Clipper
Member
Who crapped in your cornflakes, man? I was talking about those limp-wristed states that won't allow deadly force to protect property and such (like Mine)...Sheesh!
"Neighbors Defend Texan Accused of Murdering Teen Over Snacks" - from foxnews.com
- Thread starter thegriz
- Start date
- Status
Who crapped in your cornflakes, man? I was talking about those limp-wristed states that won't allow deadly force to protect property and such (like Mine)...Sheesh!
jordan1948
Member
I personally think the boys deserved to get the snot beat out of them but none of them deserved to get shot in the back. Another thing, how could you possibly lung at someone if they're behind you? You have to get up and turn around and in that case the medical examanar would have found a front entrance wound not one from the back. If someone breaks in your house while you're in it by all means open fire but if they're already there and you grab a gun go in and get them on they're knees then no. Just my $0.02
HKUSP45C
Member
Clipper said:
Sorry, I have edited my post to reflect my poor reading comprehesion skills.
BruceRDucer
Member
/
I think one has to tend to side with the home owner.
Because otherwise, we have to create an unreasonable, and finely parsed argument, that no DA would wish to impose upon himself.
I think one has to tend to side with the home owner.
Because otherwise, we have to create an unreasonable, and finely parsed argument, that no DA would wish to impose upon himself.
That is interesting to me, that TX law actually has a provision dealing with people recovering their stolen property, instead of dealing with property loss as a "just be thankful you weren't hurt" situation.
This is a really difficult incident, it does look heavily whitewashed by whoever wrote the story, and Francisco would be alive today if they hadn't broken into mr. Gonzalez' home and put him in a situation where he needed to stop burglary.
makarovnik
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,678
"Feared for his life" or just "fed up". Sounds like the the previous break ins really put him at the end of his rope and he'd had enough. Sounds a bit excessive but I would have to examine all the evidence like the angle of the shotgun pellets to determine if the boy was in compliance when he was shot. I wasn't there so I couldn't make a verdict.
I don't like people breaking in to my home but I'm not sure I like killing someone who is defenseless either. I'll be interested in the outcome.
I don't like people breaking in to my home but I'm not sure I like killing someone who is defenseless either. I'll be interested in the outcome.
bogie
Member
Scenario: You're standing in front of them, they yell "get him" and one of them dives forward, going for your knees. Blam, wound in the back...
You might be a [strike]gun[/strike] nut if... ...You think that a man is justified in shooting a 13 year old boy in the back after finding the boy in his house then beating him and holding him at gun point, then claiming the boy "lunged" at him (backwards I guess).
Seriously...what the hell is wrong with some people?
note: I didn't see the event, so I can only go by what is in the news article just like everyone else involved in this discussion.
Seriously...what the hell is wrong with some people?
note: I didn't see the event, so I can only go by what is in the news article just like everyone else involved in this discussion.
Last edited:
Sylvan-Forge
Member
This does not bode well for Gonzalez.
.
3KillerBs
Member
The article is so biased that its impossible to sift out what may or may not have actually happened.
The way the press always assumes that teenagers are incapable of doing real evil or presenting a real threat is completely ridiculous. Teens rob, beat-up, and even kill people daily.
A shot in the back looks shaky, but I'm not thoroughly familiar with Texas law.
One definite is that a pack of criminals, regardless of their age, broke into someone's home. Bottom line -- don't break into someone else's house and you won't risk running into someone who takes a draconian view of such things. IF it turns out that the homeowner was indeed violating the law with the shot it still must be borne in mind that the first crime was the break-in and that all would be well if the "kids" had behaved themselves.
The way the press always assumes that teenagers are incapable of doing real evil or presenting a real threat is completely ridiculous. Teens rob, beat-up, and even kill people daily.
A shot in the back looks shaky, but I'm not thoroughly familiar with Texas law.
One definite is that a pack of criminals, regardless of their age, broke into someone's home. Bottom line -- don't break into someone else's house and you won't risk running into someone who takes a draconian view of such things. IF it turns out that the homeowner was indeed violating the law with the shot it still must be borne in mind that the first crime was the break-in and that all would be well if the "kids" had behaved themselves.
