Texas man acquitted of killing unarmed teenage intruder.

[jmc]

This sucks.

But.

This situation sucks for the trailer owner. 4 people break into your trailer? And you decide to try to do something about it?

I'd be scared fucking shitless. Run out there with a shotgun "Get the fuck down, don't move" kids start saying something "i'm sorry i'm sorry" "Shut up!" try to figure out what to do...do you try to handle your shotgun and grab a phone and make sure all 4 don't make any sudden moves or grab for anything...

but

none of us know what happened the moment before he shot the kid. And without knowing that, you can't make a moral judgment really. What he did was legal obviously, but yeah.

The whole situation sucks, but it starts with stupid kids breaking into someone's home.

Its tricky.... i'm sure its legal in texas to commit murder if someone breaks into your house. Probably because they believe B&E = your life in danger right off the back. Other states, are completely different on this issue. I wouldnt be surprised if this guy broke some type of federal law that contradicts state law when he shot the kid.

[Zosi]

[quote=archibaldcrane;2258878]none of us know what happened the moment before he shot the kid. And without knowing that, you can't make a moral judgment really. What he did was legal obviously, but yeah./quote]

I'm curious to know how an unarmed 13 year old kid made a grown man holding a shotgun fear for his life without turning around.

More importantly, your defense is basically a carte blanche to do whatever you'd like to people caught committing a crime. There's a million different scenarios that you can make up afterwards to justify it that would leave no evidence. Shoot first, make up a justification later, and that's fine with Texas's court system.

[archibaldcrane]

More importantly, your defense is basically a carte blanche to do whatever you'd like to people caught committing a crime.

That's not my defense, that's Texas's laws. People already have carte blanche, my "defense" is of the possibility that this man isn't a monster.

This man might have been in total control and executed this kid. He might be a disgusting human being taking advantage of the situation to get some kind of sick revenge. But until you know what happened in the moments before that shot, you don't know with certainty.

From a moral standpoint, with the evidence at hand, it doesn't look good. But if I'm in that situation, my trigger finger is going to be jumpy as fuck. That's all I'm saying.

[Doofus]

I like how not once in this thread has it been suggested that it was just an old guy that got spooked by kids breaking into his house (he was 63). I have a great uncle who shot himself in the foot because he though someone was following him.

In cases like these i just put my faith in the jury, they had all the relevant info that we may not have, and were informed of the laws in their area, so I don't think we are in a place to question them.

[Kuya]

Thankfully, errors made at the heat of the moment doesn't exempt you from committing atrocities nor being judged accordingly. Or else, we'd let soldiers off the hook because they contend that the preasure of war made them snap. Isn't that the argument some used when they raped and pillaged in Vietnam?

Anyway, this man may not be a monster and may have simply made a mistake, but one can not simply walk away from such a grave mistake.

[archibaldcrane]

Thankfully, errors made at the heat of the moment doesn't exempt you from committing atrocities nor being judged accordingly.

It makes you less culpable, morally and otherwise, if you didn't create the situation that caused the heat. "Judging accordingly" takes the situation into account.

[gt_killa]

Why do some of us here think that these kids deserve this kind of punishment? These guys are fucking 13 years old. They are kids, wtf do they know? All that went through their mind at the time was probably "Oh hey, a trailer, let have some fun." We done stupid things as kids too, even very stupid things but none of them should end as getting kick and shoot at point-blank, execution style.

We know that what they did (Break in someone's trailer) is wrong, they obviously didn't, however that could be fix by having that Mexican dude scare them a bit and tell them what they done is wrong and don't do it again. That's how we learn our mistakes and how not to repeat the same mistake again isn't it? Having someone to lead to the right path, or learn on our own and improve ourselves. The kids sure deserve some kicking in the ass for breaking in, but not getting executed. They even begged for forgiveness (Hey,they learn their mistake) and they dude just won't give. He said he was scared for his life? from some 13 years old kid? When he had them on their knee begging for forgiveness and holding a shotgun in his hand? Yea sure. This guy need to get the f off the planet.

[Kuya]

Does less culpable translate to "getting off scot free" to you?

[jmc]

ok, fully re-read the thread..... here is just my opinion on why I personally believe this wasnt a case of someone "in fear of his life"

Gonzalez had endured several break-ins at his trailer

Ever want revenge, for people breaking in to your home and stealing stuff?

Gonzalez, who was in a nearby building at the time, went into the trailer and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun. Then he forced the boys, who were unarmed, to their knees, attorneys on both sides say.

Wasnt even inside the trailer? So he noticed the kids breaking in, went to get his shotgun to confront the kids.... where was the call to the police? If your not there, why get your gun first and not call the police? Seems more like a "I'm gonna show those little fuckers a thing or two" type of deal....

and besides, he put HIMSELF in harms way. Wasn't home, someone "dangerous" breaks in... you dont go running into your home. By doing that, he put himself in danger.... not the kids. Thats why the Police agency is still up and running.

