Leftists — an alliance of neurotics and “drones,” or the plebs who resent those above them — wanted to transform America. With the acquittal of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate in the killing of Kate Steinle, we can see how vast this transformation has been.
The complexity of this case originates in the fact that Zarate did not directly shoot Steinle, and may not have specifically targeted her. He fired a gun wildly, and a ricochet zoomed up off the steel pier and hit Steinle in the back. She died two hours later at a hospital.
Prosecutors advanced the case under a theory of depraved indifference to human life, arguing that Zarate intended to harm someone and did so with full knowledge that death was possible if not likely. For most of us, firing a .40 caliber handgun wildly into a pier would bring about murder or manslaughter charges.
Zarate adds a wrinkle in that he was either insane or so overcome with resentment for the happy people around him that he wanted to harm any one of them, randomly. He picked up a stolen handgun and fired it wildly, but not so wildly that he was not certain to harm or kill someone on that pier:
In closing arguments last Monday, Deputy District Attorney Diana Garcia told jurors Zarate deliberately shot a stolen gun towards Steinle while “playing his own secret version of Russian roulette.”
She also cited testimony from one witness who said the 54-year-old appeared to be smiling or laughing to himself as evidence that he had decided in advance to shoot someone.
…The bullet ricocheted on the pier’s concrete walkway before it struck Steinle, killing her. Zarate has admitted to shooting Steinle, but says it was an accident.
Zarate proves a troubling case because he clearly has a low intelligence and has demonstrated in the past a proclivity for behaviors that we associate with the insane. He was already a felon, and had most recently been arrested for selling marijuana, a drug often favored by the insane.
If we dig a little deeper, the real story emerges with a question of policy. Who was the killer here, the insane man who was so overcome with hatred that he fired wildly into a crowd, or the government that has defended and protected him because he is a symbol of the political transformation the Left wants for America?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions alluded to this with his statements about the acquittal:
â€œSan Franciscoâ€™s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle,â€ he said in a statement. â€œThe Department of Justice will continue to ensure that all jurisdictions place the safety and security of their communities above the convenience of criminal aliens. I urge the leaders of the nationâ€™s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.â€
He gets closer to the actual issue: Kate Steinle was murdered by the neglect of her government, a jury who chose to ignore callous disregard for human life, and the voters who chose to make this a political issue rather than a practical one.
In practical terms, someone who has been deported five times and has a long rap sheet that includes violent crime should be kept apart from the innocent normal people that people like him prey on. However, San Francisco wanted to make a point, and for Leftists — who are driven by a manic compulsion to achieve equality at all costs — this was a worthwhile sacrifice.
The city was aided by the jury, which decided to opt for a narrow interpretation of the law instead of finding at least a manslaughter charge for someone who fired wildly into a crowd. Consider another case where someone fired into a crowd with intent to injure or kill.
Zarate is being used as a symbolic resistance to any attitude toward our borders except to keep them fully open. San Francisco proudly proclaimed itself a “sanctuary city,” or one in which law enforcement is prohibited from enforcing or even asking about immigration status. This set up the conditions for both Steinle’s murder and Zarate’s acquittal:
I think that the larger issue is not whether the jury gave the Steinle family the finger in an apparent attempt to “resist Trump”, it is the fact that her killing could and should have been prevented. We know that his convicted felon had been deported no less than 5 times. We know that the agencies charged with enforcing the laws of the land acted to protect a known felon and illegal migrant from further deportation. We know that the state of California and the city of San Fransisco conspired to protect this felon. THIS is the real problem.
…Where are the RICO charges? Why are these cities and states still getting federal money? It’s easy to point at the jury. It’s even easy to point to the officials in the city and state but ultimately it is the failure of the big dogs in Washington, you know, the ones who put troops on the ground to get desegregation done, to put the smack down on these cities and states that is the real problem.
While the federal government could act on this and still might, the bigger problem is the people of California. The voters approve of sanctuary cities; the juries will not convict non-whites; even the prosecutors may be doing a poor quality job in order to keep their own people out of jail.
