Texas homeowner acquitted of shooting 13 year old.

[Zoogster]

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

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

What is moraly right and wrong can be different than what is legaly permited.
In Texas there is a huge amount of discretion to use lethal force over things no other state allows, and then some other areas that overlap with other states.
Many people use that discretion responsibly, but that is thier discretion.

So let us get one thing perfectly clear here, the man would not have been 'murdering' anyone even if he had charged in and killed them all.
Murder is defined by statute, and even running in and killing all three 'children' was legal under multiple Texas statutes if he had chosen that option.
Lethal force to simply protect property is legal in Texas in such a circumstance not just human life.


Also for those going the opposite way saying it was absolutely justified and they would have done the same in all states, this decision story is missing a key fact:
The home owner was not home at the time of the break in, he was in another nearby building. He grabbed a shotgun, and ran to the building that had been broken into, a building nobody else was located in or in any danger within. So he ran to the situation and put himself in it in defense of property. Perfectly within his rights in Texas.

They allege he beat them, for all we know that is not true, or he used force to gain compliance. A shotgun butt to the head or something similar. To a 'child' that would sure seem like a beating. It however would certainly be justified, and considering he could have used lethal force anyways...

So in the state of Texas the man decided to defend his property, grabbed a shotgun, and then headed into the danger and the building he was not in to put a stop to it. In the one and only state of Texas he could legaly have ran right in and used lethal force on all of them and it would have been legal and not murder even with no threat or danger posed to himself. So self defense justification would not even been necessary in that one and only state in this circumstance.

In all other states in the nation grabbing a weapon and running to a building nobody else is in any danger in, and using lethal force outside of self defense it would be murder. Not in Texas.
Further that is not what he did. He did eventualy use lethal force in self defense, a criteria that was not even necessary at the start.



So this is not some man that was defending the home he was in when intruders broke in. This is a man that grabbed a weapon and ran to defend property in another building, something perfectly within his rights in the state of Texas. Any person in most states has the right to stop such a crime (but a court might flay them alive for it later), but only in Texas is lethal force justified in such a situation, at night, in defense of only property and no lives. In most states if a person did that and then a shooting resulted they would be in a serious argument for thier life in court as to whether they ran there to shoot or self defense was later required. In some states with a duty to retreat they would already be guilty regardless of that argument. Texas is completely different, lethal force was already justified even if no threat was present, and even if the owner sought out the individuals before using such force. What would be murder in most other states was already legal in that situation.So even if it was not in self defense it could have been legal, but it WAS in self defense. So that is why it should have been no billed in Texas whether it was self defense or not, and the issue should not have even ended up in court under Texas law.


So people need to remember every state has different criteria for lethal force, and the only state that allows lethal force in defense of property in certain situations is Texas. So while what eventualy happened may have been justified in a number of states, many other options would have also been justified only in Texas.

So whether you or I agree or disagree with any part of Texas law, it is Texas law, and situations in Texas need to be viewed under context of Texas law.

So most states allow self defense to prevent serious injury or death. Some others require no retreat if possible, and allow defense of a dwelling with the presumption of self defense. Others allow it to stop certain felonies.
Only Texas allows someone to seek out and advance on a criminal to defend property with lethal force when no lives are in danger and certain criteria are met, or to even shoot fleeing criminals to stop them from getting away with property after they commited certain crimes. As discussed in the famous recent incident of Bill Horn (which is argued self defense, but was legal even if it was not.)

 

[BruceRDucer]

/

Many have stopped listening to 'popular progressive wisdom' and are demanding meaningful and effective law enforcement instead of the illogical and often foolish attitudes that have been in effect long before I was born.

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

There's a nice bit of an eloquent statement.

Some "pendulum" seems to have swung for sure, because the insanity of some unwritten rule that suggests that people are required to be helpless, and incapable of meaningful action, has resulted in a disgusting kind of paralysis, that has sapped the very life from the people of our nation.

It seems sensible to me that the American citizen ought to at least have rights equal to that of lawbreakers, and have equal rights regarding the possession of property, and equal arms with which to fight for possession of home and property.

It also seems contradictory for someone to argue against this, unless they are also willing to yield up all defense of their home and property, to operate with a consistent logic.

