• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

Tricky

Briefly immortal
Tricky
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
43,750
Location
The Group W Bench
In Laredo, a man has shot and killed an intruder and winds up indicted for murder.
Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, was indicted Friday in the July killing of a teenager who sneaked into his home with three friends to steal drinks and snacks. Francisco Anguiano was shot in the back and later died at a Laredo hospital.
Gonzalez was indicted by a grand jury for first-degree murder.
Click to expand...

What is wrong in America today when a man who is defending his right to drinks and snacks faces prison time for shooting thirteen-year-old criminals in the back as they were running away? I just thank God that our country recognizes the importance of keeping guns handy so that we can bring these snack-stealing burglers to justice before they have a chance to grow up into a life of crime.
 
As far as I know, the death penalty is not the correct punishment for break and entry. The child was running away so self defense is not an issue here. He should not have even been pointing the gun at the child. If the gun was faulty and owned by the shooter then having a faulty gun is no excuse.

I think he should be facing a murder charge.
 
rjh01 said:
As far as I know, the death penalty is not the correct punishment for break and entry. The child was running away so self defense is not an issue here. He should not have even been pointing the gun at the child. If the gun was faulty and owned by the shooter then having a faulty gun is no excuse.
Click to expand...
[Devil's Advocate]There's nothing in that story indicating that the boy was running away. If I rush at you, then see you have a gun and turn as you're deciding to fire, you can shoot me in the back. Likewise if I'm going for a weapon like a knife in the kitchen. The homeowner claims to have been struggling with the intruders.[/DA] However, the fact that a first degree murder charge was filed means the prosecutor must be pretty confident that the shooter was totally in the wrong.
 
If the child turned away just before being shot then the shooter had enough time not to shoot. Of course the child could be walking backwards.

Both things I think are unlikely.
 
Mobyseven said:
Given the facts as presented, I hope the bugger goes to jail for a fair bit.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Doubtless someone will be along to tell us that shooting someone running away is a right that's enshrined in the US constitution and how we pesky and largely gun free Europeans/Canadians aren't really "free".



5......4......3.......2.......1..........
 
Last edited:
I would have thought that the distance the person was shot from would be a good guide to whether it was a deliberate shooting in the back when they were fleeing or an accidental shot to the back during a struggle.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
In Laredo, a man has shot and killed an intruder and winds up indicted for murder.


What is wrong in America today when a man who is defending his right to drinks and snacks faces prison time for shooting thirteen-year-old criminals in the back as they were running away? I just thank God that our country recognizes the importance of keeping guns handy so that we can bring these snack-stealing burglers to justice before they have a chance to grow up into a life of crime.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with America today when hoodlums can not feel free to enter other peoples homes at their discretion and expect to be given the benefit of the doubt that they are merely rambunctious teens looking for fun? After, it is not like we have ever had home invasions by violent sociopaths intend on raping or harming the inhabitants and any home owner must be held accountable for not assuming that people breaking into their home are harmless pranksters on a lark. And clearly, the responsibility for any tragedy that might transpire from invading someone's home must rest solely on the home owner sleeping in his bed and minding his own business. He should have thought ahead that anyone who might break into his home might be teens goofing around.

Obviously, not every shooting stemming from a home invasion is going to be justified in the eyes of on lookers - of course, it's not their home being invaded and they were not there. It could well be in this case the shooting was unjustifiable, but the idea that it is the person minding his own business, sleeping in his bed is somehow principally responsible for any tragedy transpiring from the unlawful invasion of their property is baloney - unless, of course, the teens exclaimed as he was shooting them "We're just teens looking to swipe some snacks and drinks! We're completely harmless!" Somehow there is always an inclination to put the blame on anyone except the persons starting the trouble in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Billyd, part of the problem for the homeowner here may be that he was sleeping not in his bed but in a nearby shed and was not in physical danger (I don't know if anyone else was in the house, however).
 
billydkid said:
What is wrong with America today when hoodlums can not feel free to enter other peoples homes at their discretion and expect to be given the benefit of the doubt that they are merely rambunctious teens looking for fun? .
Click to expand...

So this is eithera false dicotomy, or you feel that death should be an expected possibility with any crime.
 
One of the teenagers, however, told a different version days after the incident.

The survivor, whose name is not being published because he is a minor, said Gonzalez forced the intruders to kneel and began to beat them with the gun.

He then shot Anguiano and continued to threaten the other teens, even as Anguiano lay on the floor bleeding. The survivor said Gonzalez even yelled something at the caravan that rushed down the colonia's dirt road as they drove a bleeding Anguiano to the hospital.
Click to expand...
Oddly,

Gonzalez is also reported to have told authorities that his mobile home had been burglarized several times before, and the survivor admitted he and his friends had indeed entered Gonzalez's home on previous occasions, as he admitted they did the night of the shooting. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19520847&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
The real world often isn't so neat. A person can turn in a fraction of a second, without the shooter knowing that the person intends to turn and flee.

ETA: Study reveals how suspects sometimes get shot in the back
Click to expand...
That is so cool. As one who is always complaining that the world ISN'T so black and white I would likely have debated with you that it's hard to shoot a person in the back and not know it or not be able to stop once you have committed to shooting before the suspect turns.

We're not always as skeptical as we think we are.

Thanks.
 
Case over before it begins: Homeowner's off scot free...

"...indicted Friday in the July killing of a teenager who sneaked into his home with three friends to steal..."

Sorry, lefties, this case is as good as already over and the man is as good as free to go. Texas Castle Doctrine does not make exceptions for: teenagers, culpability of co-perpetrators, or what criminals afterwards claim to have been doing on the premises (Oh, Mr. ACLU Human Rights Lawyer Dude, I was only in there to steal, uh, drinks and, um, yeah, SNACKS!).

This is just a election-hounding Democrat DA playing to his cheap peanut gallery by testing the Castle Doctrine. His test will fail.
 
Last edited:
We don't know for sure about Gonzales, but the surviving teens ARE murderers. They ought to get punished worse than the homeowner.
 
I wonder, what would be the results if Gonzalez, tired of constant breaks-and-entry for snacks, had poisoned some snacks and left them in his own kitchen, and the thieves then broke in, stole the snacks, consumed them, and died? Would he face a murder charge? Or is a man's home his castle, and if he likes to store his antifreeze in Little Debbie Swiss Rolls, is that his right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom