Boy killed when caught stealing snacks

[kattunlover69]

Boy killed when caught stealing snacks

A Texas jury acquitted a man accused of killing a boy who broke into his home looking for a snack – a case that sparked outrage in this border city, where many thought the man should not have even been charged.
It took the jury of eight men and four women three hours Friday to find Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, not guilty of murdering Francisco Anguiano, who was 13 when he and three friends broke into Gonzalez's trailer to rummage for snacks and soda one night in July 2007.



Gonzalez said he was sorry for Anguiano's death, but „it was a situation in which I feared for my life.“

Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property. 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.

„I feel vindicated for Mr. Gonzalez and his family and for all of the homeowners and all of the seniors in Laredo,“ said Isidro „Chilo“ Alaniz, Gonzalez's attorney. „This case has huge implications across the board. We always, always believed in Mr. Gonzalez's right to defend his life and his property.“

However, Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker maintained during his closing arguments that the case was not about homeowners' right to protect their property, but about when a person is justified in using deadly force to do so.

„What really took place here was a case of vigilantism,“ he said after the verdict. „A 13-year-old boy was killed because a man was enraged.“

Anguiano's aunt, who asked not to be named, said in Saturday's editions of the Laredo Morning Times that she was disappointed with the verdict.

„The state fought the case the way it should have,“ she said. „There was a sufficient amount of evidence, and I thought that some of the jurors would be a father or a mother, and perhaps they would think about this happening to them.“

Gonzalez had endured several break-ins at his trailer when the four boys, ranging in age from 11 to 15, broke in. 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.

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. 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 Anguiano's body outside.

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

Many people in Laredo – a town just across the Rio Grande from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where drug violence runs rampant – defended Gonzalez's actions. In online responses to articles published by the Morning Times, comments included statements such as „The kid got what he deserved“ and calls to „stop the unfair prosecution.“


http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2503826/Boy-killed-when-caught-stealing-snacks.html


-credit to Darkfall's off topic forums ---- http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=71469

[Apollyon]

it's legal in texas to kill someone who has invaded your private property without your consent

let this be a lesson to kids who think it's ok to break into someone's home to steal food

[:amaze:]

i hate texas. i really do.




:amaze:

[Smokey D]

Even if it can be accepted that in some circumstances that deadly force might be necessary, it cannot be justified to shoot someone who has effectively surrendered and is on their knees. What an atrocious verdict.

[kattunlover69]

i mean the kids might be lying and the kid probably did lounge at him (youth think they can live forever) and he just got popped, he lives for 63 yrs in a shotty trailer i think the last thing he wants is a youth kill under his belt, unless he a redneck

[Apollyon]

Even if it can be accepted that in some circumstances that deadly force might be necessary, it cannot be justified to shoot someone who has effectively surrendered and is on their knees. What an atrocious verdict.

you're assuming the kids aren't lying or misconstruing information due to shock and trauma

[kattunlover69]

well they were on their knees, both sides say that, even his lawyer

i dont blame him for hitting them, **** back in the old days it was called teachin them a lesson from a third party

[Tillius]

Wtf?

How was the kid lunging at him if it was concluded that he was shot in the back at close range? I don't care if they broke into his home. They were unarmed and forced to their knees. That is a bullshit verdict.

i dont blame him for hitting them, **** back in the old days it was called teachin them a lesson from a third party

Hitting them is one thing, but killing one of them?

[Smokey D]

Only if the jury found as a matter of fact that the boys were not on their knees and were somehow threatening the defendant could this possibly be a just verdict. I don't know how they could reach that conclusion.

I'm not sure what Texas law actually is but I suspect the jury weren't required to make that finding.

[Aaron]

Jurors are ordinary people; ie idiots.

[Tillius]

I hate that I live in Texas. This is a horrible state.

[Smokey D]

Hitting them is one thing, but killing one of them?

In New Zealand hitting them would have been a criminal assault unless he could show believed he was in peril of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

[Apollyon]

what no

texas is awesome you can shoot someone for walking into your yard after dark and just say that they were trying to rape your sister and you get away with it

i wish i lived in texas

@ tillius

[Apollyon]

In New Zealand hitting them would have been a criminal assault unless he could show believed he was in peril of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

he's 63-years old and they're healthy young teenagers who's going to believe that he had the physical advantage

[Smokey D]

Showing that he was at a physical disadvantage wouldn't be a defence in New Zealand. Not to mention the fact that he had a gun completely negates any advantages possessed by young teenagers who have been forced to their kneews.

[Tillius]

In New Zealand hitting them would have been a criminal assault unless he could show believed he was in peril of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

Yes I know, I'm just saying that even hitting them could be considered at least somewhat justified, but killing a 13 year old boy for stealing food......

He should be giving head in prison right now.

[Apollyon]

Showing that he was at a physical disadvantage wouldn't be a defence in New Zealand. Not to mention the fact that he had a gun completely negates any advantages possessed by young teenagers who have been forced to their kneews.

if you can't disarm a 63-year old man with a big clunky shotgun you don't deserve to live anyway

[Smokey D]

Troll fail.

[Apollyon]

i'm not trolling you really honestly fail at the most basic survival skills if you can't stop an elderly man with a shotgun from killing you

[JohnXDoe]

its an unjust verdict imo. although not so much as that old coot who shot those two guys breaking into his "neighbors" house

if cops see a private unarmed citizen crawling into a window or running away from the scene of a non violent crime is it lawful for them to " kill first" and ask questions later? no, that would be murder. no life was threatened, no one harmed

if i had a gun in my apartment, was on the phone with the POLICE as someone broke into my neighbors apartment, was being told to not take action and units were on the way, and i chose to kill someone because they might steal a toaster or tv that isn't even mine i'd fully expect to be brought up on charges and successfully prosecuted. its outrageous

meh

[Amit]

lol bitter rednecks hiding behind their guns

[Smokey D]

The injustice stems not from what he did but how unreasonable it was. There are times when using force, even lethal force, is justified or should be allowed. Lining up three young teenagers on their knees and shooting one in the back is not one of those times.

[McP3000]

I completely agree with Smokey. Its not the law that should be changed, but how it is enforced.
63 year old faggot should be in jail.

[Smokey D]

So I hear in Texas people elect judges.

Is this correct?

If so, are you ****ing kidding me?

[McP3000]

So I hear in Texas people elect judges.

Is this correct?

If so, are you ****ing kidding me?
yeah we elect judges

and i dont get the second question

[Apollyon]

judges should be elected as should all state/national government officials

[Smokey D]

That's the worst idea in history.

Judges exist to make sure the law is applied. Their positions should be protected by tenure, not subject to political pressure. The election of judges allows populism to intrude into the rule of law.

[Apollyon]

government officials represent the will of the people

the only way to uphold that ideal is to elect them

having judges appointed by the government is just as terrible as electing them if you're looking to bypass political bias

[JohnXDoe]

So I hear in Texas people elect judges.

Is this correct?

If so, are you ****ing kidding me?
its the "Maverick" State

W. used to execute retarded people who had no comprehension beyond a 4 year old that they even did anything wrong

to send a strong message to retards that if you murder, you will fry i guess

they're wacky


in the deep deep heart of Texas, with its big and lonely star :(

[Tillius]

i'm not trolling you really honestly fail at the most basic survival skills if you can't stop an elderly man with a shotgun from killing you

That's a ridiculous claim. You speak of a 63 year old man as if he's in his eighties. My grandfather is 62 and I'd like to see you try to disarm him of a shotgun. He's got these kids lined up and the second one of them would have tried to move he would have shot them too.
But none of this matters. Regardless of whether or not somebody should or should not have been able to disarm him, the fact is that he killed a teenage boy in an unjustified claim of saying that he feared for his life. The verdict is ridiculous.

[McP3000]

its the "Maverick" State

W. used to execute retarded people who had no comprehension beyond a 4 year old that they even did anything wrong

to send a strong message to retards that if you murder, you will fry i guess

they're wacky


in the deep deep heart of Texas, with its big and lonely star :(
what in the hell are you talking about. Is this first claim serious, and whats with the sarcastic bottom statement?