KerrikWolf
Member
Here's an updated article on the case from the Laredo Morning Times: http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2008/09/26/news/doc48dc8b71cdef9527878788.txt
It presents more information that's come out during the trial. Personally, if I thought the little tyke had lunged at me, I'd have shot him too.
It's interesting that if he had all four of them on the floor and decided to kill one, the smart thing to do would have been to shoot them all. The fact that he didn't suggests to me that he felt a threat from the single teen that he didn't feel from the others, which means there might have actually been said threat.
It presents more information that's come out during the trial. Personally, if I thought the little tyke had lunged at me, I'd have shot him too.
It's interesting that if he had all four of them on the floor and decided to kill one, the smart thing to do would have been to shoot them all. The fact that he didn't suggests to me that he felt a threat from the single teen that he didn't feel from the others, which means there might have actually been said threat.
Last edited:
learn2shoot
Member
The devil is in the details and killing over a box of twinkies - legal or not - definately has it's own moral questions.
But I do notice that the one statement of "Gonzalez thought 13-year-old boy was lunging at him " is really far into the article.
But I do notice that the one statement of "Gonzalez thought 13-year-old boy was lunging at him " is really far into the article.
3KillerBs
Member
1. I'd like to know where homeowners get the psychic ability to determine what the criminal invaders want when they break into a home because it was not included with the paperwork when I bought either of my homes nor was it included in the rental agreement of any other place where I've lived.
2. Why is a crime not a crime if the thief asserts that he "only" wanted something small and of little value? Where can I apply for it to become moral, excusable, and unobjectionable for me to walk into someone else's house and rifle through their cupboards in search of small, low-value items that catch my fancy? I really NEED that "right" because my kids go through cereal, milk, and frozen vegetables at a frightening rate and I could drastically cut my grocery bill by taking such things from my neighbors if such thefts carry no risk and can be readily excused.
On a personal level I don't care a bit whether he beat them stupid, then executed one. I just wish he had done away with all 4 of them. Fine the man 300 bucks and let it go. Why the fine? 100 per scumbag he let off.
That said, he only kills one? He says he thought one was lunging for him, sounds believable simply because:
1) he only killed one of them (sadly)
2) they are scumbags, he was the homeowner.
That said, he only kills one? He says he thought one was lunging for him, sounds believable simply because:
1) he only killed one of them (sadly)
2) they are scumbags, he was the homeowner.
scrat
Member
a mans home is his sancturay. Any one that enters your home unannounced to do wrongfull things (crminal acts) deserves what they get.
bogie
Member
Guys... Y'all are so busy jumping to conclusions, so let's jump at something else...
You've got 8-10' between you and three teenagers. Now, teenagers can be some pretty big critters...
They're on their knees, and you're going for the phone. One makes his move, and he's coming low, lunging for your knees and ankles. You're going to go down. The other two are also starting to react.
You drop the barrels down, and blow a hole in his back. You then make his buddies carry him outside for the ambulance.
I can EASILY see that...
You've got 8-10' between you and three teenagers. Now, teenagers can be some pretty big critters...
They're on their knees, and you're going for the phone. One makes his move, and he's coming low, lunging for your knees and ankles. You're going to go down. The other two are also starting to react.
You drop the barrels down, and blow a hole in his back. You then make his buddies carry him outside for the ambulance.
I can EASILY see that...
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Different angle on it in the local Laredo, TX newspaper. Amazing what you see when you remove the Associated Press stench from the news.....
From the gun angle, it was a Saiga semi shotgun, not a 16ga as AP reports.
Interesting statement from the Texas Ranger investigating:
Another interesting thing, something to think about for sure.
http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2008/09/26/news/doc48dc8b71cdef9527878788.txt
From the gun angle, it was a Saiga semi shotgun, not a 16ga as AP reports.
Interesting statement from the Texas Ranger investigating:
Another interesting thing, something to think about for sure.
http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2008/09/26/news/doc48dc8b71cdef9527878788.txt
While I think many of us would agree shooting someone not posing a danger and cooperating is wrong if that was the case, any decision on this matter could have set a severe precedent against the right to use force in Texas.
