Texas homeowner acquitted of shooting 13 year old.

[cane]

I'd beg to differ, but in my opinion it does matter.

Were they caught in a crime? Yes. I'm not disputing that.

However, there is a difference between a group of kids who makes a mistake, who have never had problems with authority of any sort until now, versus "gangbanging street thugs" who have knocked over 7/11's and routinely terrorize the neighborhood.

We roll our eyes and harp when the media makes outlandish statements, yet it seems members of thehighroad have no problem whatsoever making their own embellishments with regards to the character of parties involved.

One incident does not a hardened street thug make. So why make such a statement?

If they were they were, if they weren't they weren't.


So let me understand your rational. You aren't a criminal until you reach a certain number of crimes, or money amount? How does someone know how bad a person is that he just discovered robbing his home?

 

[harmonic]

...the law make no such designation of "truly innocent" as opposed to merely "innocent".

True. I thought the post in question was addressing the moral and ethical implications of "not guilty."

I thought the post in question was saying that one could be adjudicated "not guilty" even though such an one is indeed, "guilty." Morally and ethically, (but not in terms of law), he would be correct.

But you're correct in concluding that legally, once one is determined to be "not guilty," such an one is legally "innocent" of all charges.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

So always remember Texas is unique.

Better.. Texas is better. Here in the PRK they'd have probably hauled him off. Even if the criminals had been armed, Even if the criminals had been adults.

It's nice to hear about places where citizens rights don't take a back seat to criminals rights/ political correctness.

 

[lloydkristmas]

However, there is a difference between a group of kids who makes a mistake, who have never had problems with authority of any sort until now, versus "gangbanging street thugs" who have knocked over 7/11's and routinely terrorize the neighborhood.

No, no there isnt. If someone is in my house, rifling through my things, I dont plan on finding out if they are a gangbanger or just a 'misguided kid' before I shoot. I know I'm not alone here.

 

[BruceRDucer]

but in the end he was judged as having committed no crime and that is the end of it.

In legal terms innocent means free from legal guilt or fault.

That is what happened here, end of story.----from Texas Rifleman

And to state that "not guilty" means "innocent" in legal terminology, and specifies that the defendent is "free from legal guilt or fault" is the entire point.

Therefore, when we examine Harmonic's proposition:

I thought the post in question was saying that one could be adjudicated "not guilty" even though such an one is indeed, "guilty." Morally and ethically, (but not in terms of law), he would be correct.---Harmonic

"Morally and ethically, (but not in terms of law) he would be correct."--Harmonic

Which is the entire point. The "moral" and the "ethic":

(1) has never been made entirely explicit

(2) is derived from a forum member after the fact and after the incident

(3) is not binding in the laws of Texas or any other state in the Contiential U.S.

(4) and is not the criteria for any substantial determination in the forum, unless you can identify in the stated purpose and intentions of the forum that such a "moral" or "ethic" has been identified.

I respect you Harmonic, but I'm just saying that arguing a "moral" or "ethic" that is not legally binding upon everyone is not ....well....ethical or moral really. It could be moral or ethical, but it has yet to be identified that somebody's personal ethic or morality is binding upon the public understanding.

It is not for us to conduct a "trial" of Gonzalez in "the media" so to speak, but to address the issues of fact.

It simply is not fair to turn every possible suspicion into some kind of substantial fact. It just cannot be done.


/
/

/

 

[harmonic]

It is not for us to conduct a "trial" of Gonzalez in "the media" so to speak, but to address the issues of fact.

That is true. The ethical portion of our discussion is best left to the philosophers. As far as Mr. Gonzalez's legal guilt, the courts have already determined him to be innocent of any charges.

I'm curious, however, as to whether or not the dead kid's family is planning any civil action?

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm curious, however, as to whether or not the dead kid's family is planning any civil action?

That would be difficult given the current "castle doctrine" in Texas.

Now that he's free of guilt criminally and therefore the shoot was justified, he is pretty much immune I would think.

§ 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is
immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that
results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as
applicable.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Its lovely how the article takes the position of facts known AFTER THE FACT. That they were teenaged kids, unarmed, up to shenanigans.

Too bad facts known after-the-fact don't (at least aren't supposed to) count for anything in establishing your case to the triers of the facts. You build your case based off what you knew at the time. It didn't matter if the person was unarmed. Likewise, you couldn't use a situation of convenience if the person just happened to be some karate black belt and you used the argument of "see? This guy was a ninja!".

