Kate Steinle’s murderer not guilty...WTF

[NewValker]

WTF is the matter with this country??

BUILD THE WALL!!!!

Craig

[..]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/30/kate-steinle-s-accused-killer-found-not-guilty-murder.html

Will he be kept in custody and deported again?

[Jess from VA]

Given the evidence, I can understand no murder one or two conviction (reasonable doubt and all).  It is hard to understand how there is no manslaughter conviction though.  Six days of deliberation (after a 12 day trial) shows big trouble in the jury room.

He said he stepped on the gun and it went off (a .40, not some old beater).  Boy that is pure bullcrap.  I guess the kill shot was a ricochet.  That's trouble for murder, but not manslaughter.

I assume it was court appointed counsel, so taxpayers underwrote his legal defense, apparently a good one.  It's better to be an accused in America than most places.

Build the wall.  

PS:  The gun belonged to a Federal Bureau of Land Management ranger and was stolen from his parked car a week earlier.  Good job there buddy.  

[Serk]

But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.

It's almost like they're TRYING to kick off the Trump 2020 campaign and guarantee he wins re-election...

Un-freaking believable.

They DID find him guilty of felony in possession of a firearm charges, so they accepted that he was in possession of the gun.

When we build the wall, can we put the coastal part of California on the OUTSIDE?

[Jersey mike]

Well that's California for ya, the land of sunshine and make believe  . WTF barely covers it. Obviously a jury of his peers.

[Pete]

Stupidity runs amuck in Calif-stan.

[Pappy!]

Boycott San Fran !!
Hell....boycott California!

[Valkorado]

Another verdict from the land of fruits and nuts.  And the lawyer takes a shot at the President to rub in some Sanctuary City salt.  Whoa, Nellie.

[Jess from VA]

But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.

It's almost like they're TRYING to kick off the Trump 2020 campaign and guarantee he wins re-election...

Un-freaking believable.

They DID find him guilty of felony in possession of a firearm charges, so they accepted that he was in possession of the gun.

When we build the wall, can we put the coastal part of California on the OUTSIDE?

Capital idea.  

And... maybe we could make a favorable deal and sell that part back to Mexico.  

Then we could let them build the wall to defray part of the purchase price (if not a straight trade).

And throw in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (and all their judges) (and Pelosi, Harris, & Feinstein, too)  for free.

[Atl-Jerry]

My wife arrived in SF this afternoon on a biz trip.  I have the same saftey concerns there that I have when she travels abroad.

[RDAbull]

We ain't going to let no cursed republicans tell us how to live, we would rather be murdered in the streets. 
This is the last call for all sane people to leave kalifornication and let the remaining liberals be killed by the criminal scum they so love.

[Robert]

Nice to see you guys already covered all the bases and there is no need to say anything else except I agree completely. W.BS. out of Cali.

[Serk]

BTW, much as it pains me to point this out, the subject isn't correct. Much as I disagree with the decision of the jury, I still believe in our justice system, he was found not guilty thus he is not her murderer. Suspected murderer, but not her murderer...

(Yeah, I know, we all know he did it, at the very least he should have gotten manslaughter, but even with travesties like this I still believe in our justice system.)

[..]

BTW, much as it pains me to point this out, the subject isn't correct. Much as I disagree with the decision of the jury, I still believe in our justice system, he was found not guilty thus he is not her murderer. Suspected murderer, but not her murderer...

(Yeah, I know, we all know he did it, at the very least he should have gotten manslaughter, but even with travesties like this I still believe in our justice system.)

No intent to commit murder was proven. BUT if he hadn't been in the country it would never had happened.

ESPECIALLY after being deported 5 times previously.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Bad decisions come out of juries all time all over the country, not just California.

[Alberta Patriot]

So sorry to see this sick verdict...now the family has to go through the pain of knowing this bastard will go free soon.
Question...isn't there a felony murder statute that deems that this a-hole is guilty of murder by causing the death of Kate as a result of committing a crime...the illegal possession of a firearm?? or..The illegal discharge of a firearm??
Eliminating the need to prove intent would have made getting this guy convicted much easier IMHO.