This tells us that “detroiting” is not a question of institutions, but of the citizens. We know that diversity never works because each group maintains its own sense of self-interest while pretending to go along with the universalist diversity agenda, but once it has a chance for power, uses that power to assert its dominance over all others.
In California, as in Detroit, the majority are non-white, and so they vote against white interests. Whether this is acquitting Rodney King and O.J. Simpson, or letting Zarate walk despite his clear intention to kill, it shows that each group votes in its own interest. For whites, this is protection of law and order; for other groups, it is dominating all other groups, including whites, which means that law and order must become means to that end.
The O.J. Simpson verdict told us this two decades ago: every ethnic group works toward its own interest. These interests do not overlap. Courts, media, and government itself will be used as tools to achieve this end goal. Demographics determines outcomes, and in minority-majority areas, white people will always be discriminated against.
Even more, minority ethnic groups will war with each other. The L.A. Riots showed us how African-Americans, Hispanics, Koreans, and whites all clashed on the streets as social order disappears. When minority-majority groups control the police force, no matter how many rules are written, the police will ignore other ethnic groups.
Take the example of Houston, Texas. Since the Hispanic immigration boom began in the 1980s, the city has had nothing but Democrat politicians and increasingly Leftist policy. Whites either content themselves with spitting into the wind, knowing that their votes will never count, or rationalize the issue and become Leftists in order to feel good about the direction their city is taking.
San Francisco represents our future. A detroited city will only benefit those with the money to escape government entirely. Citizens are either rich enough to live in areas with private patrols, gated communities, and high rises with security forces, with private cars to take them to work and elite shopping areas with their own private security, or they live among the endless increasingly favela-ish neighborhoods filled with homeless people, criminal gang activity, ethnic warfare, escaped mental patients, and immigrant violence. Life is binary: you have either bought your way out of government, and then you pay the taxes that fund the 47% who contribute nothing, or you live in a crumbling third world society with no hope of escape.
Apparently, this is what the Left meant by “transformation” of America. They told us back in the 1980s that immigrants were natural conservatives who would adopt The American Way™ and become future leaders just like the founding fathers, but of darker skin tone. The reality is endless warring groups as civilization falls apart from a lack of unity, just as happened in the multicultural final days of Athens and Rome. History repeats itself because we refuse to learn from it.
One might think that this disaster could be avoided, but the truth is that the Left are pathological. Like Captain Ahab, for whom Moby-Dick became part of his personality, they recognize that without their ideology, they have no purpose or meaning in life. They will chase the white whale of Equality until it destroys them. Ideology is a hard drug.
In order to have equality, one must destroy those who rise above the mediocre minimum that “equality” implies. Sometimes the Left even admits this, as in this jeremiad to scapegoat the rich for the self-created problems of the poor:
This system, which might have been designed to prevent social mobility, is then intensified by parents, the most potent enemies of mobility. The children of parents who are not equipped to pass on too much knowledge or wisdom will have, by the age of three, heard perhaps a million fewer words than the children of professional parents. And how children perform in tests when they are three and a half is a strong predictor of how well they do at school years later. By the same token, wealthy parents will do all they can, perfectly reasonably, to insulate their children from failure. The debate about social mobility always rests on the romantic notion of the poor child clambering heroically up the ladder. A society that really cared about being mobile would find a way to ensure its princes could slide down a snake too.
…Social mobility and equal opportunity are stories that the British like to tell themselves. It is gratifying to suppose we care enough. We care all the way up to the point of taxing the wealth that entrenches the privilege or shifting the emphasis of the education system in which the children of the powerful do so well.
So many words, with one small point: tax the rich so that their children do not have advantages. The next step is to make the system as boring as possible so that the stupid get ahead, as seems to happen in American colleges, and then you can filter those rich people out entirely. That way, no one knows better, and stupidity and wrongness are acceptable, so every individual can feel that they do not run the risk of losing social status for engaging in illusory, immoral, or unrealistic activity.
The Left applies the same agenda to race. If some races are high achievers, then we need to ear those down, and make a system that benefits the lower, because that way all of us as individuals are immune from losing social rank by being unrealistic or bad. This in turn creates minority-majority districts, and then, the rich and the white can be removed, forever, like Kate Steinle.