[JohnXDoe]

first claim is not serious

bottom statement is from a song that quickly came to mind

internet posting at 1:30am

[Apollyon]

That's a ridiculous claim. You speak of a 63 year old man as if he's in his eighties. My grandfather is 62 and I'd like to see you try to disarm him of a shotgun. He's got these kids lined up and the second one of them would have tried to move he would have shot them too.
But none of this matters. Regardless of whether or not somebody should or should not have been able to disarm him, the fact is that he killed a teenage boy in an unjustified claim of saying that he feared for his life. The verdict is ridiculous.

he's an old man, he'd already suffered several break ins, maybe he really did fear for his life

and if you don't like the idea that a 16-year old in good enough shape to sneak into another man's home and steal his food should be able to disarm/escape a 63-year old man with a shotgun, then how about the idea that maybe at 63 years of age and having endured multiple break ins, the old guy was not in a mentally sound state and acted as his mental condition deemed appropriate

that still gets him off the hook or at least merits minimal sentencing

the kids broke into his home, they tried to steal his food, and one of them got shot

stop pretending they were innocent bystanders attacked by a mad man

[Smokey D]

government officials represent the will of the people

Judges exist to serve the law, which is created by elected officials.

If the people believe in something sufficiently strongly that it be converted into law there is no need to make judges subject to electoral processes. They will be obliged to carry it out regardless. The revelvant qualifications for judges should be legal expertise, not ability to pander to some rabid bunch of hillbillies.

the only way to uphold that ideal is to elect them

Not at all.

having judges appointed by the government is just as terrible as electing them if you're looking to bypass political bias

To an extent. America seems to have a far more politicised judiciary than pretty much anywhere else I can think of. In New Zealand, the judges are pretty bipartisan (or non-partisan) but that might be because our pool of judicial talent is much smaller so the government is forced to select people who don't conform with ideologies.

he's an old man, he'd already suffered several break ins, maybe he really did fear for his life

That seems completely unsupportable on teh facts.


and if you don't like the idea that a 16-year old in good enough shape to sneak into another man's home and steal his food should be able to disarm/escape a 63-year old man with a shotgun, then how about the idea that maybe at 63 years of age and having endured multiple break ins, the old guy was not in a mentally sound state and acted as his mental condition deemed appropriate

Well if it could be shown that he honestly believed in a threat of imminent peril to his life maybe. But the fact he had them lined up and shot the victim in the back makes this pretty difficult to swallow.

If he was so mentally unsound as to make such an unreasonable decision, a special verdict would have been appropriate instead of a straight acquittal. But I doubt a 63 year old is actually senile.

the kids broke into his home, they tried to steal his food, and one of them got shot

stop pretending they were innocent bystanders attacked by a mad man

He might have been justified if he fired at them while they were breaking in or running around. But shooting them while they were lined up and surrendered is unacceptable.

From what I can tell, the basics of Texan law are roughly equivalent to the rest of the US/sane world. That is to say, he had to believe in some threat of peril. If that's true, this verdict is ridiculous. The fact that it's been allowed to stand highlights the injustices that the election of judicial/prosecutory officials can generate.

[McP3000]

first claim is not serious

bottom statement is from a song that quickly came to mind

internet posting at 1:30am
please dont

i found it very offensive i take the things i love in life quite seriously

[Tillius]

he's an old man, he'd already suffered several break ins, maybe he really did fear for his life

and if you don't like the idea that a 16-year old in good enough shape to sneak into another man's home and steal his food should be able to disarm/escape a 63-year old man with a shotgun, then how about the idea that maybe at 63 years of age and having endured multiple break ins, the old guy was not in a mentally sound state and acted as his mental condition deemed appropriate

that still gets him off the hook or at least merits minimal sentencing

the kids broke into his home, they tried to steal his food, and one of them got shot

stop pretending they were innocent bystanders attacked by a mad man

They were by no means innocent bystanders. If he had seen a few people rummaging around inside of his house and shot then this wouldn't be a problem. He would have had every right to assume that they were armed and dangerous. However, he lined them up on their knees, saw that they were not armed, and killed one of them by shooting them from behind. It is not justified.

[McP3000]

They were by no means innocent bystanders. If he had seen a few people rummaging around inside of his house and shot then this wouldn't be a problem. He would have had every right to assume that they were armed and dangerous. However, he lined them up on their knees, saw that they were not armed, and killed one of them by shooting them from behind. It is not justified.
Agreed

but now that i think about it, i wonder what in the world sparked the man to shoot the kid at this point. I somewhat understand the lining up part, to ensure that they werent going to do anything/escape. But i would do this so that the police could come get them. Not because i wanted to kill them.

[Apollyon]

Agreed

but now that i think about it, i wonder what in the world sparked the man to shoot the kid at this point. I somewhat understand the lining up part, to ensure that they werent going to do anything/escape. But i would do this so that the police could come get them. Not because i wanted to kill them.

which is why i firmly believe the kids are lying about the events

[Smokey D]

But it's common ground between both parties.

[Apollyon]

so then the old timer was mentally unstable and only deserves minimal sentencing at best

i don't get where i've said anything wrong here i'm pretty much completely right in covering all realistic explanations

[Tillius]

But it's common ground between both parties.

This.


And the fact that he was proven to be shot from behind furthers it. What did the kid do, stand up and try to ****ing backwards headbutt him?

so then the old timer was mentally unstable and only deserves minimal sentencing at best

i don't get where i've said anything wrong here i'm pretty much completely right in covering all realistic explanations

Yeah but he got nothing. He gets to go on home now as if nothing happened.

[Smokey D]

so then the old timer was mentally unstable and only deserves minimal sentencing at best

I don't think you understand how it works.



i don't get where i've said anything wrong here i'm pretty much completely right in covering all realistic explanations

You've said either the kids are lying or the offender was crazy.

Neither are well supported by the facts.

Neither on themselves justify (render something criminal not criminal) the act.

[Apollyon]

Yeah but he got nothing. He gets to go on home now as if nothing happened.

oh well

it's not like he's a serial killer

I don't think you understand how it works.

You've said either the kids are lying or the offender was crazy.

Neither are well supported by the facts.

either one can be well supported by the facts

just because the defendant didn't claim insanity doesn't mean he wasn't mentally unstable at the time of the shooting

Neither on themselves justify (render something criminal not criminal) the act.

um either of those could be tremendous turning points in a case like this

[Smokey D]

either one can be well supported by the facts


No.

just because the defendant didn't claim insanity doesn't mean he wasn't mentally unstable at the time of the shooting

If it's not pleaded it doesn't apply.

And he didn't get off on the basis of mental infirmity.


um either of those could be tremendous turning points in a case like this

Right but neither of them were.

It is common ground he was not threatened.

Insanity was not pleaded, so it's not available. And mere confusion isn't enough to trigger insanity. And he didn't get off on insanity. He got a full acquittal.

[McP3000]

I think all of this conversation is quite meaningless because im fairly (not 100% sure), that Texas law does not distinguish a definitive moment on when lethal violence is no longer necessary. Therefore, as long as they forcefully and without permission, come onto his property, he can do as he pleases. His condition of being threatened is subject to the property owner.
Now the main point that we should be discussing is to address rather to make a new law, amendment to the law, or reinterpretation of the law.

We can all agree what the man did was horribly wrong, but he is not legally responsible at the point of the killing.

[Smokey D]

I think all of this conversation is quite meaningless because im fairly (not 100% sure), that Texas law does not distinguish a definitive moment on when lethal violence is no longer necessary. Therefore, as long as they forcefully and without permission, come onto his property, he can do as he pleases. His condition of being threatened is subject to the property owner.

If this is true, it's disgusting.

From wikipedia's article on the law of self-defense in the US: A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would generally not be considered justifiable.



We can all agree what the man did was horribly wrong, but he is not legally responsible at the point of the killing.

Only because he has been found innocent. I'd like to see hte provisions which were relied on to get him off.

[Tillius]

I actually believe that's true about Texas. It is ****ing sickening, but it's true. Like I said, I hate living in Texas.

[McP3000]

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

Laws in Texas on the subject, however i am quite suspicious that the 63 year old man had a much better lawyer. I am under the impression that the law extends to as long that the defendant has reasonable belief that the assailants will do him or his property harm. At the point of the killing, the child was no longer a threat. Well there is the subjection of the "reasonable belief" clause, but the law then goes into detail about reasonable belief, and it seems that there is probably some other underlying circumstances to the event.

[McP3000]

I actually believe that's true about Texas. It is ****ing sickening, but it's true. Like I said, I hate living in Texas.
Why exactly?

