Shocking verdict only deepens tragedy

The stunning verdict in the killing of Kate Steinle only deepens the tragedy of her death and further darkens the political climate that this horrific incident helped to create.

The jury found Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty Thursday of murder, manslaughter or even assault with a deadly weapon in the death of 32-year-old Steinle as she walked with her dad on Pier 14 in San Francisco two years ago.

Zarate was convicted only of being a felon in possession of a firearm — a gun he says he found wrapped in a towel on the pier and did not intentionally fire. Yet fire it did. A young woman is dead. And for Donald Trump and his followers, the verdict is rocket fuel splashed on the fire of anti-immigrant fervor: Zarate not only had crossed the border from Mexico illegally but also had been deported five times.

He never should have been on that pier.

Now the Justice Department is considering filing federal charges against him.

This has happened in civil rights cases when local justice fails in the face of clear evidence.

It’s reasonable for Justice to examine this case. But it was not a matter of the fix being in. There were gray areas in evidence, and it appears the jurors, deliberating for more

Yet it’s hard to accept that the man responsible for her death was guilty of no crime other than “possession” of the gun.

than a week, took their job seriously.

During the trial, evidence that Zarate deliberately killed Kate Steinle was not persuasive.

When the gun went off, the bullet ricocheted from the pier and traveled 80 feet to hit her. That would have been some trick shot. In fact there is no logical reason for Zarate to have wanted to shoot anyone on the pier, or to call attention to himself.

Yet it’s hard to accept that the man responsible for her death was guilty of no crime other than “possession” of the gun.

Some accidents with extenuating circumstances are still crimes.

Drivers distracted by a cell phone or a GPS map don’t set out to kill, but if they do, they are not excused.

It’s possible that a charge of criminal negligence would have brought a guilty verdict in this case.

But prosecutors did not present that option.

Americans who value the presumption of innocence until proven guilty will tend to see Zarate’s acquittal as proof the system works.

Trump and others see it as letting an illegal immigrant off the hook.

Right or wrong in its conclusion, the jury in the Steinle case appears to have set aside politics and emotion in its verdict.

Americans would do well to follow that guide in looking at issues of immigration, gun laws and sanctuary cities — all factors swirling around this tragic killing, and all on the table for next year’s political campaigns.