Talk:Shooting of Kate Steinle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This sentence misstates the facts: QUOTE: On July 10, San Francisco County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said during a press conference that federal authorities failed to provide legal basis to hold Sanchez, and that the sheriff's department followed procedure and local laws when they released Sanchez after a 20-year-old warrant on a marijuana charge. UNQUOTE The text "that federal authorities failed to" should be changed to "that federal authorities HAD failed to" because the time at which the federal authorities failed is not the same as "July 10". The same applies to "department HAD followed procedure" and "when they HAD released Sanchez". If neither of the verbs "said" or "failed" has a "had", then the date for both the saying and the failing is July 10th. In fact the Sheriff's statement about federal failure was issued on July 10th 2015 and concerns a Federal failure that occurred in March 2015. As worded, the sentence makes it sound like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was released on July 10th, AFTER the July 1st murder, because the simple-past-tense is used for all the verbs, all the same as "said". The release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez on July 10th simply has not happened. He's in jail for lack of $5 million bail. Someone may not know grammar, or someone who has an axe to grind against high concentrations of hippies, new-agers, and homosexuals such as are found in San Francisco may want to make it seem like San Francisco is so soft on crime that Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez has been set loose as of July 10th. Also, the end of the sentence doesn't make any sense at all. When "after" is followed by a noun, such as a car, it denotes physical location. "The caboose is after the last box-car." But the context makes it clear that this "after" refers to time, not physical location. Well, then it must be followed by an event, not a physical object of constant duration. You can't wake up after a meteorite (unless meteorites wake up). But you can wake up after a meteorite HITS. You can release someone after a 20-year-old warrant fails to be found. You can HOLD them UNDER (but not "after") a 20-year-old warrant. You can hold them AFTER a 20-year-old warrant IS FILED, but you can't leave off the verb "is filed". You can't release someone "after" a warrant. You can release them after a warrant fails to be found. It appears that what happened is the Sheriff is freeing detainees held by the Feds for illegal immigration telling the Feds that there are warrants that do not in fact exist, getting custody of the detainees, "finding out" that there are no warrants, and then releasing the detainees. This may be an end run around immigration law, but it's a far cry from setting Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez free on July 10th, after the time at which Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez confessed to a murder, as the sentence implies. (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Illegal vs. undocumented[edit]

The word "undocumented" is intended to make illegal immigrants sound more benign. It is also a dishonest word because illegal immigrants have plenty of documents -- fake and stolen ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone tell me the difference? Because I'm not seeing any, and I'm not seeing a reason why it should be "illegal immigrant" and not "undocumented immigrant" as the latter works better?