The law of nature might suggest, that if you break the law, you just might get broke.

/

 

[abrink]

Everyone understands what a gun is. (Unless you're some sort of isolated native or live in a "Utopian Society")

In my Utopian society everyone would not only know what a gun is but also be armed to the teeth!

 

[TAB]

rather or not what he did was legal, it is truly sad that a 13 yo lost thier life. Even if the 13 yo was in the wrong, its still sad that thier parents didn't raise them to respect others.

 

[Defensory]

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

Last time I checked, he's INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

I know he was found INNOCENT by a legally constituted jury.

He managed to convince a jury of 12 of his peers, plus his liberal Democrat defense attorney, of the truth of his story. Good enough for me.

And you have ZERO evidence that the jury's reasoning for finding him guilty was based on "community intolerance of crime". SHEER SPECULATION on your part.

Sorry, but your HUNCH doesn't provide ANY evidence against the acquitted.

Innocent on all charges. Justice has been served.

 

[proud2deviate]

So, what do y'all think the repercussions (if any,) of this will be for RKBA, in Texas specifically and the USA in general?


(Do we need a new thread for that)

 

[Zoogster]

So, what do y'all think the repercussions (if any,) of this will be for RKBA, in Texas specifically and the USA in general?

None at all. It was argued and defended under self defense and did not even use the statutes that allow lethal force in defense of property.
Self defense that is deemed self defense to avoid bodily harm or death is not controversal at all.

 

[Jeff White]

Zoogster said;

In the one and only state of Texas he could legally have ran right in and used lethal force on all of them and it would have been legal and not murder even with no threat or danger posed to himself.

Texas is not the only state that permits you to use lethal force to defend property, I posted Illinois use of force statutes earlier:

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

What's a forcible felony in Illinois?

(720 ILCS 5/2‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑8)
Sec. 2‑8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(Source: P.A. 88‑277; 89‑428, eff. 12‑13‑95; 89‑462, eff. 5‑29‑96.)

What is burglary?

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=47600000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 19 heading)
ARTICLE 19. BURGLARY

(720 ILCS 5/19‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 19‑1)
Sec. 19‑1. Burglary.
(a) A person commits burglary when without authority he knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle as defined in the Illinois Vehicle Code, railroad car, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense shall not include the offenses set out in Section 4‑102 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
(b) Sentence.
Burglary is a Class 2 felony. A burglary committed in a school or place of worship is a Class 1 felony.
(Source: P.A. 91‑360, eff. 7‑29‑99; 91‑928, eff. 6‑1‑01.)

What is residential burglary?

(720 ILCS 5/19‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 19‑3)
Sec. 19‑3. Residential burglary.
(a) A person commits residential burglary who knowingly and without authority enters or knowingly and without authority remains within the dwelling place of another, or any part thereof, with the intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense includes the offense of burglary as defined in Section 19‑1.
(b) Sentence. Residential burglary is a Class 1 felony.
(Source: P.A. 91‑928, eff. 6‑1‑01.)

The boys, by their own admission enter Gonzales' residence to commit a theft (snacks). Kind of falls under the definition of residential burglary - a forcible felony under Illinois law. (720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3 Use of force in defense of other property states that; "he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Texas is not the only state that lets you use lethal force to defend your property. He could have shot them all in Illinois to prevent the commission of the forcible felony, residential burglary. I can't remember ever reading of or hearing of a case in Illinois where a burglar was shot by the property owner and the property owner was prosecuted. In fact I can think of several cases off the top of my head where a burglar was shot by the property owner in the anti-gun Northeast corner of the state where the property owner didn't have the legal right to own the gun the burglar was shot with, where no charges were filed. I can think of a couple cases down here where the property owner didn't have a FOID card and there was no prosecution.

The difference and it's a big one, is that Gonzales didn't use lethal force to stop the crime. He took the kids into custody and then used lethal force on one of them. A whole new set of circumstances comes into play when that happens. He's already stopped the commission of the felony. Now the standard for the use of lethal force becomes one of self defense.

http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2008/09/26/news/doc48dc8b71cdef9527878788.txt

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

"If Mr. Gonzalez (had) walked through the front door and killed everyone in that room, I would not have had such a problem," Holdridge stated.