[Tillius]

Because yes, I believe that if you shoot a person who is intruding in your home then you should not have charges brought against you, armed or not, as long as the person shooting was really fearing for their life.
Granted, what that person was always feeling cannot be proven, but in this case, we see that despite what he says, he can't possibly be able to say that he felt his life was in danger. But Texas laws let him walk simply because they were intruders in his home.
Texas is full of stupid laws.

[McP3000]

So do all states. Not to mention you're living in the only state that isnt going through an economic crisis in the country.

Get the **** over yourself. If you're "too liberal" or "tolerant" or "not hillybilly enough", then move.

[Tillius]

I fully intend to. But it's really not just Texas, it's this whole country. I'm not too anything, I just think it's ridiculous that something like this is able to happen, I don't give a **** about the old man or the kid that died, but about everything behind it.

[McP3000]

That makes sense. I respect that stance if you really intend to move. Where to? Canada?

[FiveLives]

Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

so much for saving those glorious snacks lmao

[Sunshine]

I know it's been said, but.

That's lame.
And no, it's not lame 'cause it's a 13 year old boy.
It'd be lame if it was a 30 year old guy.
If you've got someone on their knees at gunpoint, there's no reason to go ahead and shoot them.

[masada]

So do all states. Not to mention you're living in the only state that isnt going through an economic crisis in the country.

Get the **** over yourself. If you're "too liberal" or "tolerant" or "not hillybilly enough", then move.

a true texan hero

[Det_Nosnip]

This was clearly aggravated assault with a deadly weapon at the very least.

Oh, Texas...I'm so glad I left you.

[Det_Nosnip]

So do all states. Not to mention you're living in the only state that isnt going through an economic crisis in the country.


What? :confused:

[Akira]

This is the most disgusting thing I've read in a long time. By the murderer's own account, the kid was on his knees and was shot in the back point blank. That's not self-defense, that's an execution.

I seriously feel sick. I hate people so much.

[Akira]

Only because he has been found innocent. I'd like to see hte provisions which were relied on to get him off.

Seriously. If the law justified this, the law needs to be changed. Or we can kick Texas out of the Union. I don't really care which.

[spitfirejunky]

oh well

it's not like he's a serial killer

His behavior was more or less consistent with one.

The law that allows you to use lethal force to handle an intrusion was specifically meant to give citizens the maximum capacity to deal with any threat, so being able to show that the threat existed at the moment of the shooting is still absolutely necessary. Given the context of the law there is no way anyone can justify this, not even Texans.

[sLarkin20]

Even if it can be accepted that in some circumstances that deadly force might be necessary, it cannot be justified to shoot someone who has effectively surrendered and is on their knees. What an atrocious verdict.

Pretty much.

I live in Florida, where we have the same laws here. In fact, if you are in any public place that you have the right to be in, you have no duty to retreat if you feel threatened and can use deadly force outside of your home.

But, I think this is totally different. The old ****er was obviously not threatened by the kids.

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.

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

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

However, I guess I can understand how the man was acquitted, because as I understand the home defense laws in states like Texas, and mine, the moment someone breaks into your home while you are in it they are committing a forcible felony and you have the right to shoot them. It doesn't really matter what it is they were doing, it's the fact the broke into your home.

But, the old man obviously went way overboard, and from the descriptions it sounded more like a ****ing execution.

[hismajestythepope]

well clearly youre supposed to ****ing execute anybody who breaks into your house

[wartomods]

texas for my 600 post

[2muchket!]

It's times like this where my faith in lay people presiding over the verdict's of a trial is severely tested.

[Tillius]

That makes sense. I respect that stance if you really intend to move. Where to? Canada?

I don't know. As much as I want to go it'll probably be awhile before I am able to move from the country. Doubt I'd go to Canada though.

[Spaceman Spiff]

So if I'm living in Texas and someone breaks into my home, and if I successfully detain said intruder, am I allowed to torture this person and then kill them?

[Akira]

So if I'm living in Texas and someone breaks into my home, and if I successfully detain said intruder, am I allowed to torture this person and then kill them?

You have to remember that Texans are just a step above dirt and below lawn gnomes in a scale of intelligence.

[:amaze:]

So if I'm living in Texas and someone breaks into my home, and if I successfully detain said intruder, am I allowed to torture this person and then kill them?

shoot, i'd say with a good enough lawyer, you could get away with killing anyone that enters your home/property.

i swurr, i thought the UPS guy wuz breakin' in, yall!




:amaze:

[Spaceman Spiff]

I mean, what if, in Texas, I broke into John Wayne Gacy's house, but then he raped and killed me, is he getting off free?

[sLarkin20]

There is a lot of gray-area with the castle doctrines and home defense laws and such, so if that hypothetical situation was to happen, you can be sure the courts would see that, while the killing may have been justifiable if it was deemed reasonable enough, any rape/torture/whatever else done beforehand would not be, and the person should get charged with that.

There's nothing in the castle doctrines that gives a person the right to stuff like prolonging the death, raping, torturing, etc.

[Apollyon]

His behavior was more or less consistent with one.

no it wasn't

[Apollyon]

You have to remember that Texans are just a step above dirt and below lawn gnomes in a scale of intelligence.

really i was sure that spot was already filled by the kids who compare this old timer to a serial killer child raping sadist because he shot a kid who broke into his house

[spitfirejunky]

no it wasn't

Abnormal aggression.

[Apollyon]

Abnormal aggression.

maybe you need to break serial killer down and understand what each term means when used in conjunction with one another

[spitfirejunky]

maybe you need to break serial killer down and understand what each term means when used in conjunction with one another

His behavior was more or less consistent with one.

Try again.

[Apollyon]

ok so where did you say anything intelligent

[spitfirejunky]

ok so where did you say anything intelligent

A serial killer has behavioral traits that can belong to people who aren't serial killers. Jesus.

[Apollyon]

how does possessing a single trait make someone a serial killer

[spitfirejunky]

how does possessing a single trait make someone a serial killer

Having behavioral consistencies with a serial killer and being a serial killer are two different things.

[Apollyon]

exactly, so comparing his action to that of a serial killer when he allegedly possesses only one trait associated with one is pretty stupid wouldn't you say

[spitfirejunky]

exactly, so comparing his action to that of a serial killer when he allegedly possesses only one trait associated with one is pretty stupid wouldn't you say

The purpose of your initial statement was to show that he's in some way harmless because he's not a serial killer. The fact that he's not a serial killer is immaterial to how he's a danger to society. I hoped showing you that you can bear the traits of a serial killer without being one would compel you to think about this.

[Apollyon]

he isn't a danger to society though

he killed one kid when him and his friends broke into the guys home after dark

he responded in anger and killed one of them

if he were a danger to society he would have killed all three kids, taken their wallets, tracked down their families and killed them too

one kid is nothing

[spitfirejunky]

he isn't a danger to society though

he killed one kid when him and his friends broke into the guys home after dark

he responded in anger and killed one of them

if he were a danger to society he would have killed all three kids, taken their wallets, tracked down their families and killed them too

one kid is nothing

Four kills is no less condemnable than one, especially when both sides stipulate that he shot the kid at a moment when there was no threat to his safety. This is textbook murder.

[Apollyon]

if it was textbook murder he would have been charged with murder

he wasn't determined to be a danger to society, he wasn't determined to be a murderer, so no matter how much compassion you pretend to have for a total stranger who got killed breaking the law, it doesn't amount to a thing

[spitfirejunky]

if it was textbook murder he would have been charged with murder

Actually this doesn't always happen. This story only got publicity because it was a blatantly erroneous verdict.

he wasn't determined to be a danger to society, he wasn't determined to be a murderer, so no matter how much compassion you pretend to have for a total stranger who got killed breaking the law, it doesn't amount to a thing

I only argue with reason, and the prosecution can (and should) decide to appeal the verdict unless Texas really is that hopeless.

[Akira]

I think it's stupid to say this guy acted like a serial killer, but I think it's more stupid to say this wasn't murder.

[sLarkin20]

he isn't a danger to society though

he killed one kid when him and his friends broke into the guys home after dark

he responded in anger and killed one of them

if he were a danger to society he would have killed all three kids, taken their wallets, tracked down their families and killed them too

one kid is nothing

If your response to anger is to kill someone, then you are a danger to society.