Since you knew nothing about the individual, your decision was made based off what you knew, at the time. It's why Harold Fish is in prison (http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/). The guy he shot had a violent history, but since it was not a fact known leading up to the application of self-defense, you can't use it as a defense.

 

[3KillerBs]

a group of kids who makes a mistake,

Breaking into someone's home is not a mistake. It is A DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL CHOICE TO DO WRONG.

IMO, many people are far too ready to dismiss the choice to do wrong as a mere "mistake" and thus enabling wrongdoers to continue their criminal careers.

 

[SCKimberFan]

Breaking into someone's home is not a mistake. It is A DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL CHOICE TO DO WRONG.

Thank you 3KillerBs.

And society needs to start addressing the fact they they are committing crimes, they are not mis-guided youths. I am sick and tired of the victim often being made out to be the bad guy.

 

[COMPNOR]

So let me understand your rational. You aren't a criminal until you reach a certain number of crimes, or money amount? How does someone know how bad a person is that he just discovered robbing his home?

Can you please point to where I said these kids are darling little angels who shouldn't be punished?


I see you failed to read the rest of the post.

I am not disputing that they are guilty. I'm not disputing what they did was wrong. I am not saying they shouldn't be punished.

My point is if this is their first crime, if they have never done anything before, how do you jump to the conclusion that they are "hardened street thugs"?

As I said in my previous post which you obviously failed to read fully, we harp on the media for embellishing stories. And yet, it seems certain members here have no problems whatsoever making their own embellishments.

And if it was their first time, yes it was a mistake. Does this mean we should coddle them, whisper sweet nothings in their ear and tell them what they did was bad? No. Yes there should be consequences to their actions. Coddling, turning a blind eye is one the reasons crime does spread.

Of course, taking a heavy hand to each and every situation doesn't do anything either.

Now all this starts going more to the general side, and not wholly with this story. But I for one am not going to condemn these kids for the rest of their lives, for doing something when they're not even in their teens if they have never had trouble before.

Its so nice to know that the membership of THR are such outstanding moral model citizens, who have never had any valid trouble with the law, who have never made mistakes and lived to regret them. High Road indeed.

 

[TEDDY]

misguided youth

at night and I cant tell how old a person is.first the steal from their mothers purse,then the nabor then stanger then the armed robbery.then the killing.
look at any adult criminal and you will se the same pattern.I live in Boston,Roxbury.knew a number of criminals.lived next to them.got a lot of interesting information.I lived one block from the Brinks robbery money division.met Specs OKeafes wife.criminals are born to the trade if not stopped
when young.

 

[Old Guy]

COMPNOR Senior!

First, these 4 broke in to a dwelling, broke in! Now with access to all knives, guns, whatever. This mans possessions, he purchased with money he worked for, first time last time they did this, who cares. This could have been "Mexican immigrant found stabbed to death" how should we feel about that?

They took their chances, one of them will not do it again.

 

[jackdanson]

Fine. Now learn English.

Great, next time type that in sioux.

 

[cane]

Compnor, how do you know this was their "first crime"?

 

[hopelessjoe]

I think it is signifigant that he let the other three live when he had legal standing to shoot them, that sheds at least a little light on his character

And maybe the other three were smart enough to understand what "Hit the deck and STAY there means."

The only cure for stupidity is death.

 

[3KillerBs]

And if it was their first time, yes it was a mistake.

Kindly explain how 4 people can accidentally and unintentionally break into someone's trailer and start rummaging through its contents?

Picking up the wrong coat from your host's closet which is the same style and color as your coat but which belongs to your host is a mistake. Breaking into someone else's home is a deliberate and intentional choice to do something you know is wrong.

 

[hopelessjoe]

However, there is a difference between a group of kids who makes a mistake, who have never had problems with authority of any sort until now, versus "gangbanging street thugs" who have knocked over 7/11's and routinely terrorize the neighborhood.

And for those of us who grew in a completely urbanized enviornment....

Four 13 yr. olds can pose a serious threat to your life.

Sure they were looking for snacks and sodas...they have a place for those...snack marts across the nation have 'em plenty cheap.

Maybe this was practice until they finally got ballsy enough to do real home invasions.

All crooks start small.

