The tragic death of Kate Steinle culminated in the tragic inequities of the American judicial system on Thursday, November 30th, 2017. Technically speaking, both the judge and the public defender, Matt Gonzales, followed the system to the letter of the law. Therein lies the problem of according equal justice to illegal aliens.

The judge will be criticized for not allowing the multiple infractions by the defendant in the context of immigration status, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, to be considered as part of the empirical evidence during their deliberations.

The jury could reach only one verdict based on those instructions, which they followed to the letter of the law. To have done so otherwise would have been like a judge allowing a defendant's past larceny rap-sheet, to be exculpatory to masterminding a bank heist but was only accidentally involved and not directly.

However harsh that sounds, in terms of the legal interpretation of beyond a reasonable doubt and aside from past criminal but not conjoined actions, legally speaking, the jury probably rendered the correct sentence. Morally speaking, it was indeed a miscarriage of justice given the defendant's criminal past which is a matter of record -- beyond a reasonable doubt. This outcome and others like it are where black and white blur into some innocuous shade of grey at the end of the day with respect to immigration policy.

As a matter of just the facts

The gun that fired the bullet belonged to a BLM agent. The BLM has a long history of ineptitude. As a rhetorical question, why was said BLM agent's firearm so easily obtainable through auto-burglary? The lethal bullet may have ricocheted but why would anybody fiddle around with such a so-called, found item on a public pier in the first place?

That is not so much a rhetorical question. Negligence is the main, determining factor when it comes to manslaughter and surely, Mr. Zarate is guilty of this.

Factually speaking, the city knew of Mr. Zarate's status from numerous interactions from which his immigration status was known and yet, the city held fast to their policy of non-cooperation with ICE.

sanctuary cities should be mindful of the medieval past, when dukes and counts may have paid lip-service to the king (federal government) in order to obtain favors (federal dollars), only to have eventually been replaced, shall we say. The Knights Templar and the origin of the phrase holding the feet to the fire come to mind.

The metaphor should be clear as there is no literal king in America but cities can no longer be allowed to trump federal law like in times gone by.

California's governor and assembly speaker on thin ice

A rhetorical question is now posed, however flippant it may appear. Hey voters and citizens of California, how do you like your governor and Speaker of the State Assembly now?

For the record, these men are Jerry Brown and Kevin De Leon.

The issue as a matter of material fact was not Mr. Zarates' being an illegal immigrant as it related to the events leading to Kate Steinle's death per se. By the same token, he shouldn't have been here in the first place. The defense's argument was paper thin but strong enough to withstand cross-examination. Conversely, one can make a reasonable argument that no bonafide citizen would be fiddling around with a "found" gun on a public pier in the first place. They would exercise discretion.

It is little comfort to try and talk about the outcome of the case as a practical matter to Kate Steinle's family. First and foremost, her death was a tragedy they'll have to cope with for the rest of their days.

The citizens of the United States do not have to put up with such policies that led to the sequence of events in the first place. We, the American public are blessed in that we don't have to cope with such a tragedy for the rest of our days. California voters need to wake up since it's not just some Californians shaking their heads but the rest of us in the 49 states of the union as well. The whole thing stinks to high-heaven!