[Apollyon]

If your response to anger is to kill someone, then you are a danger to society.

i'm sorry maybe you don't understand the concept of breaking and entering and burglary

i would shoot someone who broke into my home in the middle of the night too

i suppose you'd lay out the welcome mat and tell them to help themselves to your personal belongings while you wait for the cops to arrive a couple of minutes after the culprit flees

[:amaze:]

i'm sorry maybe you don't understand the concept of breaking and entering and burglary

i would shoot someone who broke into my home in the middle of the night too

i suppose you'd lay out the welcome mat and tell them to help themselves to your personal belongings while you wait for the cops to arrive a couple of minutes after the culprit flees

right, because those are the only two options. let them do what they want, or kill them...




:amaze:

[Amit]

wait so would you do this too?


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. 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 Anguiano's body outside.

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

anger is not the way!

[Apollyon]

if i was pissed enough yes i would

[:amaze:]

oh, so you are allowed to kill people depending on how pissed you are. that makes more sense.




:amaze:

[Apollyon]

oh, so you are allowed to kill people depending on how pissed you are. that makes more sense.




:amaze:

if someone invades your property, attempts to steal your belongings, and expects to not receive grievous bodily harm as a result, then that doesn't make any sense to me

[Amit]

so it's totally kosher to shoot them from the back and on their knees when they are completely subdued just because you're angaray?

oic

[Apollyon]

yes

[Amit]

what if you're not angaray

[Amit]

also, can you teabag them and poop on their faces as well and shoot them in the feet?

i'm trying to understand your revisionism of the castle doctrine

[:amaze:]

if someone invades your property, attempts to steal your belongings, and expects to not receive grievous bodily harm as a result, then that doesn't make any sense to me

why don't we just make breaking and entering punishable by the death penalty then?





:amaze:

[Apollyon]

can you teabag them and poop on their faces as well and shoot them in the feet?

yes this is also acceptable

why don't we just make breaking and entering punishable by the death penalty then?





:amaze:

sounds good to me

the best way to stop crime is to kill criminals

[Amit]

so if a woman (or a man or a dog or any living entity) walked onto your property, it would be totally legal to rape her/him/it?

nothing says deterrence like being ****ing raped tbh

[Apollyon]

exactly

[Amit]

wait could you also rape and poop on your house guests (assuming you had any ever come over)? i mean, who is to say you didn't change your mind about them being on your property?

[Apollyon]

guests are invited they have rape immunity

[Mr. Ron]

I was going to say "oh well they shouldn't have broken in" but then I read the part where he killed them after they were basically begging for him not to shoot him...****ed up.

[Amit]

what if a 6 year old child came onto your property to retrieve a ball or frisbee? would you be legally entitled to rape them?

or what about halloween; there would be a whole lot of legal child rape and murder in your future!

[Apollyon]

I was going to say "oh well they shouldn't have broken in" but then I read the part where he killed them after they were basically begging for him not to shoot him...****ed up.

look at the bright side

those other two kids will never break into another house for the rest of their life so the old guy did a good thing by preventing two kids from engaging in future criminal activities

[Apollyon]

what if a 6 year old child came onto your property to retrieve a ball or frisbee? would you be legally entitled to rape them?

or what about halloween; there would be a whole lot of legal child rape and murder in your future!

sounds like i'd better buy a big tub of KY and get ready for the holiday season

[Amit]

guests are invited they have rape immunity

but what if the guests want to rape you?

[Mr. Ron]

look at the bright side

those other two kids will never break into another house for the rest of their life so the old guy did a good thing by preventing two kids from engaging in future criminal activities

I know you're joking but they surrendered, he shouldn't have shot them

[Apollyon]

then they get double raped for employing deceptive tactics

[Apollyon]

I know you're joking but they surrendered, he shouldn't have shot them

actually i'm serious if you broke into someone's house with two of your friends and one of them got shot would you wake up the next morning and think to yourself, "you know what sounds fun? breaking into another house"

[:amaze:]

look at the bright side

those other two kids will never break into another house for the rest of their life so the old guy did a good thing by preventing two kids from engaging in future criminal activities

the only thing they learned was not to break and enter unarmed.




:amaze:

[Apollyon]

no i'm pretty sure they learned that robbery will get you killed

[:amaze:]

nope, they still would have had their friend ... and probably a lot more snacks, had they been packin heat.




:amaze:

[Mr. Ron]

actually i'm serious if you broke into someone's house with two of your friends and one of them got shot would you wake up the next morning and think to yourself, "you know what sounds fun? breaking into another house"

Their stupidity isn't a justification for his stupidity.

[Amit]

then they get double raped for employing deceptive tactics

but what if they are double deceitful and only pretend to want to rape you so you would preemptively rape them and then they would cry afoul of your preemptive rape attack?

these are serious issues with your view of the castle doctrine!

[Mr. Ron]

castles are pretty chill

[Apollyon]

Their stupidity isn't a justification for his stupidity.

yes it is

but what if they are double deceitful and only pretend to want to rape you so you would preemptively rape them and then they would cry afoul of your preemptive rape attack?

these are serious issues with your view of the castle doctrine!

if they are double deceitful and try to pin me for preemptive rape without justification then i just shoot them and say that they were raiding my fridge

simple simple

[Amit]

err legally it isn't a justification

[Mr. Ron]

yes it is



if they are double deceitful and try to pin me for preemptive rape without justification then i just shoot them and say that they were raiding my fridge

simple simple


no its not

[Apollyon]

yes it really is

you guys act like robbers getting shot is something rare and atrocious

granted this guy performed more of an execution than an act of home defense but he was still justified in his action given the action taken against him and his property

about two years ago out here in portland a young guy broke into an elderly black couple's home in the middle of the night and the black guy shot the robber right between the eyes with his handgun

it was deemed acceptable force because of the physical difference between the attacker and the home owner and the crime being committed

[Mr. Ron]

no no no I don't really care if robbers get shot in the act

but if they give up and are on their knees you're committing murder.


btw kids stealing snacks from your house isn't a justification for murder.

[Apollyon]

i think it is

[masada]

not my twinkies!

[Mr. Ron]

you wouldn't shoot a teen if they were on their knees begging jared


I know you're a big teddy bear on the inside.




Q: if a kid gets his lunch money taken from him by a bully and the father was there would he have the right to shoot the bully?

[Apollyon]

you wouldn't shoot a teen if they were on their knees begging jared

it depends on how much i'd had to drink and if they had broken into my home


I know you're a big teddy bear on the inside.

not when it comes to having my personal property violated

Q: if a kid gets his lunch money taken from him by a bully and the father was there would he have the right to shoot the bully?

that depends on if it took place at school or on the father's private property

[Mr. Ron]

it depends on how much i'd had to drink and if they had broken into my home




not when it comes to having my personal property violated



that depends on if it took place at school or on the father's private property
so he would be ok to shoot the bully if it took place in his home?

[Apollyon]

yes

i'm not saying he should but i don't think it would be unreasonable

[Vannaroth]

I'd rather see a thousand twinkie-stealing 13 year olds go free than suffer a single amoral cretin who thinks subduing, beating and executing an unarmed child is an acceptable response to a minor break-in. This man should be in jail for murder, there is no doubt in that whatsoever.

Screw you, Texas.

[Mr. Ron]

so you wouldn't, idk, try to tell the kid to give it back before you killed him?

[Apollyon]

so you wouldn't, idk, try to tell the kid to give it back before you killed him?

well what i would do is erroneous information

but hypothetically if the father were to ask that the money be returned and the bully refused, then that's robbery and seeing as it took place on the father's property he should be allowed to shoot the kid

[Reaganista]

Only if the jury found as a matter of fact that the boys were not on their knees and were somehow threatening the defendant could this possibly be a just verdict. I don't know how they could reach that conclusion.

I'm not sure what Texas law actually is but I suspect the jury weren't required to make that finding.

um the jury has the right to nullify the law

or they could find that he did lunge

was he charged/convicted with anything else or was this the only charge idk

[Mr. Ron]

well what i would do is erroneous information

but hypothetically if the father were to ask that the money be returned and the bully refused, then that's robbery and seeing as it took place on the father's property he should be allowed to shoot the kid

lol

[Vannaroth]

well what i would do is erroneous information


Stop using words you don't know the meaning of.