The boys say they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly. Then, the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range.

No disagreement from the defendant (quoted at least).... if there was no disagreement, then this is possibly true? I'm guess if he didnt beat them, the ADA would have evidence of the beating otherwise it wouldn't of been brought up in the news release.

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

Wheres the other call to request EMS, for a gun shot victim? Is it possible the kid couldve lived with proper medical care (shotgun close range, HIGHLY doubtful.... just saying). In most states, someone failing to request medical attention in a life/death situation is considered a arrestable offense.

Telling the kids to drag the body out? Seems like he had control of the situation, doesnt it?

Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun.

People can lunge at someone backwards now? Ya, OK! Failed logic....


The kid was executed, just to get revenge....or for the owner to show that he doesnt want to be fucked with anymore.

[Priran]

they made the fatal mistake of relaxing around snacks

[archibaldcrane]

Does less culpable translate to "getting off scot free" to you?

Do I think this guy should be punished under Texas law?

No. If you were on the jury you'd find this guy innocent too. Don't try to pretend like he should be legally culpable for this - that's not the issue here. He "got off scot free" as he should, he didn't break any laws.

The majority of the people in this thread are assuming he was in control and executed this kid, and therefore think he's a terrible person - they are deeming him morally culpable. I'm inclined to agree based on the LIMITED information we have, but that is just that, limited.

I empathize with anyone who is put in the position to have to say "I'm prepared to use deadly force against someone for intruding in my personal space", and my moral inclination is to give them a long leash to do what they think is necessary, since they are the one on defense here.

Considering he had a shotgun (how many rounds did he have loaded and ready to fire?) and there were 4 intruders, his "odds" if a threat was presented were not very good, even with getting the jump on them.

Even with all of that, I'm still inclined to believe that what he did was morally wrong, because it does sound like he had the difficult situation under control, but the only person who knows exactly why he pulled the trigger is himself, and I'm not prepared to unequivocally condemn his action without knowing why he pulled the trigger.

It doesn't look good though.

[Kuya]

I'm inclined to agree based on the LIMITED information we have, but that is just that, limited.

Excellent, now aside from trying to be pathetically objective, what was your reasoning again? With the information we do have we come to the conclusion that he's highly culpable for the death of the kid, you somehow think that taking into account the information that we don't know somehow negates what we do know? You don't seem to understand how this works; you say that according to what we do know he seems highly questionable, but that we don't know everything, but based on what we do know, we pass on judgement on him, because that's what we have.

At this point that this act was legal in Texas is irrelevant, we don't care about that anymore; we're not lawyers. We do think what he did was wrong and the he should be judged again, and because of this we think these laws in Texas are by association highly questionable. So either you try to contend that this man is innocent from any action considered punishment based on what we do know, or you, as you're doing now, try to annoy people by contending that we can't pass judgement because we do not know everything; no shit we don't know everything and we may never know everything, but we sure as hell will conclude based on what we do know until we get new information. Also mention that it's legal in Texas again, we don't know that.

[archibaldcrane]

Angry Kuya is angry.

[Kuya]

You should leave the objectivity to Ayn Rand, but you should keep blowing smoke up our asses; you're good at that.

[Beckwin]

Fuck texas. fuck texas. fuck texas.

jmc broke it down exactly right- this is similar to the Horn case in that the guy sought extra confrontation with an obvious motive to be violent. I frankly don't give a shit about texas's fucked up ass-backwards yee-haw laws, this is just wrong.

[burrito]

Maybe it's because Texas is so full of filth and trash that everyone's so extremely defensive of/wishing to protect their property? After living here a decade (Britfag), I can honestly say that should someone attempt to force entry into MY home, yes, I will shoot to kill. I have little faith left in humanity after living here so long ;/

[Beckwin]

I live in Arizona, just as much trash here, I don't own a gun nor would I execute a 13 year old after beating the shit out of him and his friends for rummaging through my cupboards if I did.

[archibaldcrane]

You should leave the objectivity to Ayn Rand, but you should keep blowing smoke up our asses; you're good at that.

I love how I conceed all the points basically, say it doesn't look good, say I think he was in the wrong morally, but because I'm not godwinning on the guy somehow it isn't good enough.

Fuck you and your almighty omnipotence. I'm glad you're so clairvoyant from your impeccable CSI skills that you know, with absolute certainty, that this guy killed that kid because he thought it would be a fun thing to do. If only Texas had more lawmakers like you to protect criminals from evil homeowners.

If you haven't noticed, I'm done kowtowing to your "demonize or bust" attitude. Somehow my reasonable stance is more of a target for you than those that say "well, they shouldn't have broken into his house". Eat my asshole, I'm sure you'd love it.

[Eratosthenes]

Shooting someone in the back is NOT self-defense.

[Beckwin]

archibald will you trust jmc's CSI skills at least?