I know this because I started down the same road and got caught early. It probably saved my life.

I know it saved my ability to legally own guns and I am thankful for that every day I live.

Youth is not know for its glamorous intelligence. Face it...four stupid wannabe "criminals'' learned how hard it is to survive when you decide to "be real".

Maybe little dead boy died so that his friends would live to become productive members of society...

or they will just make a rap song about how hard it is to be them 'cause their little homie died in the commision of a felony.

Much love for ya homie.

NOT.

 

[ants]

Ever since I was foreman of juries on two criminal cases, I've been aware that Judge's instructions and the jury's understanding of the charges are as big as the facts in jury deliberation. It is interesting that in public debates (like this thread) we all argue the facts as the news media present them. Jury deliberation not only examines the facts as presented in court, but is equally involved in applying the law as the judge instructs, and deciphering the charges.

Has anyone seen interviews with the jurors, or the text of the Judge's instructions?

For us as gun owners, those are the facts that would be the most interesting if we want to understand more about the legal side, and defend ourselves effectively without getting into trouble.

 

[Catherine]

I wasn't going to post anymore on this thread because I already posted several posts here but THIS just gets my 'goat'. See the quote.

QUOTE:

Its so nice to know that the membership of THR are such outstanding moral model citizens, who have never had any valid trouble with the law, who have never made mistakes and lived to regret them. High Road indeed.

~~~~~

Speak for yourself. :banghead:

I never broke into anyone's house. I do NOT enter a house without being INVITED INTO the house and, 98% of the time, I always CALL first so someone knows that I am coming over. I expect the same from my friends too. I rarely ever had UNINVITED company, unless someone was driving by and saw me working outside, back east, or needed help and pulled into my driveway - back east. I 'knock' or ring a doorbell even if the door is open and the screen door is UNLOCKED when I enter anyone's house. That goes for my BEST friend's home too. Sometimes I honked the horn or called out too - rural area. City or small rural town - did the same deal - let them know by being 'courteous and using good manners'.

I was taught NOT to trespass NO matter WHERE I lived and in ALL parts of the country from a YOUNG AGE to being middle aged now - 58 years old.

I don't STEAL.

I believe in personal property rights.

I believe in personal responsibility in ALL things and at ANY age. I was taught young by my parents and mentors.

I don't destroy property.

I don't litter.

I would ask someone for a glass of water if I needed it or if I needed to use their bathroom.

I was taught that you ASKED to be excused from the dinner table when you were done eating and had something else to do. I was taught to clear that table and clean up when dinner was over because we had chores/duties in our household.

I was taught that you did not hang around with a 'bad crowd' or thugs. If you saw something not 'proper' to leave immediately, tell your parent or mentor, leave it up to the parent to contact the other kid's parent and NOT to be 'a friend' of that person because if you HUNG around with them and they did something 'bad or illegal' - you would not only get into trouble with the 'law' but with your own parents which would be FAR WORSE than 'the law'.

I don't litter. I respect other people's property as I would want MY own property to be respected. It is called the Golden Rule in treating that person RIGHT from the gitgo and their STUFF. Home, vehicle, business, boat, etc.

I don't go through people's STUFF or their personal belongings because it is NOT the right thing to do - even a close friend unless they need help in asking you to help organize their STUFF or help them move with them being present at the time. Same with family. Why do it to 'strangers', eh? Unless you have a goal in mind like theft or being a creep like those young criminals were.

I don't think it is right to go through your husband's wallet either unless HE asks you to get it or get something OUT of it as I do with my own purse - vice versa. Heck, if I write checks on a joint checking account for a bill - in 30 plus past years of marriage and even now remarried from being a widow... I tell him, show him even if they both said to take care of the 'bill' or write the check! (His, hers and JOINT accounts.) I do the accounting anyway but with him seeing it ALL. Same as in the past. Then I file it! If the late husband was overseas - obviously he was not present but knew what was going on with all of our paychecks and personal business matters.

I could add other things to this post but I will leave it at this for now.

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

I had and HAVE some close friends who grew up 'poor' and some even lived in other parts of town - known to be 'bad neighborhoods' or going down hill. Some of these people went to my Church back in Baltimore, Maryland growing up. Some of us went to school together. I went to public, religious and private prep schools.

