Katie Steinle case-was Justice served?

Haven’t seen anyone posting on this yet so curious to get the general opinion of those on this app. Kate Steinle murder trial just ended, and while her killer Zarata admitted to firing the bullet, he was found not guilty on any murder charges, even involuntary manslaughter. For those not familiar with the case, Zarata is an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times previously and had several felonies on file already. He admitted to having the gun (the only charge he was guilty of was illegally having a firearm) and firing the shot that killed Kate. He specifically went to San Francisco for Sanctuary, to get out of another deportation order against him. He fired the gun within city limits (another crime but was not charged for it) and the bullet ricocheted off the concrete, killing Kate. Not looking for arguments for or against illegal immigration, just giving context to the high tensions surrounding the case. More curious about the implications of this going forward. I can understand not first degree murder charges as he didn’t walk up and shoot Kate intentionally. But he was breaking several laws already, admitted he was the source of the gun fire, and had several strikes against him, so in my opinion it should have been at least involuntary manslaughter. The only reasons I can see that he didn’t get charged for involuntary are political, and to me that is a gross violation of the city of San Francisco properly serving up justice. What precedent will this set going forward as well for killing even if it is “by accident”? Your thoughts?