"works better'. Works better how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The phrases "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" are both phrases invented by partisans for political purposes. The term "alien" is codified in federal immigration law. The term has well understood meaning and is used throughout federal and state statutes. See for more details. If you simply reference the definitions section of the act you will see that the term alien is the key term in the immigration law, see Someone who is not a citizen of the U.S. is an alien. An alien who is in the U.S. and who has not satisfied the requirements under the law to be here legally is an "illegal alien" or an alien who is in the U.S. illegally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RumorQuake (talkcontribs) 02:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree term "undocumented immigrant" is inherently ambiguous/confusing/misleading, the correct term is "illegal alien", however the WP-accepted term is "illegal immigrant" (proof: WP articles Illegal immigration to the United States and Illegal immigrant population of the United States). Also, the purpose of the chosen term is to match meaning "a person in the United States illegally" -- "illegal immigrant" does that, "undocumented immigrant" doesn't (what does it mean?! -- a person in the United States "undocumentedly"!? -- that is an example how the term is inherently ambiguous/confusing/misleading). When MSM uses "undocumented immigrant", are we transcription monkeys and must follow suit? When the only purpose possible in the context is to represent meaning "person in the United States illegally"? A user recently reverted w/ editsum asserting that "undocumented immigrant" is a "better term" [1]. What possible justification for that assertion other than WP editors must parrot a source using that term? Nonsense, and a bad idea as well as already explained. --IHTS (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
here's my thoughts: undocumented is the term for anyone here who doesnt have current documentation to show their citizenship or immigration status. once they are actually found to be here without documentation, they can be considered in violation of immigration law, and labelled "illegal". so, until someone has been found to be out of documentation status on their current immigration case, its better to refer to them as undocumented. the idea that there are millions of illegal immigrants is quite accurate. but for an individual being considered, we should not call them "illegal" as they have not had their day in court yet. in regards to "alien" vs "immigrant", while i dont like using immigrant, cause the word has a connotation of being already vetted to come in, i dislike "alien" even more, as it has a severe xenophobic tone. it is in some circles an open question as to whether our constitution is a "Citizenist" document, and it doesnt really grant rights to citizens per se, only grants US the power to elect people to protect OUR rights. thus, i think "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented migrant" (my preferred, as it captures the transient, migratory status of someone who IS here, but doesnt yet have the right to STAY here without some legal repercussions) has a more NPOV feel to it. i know the us govt may use illegal alien, but that doesnt mean we have to, as the legal term may in fact be too pov for the average reader. the distinctions can be made in the main article on the topic.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:2030:C4D3:CDED:DF45 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your "thoughts" don't mean squat in an encyclopedia or in any piece of academic writing or reporting that claims credibility. They are "aliens" in the U.S. federal code, by law. They are also "illegal" under the law, in that they violated a national border and U.S. Code. Every country in the world refers to them as illegal aliens. For Wikipedia not to do so, would only make Wikipedia appear politicized, corrupted (in its editing), and unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talkcontribs) 08:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Reaction from victim's family[edit]

This section was anonymously removed with no valid reason given why. I added details to the section so that it was clear that Anderson Cooper, the CNN reporter who claimed that Trump used Kate's death for political gain. According to the audio and transcripts of the interview cited, Brad never makes the claim that Trump is using Kate's death for political gain. I've reviewed both the transcripts and audio to confirm the veracity of the details I added and they are accurate. Since there's no valid reason given for the removal and only inflammatory language in the comment by the anonymous editor, I'm undoing the removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RumorQuake (talkcontribs) 22:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

unsupported conspiracy edits[edit]

An account that looks like a single purpose login has made edits that are pure conspiracy nut nonsense. Does article need protection?Japanscot (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Have requested protection at the appropriate placeJapanscot (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Kate" should be in the title?[edit]

I am new to the Kate's Law subject. When I first searched for Kate's Law, I didn't think that there was a page for it. When "The Shooting of Kathryn Steinle" came up, I was unaware that this was her name, and therefore I didn't think that Wiki had an article on the subject. After some confusion, I finally figured out what was going on.

My point is that I believe it would be VERY helpful for the title to be "The Shooting of Kathryn (Kate) Steinle." But I believe that the owner of the page is the only person that can make this change.

With all the attention given to Kate's Law lately, it would be a shame if her article is overlooked because people don't see "Kate" anywhere. Thanks!Edlitwin (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. No one refers to her as "Kathryn" ... she is commonly referred to as "Kate Steinle". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"a man fired a gun" - Poorly worded[edit]

