Texas homeowner acquitted of shooting 13 year old.

[Catherine]

Make it simple. Use the old military saying of KISS - keep it simple stupid.

Don't break into anyone's house, business, boat, vehicle, etc.

Don't TRESPASS. Period.

Don't steal anything including a glass of water from the kitchen faucet.

Don't try to pick on ANYONE who is of any AGE or SIZE or SEX no matter what size you are and especially if you are not alone - more than one of you.

Don't try to hurt anyone's dog or animal if that would be involved too.

Don't MOVE or scratch your ear if a homeowner has you down and is waiting for BACK UP from the peace officer, a family member or a close friend.

I could add more to this list but most of you get my 'drift'.

If people would actually train/teach their children (Brats and PUNKS included!) maybe you would not have this bs.

If people LIVED by the Golden Rule, with the basics of the Ten Commandments along with basic common sense in basic fundamental LAW even if you don't believe in the OT and/or NT - you might not have this bs.

If you have NEVER had an attempted break in - broad daylight and/or someone (Two Men.) @ 1:15 AM on your property, leaving their vehicle, turning off their headlights, etc. after you already had this bs in a NICE so called peaceful rural area or even in the city or small town... well... more power to YOU.

CROSS the threshold... well... one against one or having more PUNKS against you or two men against a smaller, middle aged or older lady or MAN... well... makes you think about being in FEAR of your life even if you are waiting for the sheriff's deputy and ON HOLD with them and your rural operator even when they had NO 911 back there as I did.

Been there - done that - no one was shot. One man was captured from the first attempted break in where my German Shepherd nailed the bas___. He was found guilty of many OTHER break ins in that rural county. The first time was when we were at work in the city back east.

Catherine

 

[Defensory]

Code3GT nailed it.

If the defendant was a vigilante, he would've shot ALL of them. The fact he just shot one and made no attempt to kill the others, lends STRONG CREDIBILITY to his assertion that the criminal made a move on him.

And if I had just killed a criminal minor in self-defense, and my son was an LEO, I would DARN SURE call him first and tell him the story, and ask for his advice when dealing with the police. I'd also call my attorney before the cops, and make sure he's on his way to the police station.

As for the criminals allegedly "surrendering", anybody who's even vaguely familiar with police work, knows that PLENTY of criminals TEMPORARILY "surrender" when they have a gun pointed at them---but later "make a move" to get away.

A jury of the defendant's peers, as well as his LIBERAL Democrat attorney, were firmly convinced of his innocence, and the jury voted accordingly, in a very short deliberation period.

Justice has been properly served under the American legal system, and that's good enough for me.

If you don't want to get shot, don't break into people's homes. If you don't want your kid to get shot, raise him right.

 

[Hk91-762mm]

It is not the responsibility of the prey to protect the life of the predator. ==!!!

Now this has my vote for Post of the Week. As our society continues to devolve, younger predators continue to take advantage of the loophole that does not view them as "adults" in the eyes of the law.

Occasionally, Darwin's theory upsets their game plan....aided and abetted by Texas law.

No tears shed here. You want to play big-boy games? Learn and understand the rules of the game, as well as the consequences.



I AGREE 100% 13yo are more that willing to be criminals -Let them suffer the continences-Ill bet his buddies wont soon rob again !
And they should learn to speak ENGLISH -The heck with political correctness!
My wife is foreign born and she LEARNED ENGLISH !
When I hear Mexicans speaking Spanish behind me in a store -I think What are they planning --a Robbery???

 

[Catherine]

Jeff,

If you had someone at bay and a gun on them as a policeman, you say that you are one, or if you were NOT a policeman, and was in FEAR of your life... would you STOP them from hurting you?

Hurting a loved one of yours, you and IN your own HOME after they BROKE INTO your home - would you try to stop them from hurting you?

If you are a policeman - in the line of duty and in your job description... ok to shoot.

If not, especially in a strict anti GUN place like IL - mere citizens don't have as many rights, eh?

Laws VARY in all states from what I read. In fear of your life, etc.

This was TEXAS - God bless Texas or most of their laws down there.

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

I agree - if this man was OUT to get the punks... he would have shot ALL of them.

He did NOT shoot ALL of them.

Sometimes, criminals of ALL ages tell the VICTIM that they will give up to gain the trust of the VICTIM and they hurt/rape and/or KILL the VICTIM or VICTIMS.

Heck, many children/teens are WAY bigger than I am and are even bigger than adult men including older, weaker or handicapped people.