[Apollyon]

personally i would just beat the crap out of the bully because i hate children

Stop using words you don't know the meaning of.

who are you and why are you addressing me

go away

[Apollyon]

and btw you could have just said, "I don't get the joke" you didn't have to try to be a big tough internet manly man

[Vannaroth]

and btw you could have just said, "I don't get the joke" you didn't have to try to be a big tough internet manly man

Yeah you're right I should probably drop this internet tough guy act and instead start prattling on about how I would beat up children and make short work of shotgun wielding 63 year olds.

Seriously, shut up.

[Apollyon]

oh my god you're right i'm such an empty shell of a man please show me the way to salvation

[Vannaroth]

Making use of the Log Out button would be a good start.

[Apollyon]

do you just give out stunning, original and witty advice or do you ever take it yourself

guys look out we have a drummer in the thread lock up your daughters we've got a stick wielding genius on our hands

[Otherside]

wow that was one of the lamest posts in a while congratulations you go getter you

[Amit]

trap all day, play all night
dis is da life of a child rapist (eyy) child rapist (eyy) child rapist (yeaaaa)

[Vannaroth]

guys look out we have a drummer in the thread lock up your daughters we've got a stick wielding genius on our hands

Sorry but this kind of post only works when people actually agree with you.

[Apollyon]

Sorry but this kind of post only works when people actually agree with you.

sorry but this kind of post only works when you aren't dramatically unimportant

[SnackaryBinx]

Apollyon is trolling everyone so hard, el oh el.

[Apollyon]

i'm on fire tonight

[Smokey D]

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."



"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)

[/quote]


All interesting stuff, but let's look at it more closely.

A person is justified in using deadly force ... to prevent ... a robbery.

A person is justified using deadly force ... to prevent the other's imminient commission of ... a robbery.

Well, the way I see it the robbery was already over. The boys were already restrained. He had no need to shoot them. The law certainly doesn't say 'the moment someone comes on to your land you have an inalienable right to shoot them until they leave'.



Laws in Texas on the subject, however i am quite suspicious that the 63 year old man had a much better lawyer. I am under the impression that the law extends to as long that the defendant has reasonable belief that the assailants will do him or his property harm. At the point of the killing, the child was no longer a threat. Well there is the subjection of the "reasonable belief" clause, but the law then goes into detail about reasonable belief, and it seems that there is probably some other underlying circumstances to the event.

With respect to self defence (interestingly a reasonable belief clause is absent in NZ law; you only need a subjective belief in imminent harm), there is no way he should have been able to invoke reasonable belief. It says 'reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself or other'. The boys were on their knees with a shotgun aimed at them. He was clearly in no danger or at least not enough danger to reasonably believe deadly force was necessary.


he responded in anger and killed one of them

Killing someone because you're anrgy with them is murder.


um the jury has the right to nullify the law

I dunno how jury nullification works in the US, but it's pretty stupid if it allows them to issue perverse verdicts.

or they could find that he did lunge

Seems totally inconsistent with the facts.

[1488h4x0r]

Yeah I agree Smokey it's totally cool for kids to get shot down because they can't afford to buy food.

[BridgeToSolace]

Seems totally inconsistent with the facts.

In America, we don't let facts get in the way of our justice system.

[Tillius]

look at the bright side

those other two kids will never break into another house for the rest of their life so the old guy did a good thing by preventing two kids from engaging in future criminal activities

Yes, all the Twinkies in the world shall be safe now.

[Der Übermensch]

If I can legally kill someone execution style in my house in Texas, am I at least allowed to smoke pot in my house as well?

[Mr. Ron]

Probably not

[Der Übermensch]

Jeez... if you are gonna have 'Man in his Castle' Laws, at least be consistent :-\

[Mr. Ron]

Seriously. I want my 10 sex slaves damn it!!!

[Der Übermensch]

Well... there are those splinter-Mormon compounds in West Texas...

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah, but they're into that whole god thing

[FallingSnow]

Moral of the day: Don't break into people's homes, and you don't need to worry about anything happening.

I'm not advocating the extremity of the man's actions, but ****, when did the criminals become the victims? This happens way too often. You have nothing to fear if you aren't doing anything wrong. Did common sense leave our heads?

[Amit]

they became the victims when one of them got murdered on his knees

[FallingSnow]

So we can all invite trouble of our own doing and then cry wolf? What a grand excuse for everyone. I don't understand that reasoning.

As I said, I don't condone the man's extreme way of dealing with it, but I'm arguing the principle because things like this, often less extreme and more justified, happen all the time and people still cry wolf.

[Amit]

crying wolf and being murdered on your knees are two very different things

you can argue principle all you want, but the law, when practiced properly, not only has to examine the principle but the actual reality of the matter as well

[FallingSnow]

Meh, I disagree, but I understand where you are coming from. I just don't think we should give a free ticket to everyone.

[:amaze:]

Meh, I disagree, but I understand where you are coming from. I just don't think we should give a free ticket to everyone.

except the man who forced 4 boys to their knees at gunpoint and killed one of them.

whether or not they should have been there, he got away with murder.




:amaze:

[Akira]

FallingSnow, did you just seriously call this "crying wolf"? A boy got shot in the back close range while on his knees.

[FallingSnow]

I applied the term to the general concept that seems to be happening more and more often. I have said it twice now: I don't support the extremity of this particular situation for ****'s sake.

But more and more, people are breaking into other people's homes, they get hurt (in one form or another), and then they're the victim all of a sudden.

[Smokey D]

Well they are when they get shot in situations like this.

As I said at the start of the thread, tehre might be situations where deadly force is warranted but this wasn't one of them.

I don't think we need to widen the debate to other situations where home invaders get shot, mainly because it's difficult to come by objective statistics on the issue.

[FallingSnow]

The thread begs for such debate though; you know it.

[Raayl]

Well they are when they get shot in situations like this.

As I said at the start of the thread, tehre might be situations where deadly force is warranted but this wasn't one of them.

I don't think we need to widen the debate to other situations where home invaders get shot, mainly because it's difficult to come by objective statistics on the issue.

I read the article, but to assume that you know for sure that this wasn't one of those times where deadly force was warranted - im not sure how anybody can say that for certain.

The fact is, none of us were there to wave our "morally and ethically justifiable" stick at the situation, so all we have to go on is the legal rhetoric of the state of texas that adjudicates these circumstances. According to the rhetoric, the right verdict was reached.

[Smokey D]

I read the article, but to assume that you know for sure that this wasn't one of those times where deadly force was warranted - im not sure how anybody can say that for certain.

Well I'm going on the fact that it was conceded by both parties he was on his knees.


The fact is, none of us were there to wave our "morally and ethically justifiable" stick at the situation, so all we have to go on is the legal rhetoric of the state of texas that adjudicates these circumstances. According to the rhetoric, the right verdict was reached.

No it wasn't. If the legislation posted by Mc3000 is right and what was relied on then the verdict was manifestly perverse. Even if he relied on other things, killing a person who has surrendered and is on their knees is murder.

[Raayl]

Well I'm going on the fact that it was conceded by both parties he was on his knees.



No it wasn't. If the legislation posted by Mc3000 is right and what was relied on then the verdict was manifestly perverse. Even if he relied on other things, killing a person who has surrendered and is on their knees is murder.

yeah but see, the point im trying to make is that this situation is knee deep in murky water at best - or at least it seems that way from where i sit. do i feel empathy for the kids who unlawfully broke into the guy's house? no, i do not. i do, however, see a messy legal and ethical situation.

there isn't enough convincing evidence to convince me this man belongs in prison for execution. although it seems like it was? how can i be sure. i can't. that my friend is called reasonable doubt, and i will never convict somebody when under the pressure of reasonable doubt.

[spitfirejunky]

If that were true the defense would have never conceded that he shot the kids after they surrendered.

[Raayl]

If that were true the defense would have never conceded that he shot the kids after they surrendered.

that's one of the reasons i have doubts about the facts of this case. what it comes down to really is a philosophical question, seeing as none of us can truely say with absolute certainty how we would choose to adjudicate this were we on the jury

and that question is...where is the line between protecting yourself and murdering somebody. because i don't know anything about the inter-personal relationship dynamics between this man and the kids during the whole ordeal, i cannot make a claim of certainly about the ethical dilemma

i can say that in the abstract i don't approve of what this man did. and although i can't say for certain, i would most certainly never be inclined to shoot somebody in the back if this case truely is as it seems. i am trained to disarm and suppress armed attackers though, as i think everyone should be. to avoid situations like this and just as a general self defense.

[Tillius]

If you're on a jury and you can't see the line between this man protecting himself and committing murder then you are an idiot. There is no question to what happened. Both parties stated that the boys were defenseless on their knees. One of them was shot in the back. He could not have felt danger for his life when he has a weapon with three young boys, unarmed, on their knees.
No empathy for them? Please. Yes, they illegally broke into another man's home, but seriously. They didn't take money or anything of any value. They were taking some ****ing snacks. Does that make the fact that they broke in to a home any better? No. The cops should have been called and maybe they should have even done some jail time. But one of them is unjustifiably dead and the man should be facing charges.

[Raayl]

If you're on a jury and you can't see the line between this man protecting himself and committing murder then you are an idiot. There is no question to what happened. Both parties stated that the boys were defenseless on their knees. One of them was shot in the back. He could not have felt danger for his life when he has a weapon with three young boys, unarmed, on their knees.
No empathy for them? Please. Yes, they illegally broke into another man's home, but seriously. They didn't take money or anything of any value. They were taking some ****ing snacks. Does that make the fact that they broke in to a home any better? No. The cops should have been called and maybe they should have even done some jail time. But one of them is unjustifiably dead and the man should be facing charges.

i agree with you philosophically. however, in terms of the real world and this case - there is a lot more going on than how this seems framed. intensely psychological and highly emotional situations like this come down to far more than simple questions of right and wrong

like i said, killing the kid i think was wrong and i do think that it could have realistically been avoided.

however, what they "intended on stealing" means absolutely nothing. snacks or your brand new 60 inch LCD, you still unlawfully and forcefully entered another person's home in a state where deadly force is authorized in protection of your property and life. forgive me if my heart does not bleed for the "victim," as i see it far more complex than this article makes it seem.

[Tillius]

And I agree with some of what you're saying. For all anybody knows, yes, they may have intended to still more. And like I said earlier in this thread, if he had just seen some people rummaging around through his house, he would have had every right to shoot them. It would be a perfectly acceptable claim. So why didn't he do it then? Why did he wait to round them all up and put them to their knees in an execution style? This whole thing goes far beyond right and wrong, like you said, but anybody can see that this was not self defense. Self defense went out the door the moment he had them to their knees. Or, if not, the moment he was beating them.

[Raayl]

And I agree with some of what you're saying. For all anybody knows, yes, they may have intended to still more. And like I said earlier in this thread, if he had just seen some people rummaging around through his house, he would have had every right to shoot them. It would be a perfectly acceptable claim. So why didn't he do it then? Why did he wait to round them all up and put them to their knees in an execution style? This whole thing goes far beyond right and wrong, like you said, but anybody can see that this was not self defense. Self defense went out the door the moment he had them to their knees. Or, if not, the moment he was beating them.

i completely agree. there is never any reason to kill somebody you have disarmed and suppressed. like i said, i just doubt some of the circumstances because the verdict does not match how i interpret the psychology of the average human being. so either im wrong about the human race or some facts have been shrouded. i like to believe the second.

[Tillius]

When both parties agreed with the facts, I think you have to just go ahead and start losing your faith in humanity.

[sLarkin20]

The castle doctrine gives homeowners the right to defend themselves, their property, and innocent (non-criminal) people inside of their home, but not to treat the intruders however they want or in whatever way it is they see fit.

For example, if you are a homeowner and someone breaks into your home while you are there, that doesn't give you the right to tie them up and torture and rape them then kill them.

[FallingSnow]

He who commits a transgression against his neighbour deserves whatever the result may be. Those who do no wrong should have no fear of reprecussion. The aggressor can never be accurately portrayed as the victim.

[sLarkin20]

I'm not saying I think the intruders should be called the victims or anything, and I think you kind of get what you deserve if you break into someones home, but personal opinions don't change the law.

[FallingSnow]

I know; the law is as it is. I just personally think my statements hold true.

[Reaganista]

All interesting stuff, but let's look at it more closely.

A person is justified in using deadly force ... to prevent ... a robbery.

A person is justified using deadly force ... to prevent the other's imminient commission of ... a robbery.

Well, the way I see it the robbery was already over. The boys were already restrained. He had no need to shoot them. The law certainly doesn't say 'the moment someone comes on to your land you have an inalienable right to shoot them until they leave'.
i only glanced at the story but i dont think any robbery actually took place this was petty theft
I dunno how jury nullification works in the US, but it's pretty stupid if it allows them to issue perverse verdicts.

they can issue a not guilty verdict for whatever reason they want basically



Seems totally inconsistent with the facts.
the jury determines which facts are true and which are false

[Smokey D]

i only glanced at the story but i dont think any robbery actually took place this was petty theft

Burglary whatever. The point being the crime the law was designed to prevent from being committed was already prevented.


they can issue a not guilty verdict for whatever reason they want basically


That's a function of their power to convict or acquit. But I wouldn't go as far to say it's a right. The law is the law, and should be enforced. If anything, jury nullification is an argument against the concept of jury trials.


the jury determines which facts are true and which are false

Again, the fact that it was conceded by both parties is what I'm basing any argument on.

I'm not saying the jury wasn't entitled to give that verdict. I'm saying that on the law the verdict is wrong.

He who commits a transgression against his neighbour deserves whatever the result may be. Those who do no wrong should have no fear of reprecussion. The aggressor can never be accurately portrayed as the victim.

No, that's retarded.

yeah but see, the point im trying to make is that this situation is knee deep in murky water at best - or at least it seems that way from where i sit. do i feel empathy for the kids who unlawfully broke into the guy's house? no, i do not. i do, however, see a messy legal and ethical situation.

It's not murky at all.

If it is true that both parties conceded the burglary/robbery/whatever it was was over, and the offenders effectively restrained then killing one of them is unlawful.

there isn't enough convincing evidence to convince me this man belongs in prison for execution. although it seems like it was? how can i be sure. i can't. that my friend is called reasonable doubt, and i will never convict somebody when under the pressure of reasonable doubt.

You're confusing proving beyond reasonable doubt with proving beyond the shadow of a doubt.

And again, the fact that both parties conceded the facts dispels your objection.

[McP3000]

yeah i mean what i posted is law

so im pretty confused why the jury reached this verdict. Its not like the person shot was a mid twenties thug, it was a minor.

There must be other things that we dont know about affecting the ruling.

[JohnXDoe]

i enjoy a good snack now and again :)

[Tillius]

Are you willing to die for it kind sir?

[JohnXDoe]

idk does it have cream filling?

[Tillius]

Depends what are you stealing?

[McP3000]

id risk death for a ho ho when im high

[Tillius]

Snacks don't cut it for me when I'm high. I have to go all out at Chili's or something. Occasionally Taco Bell.

[kattunlover69]

ok guys, if they were on their knees then the 13 year old musta tried to get up to assault the man ( he would have to gain his posture first and plus the gunman musta been behind the kid) then the man musta let one off, he felt threaten because if that kid woulda reached for his gun then the other 2 woulda helped, and from what both sides said, the guy had been kicking em and beating em old style, so if his gun woulda got tooken, he woulda prob got SERIOUSLY injured or killed (face it, it was a dam trailer park home, you really think the police would take this seriously?)

i am with the old man on this, if that kid woulda forced something, and the other two helped, it might be the flipside of this story

and yes i do believe the child attempted to assault him, he prob had experience in breaking into other peeps homes and have a history of violence because obviously his mother didnt teach him any better

[Smokey D]

It really doesn't follow from what we know about the facts that the boy was in any position to cause a reasonable belief in imminent peril in the defendant.

[McP3000]

Snacks don't cut it for me when I'm high. I have to go all out at Chili's or something. Occasionally Taco Bell.
**** yes the chili queso is so good

i go through like 3 of those baskets of chips by myself eating up all that queso

[Reaganista]

Burglary whatever. The point being the crime the law was designed to prevent from being committed was already prevented.

burglary requires intent to commit a felony they were trying to steal snacks maybe in nazi texas all b+e is burglary but that would be unusual
That's a function of their power to convict or acquit. But I wouldn't go as far to say it's a right. The law is the law, and should be enforced. If anything, jury nullification is an argument against the concept of jury trials.

that would make sense if they could also convict for any reason

Again, the fact that it was conceded by both parties is what I'm basing any argument on.

I'm not saying the jury wasn't entitled to give that verdict. I'm saying that on the law the verdict is wrong.
he conceded that the kid was on his knees at some point he didn't concede that he didn't act in self defense

[FallingSnow]

No, that's retarded.



No, I believe it to be common sense.

[BridgeToSolace]

No, I believe it to be common sense.

No, it's pretty retarded.

[Reaganista]

well if somebody is just trying to steal snacks and you pull a gun on them and take them prisoner youve become the aggressor

[FallingSnow]

You have the moral right to respond to the aggressor; that doesn't make you the aggressor. The aggressor in this situation, by definition, is the one who initiated the situation.

[Reaganista]

no when you elevate a situation from stealing snacks into a life or death standoff youve created a completely different situation through your aggression

[FallingSnow]

...in response to the initial transgression though.

[Reaganista]

if he didnt respond the situation would be someone stole snacks

because he did respond the situation is somebody got killed

he only has a right to respon if his response isnt going to escalate the situation

[BridgeToSolace]

...in response to the initial transgression though.

So if I punch a guy in the face and he shoots me, I'm not a victim?

[sLarkin20]

Depends on if you punched a guy in the face in his home :]

[Jaymz Hetfield]

If you're dumb enough to bust into some dudes house and take his snacks(and likely more if Mr. Jerkwad didn't show up)....then don't be surprised when you have to pay the consequences. The consequence of death execution-style shouldn't be legal, but honestly that kind of crap needs to happen sometimes to keep dumbasses in line. Executing the kid was probably unnecessary and from the article.....just seems pretty derranged and screwed up...but if this guy is a real threat to society then he'll do something else and get what he deserves. Until then I guarantee you nobody is gonna touch his snacks.

[McP3000]

If you're dumb enough to bust into some dudes house and take his snacks(and likely more if Mr. Jerkwad didn't show up)....then don't be surprised when you have to pay the consequences. The consequence of death execution-style shouldn't be legal, but honestly that kind of crap needs to happen sometimes to keep dumbasses in line. Executing the kid was probably unnecessary and from the article.....just seems pretty derranged and screwed up...but if this guy is a real threat to society then he'll do something else and get what he deserves. Until then I guarantee you nobody is gonna touch his snacks.
the 63 year old man will never lose another dorito!

[FallingSnow]

So if I punch a guy in the face and he shoots me, I'm not a victim?

Hell no, on so many levels.

Morality cannot dictate the means of self defense, only that you can excercise your right to it.

[Reaganista]

of course morality can dictate the reasonableness of self defense
for example in "defending yourself" you cant escalate the situation by your own aggression

[Mr. Ron]

oh christ the lulz

[Smokey D]

burglary requires intent to commit a felony they were trying to steal snacks maybe in nazi texas all b+e is burglary but that would be unusual

In NZ, burglary is merely entering a building with the intent to any crime

that would make sense if they could also convict for any reason

he conceded that the kid was on his knees at some point he didn't concede that he didn't act in self defense

It's pretty hard to see how you can be acting in self defence by shooting someone in the back when they're on their knees.


No, I believe it to be common sense.

It's common sense to say that the moment someone comes into your property illegally you can do whatever you want to them no matter what is actually happening ?

You have the moral right to respond to the aggressor; that doesn't make you the aggressor. The aggressor in this situation, by definition, is the one who initiated the situation.

Yes you do. But you don't have the unrestricted right to do whatever you want to them or the right to use deadly force when it is no longer required.

[ThePalaceOfWisdom]

You have the moral right to respond to the aggressor; that doesn't make you the aggressor. The aggressor in this situation, by definition, is the one who initiated the situation.

You weren't by chance on this jury?

All I know is that from what I've gathered Texan law is ****ed. In almost every other country the law on home invasion states that the occupant can only use equal force to remove them. i.e. Someone breaks in and they have a knife, you can use a knife. Seems stupid, if both parties agreed that the kids were on their knees then he should've been charged with manslaughter at least.

:smash:

[Der Übermensch]

Not equal force. Proportional force. A knife can be countered with a gun as both are a deadly weapon. And besides that, when someone breaks into my house, I'm not going to yell over to him "What are you armed with?" so I can then arm appropriately... I'm grabbing my shotgun and gonna try to get the jump on him.

[ThePalaceOfWisdom]

Are you Australian? If so then my bad, but from what I remember about a case study last year, a man in Australia was arrested for shooting an intruder who only had a baseball bat. He wasn't convicted though.

[Reaganista]

In NZ, burglary is merely entering a building with the intent to any crime

N(a)Z(i)

that would make sense if they could also convict for any reason

hmm


It's pretty hard to see how you can be acting in self defence by shooting someone in the back when they're on their knees.
i thought his story was the kid got up and lunged at him

[FallingSnow]

Not equal force. Proportional force. A knife can be countered with a gun as both are a deadly weapon. And besides that, when someone breaks into my house, I'm not going to yell over to him "What are you armed with?" so I can then arm appropriately... I'm grabbing my shotgun and gonna try to get the jump on him.

I'm not going to spend time even debating with him over whether he is armed or not, period.

Break into my house, you will have a .45 in your face. One wrong move, you're a dead man.


Don't break into my house, and you don't have anything to worry about. Why is this such a hard concept for people to wrap their heads around?

[Tillius]

i thought his story was the kid got up and lunged at him

That was his story but the kid was shot in the back so this doesn't make much sense.

[P13]

backflip

[Reaganista]

That was his story but the kid was shot in the back so this doesn't make much sense.
doesn't matter as far as the judge's authority to decide the case as a matter of law goes which is wat i was talking about

[ThePalaceOfWisdom]

Why is this such a hard concept for people to wrap their heads around?

Because in many countries outside of your's this specific case wouldn't have turned out this way, the laws are different and frankly some of the laws in America are down right retarded. The fact that a man who executed someone is allowed to walk away without any repercussions is really f*cked up.

[Iscariot]

Break into my house, you will have a .45 in your face. One wrong move, you're a dead man.

Don't break into my house, and you don't have anything to worry about.

yes

is it really morally just that the old guy shot the kid in the back? no

considering the kid was an intruder on his property though, was it really that out of line? i say no

i keep a shotgun and shells nearby my bed at night because if anyone intends to break into my house and i see anything resembling a weapon the police are going to be cleaning him off of my walls by the time they show up

people who aren't breaking and entering in the middle of the night don't need to worry about me shooting them though

[Amit]

executing people on their knees is always out of line no matter what horrible injustice they committed against you

even the massive travesty of trying to steal your twinkies

didn't you see the movie se7en??????

and stop reducing complex social phenomena down to hurr good guys vs. hurr bad guys hurrrr

[Iscariot]

lol complex social phenomena

life is a lot less complicated than you make it out to be ahmeat

a lot of things are just black and white

[Amit]

yeah like crime or even simpler, islamic fundamentalist terrorists :rolleyes:

kill all the bad guys ded and then they're gone forever and we win lol!

[Iscariot]

exactly

[Amit]

this is the serious discussion forum not the serious trolling forum!

[Reductio]

Hell no, on so many levels.

Morality cannot dictate the means of self defense, only that you can excercise your right to it.

No that's completely wrong.

is it really morally just that the old guy shot the kid in the back? no

considering the kid was an intruder on his property though, was it really that out of line? i say no

I disagree. If the old guy honestly believed he was in serious danger (which I doubt) then his shooting the kid was at least an understandable act of self-defense. But imagine that he ignored the kids and just let them take whatever they wanted to take: he probably would have been minus a few twinkies (oh no!) and the kid would still have his life. When you look at it from that perspective, his actions were absolutely out of line.

If this were a typical example, or even in the same ballpark as a typical example, then having the right to kill anyone who trespasses on your property would result in substantially more killings than not having that right. And for what? The security of some material goods? I think this particular law is utterly ridiculous.

[Der Übermensch]

But imagine that he ignored the kids and just let them take whatever they wanted to take: he probably would have been minus a few twinkies (oh no!) and the kid would still have his life. When you look at it from that perspective, his actions were absolutely out of line.
Except you are making an a posteriori proposition here.
"take whatever they wanted to take" That is justification for self-defense.