Anyway... these KIDS and TEENS who still remain my friends to THIS DAY or most of them... did not steal and do other bad things because they were taught that it was WRONG no matter how poor or rich you were including middle class kids. My parents and mentors were kind to these kids/teens - always had an open door policy to them with parties and so forth. That includes pajama parties as kids with my girl friends who are still my friends to this day. Through thick and thin - so there you go.

Some of the male friends from all socio-economic levels even told me that it was my parents and mentors, especially my late Mother, who greatly influenced them in so many ways from school, college, the military, later on in their careers, in good and bad times - rich and poor times too.

You can be POOR and be CLEAN and/or NEAT.

Catherine

 

[gallo]

I'm pretty sure this is the same case I heard about last year when it happened. This was the second or third time the teens had broken into the man's house. Jose Luis, the victim, runs a small 'tiendita', a little store, from his house which is about 18 miles outside of Laredo on highway 59. It is a rural community.

Everyone in Laredo speaks Spanish as a first language, except for the handful of white folk that live there. However, everyone also knows English.

 

[Defensory]

gallo:

Yep, that's the same Jose Luis Gonzalez.

It turns out these hardened street punks had broken into Mr. Gonzalez's home on THREE previous occasions. One of them admitted it under oath, during the trial.

That's FOUR FELONY COUNTS against each criminal.

Another item of interest, is that the supposed "expert" medical examiner who testified against Gonzalez, stated in court that she didn't know exactly what position the dead felon's body was in when he got shot, admitting that it could have been in an "assortment of ways". The prosecution's "expert" doesn't sound too sure of herself to me. Yet even more significant doubt about the state's case against Gonzalez.

The chief prosecuter (assistant DA) has also publicly referred to the burglaries of Mr. Gonzalez's home as "mischievous conduct".

Uh, no. "Mischievous conduct" would be toilet papering Mr. Gonzalez's front yard. Burglary is a felony. A HUGE difference there. Pretty sad when an assistant DA doesn't know the difference between "mischievous conduct" and a felony. Of course, when somebody's trying to railroad an innocent man, I guess they just don't think those major differences really matter.

In an attempt to make an excuse for the felons, a therapist for one of the criminals stated that "adolescence is a time where we just do stupid things".

Doing a "stupid thing" would be wrecking your dad's car. Breaking into somebody's home and stealing is a felony. HUGE difference.

The felons claim that an allegedly enraged Mr. Gonzalez beat them with a shotgun. Presuming the shotgun weighed roughly 7.5 pounds, give or take a little, it seems the boys would have at least substantial bruises, and very possibly even lacerations.

Oddly enough, the assistant D.A, who certainly had no qualms about talking about facts of the case in public, never mentioned anything about any bruising or other injury to the boys.

The felons also claim that the allegedly enraged Mr. Gonzalez shot the deceased in the back, execution style.

However, a Texas Ranger who was an expert witness for the defense, testified that in most cases where somebody is shot "execution style", the shot is in the head or the center of the back. But it turns out that the deceased was shot under the left shoulder, which is NOT consistent with most execution style shootings.

http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2008/09/25/news/doc48db80cb49f20663833181.txt

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"Also Wednesday, Webb County Medical Examiner Dr. Corinne Stern gave testimony that Druker said put a hole in the defense's argument that Anguiano lunged at Gonzalez.

Stern said the shotgun wound that killed Anguiano was consistent with one delivered to a person's back at close range, in this case only a few centimeters. She added that it was impossible to receive that type of wound in a lunging motion."

from your article


If he lunges forward, it's going to put him at a greater distance from the end of the (shotgun) barrel," she stated.

Druker said the testimony refutes Gonzalez's claim.

"Her expert opinion, I think, showed the jury that the physical evidence absolutely does not support the defensive theory that Francisco Anguiano was in the process of attacking Mr. Gonzalez," he said. "Her testimony just basically supported the statements given by the three surviving juveniles as what they described as being placed down on their knees

 

[Kindrox]

Breaking into someone's home is not a mistake. It is A DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL CHOICE TO DO WRONG

This highlights a thought running around in a lot of heads – deliberate, premeditated acts can fall under the category of a “mistake”. Well they don’t. While we might use the euphemism that these boys made a mistake, it was a mistake of choosing poorly.

It was not a mistake of carelessness or negligence. You don’t mistakenly rape someone, or mistakenly break into a house. Those are acts that require a choice and it is that choice that lead to the boy’s death.