Regarding the Steinle case, she should still be alive, because the guy who fired the guy is an illegal, and should not have been in the US. Period. However:
Kate Steinle murder trial: How the prosecution’s case fell apartThey could convict on first-degree or premeditated murder. They could opt for second-degree murder, requiring a finding that Garcia Zarate either intended to kill Steinle or intentionally committed a dangerous act with conscious disregard for human life. Or they could choose involuntary manslaughter, which would require a finding that Garcia Zarate caused Steinle’s death with an unlawful, negligent act.
To prove murder, Assistant District Attorney Diana Garcia needed to convince jurors that the round that killed Steinle had been fired intentionally. But this was a difficult task as the bullet first struck the pier’s concrete 12 to 15 feet from Garcia Zarate, then bounced and traveled 78 more feet to strike Steinle in the back as she strolled with her father.
“The evidence that Kate Steinle was killed with a ricochet shot, rather than a direct shot, makes it even tougher to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an intentional killing,†said attorney Jim Hammer, a former city prosecutor.
Love it or hate it, charging Zarate with first degree murder was absurd However the gun came to fire, it clearly was not aimed. That left negligent homicide as the only possible option. Well the defense claimed the gun fired accidentally, and the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zarate pulled the trigger (the prosecutor absurdly claimed Zarate was playing some sort of "Russian Roulette", which was inconsistent with where the bullet struck the pavement). In short, the prosecutor absurdly overcharged, and could not even prove what may have been what happened.