Texas law on using force to protect property doesn't play out here at all. He had already protected his property when he stopped the boys and held them at gunpoint. The issue is self defense. Gonzales had to claim self defense as he had already stopped the burglary and defended his property.

Jeff

 

[plexreticle]

The kids made a series of bad choices leading to one of them being killed. If it was 4 adults and one was shot I doubt it would have made it to trial.

 

[Zoogster]

Interesting citation of law there Jeff, I have not however seen actual stories of IL prosecutors or juries allowing defense of property, especialy on a regular basis. Defense of an occupied home by someone inside is quite different than defense of property in general.

IL law also gives a lot less discretion and applies a "reasonably believes that such force is necessary" clause. That means the Jury and/or prosecutor can still determine whether or not a reasonable person should have reasonably believed the lethal force was necessary to prevent the forcible felony.
Texas law is much clearer. The lethal force is legal if certain criteria are met, and the precedent of many cases on a regular basis exists to support it.

It is a minor semantic, but in actual application makes a world of difference.

The difference and it's a big one, is that Gonzales didn't use lethal force to stop the crime. He took the kids into custody and then used lethal force on one of them. A whole new set of circumstances comes into play when that happens. He's already stopped the commission of the felony. Now the standard for the use of lethal force becomes one of self defense.

I agree with you here, except to remind you that even if the boy had taken off running out the door under Texas law he could have been shot in the back as he had property belonging to the owner in his pockets. If the owner felt he would get away with property and may not be caught he can use lethal force to prevent the criminal from escaping with the property. Clearly the law had things of more value in mind than a snack, but the snack still triggers the law. In IL that same action would be murder without a doubt.
In TX it would have been something very moraly wrong, but still technically legal.
Texas is very unique, and is the only state that allows defense of property with lethal force to the extent that it does, not just in statute, but in legal practice as well.
As mentioned the situation of Bill Horn would have still been legal if the self defense aspect was not involved. He ran out and shot two men in the back (though it is stated at least one ran towards before angling away.) One while he was running down the street.
That never made it to court, so on what grounds it was legal did not have to be argued and the self defense aspect fully evaluated.

 

[smartshooter.45]

Fine. Now learn English.

No Need to personally attack the man. it is his choice to learn english or not. imo if he lives in the US and does not speak english its HIS loss not ours.

 

[RP88]

just to point it out: the US does NOT have an official national language.

Also, what exactly happens if you corner a bunch of kids in your house with a gun and want to try and call the police? They are cornered. They know that they are in ALOT of legally and potentially life-threatening trouble. They may think that they can get that gun away from you and maybe use it against you (and steal it along with whatever else they came for). Age does not matter in that kind of situation. I'm sure we've all seen how big kids can be at age 17, and how out of shape a 63-year-old can be. Sounds like a bunch of kids got in too deep over their heads and had to learn the hard way. Sucks to be them. Hopefully they'll take it as an epiphal learning experience.

 

[COMPNOR]

I know he was found INNOCENT by a legally constituted jury.

He was found Not Guilty by a Jury, which does not automatically equate to innocence.


I'm also waiting for evidence that as you put it, the kids were hardened street thugs.

 

[SCKimberFan]

Whether or not they were 'hardened street thugs', they were criminals, caught in the commission of a crime.

 

[COMPNOR]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Compnor,

I'm also waiting for evidence that as you put it, the kids were hardened street thugs.

They either were or they were not, truthfully at this point it is irrelevant. Prior bad acts or lack of may be an interesting field study for socialogists and other fake sciences but in the case of the moment all that matters is the four were involved in the burglary of an occupied dwelling in a state where use of deadly force is not prohibited.

They may have been street harden thugs in their spare time, they may have been altar boys at Saint Chrispins. That is not presented because it IS NOT RELEVANT!

Selena

 

[TexasRifleman]

So, what do y'all think the repercussions (if any,) of this will be for RKBA, in Texas specifically and the USA in general?

Won't change anything. It barely even made the news around here......

