"Neighbors Defend Texan Accused of Murdering Teen Over Snacks" - from foxnews.com

Status
Not open for further replies.

thegriz

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
295
Link to Fox News Article

0_61_092508_snacks.jpg
Sept. 23, 2008: Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, waits for the start of his trial in the 49th District Courtroom in Laerdo, Texas.

LAREDO, Texas — The trial of a man accused of executing a teen who broke into his home with friends looking for snacks has many in this border city outraged. Not because of the crime, but because the man is facing a murder charge.

In a state where the right to use deadly force to protect one's life and property is sacrosanct and frontier justice is still sometimes the norm — particularly on the violence-plagued Texas-Mexico border — prosecutors have to explain the decision to try Jose Luis Gonzalez.

Even their future boss, the man who is running uncontested for Webb County district attorney in November, disagrees with the decision; he is Gonzalez's defense attorney.

Gonzalez, a wiry, graying 63-year-old, had endured several break-ins at his trailer in a hard-scrabble community east of town when four boys, ranging in age from 11 to 15, broke into his trailer to rummage for chips and soda in July 2007. Gonzalez was in a nearby building at the time.

Gonzalez went into the trailer and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun. The boys, who were unarmed, were forced to their knees, attorneys on both sides say.

The boys claim they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly.

Then, the medical examiner testified, 13-year-old Francisco Anguiano was shot in the back at point-blank range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., now 16, testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Francisco's body outside.

Texas law does allow homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property, and prosecutors and grand juries have generally applied that standard broadly. In June, a grand jury in Houston cleared a homeowner who shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor's house despite the dispatcher's repeated request that he stay inside his own home.

"The homeowner's right to defend himself is not what's on trial in this case," said Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker, speaking of the Gonzalez case. The shooting "was unnecessary and unreasonable, and Texas law doesn't protect that kind of behavior."

But folks in this border city scarred by drug violence across the Rio Grande defend Gonzalez's actions.

"It's a table topic at coffee shops, not only in Laredo but throughout the region," said Mayor Raul Salinas, who noted that folks tend to have strong opinions about the right to protect themselves here. "There's been some debate."

Reader responses to articles published on the Laredo Morning Times Web site called Gonzalez's prosecution unfair and blasted the teen, saying Francisco got what he deserved.

Food distributor Francisco Hernandez pointed out in an interview with The Associated Press that a homeowner wouldn't know whether the intruders were there "to steal potato chips or to stab you."

"He really shouldn't be on trial," Hernandez said.

Gonzalez could get up to life in prison if he's convicted of first-degree murder. His attorney, Isidro "Chilo" Alaniz, said his client was simply acting in self-defense when he found the boys in the trailer late at night.

"There is not a day that goes by that Mr. Gonzalez doesn't think about that little boy," Alaniz said. But Gonzalez "feared for his life."

It was four on one when Gonzalez entered the trailer, Alaniz said. He had the boys on the ground and recognized at least one of them, but Gonzalez thought 13-year-old boy was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun, Alaniz said.

The case will be Alaniz's last as a criminal defense attorney. The 40-year-old won the Democratic nomination in April and has no Republican opponent for district attorney in the November.

He said he became Gonzalez's attorney long before he decided to run for office and has stuck with the case because he believes in it. He was asked whether his client would be on trial for murder if he were already in office.

"That's a good question," Alaniz said. "This case has huge implications for homeowners, gun owners."

The trial is expected to wrap up Friday.
 
He didn't shoot them "over snacks". He used deadly force to defend himself from a 4 man robbery team.

Love that media huh?
 
That guy had better be telling the truth about the boy lunging for him. That's all I have to say.
 
I really hope it happened differently than what I'm reading.

If that testimony is accurate then he should go to prison. Plain and simple.
 
Either he felt his life was in danger and he shot someone he felt was threatening him (possible, if four kids were in his house and he didn't know their intentions) or else he had them on their knees at gunpoint and he started beating them and then shot one of them at point-blank range. I think most people would agree that the former case is okay, and that the latter one is not.

Is there really anything more to say about this, without additional facts?
 
You guys need to become familiar with Texas law before you start in on all this.

You don't have to like it, in fact it doesn't matter if you do, but it's the law in this state and the law under which this guy will be scrutinized.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery,
aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Gonna be hard to argue that he should have just stood there given that it was 4 on 1, IN HIS OWN HOME.

The story told by these "boys" doesn't pass the smell test to me, I guess we'll see when it goes to trial.

It's really not smart to break into homes in Texas.
 
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the

It sounds like to me he had already stopped the robbery and detained the suspects.

Then all it comes down to if or not the kid lunged at him.

Then there is the matter of him forcing the others to carry the body outside. OK You just shot and killed someone supposedly in self-defense. Is it smart or legally sound to be moving the body away from the scene?
 