Just me or does the lede look like it was written by a 5 year old? NickCT (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Various IPs with axes to grind amended this to "An illegal immigrant". I'm not touching the tedious "illegal" vs "undocumented" argument, but the juxtaposition of two "illegal immigrant"s was clumsy at best. Back to "A man"? As NickCT notes that's quite clumsy too and since we seem to be writing from the POV that we don't know who fired it unless Lopez-Sanchez is found guilty, "a man" also implies something about the shooter that isn't known. Hence the passive voice.
But - given that Sanchez admitted firing the gun, do we need to engage in these circumlocutions? Perhaps the only BLP issue is over whether the shooting was accidental, and we can come out and say that he was the firer? (I notice we have only "shooting at sealions" and not his later claim that the shooting was entirely accidental).
I wonder if we also might move "previously been deported five times" into the second para. It seems more relevant to the political spat than the shooting. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This was changed by an account with no other edits. I assume "implied that the gun, not the person arrested and charged, was responsible" is some sort of inane American gun control argument - in any case it's nothing to do with the point, which is whether we can simply say Lopez-Sanchez fired the gun. I strongly feel we should seek consensus first here on whether there is any BLP issue with saying so. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I give up. As far as I can see no-one else uses the talk page rather than just reverting each other, and all I get for trying to improve matters is abuse from NickCT. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pinkbeast: - I'm sorry. I don't mean to abuse anyone. I think the best route on this lead issue might be to set up an RfC with 5 or 6 proposals, then we call all act to guard the "consensus" version. Whatever that version might be. Join me in working on an RfC? NickCT (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


I found the citations that claimed the weapon that killed Steinle was found that day contained no info at all about the retrieval of the pistol. I provided a source that indicated it was recovered the day after the shooting. The same source showed the location of the arrest of the confessed perpetrator, a mile away and an hour afterward. Activist (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Cyrus the Penner wants to add an incident to the see also section because both were committed by undocumented immigrants. This, to me, seems far too tangential and done with the intent to make a pov-based point.

While writing this, Cyrus decided to removal all incidents from the see also list... EvergreenFir (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Is there a category for killings committed by illegal immigrants? Killing of Nabra Hassanen cold also be included.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Lede instability[edit]

I find it quite funny that the lede sentence seems to get constantly edited. This is probably one of the least "stable" leads I've ever seen. Anyone think setting up a brief rfc to establish a consensus lede would be helpful? NickCT (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

'Reaction': 'Sanctuary City' liberal spin[edit]

'...San Francisco's sanctuary city policy, which aims to strengthen community safety by disallowing local officials from questioning a resident's immigration status, thus enabling local victims of crime to report without fear of deportation.'

I submit this is clear liberal spin. It is equally probable that the 'sanctuary city' policy, along with lax enforcement of other laws where illegal entrants are concerned, 'aims' to cater to a particular and reliable Democratic voting bloc.

'Community safety' is hardly a credible or legitimate concern when San Francisco intentionally releases a man into the 'community' who has seven felony convictions, was deported five times previously and was actively wanted by Homeland Security law enforcement...and as a direct result of his unjustifiable release allegedly murders an innocent tourist. This is a clearly biased political justification which ignores the very real dangers of 'sanctuary cities' and should be considered for removal. (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not a "liberal spin", if the city government claims (whether it is or not) it's aimed at strengthening community safety, we have to include their POV, period. Similarly, Donald Trump's travel ban is claimed by the administration to be for national security intents, and thus we chose to include that in his article's lead section. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree but defer to WP authority. (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to defer to WP authority, since there isn't one. What anyone who wants a Wikipedia article to say should do is provide a reliable secondary source that say what they want. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


What was the distance between Zarate and Steinl? Where was Zarate, under the pier? On it? Abductive (reasoning) 04:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Obsession with guns?[edit]

"...Garcia Zarate fired one shot from a .40-caliber SIG Sauer P239 handgun with a seven-cartridge magazine."

Is the "with a seven-cartridge magazine." part really necessary? (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your title states 'obsession with guns' - where? how? (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Need you ask where? OR how? You have access to the internet, so clearly you're not a hermit. (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017[edit]

change "while screaming for help to her father"

to "while screaming to her father for help" (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

How to add a picture of Kathy?[edit]

Tell me how to do it and I'll do it! (i know there are rules about | images, had mine deleted before on another page!) Thanks, (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

We cannot use any images found on the internet, as no one will have definitively released it under a free license. there are likely to be many family photos, and other photos by friends, any of which could be released without copyright. if there really was no chance to find a photo of her thats not owned, like say if this was from 50 years ago and not publicized at all, we could use a fair use image. i dont think we can cite fair use for this.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:2030:C4D3:CDED:DF45 (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