[Rams]

I wasn't on the jury and don't know all that they saw and heard that was offered as evidence so, I can't say they didn't make the right decision but, I have to ask myself if, this same trial was held in any other jurisdiction, would it have resulted in the same outcome.   

Did the prosecutors go for the wrong charges?   Was Murder One something the accused was guilty of?  The jury didn't think so but, would they have agreed to a lessor charge?   I don't know.   Then again, this trial was held in a sanctuary city.   

Send the poor guy home to Mexico, we'll get him the next time he comes back.   

[Serk]

Wow... Little background on this guy (Source - Wikipedia)

Especially read that last paragraph.

Juan Francisco López-Sánchez (or Francisco Sánchez; given name José Inez García Zárate),[16] of Guanajuato, Mexico, had been deported from the U.S. a total of five times, most recently in 2009.[17] He was on probation in Texas at the time of the shooting.[18] He had seven felony convictions. When he was apprehended, Garcia Zarate was listed as 45 years old by police, but as 52 in jail records.[19]

Garcia Zarate arrived in the U.S. sometime before 1991, the year he was convicted of his first drug charge in Arizona. In 1993, he was convicted three times in Washington state for felony heroin possession and manufacturing narcotics. Following another drug conviction and jail term, this time in Oregon, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) deported Garcia Zarate in June 1994. However, Garcia Zarate returned to the U.S. within two years and was convicted again of heroin possession in Washington state. He was deported for the second time in 1997.[16]

On February 2, 1998, Garcia Zarate was deported for the third time, after reentering the U.S. through Arizona. United States Border Patrol caught him six days later at a border crossing, and a federal court sentenced Garcia Zarate to five years and three months in federal prison for unauthorized reentry. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), successor of the INS, deported Garcia Zarate in 2003 for his fourth deportation. However, he reentered the U.S. through the Texas border and got another federal prison sentence for reentry before being deported for the fifth time in June 2009.[16]

Less than three months after his fifth deportation, Garcia Zarate was caught attempting to cross the border in Eagle Pass, Texas. He pleaded guilty to felony reentry; upon sentencing, a federal court recommended Garcia Zarate be placed in "a federal medical facility as soon as possible".[16]

On March 26, 2015, at the request of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department (SFSD), United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had turned Garcia Zarate over to San Francisco authorities for an outstanding drug warrant.[20] San Francisco officials transported Garcia Zarate to San Francisco County Jail on March 26, 2015, to face a 20-year-old felony charge of selling and possessing marijuana after Garcia Zarate completed his latest prison term in San Bernardino County for entering in the country without the proper documents.[21]

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for Garcia Zarate requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. However, as a sanctuary city, its “Due Process for All” ordinance[22] restricted cooperation with ICE to cases only where the immigrant had both current violent felony charges and past violent felony convictions; therefore, San Francisco disregarded the detainer and released him.[23][24] He was released from San Francisco County Jail on April 15, 2015, and had no outstanding warrants or judicial warrants, as confirmed by the San Francisco Sheriff's Department.[18]

[Serk]

Did the prosecutors go for the wrong charges?   Was Murder One something the accused was guilty of?  The jury didn't think so but, would they have agreed to a lessor charge?   I don't know.   Then again, this trial was held in a sanctuary city.   

The jury was given the option of convicting him of first degree murder, second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, or nothing related to her death. They chose nothing.

[Rams]

Did the prosecutors go for the wrong charges?   Was Murder One something the accused was guilty of?  The jury didn't think so but, would they have agreed to a lessor charge?   I don't know.   Then again, this trial was held in a sanctuary city.   

The jury was given the option of convicting him of first degree murder, second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, or nothing related to her death. They chose nothing.

OK, I stand corrected, wasn't aware of that.   

Based on your previous posting, one would have to think that this "gent" likes our prison food.   Might be time to up the anti. 

[Willow]

Wow... Little background on this guy (Source - Wikipedia)

Especially read that last paragraph.
...
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for Garcia Zarate requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. However, as a sanctuary city, its “Due Process for All” ordinance[22] restricted cooperation with ICE to cases only where the immigrant had both current violent felony charges and past violent felony convictions; therefore, San Francisco disregarded the detainer and released him.[23][24] He was released from San Francisco County Jail on April 15, 2015, and had no outstanding warrants or judicial warrants, as confirmed by the San Francisco Sheriff's Department.[18]

It looks to me like the City of S.F. is highly vulnerable to a multi-million dollar civil suit.

