Federal agent’s loaded gun, left unsecured in a car, killed Kate Steinle

So why is all the attention on an immigrant who was at the end of an unfortunate chain of events?

Kate Steinle was killed two years ago in San Francisco after a gun stolen from a car was discharged on Pier 14, a popular tourist attraction. Homeless immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez handled a discarded bundle that contained the firearm, resulting in the unintentional shooting. A single bullet ricocheted off the ground, travelling 100 feet before striking Steinle.

The SIG Sauer handgun, which a court found had been left loaded and unsecured in a backpack under the seat of a vehicle parked in downtown San Francisco, was stolen during an auto break-in. It belonged to a Bureau of Land Management employee.

A loaded .40 caliber Sig Sauer handgun was stolen from a BLM employee’s car

Lopez Sanchez is not charged with the theft and has no connection to it. But stolen guns travel quickly as they are stolen, traded, and stashed. A few days later Lopez Sanchez stumbled upon it and tragedy struck.

Auto burglaries happen approximately 25,000 times a year in San Francisco alone, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. That’s 70 a day, on average. Guns were stolen in 57 car break-ins in 2015, according to San Francisco police.

In leaving the gun unsecured, the BLM officer violated his own agency’s policies and recklessly endangered the lives of others. In fact, but for his negligent act, Kate Steinle would be alive today.

Section 17-6 of BLM’s safety manual states “All firearms, when not in active use, shall be stored in a secure place, out of sight, under lock and key. Firearms will be unloaded prior to storage.”

Had the officer done the same thing today, he’d be facing criminal charges. Senate Bill 869, approved by Governor Jerry Brown in September 2016, makes it a crime for any person, including law enforcement, to leave an unlocked gun in a car.

The law states that “a person shall, when leaving a handgun in an unattended vehicle, [lock the handgun in the vehicle’s trunk, lock the handgun in a locked container and place the container out of plain view, or lock the handgun in a locked container that is permanently affixed to the vehicle’s interior and not in plain view.].” (Penal Code sections 25612, 25140).

State Senator Jerry Hill, the sponsor of the law, said: “Law enforcement agencies have policies in place for officers not to leave their guns unsecured in vehicles, but they ignore it. We take that as a very serious violation of the public trust.”

The officer’s negligence is being ignored by right wing pundits because it complicates the anti-immigrant narrative they are pushing. But Federal Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, in the civil case filed against the BLM by the Steinle family, concluded that the “BLM ranger had a duty to properly secure the handgun, that the ranger breached that duty by leaving the loaded gun in an unattended vehicle, that the failure to secure the handgun proximately caused Steinle’s death, and that [the Steinle family] suffered damages as a result.” (opinion dated 1/6/17).

Meanwhile, lawmakers have raised an important issue: Why do BLM officers even have guns at all? Their primary job is to manage public lands. Since when did they need to be outfitted with state-of-the-art weaponry?

Earlier this year, while he was still in office, Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz introduced a measure that would eliminate the Bureau of Land Management’s law enforcement function, in effect, disarming them. If approved, H.R. 622 would make an accident, based on a stolen BLM firearm, impossible. Utah Congressman Chris Steward has since assumed first sponsorship of the bill.

The BLM is opposing efforts of Lopez Sanchez’s defense team to compel their employee’s testimony at trial. Justice Department lawyers are opposing the subpoena on the officer’s behalf, which also calls on the agency to turn over records related to the history and maintenance of the gun.

It is the height of irony that President Trump, who used the case to promote his fledgling candidacy for the Republican nomination, now presides over a government that opposes allowing a jury to hear the facts from this critical witness. It’s no surprise they’d rather forego the trial and instead keep the focus on the immigrant who found the gun on the pier just before Steinle’s death.

Matt Gonzalez, chief trial lawyer for the SF Public Defenders Office, is representing Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez.

  • chris12bb

    Your the defense lawyer tell it in court. I think putting out this stuff just alienates the public

    • SnapsMcKenzie

      Matt’s cleverly betting on hitting all the progressive high notes with this defendant: 1. poor, 2. undocumented alien 3. gun control. If he can get into the public a mix of half truths and obfuscations about the case and the defendant, he can likely pollute a jury pool just enough that the case will result in a mistrial, which is probably the best outcome he can hope for, considering the facts. Even with that the defendant will be immediately deported if the government chooses not to retry him, though as we’ve seen with his guy, deportation doesn’t stand in the way of someone determined to return to carry out more mayhem inside our country.

      • Geek__Girl

        On the other hand, you are rather bluntly trying to beat the right wing-nut drum, and hit all the usual prejudices, poor, undocumented alien, and “Oh my, they might use this to push gun control, and we can’t let them have our guns, our precious guns….” You really don’t care about the truth at all. And this guy is just trying to find a better life than is possible in Mexico. Not to carry out more mayhem.

        • SnapsMcKenzie

          Ugh, boring woman.

          • Geek__Girl

            And yet, you feel the need to respond. Obviously what I say worries you.

        • SF Sunset Guy

          "And this guy is just trying to find a better life than is possible in Mexico."

          still with this nonsense? He has 7 felony convictions to his name, has been deported FIVE times, and according to you, he's just trying to find a better life? The better life he found, he took.

          • Geek__Girl

            He had convictions for what would now be misdemeanor drug violations. He was not coming to the United States trying to find just the right person to kill. But you would almost seem to imply that.

          • SF Sunset Guy

            I nowhere came anywhere close to implying anything of the sort.

