell bent on a 1st degree murder charge which wasn't there.

    If they had gone for negligent manslaughter they probably could have convicted.

    1. I hate to say this, but I agree with Ducky. This shooting was an accident. Kate was killed by a ricochet.

    2. Firing a gun at ALL ––– ANY gun –– in a public setting is –– or should be –– a Criminal 0ffense worthy of a minimum twenty-year jail sentence. PERIOD!.

      The bastard had already been deported FIVE TIMESl As far as I'M concerned he shouldn't have been permitted to have ANY "defense" at all. Instead he should have been SHOT DEAD by the police the SECIND he was apprehended.

      I suppose if he'd brought a MACHINE GUN to the park and mowed down fifteen or twenty innocent bystanders, he might have gotten killed by the police, and that would have ENDED the goddam matter once and for all.

      The point is that Kate Steinle –– a TOTALLY innocent human being –– is DEAD, because Law Enforcement FAILED to do its duty.

      DEAD is DEAD –– never mind the MOTIVES.

      Let's gp back to an eye for an eye. etc. Hammurabi had it right,.

    3. FT makes a brilliant point.

      Had the perp--instead of belonging to a protected tribe--been an old white man in an NRA t-shirt whose gun accidentally went off and killed someone, it would have been a much different outcome.

      Leftwing Democrats are a hysterical, screaming herd of gun-grabbers, unless the gun is wielded by one of their pet fetishes.

      Thank you, FreeThinke!

    4. Furthermore...

      Vicious MS-13 murderers are blithely dismissed by the Democrat Ducky types, but if three white bubbas get together in the woods with AR-15's, its a Five Alarm Hysteria APB put out by Southern Poverty Law Center and picked up by every outlet in the Infotainment Media Complex.

    5. FT,
      The point is that Kate Steinle –– a TOTALLY innocent human being –– is DEAD, because Law Enforcement FAILED to do its duty.


      And SF, you are correct, too:

      Had the perp--instead of belonging to a protected tribe--been an old white man in an NRA t-shirt whose gun accidentally went off and killed someone, it would have been a much different outcome.

    6. Thank you, Silver –– and AOW too. Generating attention of any sort –– pro r con –– is a rare occurrence. Receiving AFFIRMATION is rarer still.

      I never seek praise or popularity, but I'm hardly averse to it on the few occasions when it arrives. };^)>

      I'd hardly call my comment "brilliant," As Isee it, it's nothing more –– or less –– than good Common Sense.

      Too often it seems "The Law" is deliberately designed by crafty, disingenuous, agenda-driven ideologues to THWART Common Sense and Common Decency.

      That line advising "First, let's kill al the lawyers" (Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2) may not be ill-advised.

    7. FT,
      Too often it seems "The Law" is deliberately designed by crafty, disingenuous, agenda-driven ideologues to THWART Common Sense and Common Decency.

      It wasn't always that way! Some of our Founders were lawyers, weren't they? Thomas Jefferson, for example.

  3. I have to agree with Ducky that the prosecutors over-charged Garcia; where we probably disagree is that I think over-charging him was politically motivated and intentional. There is more than one way to achieve one's agenda.

    1. Sam,

      Thank you. I couldn't help thinking that as well.


    2. What did they have to gain by intentionally overcharging Garcia?

      They were more likely to be caving to public outrage.

    3. Public outrage? At a poor beleaguered person of a protected class? In San Francisco?

      LMAO (tm)

    4. Outrage? Indoctrinated San Fran Progs will be up to their eyebrows in feces, used needles and arrogant Silicon Valley techies before those baahing sheeple express any outrage.

    5. What they achieved, Ducky, is the acquittal of an “undocumented voter” and legitimization of their sanctuary city. You would have to be delusional to think that district attorney’s prosecutorial decisions aren’t guided by politics. In this case, the short-term loss was a long-term win for George Gascon (a Hispanic) who, according to his bio, has earned a national reputation as a visionary in criminal justice reform. Well, he is a visionary, alright. The lead prosecutor, by the way, was Diana Garcia. Hmmm. Perhaps you also think that Mike Nifong was somehow apolitical.

    6. Sam,
      What they achieved...is the acquittal of an “undocumented voter” and legitimization of their sanctuary city.

      Never mind that Kate Steinle is dead! Her loved ones are supposed to suck up their grief and pity Kate's murderer. Sheesh.

    7. EXACTLY, AOW!

      Our country is MORIBUND thanks to an excess of LEGALISTIC thinking and over-reliance on UNSCRUPULOUS trial lawyers.

      Welcome to Topsy Turvey Land where aggressive criminals get more sympathy –– and better BREAKS –– than their VICTIMS.