Amazing how some people in this world ALWAYS want to BLAME the VICTIM no matter how it all plays out. They want the victim or 'little lady' to roll over and play dead. YOU see that and hear about that in many states, especially in ANTI GUN STATES where people are not allowed to barely protect themselves! UGH.

Catherine

 

[Officers'Wife]

Truth be told, the crime enablers are growing fewer and fewer. My husband and I were in DC (well Ft Meade anyway) when the Heller decision was passed down. I was surprised at the number of residents of the big stinky actually favored that decision.

My native Indiana passed 'castle doctrine' in the 90's after a man was beaten in his home he managed to get to a weapon and pepper his attacker with buckshot making the scum flee. The homeowner was then successfully sued for medical bills, pain and suffering. The Indiana General Assembly passed castle in less than five days, listening to the people they represented rather than the chief of police of Gary, Evansville and East Chicago. Many have stopped listening to 'popular progressive wisdom' and are demanding meaningful and effective law enforcement instead of the illogical and often foolish attitudes that have been in effect long before I was born.

The pendulum is swinging back, away from the foolishness and out and out stupidity of the baby boomer generation. I can only hope for my childrens' sake that generations' failure(s) have not damaged my country permanently.

Selena

 

[Jeff White]

Catherine,

If you had someone at bay and a gun on them as a policeman, you say that you are one, or if you were NOT a policeman, and was in FEAR of your life... would you STOP them from hurting you?

I am a retired police officer and of course I would stop them from hurting me.

Hurting a loved one of yours, you and IN your own HOME after they BROKE INTO your home - would you try to stop them from hurting you?

Of course...but the issue here is if he was actually threatened. We've had members post that their sons were over 200 pounds at 13. That doesn't seem to be the case here:
http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2008/09/26/news/doc48dc8b71cdef9527878788.txt

Major Doyle Holdridge is a former Texas Ranger and ex-member of the National Rifle Association who currently heads the criminal division at the Webb County Sheriff's Department. He stated that after reviewing the statements of the three surviving juveniles, who he said appeared to him to be just "children," his department decided to charge Gonzalez with murder.

This isn't some liberal reporter trying to make some gangbangers look like innocent children, this is a peace officer who has presumably seen plenty of gangbangers in his career saying that they appeared to be children. Not that you can judge entirely by appearances, but when a peace officer says that they appeared to be children to him, I am going to give that a lot more credence then a family member or a reporter.

If not, especially in a strict anti GUN place like IL - mere citizens don't have as many rights, eh?

This isn't aimed at you personally. I am sick and tired of every armchair RKBA activist on this forum thinking that Illinois residents have no right to self defense. Sometimes people should actually check the laws before they engage their their keyboards. I'll post them for you:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...&SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

color=blue](720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑4)
Sec. 7‑4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑8)
Sec. 7‑8. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
(a) Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, within the meaning of Sections 7‑5 and 7‑6 includes:
(1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(b) A peace officer's discharge of a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm shall not be considered force likely to cause death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Sections 7‑5 and 7‑6.
(Source: P.A. 90‑138, eff. 1‑1‑98.)[/color]

As you can see, a private citizen has a much right to use force, even to defend property as the resident of any other state and more right then in many states. The idea that citizens of Illinois are restricted by their government from using force in self defense is a gun forum myth! The only thing citizens are restricted from is carrying a firearm off of their property and we are working on that. We had castle doctrine and civil immunity years before the NRA ever made it an issue.

Knowing what I learned from 22 years in the job, I don't believe that this was some kind of politically motivated prosecution. I've seen plenty of cases that weren't prosecuted at all where it was cut and dried the case was self defense. And I've also seen plenty of cases that were very murky as to what actually happened, just like this one.

Personally, I don't think it's all that much to cheer about shooting a burglar who you were holding at gun point in the back, especially one that was described by the police, not the media, as childlike.

My gut feeling is that there is something hinky here. I'll buy off on Gonzales calling his son. I'm not buying off on lying about what gun he shot the boy with. That's why I'm not prepared to join the cheer leading squad on this one.

Jeff

PS before anyone posts that I'm soft because of children involved...I came within a fraction of second of shooting a 14 year old Laotian gang banger who reached into his waistband when I ordered him to stop. If he hadn't removed his hand when he did, he would be dead now. The slack was already out of the trigger.

 

[Defensory]

I agree with you, Catherine.

When I was in high school, there was a 15-year old who was 6'3", 230 lb.---and he could probably beat the tar out of 98% of the adults I've ever known.

The young criminals who broke into the defendant's home were hardened Laredo street punks, not your typical upper-middle class geeks that the defendant's critics are used to dealing with.

 

[COMPNOR]

hardened Laredo street punks

? Source of that?