            Even if he – say today – had plea bargained down to misdemeanor drug violations as you state, he still should've been deported.

          • Geek__Girl

            Well, you objected to my saying he was coming here for a better life. And I said ALMOST. I did not say you said that. And yes, he will undoubtedly be deported. At the very least, Trump will do that.

          • SF Sunset Guy

            I did indeed object to that statement, because I don't know why he came here. Could be any number of reasons, and yes, he should be deported after serving time for whatever he winds up being convicted of here, and for violating parole from Texas, and undoubtedly will be deported (for the sixth time). Trump (nor any president to my knowledge) doesn't get to sign off on individual deportations. If you have evidence to the contrary, do let us know.

          • Geek__Girl

            That is, quite frankly, why people come here from Mexico.

            Trump does not sign off, but I have little doubt that once the case is resolved, Trump will make a grand show out his deportation. Trump is over ICE, like other Federal agencies, and he would have someone's head if the poor soul is not deported.

  • Rosh HoshHosh

    And the gun may likely have chambered by the BLM officer immediately after he slid in the ammunition clip. I’d imagine that is also against protocol, unless the gun is holstered and on person it should not be loaded and chambered. Did he bring the firearm into the city for protection? Did he carry it loosely while it was loaded and chambered? These are extremely pertinent questions and there is no reason the BLM should be protecting their errant officer.

  • curiousKulak

    So the Gun just went off by itself?

    Or was the Gun assisted by an idiot, who also pulled off several shots before hitting his “target”?

    Sorry, no cigar.

    • playland

      It didn’t go off by itself…Lopez Sanchez admitted that he was firing it at sea lions.

      Matt Gonzalez has to leave that part out in order to tell his story.

      • curiousKulak

        “tell his story” –

        Yes, narrative. The pro-undocumented-immigrant-homeless narrative.

        And I’m not dismissing the BLM employee one bit. Now, the Gun … the Gun has his own story to tell (wha wha …)

        • playland

          Well Matt Gonzalez is trying to get away with

          Francisco Lopez Sanchez handled a discarded bundle that contained the firearm

          when in fact Lopez Sanchez admitted that he was firing the gun.

          Gonzalez needs to try something else. This story is a non-starter.

          • Geek__Girl

            Sanchez admitted nothing. He was interviewed while in an impaired state, by a member of the media, who was asking leading questions while trying to get a story.

          • nmckrunner

            Why are you defending the cold-blooded murder of an innocent bystander? What is wrong with you?

          • Geek__Girl

            Because I am not a complete idiot who doesn't pay attention to the evidence simply because it doesn't fit my worship of the Orange Clown. Because I believe in "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." Because, unlike you, I don't hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." How do you get that he is "cold-blooded murderer" when the evidence is clear that it was an accident?

          • nmckrunner

            What does this have to do with a candidate I did not vote for? How dumb can you get? Oh, wait, you're so dumb you think a gun shot someone all by itself. You're so dumb, you're totally cool with offering sanctuary to known felons, refusing to notify ICE when they're out of jail for their umpteenth crime.

            You have blood on YOUR hands, dearie. Own it.

          • Geek__Girl

            If you did not vote for Trump, you clearly either did not vote, or you voted for someone even further to the right. I think the gun went off accidentally. It can happen with that particular model. He had no violent crimes on his record. He was no danger to anyone. And there is NO legal requirement to notify ICE when there is NOT A WARRANT. If ICE wanted him so badly, why didn't they get a warrant? Too much effort? You are the one who is an enemy of the Constitution. And an arrogant jerk to boot. And again, you do NOT have permission to call me "dearie," you arrogant piece of excrement.

          • nmckrunner

            You assumed I voted for Trump, and you are wrong. You're now doubling down on your assumptions, you stupid creature.

            You can THINK what you like, but your OPINION does not trump facts, nor does it mean this perp gets to go free. He's a murderer and will be tried as such, regardless of your desire to circumvent due process and let him go free to kill again.

          • Geek__Girl

            As I said, you may well have not voted, or you may have voted for someone to the right of Trump.

            And I am using facts. You are simply shouting, mostly insults, and a few lies. You are the one who clearly wishes to circumvent due process. I have pointed out facts. You have simply repeated lies.

          • nmckrunner

            No. As you ORIGINALLY claimed, I supposedly voted for Trump, a false assumption you made because I actually think the murder of Kate Steinle was a horrible thing and highlighted the wrongness of "sanctuary city" policies.

            You are not using facts. You are stating as fact, your opinions. You state, as fact, that this is was an accident and that this murderer is innocent. This is not a fact. You are lying. Or you're withholding evidence. Either way, doesn't look so good for you.

          • Geek__Girl

            I said, you either voted for Trump (and given your history, you could be lying about that), didn't vote, or voted for someone to the right of Trump. You have only denied voting for Trump.

            I am using evidence, which is fact. You haven't presented anything except unsubstantiated claims, and insults.

          • nmckrunner

            I voted, and given that everyone is to the right of Trump, that's not much of a statement on your part. Hell, Clinton was to the right of Trump on some issues.

            You are not using evidence.

            You're claiming AS FACT your opinions based on your highly biased assessment of incomplete evidence.

            Which is why you're a stupid nobody.

          • Geek__Girl

            Hmmm, a bizarre statement, that could be from a deranged nut case, or from a confused answer bot. Two repetitive statements that simply sounds like you are merely repeating what I what I say.

            And an insult. Bot? Deranged nut case? Hmmmmm…..