      Will ENOUGH ever be ENOUGH again?

  4. Apologies for off topic, but this is a stunning admission from an Obamunist:

    Ex-Obama Campaign Director Drops Bombshell Claim on Facebook: 'They Were on Our Side'

    1. Carol Davidsen

      I am also 100% positive that Facebook activity recruits and staffs people that are on the other side.

      8:03 PM - Mar 18, 2018

      which, of course, is probably RUBBISH. (the 'other side' being the DARKER side..US!) A dear friend and blogger some of us old-timers remember has had a heck of a time at FB because he posts conservative information and fights with libs....I myself suddenly disappeared from Ed's site and all I can imagine is I mentioned FOX ... very nonchalantly, not fer or agin. Odd.

    2. Yup. Typical leftwing Democrat tactic:

      1. Use every dirty trick in the book and laugh all the way to elected office.

      2. Scream bloody murder and demand prosecution when a Republican does the same.

    3. SF,
      I'm damn tired of the double standard -- particularly when it involves the Cult of Obama.

      So as not to make myself sick by reading the news all the time, I've retreated to reading novels: Behind Her Eyes and News of the World. Very different genres -- and I recommend both books.

    4. Should they both be hold to the higher or lower of the two standards?

    5. Jez, we are spilling over with ideologically-driven selective deafness and blindness on all sides.

      I have strong opinions on the handling of personal data, since I had my identity stolen thanks to the Federal Department that performs security clearances on military members.

      I could write a book, but don't take such a dim view of what goes on in social media.Don't overshare and don't unquestioningly lap up everything you see.

      Corps and the finance industry know everything about us, and they sell it, which I think should be illegal and punishable by jail time. This will never happen, because politics thrives on using, manipulating and abusing our personal information.

      Short of that, I would like the law to recognize that we no longer have control of our own data, and therefore cannot be legally held liable for its misuse. Somebody takes out a mortgage on a McMansion in my name? Not my problem. If you can't prove it was me who signed those papers and then defaulted, Mr. Financial Industry, YOU eat it, not me.

      Fie on them all

    6. Jez, I will also say, from my limited knowledge of the subject, I am a big fan of European privacy laws and with the way the EU goes after abusive corporate practices.

    7. ...but I despise Europe's infantilizing and tyrannical anti-speech laws.

      Speech control >> Thought Control >> Speech Control .. Thought Control = Shrinking vocabulary, shrinking thought.

      More speech, not less, is the answer.

    8. Your ideas about data privacy should be on the agenda, but I don't hold much hope. Yes, it seems the EU is a fairly lonely voice against free-range personal data, one more reason to lament brexit. As for speech and thought, I'm in favour of freedom, and consider it a natural right that I will exercise regardless of the legal situation. But I can see how an undisciplined discourse is undesirable too: in my opinion, Trumpesque speech shrinks thought more than laws against inflammatory language.

    9. I disagree on "Trumpesque" speech, and anecdotal evidence in on my side: His vulgar fulminations have turned people away who otherwise support his policies.

      Here in the US, bigoted minority-haters like David Duke may engage in their repulsive, bigoted speech, as do rabid Jew-haters like Louis Farrakan and his ilk.

      Just the other day, a DC City councilman blamed Jews for manipulating the weather and making his city unseasonably cold. Nobody called for him to be tried and jailed; it's not against the law to be a bigoted kook spouting inanities.

      People noted it and moved on. That kind of speech gets a lot of votes in certain segments of the black community.

    10. People whose impression of our president has been formed by soundbites presented in the ENEMEDIA do NOT know President Trump AT ALL. Neither do captious individuals (chronic faultfinders) who are determined to seek the worst in everyone, and present their bigotted findings to anyone foolish enough to listen.

      At last we have a president who says what he means, means what he says, and does not shrink from calling a spade a spade. HALLELUJAH! For this he is routinely vilified by the hypocrites, namby pamby, dull-witted cowards, seditious fiends, and self-righteous imbeciles in positions of influence.

      I for one thank God for President Trump every day since he won the election, and I have a lot more friends who feel as I do than the ENEMEDIA will EVER let YOU know.

      My unsolicited advice would be to STOP being POLITE and ACCOMMODATING to those ignoramuses and intellectual perverts who routinely INSULT and VILIFY our PRESIDENT.


      Trump hits ´Pelosi Democrats,´ ´low-IQ´
      Maxine Waters, vows Republicans ´will
      keep the House´ at NRCC dinner

      Fox News, by Samuel Chamberlain

      President Trump predicted Tuesday night that Republicans "will keep the House majority" after November´s midterm elections -- and warned of dire consequences if they didn´t. Speaking to the National Republican Congressional Committee´s annual March fundraising dinner in Washington, the president warned that Democrats would block efforts to secure America´s borders and try to raise taxes. "They´re actually working right now to increase taxes and I´m saying, ´How do you lose to that?´" Trump said. "They want to increase taxes. Maybe they´ll call that tax reform." The president described House Democrats as being "way outside the American mainstream" and warned that ...

    11. L'italiana in Des Moines said

      Above-the-fray Never Trumpers hate it when we say: "Good for him. He fights." It´s so...vulgar and déclassé, you know.

      Good for him! He fights.

    12. SF,
      [Trump's] vulgar fulminations have turned people away who otherwise support his policies.

      To a certain extent, I think that might be true.

      But in some cases I get the distinct impression that some, particularly RINO's and "covert" globalists, use his vulgar fulminations as an excuse to be NeverTrumpers.

      Certain Minor Swamp Creatures are dug in and existing in dread that they, too, might be exposed.

    13. FT,
      I understand what you mean. Nevertheless, the fact remains that too many Americans believe the utterances and spewings of the Enemedia.

    14. SF: Trumpesque speech serves to entrench established positions on both sides. His opponents easily lapse into histrionics and emotional appeals. I cannot overlook the damage he is doing the discourse on all sides (and it was in a pretty sorry state to start with).

      FT: Means what he says, and says what he means? Perhaps you're right: all too often what he says means literally nothing. But that's not what you mean, and while I am aware of your stubborn preference for instinct over analysis and tease you for it often, I struggle to believe that even you are this stupid. Disingenuousness might be Trump's defining characteristic.

    15. Jez, I am not defending it any more than I would defend pornography or blasphemy, but those abominations are part of a free society.

      Our public discourse was already a nuthouse bedlam of idiots before President Trump came on the scene, and he has only made it worse; but he has also forced some clarity and a harsh realization of facts in some areas.

      Free Speech and nothing less. Some have argued that the right has risen in Europe as a result of shaming and silencing anything outside globalist progressive orthodoxy. At some point, people won't put up with than anymore, and you get a reaction that is worse than if you had just broadened the discourse a little.

    16. Nor am I attacking it except to remark that it, in its own way, has shrunk thought. I am not much of a pragmatist, I favour freedom of speech on principle.

      "...shaming and silencing anything outside globalist progressive orthodoxy..." has that happened? Are you ignoring the constant output of three quarters of the tabloid press? If any political wing has suffered from this, I'd say it was the left.

  5. Ducky, you're probably correct but I don't believe there is anything keeping the DA from recharging him on a lesser offense like negligent homicide.

    1. Warren, can they do that? It's not double jeopardy if it's a different charge, right? SHOOTING INTO A CROWD...fine, it was a ricochet, that was pretty clear...but SO WHAT? he SHOT. That poor girl...all that's left of her are her loved ones' memories and a law the Left doesn't want to pass that could keep others safe in her name.

    2. Z, I'm not sure what he was originally charged with. Circles within circles, wheels within wheels.

      Different degrees of murder, different degrees of manslaughter and homicide.
      Laws are different in different states and Murder is not a Federal crime in most circumstances.

      State and local prosecutors aren't exactly the cream of the crop among lawyers and political considerations take top billing over matters of law. Most are hesitant to press 1st degree murder charges for political and financial reasons. Small communities can actually face bankruptcy due to automatic appeal and retrials over a period of years. Millions of dollars can be spent and have been spent and justice may not be served at all.

      My best guess would be that it could be done but whether the local politicos have the guts to do it is another. After all, the County Prosecutor is an elected official usually with his sights on higher office. Usually, the Prosecutors Office - read elected Prosecutor - refuses to pursue the case mumbling about; the best we could do under the circumstances.

      Law and Justice aren't interchangeable.

      I'd have to read up on California law and the entire manuscript of the trial before I could give you an accurate opinion.

      Last month I was on a jury involving felony theft and felony possession of handguns. The BATFE, Indiana State Police, The FBI crime lab, local sheriffs and police were involved. Quite frankly, I don't know if the suspect was guilty or not but all the cops involved came off as keystone cops and failed to prove their case - badly failed. We found the defendant not guilty.

      I talked to the judge after the case and he said as much - i.e. the verdict was correct and the State didn't prove its case. My point being, we just don't know what happened in the court room.

  6. Ricochet is correct...but shooting a gun in a crowd? What would have happened if they had charged less than murder?

  7. Was it five times he entered the country illegally? A crack head illegal who shoots guns into crwods...and yet his lawyers fought so hard to make sure he went free and stays here. Someday, I will understand the wild Left.

    1. His lawyers are required to offer a best defense.
      The failure here was the prosecution.

      Write know he's being prosecuted in Federal court and there is no reason to believe he won't be deported after time served for his probable conviction.

      This has NOTHING to do with the left.
      Many things don't.

    2. Yes, it does have to do with the Left...he's illegal, first off...and the S.F. libs treat those folks like endangered species...we don't; we feel they deserve respect and assistance to go home and come back legally...not allowed to arrest then release.
      And yes, he deserves defense....although I struggle with illegals getting the same free defense Americans get. Maybe that's not fair on my part...I can see both sides to that, Ducky, but mostly I do feel Americans deserve and have more rights than those who've broken our laws.

    3. Whether he's illegal or not he has a right to counsel during trial in an American court.

      Obama was active deporting illegals who had committed crimes(excepting residence). I don't know that this guy had done anything to get himself on the radar before he found the gun.

      Right now ICE is actively detaining illegals but the there is such a backlog for deportation hearing that deportations are down.
      Kind of counter productive.

    4. Z, I agree it has to do with the left. If it wasn't for Leftist / Progressive attitudes this piece of human debris would never have been here.

      But what would Progressives be without a permanent underclass? They would lose power, their voting base and they wouldn't have anybody to save from "Capitalism" or someone to feel superior to.

    5. @ Nostradumbass,
      He had already been convicted of 5 felonies (drug related) and deported 5 times. He had said in an interview that he came to San Fransisco because it was a Sanctuary City. He was under an ICE holding order for deportation "again" but was released from jail, anyway, before the killing.

      Now you can expect more of this with governor moonbeam signing that bill making California a "Sanctuary State". Doesn't that just give you the warmys?

    6. Z,
      he's illegal, first off...and the S.F. libs treat those folks like endangered species


      And not only in San Francisco!

    7. The backlog Ducky speaks of is real, and points to the need for summary deportations.

  8. Z... where do you get that he was shooting "into" a crowd? On purpose? With intent to kill? Everything I've read plainly states that he claimed in court that the gun accidentally went off, and then the bullet ricocheted, hit and killed the person.

    Now, there's a lot of other stuff wrapped up there, starting with his being here illegally, or without papers. The prosecution had a slam dunk negligent homicide, but to satisfy a political need, chose to bring a first degree murder charge instead. He's a bad dude and deserves to be in jail, if not here, then back in Mexico.

    But, and this is a frequent issue for folks, for whatever reason, folks want to charge people with the biggest charge, regardless of whether that charge can lead to a conviction. Prosecutorial overreach is rampant, and then when those guys lose, the public blames the system.

    Why aren't people getting accurate info before wading in on these issues and then why are they not holding the DA and his or her assistants accountable, not for losing, but for bringing trumped up charges that are unwinnable?

    1. Emotion, Dave, and quite frankly; I hardly think the testimony of a 5 time convicted felon and drug addict should carry any more weight than a Brothers Grimm fairy tail - either on where the gun came from or if it was an accidental discharge or not.

    2. Dave,
      The prosecution had a slam dunk negligent homicide, but to satisfy a political need, chose to bring a first degree murder charge instead.

      Bring the larger charge happens all the time and without politics involved. In fact, bringing a plethora of charges happens all the time -- throwing in everything to see what sticks.

    3. How long before Steinle's murderer is back on the street? Deporting him without slamming the border closed has been and will continue to be an exercise in futility.

    4. Oh, please, Dave....he shot a gun...with people all over the area...You think his finger just slipped onto the trigger and pulled? Could have. I'd have trouble doing that accidentally, but could be, in the land of those who love to deceive themselves in the name of kindness and understanding.

    5. Mental disease causes libtards to defend every piece of shit on the plant and have zero empathy for any victim anywhere. Probably too late for a doctor Davey..

    6. Oh sorry I didn’t know that, but thanks Davey, it must be great to be as smart as you are! (((( Sarcasm))))

  9. Here's a gun incident that won't make the national news today (or ever). Shooter at Maryland HS stopped by a good guy with a gun.

    1. Gunman at Maryland high school dies
      after armed school officer intervenes; two
      others injured

      USA Today, by John Bacon

      A student gunman opened fire Tuesday at a high school in southern Maryland, injuring two students before an armed school resources officer intervened, authorities said. The gunman was killed, but St. Mary´s County Sheriff Tim Cameron said it was not clear if the resource officer fired the fatal shot. The attack began shortly before classes were to begin at Great Mills High School when the gunman wounded a female student in a hallway, also hitting a male student, Cameron said. A school resources officer arrived at the scene and exchanged shots with the gunman, Cameron said. ...

    2. Yahoo homepage had it in big headline letters for about 3 minutes...I saw it, then went back to read it, and it was gone...even from the smaller headlines below. Someone there realized it didn't fit their agenda.

    3. The story is up at Huffpost, BBC and NYT.
      It's been pushed out of the headlines by Cambridge Analytica and the Austin bombings.

    4. In Whitmore Lake last week a kid made a threat, had a gun, was arrested and went to jail.
      How hard is that?

    5. Dave Miller is delusional, so we must cut him some slack.

  10. I'd be real happy to hear about this guy finding himself the star player in a game of pick up baseball in a dark alley real soon.

  11. It's time tp return t the days of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, and the vigilantes in the Wild West.

    As Dickens famouly said in Oliver Twist, albeit in a humorous context , "... the Law is a' ass."

    I sincerely hope that "someone" takes the life of Kate Steinle's rotten, no-good, son of a bitch of a killer. I pray that whoever tat "someone" may be that he GETS AWAY WITH IT.

    When the Justice System arrogantly refuses to mete out JUSTICE, the Justice System must be ignored and circumvented. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed of us. We have become far too tame and sissified. After all, the American Revolution could hardly be described as a LEGALLY SANCTIONED ACT of PROTEST now could it? };^)>

    "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed [periodically] with the blood of patriots and tyrants ..."

    ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

  12. Great Mills High School in Maryland ended perfectly with a body count of only ONE. The gunman.
    Do the math: The "Good Guy with a gun" stopped the shooting, eliminated the Bad Guy, the shooter..Results: No Trial, No Appeal, No Tax Payers money wasted with Lawyers, Justice Served.
    This School had found the solution, and sent a Message to future shooters!

  13. Yet we hear nothing in the media about this shooting since it doesn't follow the talking points against the NRA.

    1. You hear plenty but the facts aren't all in

      He said he saw a classmate with a gun to his own head as a school resource officer rounded a corner at the Southern Maryland school. Tichenor ducked back inside the classroom as he heard shouting.

      Rollins may have shot himself, or Gaskill’s bullet may have hit him, but the whole incident lasted less than a minute, Cameron said.

      Authorities initially said Rollins shot the male victim after shooting the female victim but later said they needed to investigate further before determining whether he shot both.

      Or we can take the right wing version on spec.

    2. Even if the officer missed and hit an innocent student, and the shooter killed himself, without the officer's gun forcing an end to the situation, there would have been no resolution to the crises, and dozens could have been killed. The very presence officer's gun prevented a greater and certain tragedy.

    3. The solution is now obvious. Arm the school staff. And arm more than one lest you end up with the cowardly Florida security guard.

    4. The officer forced an end to the situation?
      Not in evidence.

      This seems to be a real hobbyhorse of yours, Farmer.

    5. Indeed he did. Officer arrives. Suspect dies.

    6. There were fewer than 17 deaths. End of discussion. I'd have thought just hearing someone shooting at me would cause me to either commit suicide or run for the hills...depending on how nuts I was. The media now is harping on how the Austin package bomber was HOMESCHOOLED...talk about a 'hobbyhorse' :-)

    7. "There were fewer than 17 deaths. End of discussion."
      No it isn't. Some scenarios:

      1. The shooter shot his ex girlfriend and turned the gun on himself, committing suicide. Resource officer fires and hits another student.

      2. The shooter fires at his ex girlfriend, hits her and the round passes through to hit the other student. Shooter turns gun on himself but is shot by the resource officer.

      3. Shooter shoots ex girlfriend. In shootout with resource officer he is shot and the officer hits bystanding student as well.

      There are several possibilities and only the dogmatic are going to finalize thir opinion before the facts are in.

    8. 17 people are not dead.

      4. Shooter didn't expect gunfire at all and fire was exchanged.

      You left out the option...RESOURCE OFFICER SHOT KILLER.. :-) Sorry if this destroys your agenda.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. What a load of crap that there was no charge on which he could be convicted. Every state (even moonbat California) has a depraved indifference category of murder (2nd degree) right below the malice aforethought intentional murder (1st degree). Firing a gun blindly into a crowd is the epitome of just that.

    Has anyone considered that the prosecutor deliberately overcharged him hoping for this ultimate acquittal? Or, if it didn't work, he could always boast of a 1st degree conviction even though there was no specific intent. Then he could boost his career at the expense of this hapless, forlorn individual.

    Raises questions eh?

  16. @ Radical Redneck:

    Read the Post prior to this post: LINK HERE


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.