 

[Defensory]

Just an innocent kid!

Actually, it's Eric Harris---one of the Columbine High School mass murderers.

 

[Realbigo]

Do we know if he called, or attempted to contact the police in any way??

 

[Defensory]

The defendant called the police after he contacted his son, who's a law enforcement officer. If I had just shot a criminal minor in self-defense and my son was an LEO, I would've done the same thing.

I would've called my lawyer before the cops, too.

 

[Defensory]

An absolutely harmless looking child.

Actually, that's 11-year old Andrew Golden, who with his innocent looking 13-year old companion, Mitchell Johnson---shot four students and a teacher to death at a middle school in Jonesboro, Arkansas---and wounded ten others.

 

[Catherine]

Jeff,

Thank you for your answer.

I do not think that 'anyone' HERE is CHEERING that anyone got shot NO matter how old the CRIMINAL was.

I am NOT cheering and I can't speak for ALL people here or elsewhere.

I think that people are glad that a homeowner was NOT found guilty in this case. People are tired of CRIME and CRIMINALS of any age.

I was not there so I can't say that something was weird about this case or not. He had a trial and was found not guilty by his so called peers.

End of story. He has to live with what happened to him and so forth from this incident. The other criminals and families have to do the same thing.

I used to live in one of 'those states' with NO CCW and other good and BAD gun laws. They changed some of those laws AFTER I moved out west, as previously planned, after my late husband died.

My CLOSE deputy friends and Chief Deputy from my former state told me about some of those 'laws' along with what I already knew.

All I know is this, I would not go out LOOKING for a criminal @ 1:15AM in the dark no matter how many flood lights that I had on my former house, I stayed INSIDE with my German Shepherd dog, my late husband was overseas at the time, no 911, I had the operator call the HQ of the county sheriff's department, I stayed on the line with HER and the desk deputy the entire time which was a 45 Minute response time, I told them that I had a gun and knew how to use it if someone broke in and tried to HURT me, I did not send my GS dog OUTSIDE - she stayed with me and my shaking body which eventually became CALM after my first bit of being VERY SCARED and in FEAR of losing my LIFE, you can only do what you can do in protecting yourself, etc. At first, I shook, got cold, got hot and my teeth literally chattered... then I was VERY CALM. I was ticked off, angry and I even had NO trespassing signs up - private property posted. Reflective signs too! I was scared I was going to get hurt or DIE but I was calm and figured what would happen would happen but I would not let them hurt me if I could STOP them. I prayed to God for His help and to protect me until the deputy came to 'help me'!

When I was told that the deputy was there by the HQ county sheriff's department - desk man - I was asked to put down my firearm. I told them that as soon as I looked OUT and saw the deputy and his vehicle - I would put it back on the table in the den... which I did do. So they told him in his car via my telephone conversation connection. I sure as heck am glad that I had a firearm to protect me if they would have broken in and tried to HURT ME and my dog. It was that 357Magnum that I learned on - my late husband's gun.

Refuse to be a victim people.

Thanks for your answer, Jeff.

Catherine

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

In most places maybe. He is in Texas. A place where he has a legal right to protect his property, which he appearantly does not have very much of.

The issue was not about self defense until it took a turn for the worse. It was about him defending his home and possessions at night from some burglars in the state of Texas. Things that in that state already legaly warrant lethal force.
It then became about self defense while protecting his property (which already legaly allowed use of lethal force) when he felt endangered by one of the burglars.
So do remember Texas in unique in the nation and the criteria of deadly force is not just self defense.


Judging the situation from someplace else is difficult. Holding multiple people at gunpoint, potentialy spread out a bit while wielding a firearm that is is designed for two hands. Even calling the police in such a situation can be difficult. The phone can require one hand and a little attention. It is perhaps around the corner on a counter or wall perhaps on the other side of the criminals in another room, or maybe he relies on a cell phone in some odd spot.
The primary concern is his safety in that situation, but not a distant second to him was his property.

Remember this is Texas, the man could have just gone in and started firing from the start even without feeling he was in any danger. It was at night which triggers the criminal mischief at night, they were involved in a felony, and they had some of his property on them (and he didn't know what belongings of his were in thier pockets.) Legaly (not moraly) he could have even shot them in the back as they tried to run away with his property.
Lethal force outside of self defense was legal on the basis of multiple different Texas statutes.
So always remember Texas is unique.

I've lived in Texas since the day I was born.


However, I wouldn't want to kill anyone, much less a 13 year old, no matter how justified it is.



Sorry Griz44, I don't own any red bandanas or M60's.

 

[Officers'Wife]

but when a peace officer says that they appeared to be children to him, I am going to give that a lot more credence then a family member or a reporter.