          • nmckrunner

            Nope. Funny how now you've been asked for actual evidence to support your bogus claim that it is a FACT this was an accident, this is the rabbit trail you run down…

            Run away, coward! Go ahead — run away like the lily-livered little loser you are.

          • Geek__Girl

            The forensic evidence?

          • nmckrunner

            Nope. Evidence. Of all the things you claim, which encompass intent, which ANY halfway decent lawyer knows is the one thing you're going to have to prove to a jury that is most likely not going to be sympathetic to your client.

          • Geek__Girl

            Still waiting on the forensic evidence that multiple shots were fired. Can I assume you were lying?

          • nmckrunner

            Nope. But you've already proven you're a liar.

            You claimed that it is a known FACT that this was merely an accident.

            This is false.

            If it is a FACT that this was accidental, there would be no charges. And yet he's charged with murder. Hmmm.

          • nmckrunner

            I'll call you what I want, hypocrite. You're a stupid, ignorant, uneducated, dishonest, dishonorable POS.

          • Geek__Girl

            I would not be so sure of that.

          • nmckrunner

            I am positive that you're dumber than a box of rocks and totally devoid of any morality or honor whatsoever.

          • Geek__Girl

            I hope you realize that I don't care what you think of me. And I should point out that ad hominem is also a logical fallacy.

          • nmckrunner

            Why point that out if you dgaf what I think, you simpleton?

          • Geek__Girl

            Because it amuses me to see you so out of control. I am beginning to wonder if you are not some sort of bot. You seem to post awfully quickly. Granted, it may be that you just don't give any thought to what you post, but it does seem curious.

          • nmckrunner

            I'm not out of control. I'm doing this from The Ramp, cold Corona in hand, laughing over your idiocy with a bunch of people. Seriously.

          • Geek__Girl

            That is a rather odd statement.

          • nmckrunner

            And yet it is true.

            That's the problem with loonies like you — you cannot deal with realities that don't jibe with your false assumptions.

            Poor old you. Another lonely Friday night for ya? So sad.

      • Geek__Girl

        You are basing an awful lot on a very questionable interview that was conducted while Sanchez was recovering from the effects of some sleeping pills. It was not a sworn statement, he has very poor language skills, and the interviewer was asking leading questions. What was said is not, and should not be admitted as, evidence. And even then, you pick and choose what to believe, because he also said the gun went off by accident.

        • nmckrunner

          He's a criminal with a rap sheet a mile long, he's been deported (for what THAT'S worth anymore) any number of times, and he fired a weapon and killed Kate Steinle.

          Those are facts, my dear. Facts.

          Your lefty idiocy does not make them any less so.

          • Geek__Girl

            He has a few, mostly trumped up drug offenses, and the rest was immigration charges. He has NO violent crimes on his record. You seem to ignore the fact that it was clearly an accident. You have no facts, and I am not "your dear." And I am not a lefty. I am extremely moderate. I don't like extremists on either said. And no, extremists wouldn't know a fact if it came up and slapped them in the face.

          • nmckrunner

            He is a murderer. A murderer.

            You're not a moderate. You are extreme. No moderate defends criminal activity, which is what illegal immigration is.

            You are defending a man who never should have been here, who was in possession of a stolen weapon, was firing the gun in public, and who murdered an innocent young woman.

            You're gross and disgusting and cowardly and have no honor. You're vile.

          • Geek__Girl

            No, he is a defendant. He has not been convicted, and is presumed innocent. You, on the other hand, are clearly an enemy of the Constitution. And you have no ability to say what I am. You are so far to the right you would think a Nazi is a liberal. He found a gun under a bench, wrapped up in a t-shirt, i picked the bundle up, and the gun, based on evidence, accidentally discharged. The gun was of a type popular with law enforcement because, under certain criteria, he has a hair trigger. He was not aiming at anyone, and the bullet ricocheted. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended to kill someone to sustain a murder charge. They cannot do that.

            Why are you such an enemy of the Constitution?

          • nmckrunner

            Liberals are Nazis. Duh. What did you think National Socialism was…?

            He SAID, after he shot Kate Steinle during the course of firing SEVERAL ROUNDS, that he found a bundle under a bench. His word is worthless. Yet you claim to know this is a fact. You're lying. You cannot know this is a fact.

            Why are you lying? Why are you claiming you saw something you didn't?

          • Geek__Girl

            Well, that statement tells me all I need to know about your mentality. I bet you were a big Glen Beck fan.

            Let's see…. You were basing things on what he said (that is the only basis I have seen for the claim he fired SEVERAL shots), but now you claim his word is worthless. I believe you just contradicted yourself. No one has claimed he did not find the gun. Have you noticed, he is not charged with stealing it?

            And why are you claiming I said something I didn't?

          • nmckrunner

            Again, you're utterly wrong about my political views.

            You assume and then insist your assumptions are facts.

            No, several shots were fired — that's forensic evidence derived from the weapon/scene. Facts.

            His statement he found the weapon and it went off accidentally is NOT a fact. Yet you insist this is a fact. You insist that your opinion that this was an accident is a fact. It is not a fact. Hence the trial, you dimwit.

            You claim I'm a Trump voter. I'm not. You claim I'm a Glenn Beck fan. I'm not. You assert as fact that this was an accident. This is not the case.

            ALL you do is make false statements, assert them as fact, and then spin lie after lie after lie.

            You are a filthy, dishonorable piece of garbage who thinks it's awesome when people break the law and commit crimes (as in entering the country illegally, garnering SEVEN felony convictions, being deported, returning illegally, and then killing an innocent woman <— facts).