 

[BruceRDucer]

He was found Not Guilty by a Jury, which does not automatically equate to innocence.--COMPNOR

COMPNOR:

If anyone examines your language and terms in the context of the law, it will be seen that your statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

It contradicts not only law, but philosophy and ordinary dictionary definition.

/

 

[Old Guy]

Age counts?

What difference does it make that he was 13 years of age?

The boys, by their own admission enter Gonzales' residence to commit a theft (snacks).

Their own admission? What kind of crap is that, they went to steal, and had articles from the home in their pockets. Four of them, a gang, out looking for things to steal, to sell. One thing they will remember, the roar of that shotgun, the stink of blood a S+++, possibly the dieing screams of their friend, were this about religion, I think they might just have got it!

 

[harmonic]

Quote:

He was found Not Guilty by a Jury, which does not automatically equate to innocence.--COMPNOR



COMPNOR:

If anyone examines your language and terms in the context of the law, it will be seen that your statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

It contradicts not only law, but philosophy and ordinary dictionary definition.

I think what he means is that, the accused might be found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, or not guilty because of insufficient evidence. Or, he might be found not guilty because he is truly innocent.

He can be found not guilty for several reasons, but it doesn't mean he's innocent of the charges.

 

[Limeyfellow]

They broke in and they learnt the price of doing so, but I still have a few problems with this case.

They were kneeling on the ground, held in custody and shot in the back at close range. How does one lunge from that position unless they are attacking with their arse first and they were stealing twinkies. I am not sure I would have shot in such a situation when everything is rather secure and you know that if you do fire you going to be made out as a guy who executed the kid for stealing snacks.

 

[BruceRDucer]

Quote:

He was found Not Guilty by a Jury, which does not automatically equate to innocence.--COMPNOR

Reply:

COMPNOR:

If anyone examines your language and terms in the context of the law, it will be seen that your statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

It contradicts not only law, but philosophy and ordinary dictionary definition.--BruceRDucer

Reply:

I think what he means is that, the accused might be found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, or not guilty because of insufficient evidence. Or, he might be found not guilty because he is truly innocent.

He can be found not guilty for several reasons, but it doesn't mean he's innocent of the charges.--Harmonic

Okay Harmonic, that's a possibility, but respectfully, ...(I am politely asking, just to be sure of my understanding of the legal definition and the general meaning of all the terms)...

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

In other words, what COMPNOR is arguing, in fact, is not the actual Law, but some vague personal ethical and philosophical value system, that is distinctly:

(1) non-legal...and therefore

(2) non-binding upon the Texas citizenry
nor Americans generally.

Isn't that the fact?

/

 

[lloydkristmas]

Was it vigilantism? I'm not prepared to say. Was it self defense? Again, I'm not prepared to say. Did the jury say it was self defense to send a message about crime in Laredo? Maybe, juries do things like that sometimes.

Well, we've got one dead criminal, and possibly a lot more who will think twice before committing "grown up" crimes. Doesnt really matter what the answer to that question is, seems like the problem worked itself out. Once again, its a win for the homeowners and a loss for the criminals. Thats all that counts, doesnt really matter how it went down. God bless Texas.

 

[TexasRifleman]

He can be found not guilty for several reasons, but it doesn't mean he's innocent of the charges.

In our system of justice however, it means exactly that. You can play word games all you want but in the end he was judged as having committed no crime and that is the end of it.

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

That is what happened here, end of story.

It's what happened to OJ Simpson too, end of story.

Now, the system also has a civil side. OJ was found responsible in civil court, we'll see if this case here goes to civil court. Two very different things "guilty" and "responsible".

 

[Werewolf]

how is it vigilantism???

Even if it was...

SO WHAT!

Nuevo Laredo (Mexico side) is practically a war zone (thanks to our misguided war on drugs) and I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that the violence there is spilling over into Laredo.

There comes a time in every community when the local cops can't or aren't protecting it. At that time it becomes incumbent upon the citizens of the community to perform the defense task themselves. Has Laredo reached that point? I don't know, but it is certainly possible.

If the guy who shot the burglar was practicing vigilantism and sending a message then maybe another 13 year old who's thinking about or is walking down that path will hear it and mend his/her evil ways. One can hope.

If not - then the same fate may be in their future and the gene pool will again get just a little cleaner.