Was this before or during the trial? Considering an LEO is a de facto employee of the district attorney I would be shy about taking his word.

There is an old saying not to judge a book by it's cover. Satan was one of God's most beautiful angels after all. Bottom line, this kid may have had a face that is every mother's dream, but the fact remains he was in the process of a buglary. Maybe to a peace officer that is irrelevant, in the part of Indiana where the homestead is the result of years of hard work and every possesion has a memory it makes a difference large.

 

[CountGlockula]

Good for the old timer!

 

[Catherine]

I was fairly strong back then (Life long swimmer and 'outside' hard worker not including my desk job.) before my bad fall, broken bones, weakness, etc. and much YOUNGER too! I am only 5' 3" tall and not big. Not big ever... worn eyeglasses since I was 5 years old too.

Some kids were much bigger than my late husband too. He was a bit over 6' tall and the most that he ever weighed was about 172 to 175 pounds. He was strong but not some hulk. He weighted 165 pounds after his first Nam tour. He weighed less than 90 some pounds when he died of cancer. When he was in good health, he had a 42/44 chest, size 11 shoe, long fingers, strong hands, strong body, tall and slender. I would not want him against some BIG children, teens or adults if they tried to hurt him way back when. He was ALWAYS in good shape and body until his cancer. Same when he was weak and dying... he said that even though I was shorter - I was stronger than him and if the SHTF - he would have to RELY on ME along with our two dogs. I was his hospice caregiver not just his wife of 30 some years. He always had a house GUN by him for protection until his cancer got worse and was more chair/bed ridden. Not too long before he died - he had his house GUN. I think about the elderly, weak, handicapped, smaller people and even bigger people who are not in shape against criminals - they have to rely on a GUN.

I worry about my husband now even if he does open and conceal carry when you see some of the sizes of these KIDS. My husband is tall, bigger and fairly strong but he is in his 50's too. DESK, high stress job since his college days and he does bike and walk.

The SIZE of a criminal, what they will use against you in ANY crime with ANY TOOL or their BARE hands, any AGE of a criminal and HOW many of them are against YOU or your loved ones including a dog concerns me and concerns other people too.

You are right about sizes and what strength could be used against you. Right about what TOOL they can use against you including any object or their bare hands!

Samuel Colt made the men and women equal... not verbatim.

Thanks.

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

Right about 'looks' and Satan.

Thank you lady!

Catherine

 

[Defensory]

However, I wouldn't want to kill anyone, much less a 13 year old, no matter how justified it is.

I don't believe the defendant wanted to kill a 13-year old, and he wouldn't have had to if the criminal minors hadn't broken into his home.

If he was just a "trigger-happy vigilante", he would've shot ALL of them.

If he had actually "brutally murdered the poor, helpless, innocent little 13-year old"---why in Hades wouldn't he kill ALL of them, in order to get rid of any witnesses against him?!

The fact he only shot one of them, gives MUCH credibility to HIS side of the story.

A jury of twelve of his peers found him innocent. His LIBERAL Democrat defense attorney also firmly believed him to be innocent.

Good enough for me.

 

[Catherine]

Defensory,

You are correct there.

Thank you.

Catherine

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"I do not think that 'anyone' HERE is CHEERING that anyone got shot NO matter how old the CRIMINAL was."

you musta skipped some posts when he beat em with the gun how bad were they hurt? and is that why the kid tried to get up? before he got shot in the back



i think this is a good example of how important a good lawyer is

 

[Defensory]

Posted by cassandrasdaddy:
you musta skipped some posts when he beat em with the gun how bad were they hurt? and is that why the kid tried to get up? before he got shot in the back

Did you personally witness the ALLEGED beating? The kids CLAIMED he beat them up. That doesn't mean it really happened.

Oldest trick in the book---criminals (and their attorneys) lie and try to turn things around, in order to make the victim look like the "bad guy".

If the defendant really "beat and murdered the poor, helpless, innocent little child", why didn't he kill ALL of them, in order to get rid of ALL the witnesses against him?

Not one person condemning the defendant as a "vigilante", has attempted to answer that simple question.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

did evidence at trial show he beat em? and how did he explain the prevarication about what gun?

 

[Jeff White]

Did you personally witness the ALLEGED beating? The kids CLAIMED he beat them up. That doesn't mean it really happened.

Were you there to swear to us that it didn't happen? Of course not. No one in this thread was there. No one knows what happened or even knows what evidence was presented at trial. And next I suppose your going to tell me that juries making a statement about what a community will tolerate only happened one time in American jurisprudence?

Jeff