            I'm sorry you're old, fat, ugly, stupid and a failure, but this is not a reason to open the doors to convicted felons and give them a pass for killing younger, prettier, more successful women than you, you bitter bitch.

          • Geek__Girl

            You have made your political views quite clear.

            I have seen no statement that forensic evidence was found that shows that multiple shots were fired. Every time I have seen this claimed, it is based on the statement that he made in the interview. If you know of such forensic evidence, please provide a citation or link. If you can't, then you are clearly making it up.

            It is supported by evidence. There is nothing to show it is not true. And it is clear, from known evidence, that he was not aiming at anyone. You keep tap dancing around that fact.

            Funny that you repeat an absurd, and somewhat unique, claim that Beck came up with.

            And yet again, with a straw man argument. Given that current Immigration law was pushed by racist Southern senators in 1965, which ended the policy that allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico among other places in the Western Hemisphere, to prevent Mexicans from "corrupting the culture" I think our current policy is wrong.

            And finally, straw man arguments, and ad hominem only proves you have no real arguments. But hey, it is kind of fun watching you make an ass of yourself.

          • nmckrunner

            How so? What are my political views? Do tell.

            You've been utterly wrong about your claims so far.

            And you've not actually read ALL the publicly available material and you're STILL insisting AS FACT that this d-bag murderer picked up a bundle of rags and a gun went off unbeknownst to him…?

            Good God, but you are one evil, dishonest bitch.

            I have not repeated any claims Glenn Beck ever made as I have literally not once ever heard him utter a single word.

            Fatso, the only one here making a huge double-wide ass out of herself is you with your bogus "facts" and pure hatred for white people and glee in the murder of an innocent.

          • Geek__Girl

            Suffice to say, your political views are incoherent. And you making denials proves nothing.

            Have YOU read ALL publicly available material? I seriously doubt it. I do notice you are trying to avoid my request about the multiple shots being fired. You claim there is forensic evidence. Put up, or admit you lied.

          • nmckrunner

            No, you just said my political views were clear — so that was yet another lie on your part???

            You are actually now lying to yourself in public.

            You're freakin' senile.

          • Geek__Girl

            I'm still waiting on you to produce the forensic evidence you claim to have. Ignoring that does not help your case.

          • nmckrunner

            He has SEVEN FELONY CONVICTIONS, btw.

            You are such a dirty little liar. Who's paying you, troll?

          • Geek__Girl

            They are mostly for drug possession, one trumped up one for manufacturing (which means he put some heroin in a different package) and, and one for coming back after being deported. Hardly a master criminal. I am not the one who is lying. And no one is paying me. You, by the way are the troll. And clearly mentally unhinged.

          • nmckrunner

            Oh, you were there…? Please.

            He did not belong here. End of. Bleeding heart liberals like yourself wanted a sanctuary city. You got it. Kate Steinle is dead. That's on you.

          • Geek__Girl

            Were you? No? Kate Steinle died as a result of a tragic accident. She was young, white, affluent, and attractive. Has she been old, black, poor, and unattractive, you, and your ilk, would not care one bit.

          • nmckrunner

            She died because a criminal shot a gun in a crowd. She was murdered.

            I don't care what color ANYONE is. I care about _actions_. His long, long string of criminal _actions_ , compounded by the criminal mentality behind "sanctuary cities" led to the murder of Kate Steinle.

            She harmed no one. He led a life of crime, then shot someone in cold blood. But she is just so much garbage to you because she's white and he's automatically innocent in your eyes because he's Latino (he's not black, you moron).

          • Geek__Girl

            You can claim whatever you want. That does not make it a fact.

            And I strongly suspect you do. You have all the marks of a classic bigot. You keep claiming "cold blood" when the evidence clearly refutes that. I never said she was garbage, another straw man argument on your part, nor did I say he is automatically innocent because he is Latino, yet another straw man argument. Oh, and I never said he was black, which is also a straw man argument.

          • nmckrunner

            Oh, so now you're denying Kate Steinle is even dead…? Your OPINION is that she was not shot?

            You're retarded. Seriously.

          • Geek__Girl

            Where do you get this stuff from? Now, I am beginning to seriously question your sanity. Denying she is dead? That makes NO sense at all.

          • nmckrunner

            Your words. Which are still there. Your words. You deny that she was shot to death by a criminal.

          • Geek__Girl

            ROTFL! Definitely either insane or a bot.

          • nmckrunner

            Yet you keep responding…long line at the welfare office, old girl? LOL!

          • Geek__Girl

            Chat bot is looking more and more likely.

    • Geek__Girl

      He was not aiming at a target. And he said that it went off by itself.

      • nmckrunner

        Guns don't go off "by themselves". The gun went off while it was in his hand and he was firing it — had already fired several shots, AAMOF.

        Why are you lying to protect a murderer? What are YOU up to, eh?

        • Geek__Girl

          Why are you trying to convict someone for a crime they did not commit. You realize that is a violation of the Constitution. You know, the one people swear to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I assume you are a domestic enemy, but an enemy none the less. You are not remotely interested in the truth.

          • nmckrunner

            He shot her. He was violating the law and in the process of violating the law discharged a weapon and murdered a young woman.

            You aren't interested in the truth at all — you actually believe a gun killed a person all by itself. You actually believe that the gun was just lying their on the pier, all by itself, not in the possession of any human being, and got up and fired itself.