[Serk]

It looks to me like the City of S.F. is highly vulnerable to a multi-million dollar civil suit.

In a sane world you would be correct, however this is California. The gun did it, not the "undocumented citizen." (The only party still being sued is the BLM. The gun used was stolen from a BLM agent.)

From the same Wikipedia article: (If anyone wants to read the entire Wiki article btw - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Steinle )

In September 2015, the Steinle family announced their intention to file a lawsuit against the City of San Francisco, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Bureau of Land Management, alleging complicity and negligence in the death of their daughter.[58] On January 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero dismissed the family's claims against San Francisco and former Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. The magistrate also dismissed their claim against ICE, but he ruled that the lawsuit accusing the BLM of negligence can proceed.

[Jess from VA]

The devil is in the details.

The kill shot was a ricochet. I have not found any news story that discusses this issue in detail.  As anyone would know, the distance and trajectory of the ricochet could be very telling evidence regarding intent in this case.  

For instance, if the bullet was headed right for the victim, but hit the ground low and jumped up to hit her in the back, that just looks like poor aim.  But if the ricochet hit something way left or right of the victim, and unluckily bounced far sideways, that does not look like intent to kill/shoot/harm/damage.

However, to intentionally shoot (pull the trigger on purpose) in any direction in a crowded public area where no shooting should ever take place, should have (easily) supported a manslaughter conviction.

Maybe after 5 deportations, we could put a permanent titanium ankle bracelet on the deportee, which explodes if he ever crosses the GPS coordinate (Mexico/US border) latitude again.

I suppose that goes in the same category as my idea to mine the border for a mile deep, which would would be much cheaper than a tall fence.  And a much better deterrent.

BTW, I think the felony murder rule was inapplicable if the victim's death cannot be found to be murder at all (which it wasn't in this verdict).

The USDOJ is looking at prosecuting this guy themselves.  There is no double jeopardy issue in such a case.

[baldo]

Did the prosecutors go for the wrong charges?   Was Murder One something the accused was guilty of?  The jury didn't think so but, would they have agreed to a lessor charge?   I don't know.   Then again, this trial was held in a sanctuary city.   

The jury was given the option of convicting him of first degree murder, second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, or nothing related to her death. They chose nothing.

Several articles I've read say that the prosecution went for 1st or 2nd, not manslaughter...?

[Serk]

Several articles I've read say that the prosecution went for 1st or 2nd, not manslaughter...?

"The jury had a number of choices to make. They could have gone with a second-degree verdict, involuntary manslaughter or consider a first-degree murder verdict."

http://abc7.com/suspect-in-kate-steinle-killing-found-not-guilty-of-murder-and-manslaughter/2719471/

"Garcia Zarate faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors also were allowed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter convictions."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html

[Jess from VA]

The way this goes, is if at the conclusion of trial, the evidence supports possible finding of guilt for what are called Lesser Included Offenses, then the prosecution is allowed (expected) to ask the judge to instruct the jury (prior to deliberations on guilt, after closing arguments) on those offenses, as well as the top charges.

This can be very confusing to juries (and defense counsel are glad it's confusing).

Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder.  Each offense has elements; a lesser included offense is one with the same elements of a greater included offense, but say lacking one element (in this case, an intent to kill).

Now some prosecutors, enamored of their trial skills and cognizant of the need for re elections (or political appointments), or seeking glory, will simply ignore evidence and argument about lesser included offenses during the trial.  It's a double edged sword;  on the one hand, going into detail on lesser included offenses gets the jury thinking about them when the prosecutor wants them to focus on the top charge(s), and talking about them may lead the jury to believe the prosecution thinks they are weak on the top charge(s).  

On the other hand, failing to educate/argue/discuss with the jury during the trial on lesser included offenses tends to put them in an all or nothing mentality, and you can end up with a straight acquittal (not guilty) on everything, rather than a not guilty on the top charge, but guilty of a lesser included offense.