"he probably would have been minus a few twinkies" This is something that happened after the fact and we only know because that is in fact what they decided to take.
"When you look at it from that perspective, his actions were absolutely out of line." a priori, his actions were potentially in line. The issue at hand isn't that he shot an intruder in his house whose obvious intent was to commit illegal acts. The issue is that he shot him after apprehending, restraining and probably ascertaining the extent of the robbery. If he had shot the kid immediately, I would support his case fully... the kid was stupid and got what was coming to him because of it. As it is though, the man did not engage in self defense but seems quite probably committed cold blooded murder.

[Iscariot]

But imagine that he ignored the kids and just let them take whatever they wanted to take

hold on my head just exploded

that sort of action would be completely illogical seeing as those kids were trespassing not just on his property but inside of his home

what's the point of having laws against burglary if you'd advise that we just let people take whatever they want to avoid potential confrontation

[Reductio]

Except you are making an a posteriori proposition here.

Obviously, but that's the entire point. I'm not saying the man should have ignored the intruders because, as you correctly note, he could not have possessed knowledge of their actions a priori.

"take whatever they wanted to take" That is justification for self-defense.

"Self-defense" to the extent that they are incapacited, maybe.

"he probably would have been minus a few twinkies" This is something that happened after the fact and we only know because that is in fact what they decided to take.

Once again I know this and I am not suggesting that the man could have known what they would have taken.

"When you look at it from that perspective, his actions were absolutely out of line." a priori, his actions were potentially in line.

Potentially in line? If he killed the kid outright, that would have been out of line (in my opinion, but apparently not according to Texas law). Having restrained the kids and then killing one of them was also out of line, unless as I said he felt he was in serious danger.

The issue at hand isn't that he shot an intruder in his house whose obvious intent was to commit illegal acts. The issue is that he shot him after apprehending, restraining and probably ascertaining the extent of the robbery. If he had shot the kid immediately, I would support his case fully... the kid was stupid and got what was coming to him because of it. As it is though, the man did not engage in self defense but seems quite probably committed cold blooded murder.

(Assuming this is still directed at me): I know what the issue at hand is; I addressed it. I was just making a point. I agree with your last sentence there, but I don't believe the man was justified in using lethal force in either case, unless he believed himself to be in significant danger.

what's the point of having laws against burglary if you'd advise that we just let people take whatever they want to avoid potential confrontation

I never advised it. It was a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point, hence "imagine".

[Iscariot]

it was a pretty bad illustration

[Reductio]

Not really. :confused:

Replace "a few twinkies" with "some material goods" if you wish to account for the fact that the man didn't know what they would take, but that's missing the point. Unless you have a legitimate reason to believe that your life is in danger, using lethal force on an intruder can't really be justified at all.

I do agree that it would be stupid to not attempt to subdue an intruder, in the right circumstances. I never said you shouldn't.

[Iscariot]

tbh he should have shot two of them and then blindfolded the third and tossed him out the door and told him to run and all the while the kid was trying to feel his way off the property the old guy could have been blasting rounds into the air

that would have been awesome

[RG560M]

Living in a bad neighborhood in the south, and being a very liberal person, I still think he had the right.

Noone should steal from or harm another human being.

I say sue the parents of the kids for not keeping tabs on their little bastards. Who lets their kids roam the streets till 4 AM?

[Reductio]

tbh he should have shot two of them and then blindfolded the third and tossed him out the door and told him to run and all the while the kid was trying to feel his way off the property the old guy could have been blasting rounds into the air

that would have been awesome

:lol:

Living in a bad neighborhood in the south, and being a very liberal person, I still think he had the right.

Because YOU live in a bad neighborhood, he had the right to kill? Give me a break. Can you maybe explain why he had the right?

Noone should steal from or harm another human being.

Agreed! And yet, the old geezer DID harm another human being. Whoops.

I say sue the parents of the kids for not keeping tabs on their little bastards. Who lets their kids roam the streets till 4 AM?

Hopefully a joke

[Dave de Sylvia]

tbh he should have shot two of them and then blindfolded the third and tossed him out the door and told him to run and all the while the kid was trying to feel his way off the property the old guy could have been blasting rounds into the air

that would have been awesome
Would have been better if someone was filming it.

Overall I give this scene 3/5.

[Reaganista]

even if they were going to take literally everything he owned that gives him no right to shoot them it all comes down to whether the kid actually tried to lunge at him or not

[beso negro]

what i don't have the right to shoot someone if they break into my house and start stealing stuff?

[Reaganista]

no of course not wtf

[interviewer02]

Even if it can be accepted that in some circumstances that deadly force might be necessary, it cannot be justified to shoot someone who has effectively surrendered and is on their knees. What an atrocious verdict.

Its a tough call. If the kid was lunging at him, he had a right to shoot him.

If the kid surrendered, then you're right.

[hismajestythepope]

Its a tough call. If the kid was lunging at him, he had a right to shoot him.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA no.
he wasnt some imposing teenage brute, he was 13 you ****ing idiot

[Jaymz Hetfield]

I'm curious to know what this guy SHOULD have done? I mean clearly he shouldn't have lined the kids up execution-style and capped one....but some of you guys sound like he should have just yelled at the kids and ran them off the porch with a broom.

[McP3000]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA no.
he wasnt some imposing teenage brute, he was 13 you ****ing idiot
yeah but the law doesnt really see age as a factor in this case so its irrelevant

[Reaganista]

he had a legal right in theory if the kid of lunging but really he had no actual right being lunged at by a 13 yr old who needs to steal food isnt really a life or death situation

[marcus_in_absentia]

wow. seriously, wow

[Der Übermensch]

Potentially in line? If he killed the kid outright, that would have been out of line (in my opinion, but apparently not according to Texas law). Having restrained the kids and then killing one of them was also out of line, unless as I said he felt he was in serious danger.
(Assuming this is still directed at me): I know what the issue at hand is; I addressed it. I was just making a point. I agree with your last sentence there, but I don't believe the man was justified in using lethal force in either case, unless he believed himself to be in significant danger.

I'm putting this simply. When someone breaks into my house, I am going to jump him. I am going to leave the light off, come up behind him, tell him to freeze, and if he even flinches, he's getting both barrels.

Sure, I'd like to know for certain if he is armed or not, but it isn't a chance I'm willing to take if ascertaining that fact would give him even a moments notice to my presence. Until proven otherwise, I am going to assume that the intruder is armed and willing to use force, and I will treat him appropriately, and any sane person would do so as well. He is criminal, so I see no reason why I should err on the side of caution towards his safety as opposed to my own.

[Reaganista]

you dont know that he's a criminal that's a ridiculous assumption and you deserve whatever sentence you get if you ever have occaision to murder an innocent person in such a fashion

[Der Übermensch]

He is legally a criminal if he is trespassing in my house... you're a law student, aren't you supposed to know this ****?

[Reaganista]

there's no such thing as "legally a criminal" the term you're searching for is "suspect" and there's no right to kill someone on suspicion of a misdemeanor

[Der Übermensch]

He is engaged in what is legally defined as a crime, that is he fits the legal definition of a criminal.

'Castle Doctrine' a hold over from the English Common law system, is in place in a number of states, including Maine. It explicitly states that I, as a person with legal control of the premises, have the right to use deadly force on someone within those premises who I have reasonable suspicion of to be engaging in further criminal activity (burglary being the most logical assumption).
So yes, I have the right to kill someone on suspicion of a misdemeanor as long as it is being committed inside my house.

[Reaganista]

no that's erroneous and idiotic for a variety of reasons
first the castle doctrine says you dont have an obligation to retreat from someone attempting to kill you in your house it doesnt give you carte blanche to kill anyone who happens to be there second you only have reason to suspect someone of breaking and entering based on prescense in your house third you never have the right to kill someone for any misdemeanor or to threaten deadly force for a misdemeanor if you do you are acting as the aggressor in turning a nearly harmless situation into a deadly one

[Der Übermensch]

"3. A person in possession or control of a dwelling place or a person who is licensed or privileged to be therein is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
[When the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person, who the person reasonably believes:
(1) Has entered or is attempting to enter the dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within the dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and
(2) Is committing or is likely to commit some other crime within the dwelling place."
Or in simple English, if I own the place and someone who has a chance of being armed commits a trespass, and I believe him likely to be committing a further crime while doing so, I can have reasonable ground to shoot him. I do not need to ascertain whether he is armed or not, but merely not know that he isn't.