            Do you even hear yourself?

          • Geek__Girl

            No, he did not "shoot" her. The gun when off by accident. He had no intention of shooting her, or anyone. You are again engaging in straw man arguments, a classic and all too common logical fallacy, Your claim is so patently absurd as to be ludicrous, even for someone as clearly deranged as you are. Let me make this simple, so you can follow it. He found a bundle under a bench. He picked it up. It turned out to be a gun. It accidentally fired because it was in a state where it has a hair trigger. He did not intend to fire the gun. The bullet, which came from the gun, which was not aimed at anyone, ricocheted and struck a person, who died as a result. That is what the evidence shows. Now, you see, I am using actual facts. You are screaming like a maniac. You have NO facts, just pure, unadulterated hatred and an obvious obsession.

          • nmckrunner

            Again, WERE YOU THERE? You insist, yet again, AS FACT, before a trial, that this was absolutely totally an accident. Were you there? What did you see? Why haven't you come forward as an eyewitness?

            You have NO IDEA what happened. You are filtering what bits you think you know through your agenda and claiming, as fact, that this was an accident (which is laughable on its face).

            He fired MULTIPLE SHOTS.

            You have not seen all the evidence as it has not all been presented, yet you insist that this is an accident.

            This is a lie. You cannot know any such thing, yet you present it as fact.

          • Geek__Girl

            I have answered your irrelevant question a number of times, and again, no. I am basing my statement on ACTUAL evidence. So, yes, I have a very good idea of what happened, based on EVIDENCE. You are the one basing your positions on an agenda. You don't like the facts, so you ignore them. You have no presented a single fact supported by evidence, which is to say, you haven't provided a single fact.

            Now, you have invoked statements from the interview that was televised, as fact. But you ignore anything he said that does not support your version. You can't have it both ways.

            What I have said is that the bullet ricocheted, that it is possible that the gun went off accidentally (very possible, and that is what Sanchez has stated…if you don't accept that, you cannot bring up anything else from the interview) and that indicates that it WAS NOT COLD BLOODED MURDER.

            You have tried to create straw man arguments.

          • nmckrunner

            So, no, you have no idea what happened, and you assert your opinion, based on incomplete information as fact. Exactly what I said. Thank you for finally admitting it.

          • Geek__Girl

            A basic non-answer. Answer bot is looking more likely.

          • nmckrunner

            Nope. Sorry. Funny how when called out on your dishonesty and when pressed for actual facts supporting the opinions you insist are facts, you go off on a tangent.

            What a coward you are.

          • Geek__Girl

            I notice you have not supplied the requested forensic evidence showing that multiple shot were fired.

          • nmckrunner

            And yet that evidence exists in spite of your claim to know all. Hmm.

          • Geek__Girl

            I think I am going to call it. Definitely a chat bot.

          • Rosh HoshHosh

            Cool. Number of shots fired should be relatively easy to establish. It's important to get the facts right so that this case can seen for whatever it is. The BLM is allowing their officer to testify, which will help. What everyone should want here is a fair trial on proper charges.

            http://m.sfgate.com/crime/article/Ranger-whose-stolen-gun-killed-Kate-Steinle-will-11656219.php

          • nmckrunner

            I can't convict anyone of any crime by myself, you stupid, ignorant fool. Why do you think I can? And by YOUR logic, why are you trying to let a murderer go free? You realize that is a violation of the law? You realize that claiming he doesn't need to be tried and should just be let go because of what you _think_ is a violation of the Constitution? You ARE a domestic enemy since you give harbor to illegal aliens who have flouted the law, who are scheduled for deportation, and who kill innocent bystanders. You are the antithesis to the truth.

          • Geek__Girl

            Fortunately you can't. You can only rant here, and post lies. I am not trying to let a murderer go free. I am pointing out facts that raise reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. Again, you engage in a straw man argument. I never said he should to be tried. The district attorney had filed charges, as is his right. Just because he has does not mean the person is guilty. It means that the DA thinks he has probable cause that a crime was committed. If, after the DA presents his case, the judge does not believe he as presented sufficient evidence, the case will be dismissed. If the judge thinks the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence, the legal term is prima facie, literally on the face of it, the defense will then present its case. All they have to do is raise reasonable doubt. They have to show that the prosecution's claims are not beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that the evidence raises reasonable doubt. You don't care.

          • nmckrunner

            And fortunately, you cannot let criminals go free, either. Thank God. Because our streets would run red with the blood of dead innocents from all the murderers you'd let go free.

            You are not pointing out _facts_. You are taking statements that are not factual and implying they are because they jibe with your worldview.

            This is your lack of education showing. You don't even understand what a fact is.

          • Geek__Girl

            Let's see, that is another straw man argument. Of course I can't. Nor would I if I could. I would let innocent people go free if I had that power (i.e. I was elected governor of a state, which I don't expect to happen). And as I said, you are invincibly ignorant. You ignore facts.

            As to my education…I have had undergraduate courses in both criminal law, and criminal evidence (I passed BOTH with an A), constitutional law, again an A, and business law, which I passed with a C.

          • nmckrunner

            You have credentials. That does not mean you have an education.

            That you took a handful of undergrad courses from some online "university" or community college or third tier degree mill means less than nothing. Obviously.

          • Geek__Girl

            No, I took those courses at the University of Alabama. Hardly an "online" school, as they did not have those at the time. Nor was it a "community college," and certainly not a third tier degree mill. Obviously, you are just throwing stuff, hoping something will stick. I think the term is DESPERATION.

