RedState writer suggests conservatives were lied to about the Kate Steinle case

(Image credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

published 1 December 2017

The July 2015 shooting death of 32-year-old Kate Steinle at San Francisco's Pier 14 was a staple of President Trump's campaign, an emotional punch to attack "sanctuary cities," so Trump criticized a jury verdict Thursday evening that acquitted the shooter, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, of homicide charges and convicted him of a lesser gun offense.

An illegal immigrant, Garcia Zarate will be deported (again). At RedState, Sarah Rumpf writes that after reading local newspaper accounts of the case, "the facts here are far more complicated than any campaign slogans would lead you to believe," and "the trouble with a politically charged case like this is that there are many who seek to benefit from twisting, if not outright lying, about what really happened." Lots of people "wanted Kate Steinle's killer's head on a platter, even before Donald Trump ever tweeted her name," and Trump isn't the only one incensed by the outcome, she says, but the jury reached a defensible verdict:

We have a defendant with zero connection to Steinle. He had a history of drug crimes but no known violent crimes. The bullet that killed Steinle hit the ground and then ricocheted upwards. There was a video possibly showing another group of people disposing of the gun where Garcia Zarate said he found it. ... All of this adds up to the defense presenting a plausible explanation for how Garcia Zarate could have fired the gun and killed Steinle by accident. That's reasonable doubt. [Rumpf, RedState]

"What's not an accident," she adds: "the many political figures and media personalities who have distorted this case for various reasons. These misrepresentations are a disservice to our justice system, and to Kate Steinle's family as well." You can read her entire synopsis of the case at RedState.