It's a strategy thing.  Of course, you want a conviction on the top charge if at all possible, but in most any case, a finding of guilt on a lesser offense is better than nothing at all.

Without watching this trial or reading a complete transcript, I have no idea what happened in this case, in this regard.  

I have some personal experience with this issue though.  I assisted in prosecuting a court martial of a senior enlisted man for larceny (by fraud).  It was a weak case and very technical in requiring a whole pile of bank and pay and accounting and finance (AFO) records, and this man had a long and sterling record of military service (but got himself into some debt trouble right before retirement).

After reviewing all the evidence, I went to command and said we had very little chance of conviction on the larceny charges (I believed him guilty myself, but proving and believing are two different things).  I told them we should however be able to get a conviction on the lesser included offense of wrongful appropriation of funds (all the same elements as larceny, except of the larceny intent of permanently depriving the true owner, the wrongful appropriation was only temporarily depriving the true owner of the funds)(wrongful appropriation is a military offense, wrongful borrowing; often handy in barracks thief cases).  Command told me they wanted to set an example with this man, and wanted convictions on larceny and leave wrongful appropriation out of it.  I did what I was told, and the man got a straight acquittal (just as I had predicted).  Of course the blame was placed on me the prosecutor, and not on the weakness and complexity of the case or the power trip of command authority in limiting me to the top charges only.  

It was a case I was not personally upset at losing.  The man (E9) had a 30 year record of superior  performance, and had paid back all the money he owed before trial commenced (under $2K).  He was filing for TDY travel advances on trips he never took (on blanket orders), and multiple times, he filed these false travel advances to stick the funds in his checking account to avoid bouncing checks he had written NSF.  It was a big no-no, but having paid it all back before trial, the jury simply did not want to convict him days before he could honorably retire.  And I didn't blame them at all.

[Jersey mike]

Given the evidence, I can understand no murder one or two conviction (reasonable doubt and all).  It is hard to understand how there is no manslaughter conviction though.  Six days of deliberation (after a 12 day trial) shows big trouble in the jury room.

He said he stepped on the gun and it went off (a .40, not some old beater).  Boy that is pure bullcrap.  I guess the kill shot was a ricochet.  That's trouble for murder, but not manslaughter.

I assume it was court appointed counsel, so taxpayers underwrote his legal defense, apparently a good one.  It's better to be an accused in America than most places.

Build the wall.  

PS:  The gun belonged to a Federal Bureau of Land Management ranger and was stolen from his parked car a week earlier.  Good job there buddy.  

I thought about this several times today; I'd bet if they brought charges against the ranger for having his weapon stolen they'd find something to convict him of. And if a lawsuit was brought against the Federal Bureau of Land Management a jury would find for the plaintiff and award $$$millions.

[phideux]

So this time they are going to hand him over to ICE for deportation .He's been deported 5 times already, I guarantee he'll be back. He's been arrested multiple times in this country and has multiple felony convictions. Just the kind of person we want to let go, again, right????? He stepped on the gun and it went off??? Yeah right. In San Fran he probably got judged by a jury of his peers, the box was full of illegal aliens.

[Robert]

The Department of Justice has issued a federal warrant for the arrest of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate who on Thursday was acquitted of murder charges in the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. One possible federal charge is an illegal alien possessing a weapon, that’s good for ten years.


Actual possession occurs if the firearm is:

    In the hand of or on the person; or
    In a container in the hand of or on the person; or
    So close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.

Constructive possession occurs if the firearm is in a place over which the accused person has control, or in which the accused person has concealed it.

Under Florida's 10-20-Life law, a felon found to be in the actual possession of a firearm is required to serve a three-year minimum mandatory sentence; regardless of whether the person scores prison.

If convicted of Actual Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, a judge is required to impose a minimum-mandatory sentence of three-years in prison and can also impose any combination of penalties

[Alberta Patriot]

The Department of Justice has issued a federal warrant for the arrest of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate who on Thursday was acquitted of murder charges in the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. One possible federal charge is an illegal alien possessing a weapon, that’s good for ten years.