          • nmckrunner

            Nope. I'm using YOUR words to prove that you and your ilk are complicit in the murder of Kate Steinle.

          • Geek__Girl

            No, but you are proving that you are either delusional, or a bot.

          • nmckrunner

            Nope. You're just not quick enough to keep up. You're a slow reader, you don't grasp concepts well, and then when others get ahead of you, you have to assume they're not even people in order to puff your own narcissistic self up.

            But you REALLY believe I'm either delusional or a bot, what the hell does it make you that you've let me rent this much space in your head for so long?

          • Geek__Girl

            Curious.

          • nmckrunner

            Nope, you're dull as ditchwater, but you provided what was needed.

            Enjoy your lonely life, dearie. I have to get ready for a dinner date.

  • M. Montrouge

    3 rounds fired by a semi-automatic pistol? One could buy 1 accidental discharge of a chambered handgun in single action mode, but 3? If the discharge was due to mechanical malfunction it would be fairly easy to present evidence of this. I haven’t heard anything about mechanical malfunction, so the only reasonable explanation is that after the first shot, the defendant pressed the trigger 2 additional times.

    • Rosh HoshHosh

      You’ve already backed off your claims from the first article that Sanchez Lopez had stolen and chambered the pistol. Now you should back off your insinuation that the gun was in single action mode. Do you really believe this? You’re a gun guy, right? That firearm was in double action mode. The first 10 seconds of this video show the Sig being fired in double action mode:

      . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3vdegxLjG0

      • M. Montrouge

        I never said that he didn’t chamber the pistol. It’s pretty much impossible to know who did that now.

        You don’t understand the difference of single action versus double action, clearly. Also Matt Gonzalez has implied single action in one of his op eds, meaning that the the gun was cocked with the hammer back, which is not a safe way of storing a SIG P226, since it does not have a manual safety, and the trigger pull would be much reduced.

        For Lopez Sanchez’s defense, he should hope that the gun was found chambered in single action mode, because that is the least safe way to store that gun, so unsafe that anyone doing so has a death wish for their own person.

        Either way, firing 3 rounds for this pistol requires 3 trigger pulls. The difference between single action and double action has consequences on how easy it was to pull the trigger. There are instances of semi-auto hand guns firing in full auto, but that requires intentional or unintentional modifications to the pistol’s sear, which would come up on examination.

        • Rosh HoshHosh

          Let us know the difference, eh? My belief is that single action meant the hammer would have to be pulled before every shot.

          • M. Montrouge

            That’s not possible with a semi-automatic handgun. The force of the
            round causes the slide to cock the hammer after every shot. Single action means that the
            trigger performs one action, releasing the hammer.

            It’s very unlikely that the officer had the pistol stored in a backpack chambered with hammer back in single action mode, or even chambered with the hammer decocked in double action. So either the defendant or person who stole the gun would have had to have done it.

            Either way, extremely unlikely that 3 rounds were able to be fired accidentally. Gonzalez’s best hope is to prove mechanical malfunction.

          • Rosh HoshHosh

            Thank you. The Sig P226 is a semi-auto hand gun without a safety, correct? Does it have a setting to keep it in single action allowing it to function as both sa/da, or is it only a double action weapon?

            And here’s another: if the P226 is it necessary to pull the hammer back, or can a hard trigger squeeze also pull the hammer back once the gun is chambered?

            If the hammer was actuated by the trigger on the first round, then the two subsequent trigger pulls are going to register much lower in regards to lbs per inch (meaning extremely easy and quick trigger pull on all shots but the first shot). The P226 would have automatically re-chambered and cocked the weapon after the first shot.

            You know as well as I know the second and third shots could have easily been inadvertently squeezed off after the first if someone were inexperienced or inebriated. And you know as well as I know it is very possible the officer was carrying the P226 with one in the chamber. That’s how cops carry theirs.

          • M. Montrouge

            Yes, assuming the gun is chambered but decocked, the gun would be in double action mode, requiring a strong trigger pull.

            Subsequent shots would be Easier, but still very deliberate. Let’s say he handled the gun in a bundle as alleged. Without a good grip on the weapon, it would likely move considerably, making it difficult to fire additional shots. Of course, this is all up to what the jurors believe is possible.

            Even in instances of people accidentally shooting themselves in the leg (or worse) due to improper drawing (finger in trigger guard), generally there is only one discharge.

          • Rosh HoshHosh

            Thanks for helping clear that up, I’ve definitely gained some insight here.

        • Geek__Girl

          Is there any evidence other than that highly questionable interview that three shots were found? I have found nothing that says one way or the other. Did they find three spent cartridges?

          • Jimmy Tantino

            Or witnesses ? Or video ? Or admissions ? Or more physicall evidence ? Or all of the above and the DA is not trying this case through fake news press releases ?

          • Geek__Girl

            Funny, but the ONLY thing I have seen that supports three shots is that interview. Again, if there is something else, please provide a link. And I don’t know about the DA, but there are a lot of people who are certainly trying to make claims that are not actually supported by evidence.

  • curiousKulak

    “It is the height of irony that President Trump, who used the case to promote his fledgling candidacy for the Republican nomination, now presides over a government that opposes allowing a jury to hear the facts from this critical witness.”

    I’m with you there.

    ” It’s no surprise they’d rather forego the trial and instead keep the focus on the immigrant who found the gun on the pier just before Steinle’s death.”

    But see, here, Sanchez didn’t just “find” the Gun, he found and FIRED it. Not even the BLM idiot asked him to do that!