I have an issue with this wording "One ballistics expert testified on behalf of Garcia Zarate that the shot was fired accidentally and ricocheted off the pavement" The source says the expert called it an accident out of court, he seems to have testified only that the gun was aimed at the pavement. The source also claims that the prosecution expert agrees the bullet ricocheted, now the article give's the impression that only the defense make this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, December 1, 2017‎

Age of victim[edit]

The opening line describes Steinle as a 29-year-old, but under the Victim subheading she is said to be born in 1982. Should not the opening line describe her as a 32-year-old in 2015? Mino-wiijiindi (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2017[edit]

Redact "His defeat was partly due to his unapologetic support of San Francisco’s sanctuary city laws despite three other deaths in the city connected to crimes committed by illegal aliens since 2008" under the LOCAL AND STATE REACTIONS; this is not supported by the cited source. Date Knight (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Already done Terra (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Blanked out text of what I saw as a threat - apologies if I overstepped my bounds[edit]

I hope this wasn't against the rules, since I'm not a Wikipedia admin, but I blanked out the text of what an earlier person posted regarding committing violent acts in response to the not-guilty verdict. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Perpetrator section needs depoliticizing work[edit]

Here is the paragraph in question:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for 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[1] 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.[2][3] 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.[4]

Some of the language reads political rather than encyclopedic. This is my recommendation for a paragraph rewrite:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for Zarate requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could retrieve him. San Francisco restricted cooperation with ICE to cases only where the immigrant had both current violent felony charges and past violent felony convictions under the city's "Due Process For All" ordinance.[5] Under this policy San Francisco released Zarate from San Francisco County Jail on April 15, 2015.[2] Zarate had no outstanding warrants or judicial warrants, as confirmed by the San Francisco Sheriff's Department.[4] --Midwestwikiuser (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO the whole section is a little confusing. In particular, it doesn't really seem to explain what happened to the marijuana charge. Was it dropped? Did he plead guilty and received a short sentence and so with time served he had completed it when he was released? Was he on bail awaiting trial? If it's the later, it would be very confusing, I'm guessing it's one of the earlier 2 but our article doesn't seem to explain despite mentioning the charge with sentence that could be up to 20 years. On a related note, As a non American, while I can understand both POVs when it comes to whether to detain people for ICE who were detained (or not even that) by police (or whatever) for other reasons, this case has always seemed a little weird because of the fact he was initially held by the federal government and the San Francisco authorities only had him because he was turned over to them. It seems to me problematic for numerous reasons if authorities somewhere are going to receive someone from the federal government with the understanding he'd be handed back once these authorities are done with him but then they just release the person. I'm somewhat surprised there hasn't bee a lot more fuss over this particular aspect, perhaps it reflects the highly politicised nature of the debate. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


This should have photos of both him and her (victim), as any encyclopedia would WHAT the hell is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Know Your Rights: What to know about San Francisco's Due Process for All Ordinance" (PDF). Immigrant Legal Resource Center. November 2013.
  2. ^ a b Sernoffsky, Evan; Van Derbeken, Jaxon (July 4, 2015). "Pier shooting suspect had been released from S.F. Jail". San Francisco Chronicle.
  3. ^ Wilkey, Robin (September 27, 2013). "San Francisco Passes 'Due Process For All' Ordinance, Exempting City From ICE Immigration Hold". Huffington Post. Retrieved July 13, 2017. ...exempts the city from a nationwide program that holds people who are arrested, even on minor charges, for potential deportation.
  4. ^ a b Shaprio, Emily (July 10, 2015). "San Francisco Pier Shooting: Sheriff Defends April Release". ABC News. Retrieved July 10, 2015.
  5. ^ "Know Your Rights: What to know about San Francisco's Due Process for All Ordinance" (PDF). Immigrant Legal Resource Center. November 2013.