Change of Venue maybe...Kate's family will never get  Proper Justice in Coastal Kalifornia no matter what the Feds throw at this scumbag.
Just saw a news clip on Fox stating that the Feds might charge him with Felony Illegal Re-Entry which has a maximum 10 year prison term...so where would a Federal Trial be held?

[JimC]

Maybe after 5 deportations, we could put a permanent titanium ankle bracelet on the deportee, which explodes if he ever crosses the GPS coordinate (Mexico/US border) latitude again.

You might be on to something there Jess

Jim

[Jess from VA]

The Department of Justice has issued a federal warrant for the arrest of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate who on Thursday was acquitted of murder charges in the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. One possible federal charge is an illegal alien possessing a weapon, that’s good for ten years.

Change of Venue maybe...Kate's family will never get  Proper Justice in Coastal Kalifornia no matter what the Feds throw at this scumbag.
Just saw a news clip on Fox stating that the Feds might charge him with Felony Illegal Re-Entry which has a maximum 10 year prison term...so where would a Federal Trial be held?

Any Federal Courthouse the Feds choose.  But probably not San Francisco.  

A number of high profile Fed cases have been brought right up the road from me in the Federal Courthouse in Alexandria VA.  Conveniently close to the thrones (and oversight) of HQ DC.

Although it's possible there may be a practice of bringing such cases to a courthouse closer to the southern border where all the defendants come from.  (Like in the SW somewhere, I dunno)  There is always an economy in bringing like cases before prosecutors and staff who have done many of the same.

This is not a change of venue (in the classic sense).  Rather a trial by a separate sovereign (under different laws)  ie.  The US, and not California. 

[Alberta Patriot]

The Department of Justice has issued a federal warrant for the arrest of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate who on Thursday was acquitted of murder charges in the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. One possible federal charge is an illegal alien possessing a weapon, that’s good for ten years.

Change of Venue maybe...Kate's family will never get  Proper Justice in Coastal Kalifornia no matter what the Feds throw at this scumbag.
Just saw a news clip on Fox stating that the Feds might charge him with Felony Illegal Re-Entry which has a maximum 10 year prison term...so where would a Federal Trial be held?

Any Federal Courthouse the Feds choose.  But probably not San Francisco.  

A number of high profile Fed cases have been brought right up the road from me in the Federal Courthouse in Alexandria VA.  Conveniently close to the thrones (and oversight) of HQ DC.

Although it's possible there may be a practice of bringing such cases to a courthouse closer to the southern border where all the defendants come from.  (Like in the SW somewhere, I dunno)  There is always an economy in bringing like cases before prosecutors and staff who have done many of the same.

This is not a change of venue (in the classic sense).  Rather a trial by a separate sovereign (under different laws)  ie.  The US, and not California.

The Jury went for the Gun Charge even with all the evidence for 'At Least' a manslaughter conviction...so I guess the San Francisco Jury is Anti Gun...Not Anti Murder...The 'Next' Trial needs to be out of Kalifornia.
How about a venue where there is a stone cold dislike for Criminal Illegal Aliens!!

[Jess from VA]

How about a venue where there is a stone cold dislike for Criminal Illegal Aliens!!

There really should be no need for that.

A competent prosecutor and a decent jury selection (if he wants one), and conviction for something more than gun possession should be easy.

I would suspect that facing a raft of federal charges in a new trial, the accused would not go to trial at all, but accept a plea agreement to say 10 years (facing 40 years at trial).  I could be wrong (but bet I'm not).

Lets wait and see if the Feds actually charge him.  He may have acquired a false sense of well being after his easy experience in a CA courthouse in LaLa Land.

[Alberta Patriot]

"A competent prosecutor and a decent jury selection (if he wants one), and conviction for something more than gun possession should be easy."
I think that would be much easier accomplished outside Cali' ...at least somewhere Well East of the California Coast. That seems to be where the majority of the 'Fruit and Nut Mixture' congregates.

[old2soon]

"A competent prosecutor and a decent jury selection (if he wants one), and conviction for something more than gun possession should be easy."
I think that would be much easier accomplished outside Cali' ...at least somewhere Well East of the California Coast. That seems to be where the majority of the 'Fruit and Nut Mixture' congregates.