TexasRifleman, I'm all for "my home is my castle, if you cross my thresh-hold unlawfully your life is forfiet." I feel that way too. However, if I get the drop on 4 guys in my house and have them, all 4, on their knees at scattergun-point I'm no longer defending my home. I'm now detaining 4 burglary suspects for the authorities.

If I execute one of them at that point, under those circumstances, I have commited murder, in every single state in the union, even Texas (by God).

If, in fact one of the kids lunged at the old man he had a right to gun him down. I do know most people be telling a story to the cops much like that if they were hooked up for murder one under those circumstances.

Since the only people who know what actually happened were intimately involved with a great heap of possible wrong doing it's difficult to believe any of them.

We shall see what the grand jury says.

ETA: Bogie, it's not that likely the cops kept them together afterward. Splitting up the principals in an investigation is "LEO 101" kinda tactics.
 
If it happened the way the article states then I NEVER would have shot. Though I don't think he should be prosecuted for it. If you don't want to get hurt don't break into houses it's not a hard concept
 
TexasRifleman, I'm all for "my home is my castle, if you cross my thresh-hold unlawfully your life is forfiet." I feel that way too. However, if I get the drop on 4 guys in my house and have them, all 4, on their knees at scattergun-point I'm no longer defending my home. I'm now detaining 4 burglary suspects for the authorities.

If you believe the story of 3 guys who broke into the house then sure, it's horrible.

That's the thing. This is getting a VERY one sided telling. Typical media.

You're not gonna convince me these 4 broke into that house for twinkies, or that he shot them over a twinkie.

Just having a hard time believing that's the end of the story. But, that version makes the media drool, so it's the version being told.
 
Once they entered his trailer, their lives were forfeit. Whatever happened after that, they brought on themselves. Good shoot.
 
lloydkristmas said:
Once they entered his trailer, their lives were forfeit. Whatever happened after that, they brought on themselves. Good shoot.

And people wonder why we gun owners get a bad rap....

So, Lloyd, if'n he had "made them do some prayin' ... reeeal goood ..." that would have been just dandy too? You know, before he allegedly executed one of them...
 
TexasRifleman said:
You're not gonna convince me these 4 broke into that house for twinkies, or that he shot them over a twinkie.

And I wasn't trying to. All I said is that both sides of the story are suspect. Or at least both are equally plausible.

I hate a thief and think the kids should be hanged for it .... after a trial. I'm sure we're only getting a third of the actual story and circumstances.
 
And I wasn't trying to. All I said is that both sides of the story are suspect. Or at least both are equally plausible.

Oh sure, I didn't mean you specifically. It's just too little to go on from this story.

Problem is that you get a lot of people weighing in on this that aren't familiar with the very rare Texas law allowing deadly force to protect only property.
 


From what little we have, this may be a bad shoot even under our liberal Texas laws.

Then, the medical examiner testified, 13-year-old Francisco Anguiano was shot in the back at point-blank range.

and

but Gonzalez thought 13-year-old boy was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun, Alaniz said.



 
Sorry...As soon as they broke into his home, they deserved whatever they got, be it beatings, or being shot. Some places make it too easy for kids to grow up to be felons. A little hardcore Darwinian-style natural selection would go a long way toward making this world a better place to live...
 
TexasRifleman said:
the very rare Texas law allowing deadly force to protect only property.

Wouldn't apply here if the kid's story is true. Frankly it wouldn't apply if the guy is telling the truth. If his story of "he lunged at me" is true he was defending his life not his property. If the kids story of "he knelt us down and shot Bob in the back after beating on us for a while" is true he wasn't protecting property then either, he was toying with hostages before executing one of them.

So, we'll see what comes up in the course of testimony. Currently it's all he said, she said and only those kids, Jose and God know what actually happened.
 
Last edited:
That guy had better be telling the truth about the boy lunging for him. That's all I have to say.
…Gonzalez thought 13-year-old boy was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun, Alaniz said.
… the medical examiner testified, 13-year-old Francisco Anguiano was shot in the back at point-blank range.

Hopefully, there is enough physical evidence (where the wound is, blood trail from inside the trailer to outside consistant with either a dragged/carried body or a walking/crawling perp, etc) for the jury to be able to tell which story is most likely correct.
 
Whatever we say on here is only speculation. We all know how truthful the media is when it reports something, especially when it's about guns. I'd like to see how this plays out.

Those kids should not have broken into that guys house. That would have prevented everything from happening.
 
And people wonder why we gun owners get a bad rap....

So, Lloyd, if'n he had "made them do some prayin' ... reeeal goood ..." that would have been just dandy too? You know, before he allegedly executed one of them...

We'll see what the evidence points to, but until then, I'll side with the home defender over the criminal every day of the week. Hopefully the kids story is wrong, because if he did shoot him in the back execution style, thats gonna be one more strike against our beloved castle doctrine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top