  • MissionControl

    The person who pulled the trigger of the gun killed Kate Steinle. Keep on making lame excuses for criminals…that’s how we roll in SF.

    • Geek__Girl

      It is called the right to a fair trial. We don’t just convict him because YOU say so.

      • MissionControl

        He pulled the trigger, Jennifer. And bad behavior doesn’t get a pass because YOU say so Oops, my bad. It’s the gun’s fault and Kate Steinle was in the way of the bullet.

        • Geek__Girl

          So, you were there and saw what happened? So you, and you alone, have the right to decide his guilt? Why does it terrify you so much that he night be innocent?

          • nmckrunner

            He confessed to shooting her, you ridiculous child.

          • Geek__Girl

            You are referring to a bizarre interview that was not a sworn statement, is probably not admissible, and which was conducted while he was recovering from taking some sleeping pills. And I am probably older than you are.

          • nmckrunner

            Probably not.

            He was a known felon, wanted for deportation because of his felon status. He was already breaking so many laws it's a joke he was still here.

            Oh, but the gun — the inanimate object — killed Kate…not the actual criminal, and of course not the bleeding heart sanctuary city ninnies who refused to notify ICE.

            Shame on you.

          • Geek__Girl

            He was wanted for deportation because he was an undocumented alien. He had served his time, and was released in accordance with local law. And, you are trying, rather desperately, and rather clumsily, to engage in the logical fallacy of a straw man argument. No, the "gun" did not kill her. A bullet, which was not aimed at her, and which was not fired with the intent of harming anyone, killed her. It was an ACCIDENT.

          • nmckrunner

            He entered this country illegally, garnered SEVEN felony convictions, was deported, returned illegally, and murdered an innocent bystander.

            Those are the facts. Facts.

            The "local law", in direct opposition to federal law, was put in effect because of idiots like you who want a sanctuary city where known felons can shoot people in cold blood.

            Careful what you wish for. Kate Steinle found out how very wrong that can all go…not that you care one bit about HER life, you cold, heartless witch.

          • Geek__Girl

            Not quite. He has four felony convictions for drugs. In fact, he is such a dangerous criminal that the longest he was sentenced for was one year, most were for much shorter sentences. He has three convictions for felony immigration convictions. In another words, he came back after being deported. All of those have much longer sentences….for the simple act of preferring the United States over Mexico.

            Accidentally shooting someone is not in cold blood. Your hyperbole would be amusing if it were not so indicative of extremism and hatred.

            I care about anyone being killed. But this was an accident, not a murder, cold blooded or otherwise.

          • nmckrunner

            He. Was. A. Criminal. With. Multiple. Felony. Convictions.

            That, dearie, is what is known as a "fact".

            The act of preferring the US to Mexico is not a crime. Entering this country ILLEGALLY is.

            Again, dearie, that is a "fact".

            That you _think_ this was an accident is an "opinion", dearie.

            You clearly hate white people, hate successful people, and hate attractive people. You're glad she's dead. That much drips off your every post.

          • Geek__Girl

            I never said it wasn't a fact. I simply said he has never had a conviction for a violent crime, felony or otherwise, nor has he been convicted of anything worse than possession, and one charge of manufacturing, which means he put some drugs in a different packaging.

            And I hate no one. Not even an invincibly ignorant liar like you.

          • nmckrunner

            You're the only one here who has lied, over and over again.

            You insist over and over that a perp's claims about a crime are "fact".

            They. Are. Not.

          • Geek__Girl

            I've shown, from facts, that you have lied. You simply repeat clams like the without evidence.

            And again with a straw man argument. You clearly have no real arguments.

          • nmckrunner

            No, you haven't. At all.

            In YOUR twisted little mind, maybe. In reality? Nope.

            The EVIDENCE is that this man was in possession of this weapon and fired several shots on a crowded pier killing a woman.

            You say that the FACTS are that this did not happen.

            Who's the liar…? Right.

            Shove it, you rancid bitch.

          • Geek__Girl

            Well, let's see….now you seem to be backing away from your usual crap. No one has ever denied he was in possession of the gun. No one has denied that at least one shot was fired. So, obviously, you are the liar.

          • nmckrunner

            Nope. He was in possession of the gun, he fired several shots, and he knew he was firing a gun. That's my position.

            You insist that he did not know he was firing a gun, that the gun went off by itself, that only one shot was fired and that it is a cold-stone FACT this was an accident.

            Prove it.

            A ricochet in and of itself proves nada, dearie. Not one thing.

            Prove that he did not know it was a gun in his hand. Prove he did not fire this gun himself.

            Go ahead. Support your claim. You said it was CLEARLY an accident. Prove it. Illuminate us all with your inside knowledge.

          • Geek__Girl

            You are going to a lot of trouble to avoid providing the forensic evidence you claim to have.

          • nmckrunner

            And, again, you insist, AS FACT, this was an accident. Were. You. There?

          • SF Sunset Guy

            Served his time? He was on parole.

      • nmckrunner

        He held the gun, he raised it to shooting level, he aimed, he pulled the trigger. He is a cold-blooded murder. He isn't anything else.

        • Geek__Girl

          You are either an ignorant fool, a liar, or probably both. He clearly did not raise it to shooting level. The bullet ricocheted. Even the ballistics expert said he could not have made that shot deliberately. As I said, I think you are a fool, because you think you can badger people in accepting a lie, and well, a liar for obvious reasons.