                    Bring da sorry azzed sumbitch here to Missouri.  No way he should EVER draw another breath of free air. I had a chance to stay and work in kalifhony in 68. RIDE SAFE.

[Alberta Patriot]

"A competent prosecutor and a decent jury selection (if he wants one), and conviction for something more than gun possession should be easy."
I think that would be much easier accomplished outside Cali' ...at least somewhere Well East of the California Coast. That seems to be where the majority of the 'Fruit and Nut Mixture' congregates.

                    Bring da sorry azzed sumbitch here to Missouri.  No way he should EVER draw another breath of free air. I had a chance to stay and work in kalifhony in 68. RIDE SAFE.

ONE PLUS !!!

[Robert]

At the heart of the question is the judges orders in consideration of what is and is not allowed for the jury to hear. The judge decided to NOT let the jury handle the gun and find the trigger pull pressure. This and many other instructions also, seemingly biased, about what could and could not be told to the jury and considered, ultimately in my opinion skewed the trial and allowed a killer to go free.

Woychowski (the federal ranger whose gun was stolen and was the gun used in this killing) told investigators he left on a day off and drove up the California coast — over 600 miles — before stopping near the Embarcadero in San Francisco for dinner at almost 10 p.m.

Woychowski made a report to San Francisco police at 11:14 p.m that his car was broken into., according to the defense motion. Another auto burglary, in a parking garage near 300 Embarcadero, just down the street from Pier 14, was reported at 11:34 p.m. Woychowski's backpack, a .40-caliber ammunition magazine and Woychowski’s BLM-issued credit cards were found near the site of the second break-in.

          But that information won’t be presented to the jury.

To resolve a dispute over its relevance, the prosecution agreed to stipulate that no evidence ties Garcia Zarate to the auto burglaries.

The gun’s path from there to Jose Ines Garcia Zarate’s hands — as he sat in a spinning metal chair on Pier 14 four days later — is unknown.

The gun a Sig Sauer P239, the model of a semi-automatic handgun at the heart of the trial of Jose ines Garcia Zarate, who was found not guilty Thursday in the 2015 death of Kate Steinle.The federal ranger whose gun was stolen testified he left it in double-action mode, which requires two actions before a handgun will fire. It's unclear whether it was still that way when Garcia Zarate fired the fatal shot.

Either way, gun expert Roman Kaplan said pulling the trigger on the Sig Sauer P239 takes more pressure than many other guns. The pressure required is from 6 to 10 pounds, he said, demonstrating at his Pleasant Hill store, City Arms East.

The jury will not be allowed to find out for themselves since they will not be allowed to handle the gun, and they did ask but the judge said no.

The officer whose gun was stolen should have faced charges in the loss of his pistol but, he faced none however, in fact he was promoted.

The jury won’t hear about that, though. Prosecuting attorney Diana Garcia successfully moved to exclude any testimony about a lack of consequences for the ranger. Woychowski was worried that he was going to be prosecuted,” Gonzalez said, referring to notes of an interview SFPD conducted with Woychowski. “He wanted assurances that he wasn’t going to be, and they gave it to him.”

The law that could have led to charges for Woychowski was since strengthened through legislation authored by state Sen. Jerry Hill that took effect this year. Guns are now required to be locked in a container attached to the vehicle, so the container can’t simply be swiped. Leaving a weapon unsecured in a vehicle also now carries a potential $1,000 penalty.

Even though he wasn’t criminally charged, Woychowski should have faced administrative discipline — such as a reprimand, suspension or firing, Gonzalez says, for violating BLM law enforcement policies in addition to state law.

He faced none, however.

“None of this would have been possible but for Woychowski’s negligence,” defense attorney Gonzalez said. “He started the chain of events and there’s been no scrutiny of his actions.”

This information is only one small tip of the iceberg that led to justice failing and a criminal to go free.

[Alberta Patriot]

Here is an opinion piece on exactly who is responsible for the chain of events that started this progressive political miscarriage of justice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Tpf8wLKzw

[Robert]

Here is an opinion piece on exactly who is responsible for the chain of events that started this progressive political miscarriage of justice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Tpf8wLKzw

Totally agree