So I am against that prosecution. Texas is a dangerous place to break into homes, whether for snacks or worse intentions.
It also happened at night.
If it is decided he is guilty it could call into question the justification of many future self defense shootings in the state.
If he is innocent Texans can be secure in knowing lethal force is a valid option whenever an intruder or multiple intruders are present. They won't have to worry about what a jury not present will think months later. They won't have to hesitate past the point that they are placed in unnecessary danger to be certain they will not be prosecuted.
Texas is also the only state in the nation that one can defend property with lethal force. 'Criminal mischief at night' can also be met with lethal force.
So there is multiple criteria here that justifies his actions legaly even if we do not agree with his actions.
Personaly I also think it could lead to a shoot first ask questions later mentality for a large portion of the population if he is found guilty.
It says:
Hold people at gunpoint, and later shoot them and your actions are likely to result in prosecution and be heavily scrutinized. While shooting them initialy under the statutes of criminal mischief at night, robbery/burglary or self defense would not result in that prosecution.
The truth is he could have gone in and shot all three of them immediately and not faced prosecution. Because he detained them at gunpoint before a shooting he is being more heavily scrutinized.
So criminals that could be detained and taken into custody at gunpoint at the discretion of the homeowner will simply be killed on sight instead if this precedent is set.
The man should be no billed in the state of Texas.
Texas is not the other 49 states, it is a state where lethal force is legal in defense of property or just because it is dark outside.
So I am against that prosecution. Texas is a dangerous place to break into homes, whether for snacks or worse intentions.
It also happened at night.
If it is decided he is guilty it could call into question the justification of many future self defense shootings in the state.
If he is innocent Texans can be secure in knowing lethal force is a valid option whenever an intruder or multiple intruders are present. They won't have to worry about what a jury not present will think months later. They won't have to hesitate past the point that they are placed in unnecessary danger to be certain they will not be prosecuted.
Texas is also the only state in the nation that one can defend property with lethal force. 'Criminal mischief at night' can also be met with lethal force.
So there is multiple criteria here that justifies his actions legaly even if we do not agree with his actions.
Personaly I also think it could lead to a shoot first ask questions later mentality for a large portion of the population if he is found guilty.
It says:
Hold people at gunpoint, and later shoot them and your actions are likely to result in prosecution and be heavily scrutinized. While shooting them initialy under the statutes of criminal mischief at night, robbery/burglary or self defense would not result in that prosecution.
The truth is he could have gone in and shot all three of them immediately and not faced prosecution. Because he detained them at gunpoint before a shooting he is being more heavily scrutinized.
So criminals that could be detained and taken into custody at gunpoint at the discretion of the homeowner will simply be killed on sight instead if this precedent is set.
The man should be no billed in the state of Texas.
Texas is not the other 49 states, it is a state where lethal force is legal in defense of property or just because it is dark outside.
I was the jury foreman on two criminal trials. Believe me, the evidence and the judge's instructions presented at trial differ markedly from what the press reports.
We discussed this article on two pages (so far) here on this Forum. And that kind of attention is exactly what the press wants. The news media are a business, not a public service. The more we discuss and debate their articles, the greater their ability to sell advertising and make money.
If the headline had been "One Burglar Dies in Home Invasion" we wouldn't have started a thread on it. It just wouldn't be interesting enough. The goal of the media editor is not to educate, but to sensationalize, spectacularize, exaggerate, and inflame in order to excite advertising sales.
I wonder what charges the teens faced? The articles say nothing about that, not being interested in facts.
We discussed this article on two pages (so far) here on this Forum. And that kind of attention is exactly what the press wants. The news media are a business, not a public service. The more we discuss and debate their articles, the greater their ability to sell advertising and make money.
If the headline had been "One Burglar Dies in Home Invasion" we wouldn't have started a thread on it. It just wouldn't be interesting enough. The goal of the media editor is not to educate, but to sensationalize, spectacularize, exaggerate, and inflame in order to excite advertising sales.
I wonder what charges the teens faced? The articles say nothing about that, not being interested in facts.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