          • nmckrunner

            He clearly did, given the trajectory, you ignorant, uneducated shill for all that is evil in this world.

            You're disgusting.

          • Geek__Girl

            He clearly didn't, given the trajectory. Is ricochet too big a word for you? Do you not understand that there was clear evidence that the bullet hit the pavement of the pier, and bounced up? That it shows that the gun was not aimed at anyone? Oh, wait, clearly you don't care about facts. You just keep spewing lies hoping you can tell them faster than I can refute them.

          • nmckrunner

            He. Shot. The. Gun. And. Killed. Kate. Steinle.

            End of.

            You deny this — you were there? You deny his felony convictions are legit — again, you were there?

            You claim to know as fact so very many things — should we point the SFPD in your direction?

          • Geek__Girl

            You are invincibly ignorant. No fact can pass into your brain.

            I did not say his felony convictions were not "legit." I said one was a trumped up charge.

            I am basing my statement on evidence. You know, actual facts. No, wait, clearly you don't know actual facts. You don't need no stinking facts.

            Oh, and the SFPD is the one who found, and revealed that evidence.

          • nmckrunner

            No, you're basing your OPINION on a witness statement, which is not a fact.

            Again, you do not understand what a fact is.

          • Geek__Girl

            I am basing it on facts released by the SFPD forensic expert who examined the bullet. He is an expert witness, and his statement was based on physical evidence. Now, exactly how do I not understand what a fact is, other than that I don't agree with your ignorance?

          • nmckrunner

            Because you still have not proven AS FACT that this was an accident, yet you insist, AS FACT, that it was.

            If it was A FACT this was an accident, there would be no trial.

            You're quite spectacularly stupid. Really.

          • Geek__Girl

            The bullet ricocheted. It was clearly an accident. It most certainly was not deliberate. You realize, it has to be one, or the other. Now, if he had pointed the gun at someone between him and Steinle, or if the bullet had pass through someone and then hit Steinle, you might have a point. But the bullet ricocheted. It was, in no way, deliberate. Not deliberate, an accident. Simple. For anyone with a shred of reason.

          • nmckrunner

            No, it was not CLEARLY an accident at all. This is not true.

            You have NO IDEA what REALLY happened, ricochet or no, because YOU WERE NOT THERE.

            Stop lying about what you know. You don't know this. At all.

            How do you know it was not deliberate? Prove this. Use facts. Tell us how you know what the perp was thinking, what his intent was, and what he was aiming at. Prove these things with facts.

            Go ahead. Prove the truth of his statement, prove the truth of your CLAIM to know what his intent was . Evidence please. I'll wait…

          • Geek__Girl

            I have already used facts to prove it. There is NO question that the bullet ricocheted. A ballistics expert has stated that there is no way the shot could be deliberate. QED

          • nmckrunner

            So what. And one "expert" opinion is not a fact. It's an opinion.

            You have not provided one shred of evidence that will sway a single juror to your side. Intentional shots ricochet all the time.

            Experts lie or twist or manipulate data all the time. And cops don't know how to do anything but lie.

            So you've yet to provide one single shred of actual evidence to prove this happened the way you ASSUME it happened.

            All you've got is opinions, dearie. Not anything else.

          • Geek__Girl

            Omnia demens es? Aut est iustus perficere culus?

          • nmckrunner

            Nope, not mad, not an asshole. But how you do project!

            And now you're gone, you just stopped existing. Because you're a fucking bore.

  • Don Sebastopol

    Obviously the gun is guilty and should be sent to jail.

    • curiousKulak

      … so it should be Death By Firing Squad?

  • MKR

    Maybe everyone is at fault here. the federal agent who left his gun in the car has some responsibility. But if you find someone else’s gun you should turn it into the cops and not use it. Even Kate Steinle has some responsibility since going outside in the USA means there is a possibility you will be shot. The only individual that doesn’t bear any responsibility is the unfortunate sea lion.

  • SF Sunset Guy

    “Federal agent’s loaded gun, left unsecured in a car, killed Kate Steinle”

    not all on its own, it didn’t.

  • Jimmy Tantino

    Too bad the judge didnt issue a gag order. But glad he/she didnt so we can all pick apart this ‘public defenders’ preas release drivel. For starters, Sb 869 is an infraction, UP to a $1000 fine and no jail possibility. Hardly “facing criminal charges” in these parts.

  • Jimmy Tantino

    Since when does BLM need firearms ? Since wwed growing meth making cartels have set up shop, unlawful hunting, armed sovwrign types, fugitive persons snd other assorted criminals like Cary Stainer have roamed these landa. Oh, and Lets not confuse the terms “accident” with recklessness or negligence.

  • Jimmy Tantino

    Judge spero mustve forgotten that the gun had been in a locked container (the car) and hidden from sight as well or too busy victim blaming? It would seem the blm guy also had protections from the law itself, as it was a crime to steal that gun.
    Am i to blame when my house gets broken in to spero ? Cuz i have valuables in it?

    Surely spero considered that persons who break in to cars would have capitalized on the gun with a quick sale in the tenderloin, as opposed to defenses theory that it was just left laying on a sidewalk for all to see and take for their benefit.

  • Jimmy Tantino

    Ironic, yes ! But not in relation to Trumps campaign, but in respect to Gonzo highlighting efforts by a 1%er Republican’s bill that never came or fruition. Progressives in line with repubs ??? Nice Matt, real nice

  • nmckrunner

    The man who pulled the trigger killed Kate Steinle. Full stop.