Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[Mobyseven]

"...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.

We don't know for sure about Gonzales, but the surviving teens ARE murderers. They ought to get punished worse than the homeowner.

Interesting. I had thought that there would be little disagreement as to whether or not shooting an unarmed, retreating teenager, who poses no threat to you, would be wrong.

Evidently, I have once again overestimated the human race. Thanks, Casebro and Farmall, for once again demonstrating that, just when you thought you'd seen the lowest homo sapiens can offer, someone new can come along and challenge your cherished beliefs.

 

[Bikewer]

One seldom gets the details of the investigation in these sorts of stories. Self-defense law can get really complicated.

Generally, deadly force may not be employed against fleeing criminals. We police can do so only if there are exigent circumstances which lead us to believe that further violence will result, or the community at large may be more endangered if the suspect escapes.

In this case, a house burglary (albeit a burglary in the first degree) with fleeing suspects.... We would not normally expect deadly force to be justified.
In order to seek justification, the law must try to determine the state of mind of the victim. Did he feel himself in danger? Was there any indication the burglars were armed? Did they make threats as they left? Etc, etc...

Conversely, if the resident had opened fire on the suspects as they broke into the home (especially after announcing his presence), there would be no problem.

As to the prospect of a successful prosecution of the fellow.....Good luck. Try to impanel a jury that would convict the guy.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I believe that the state of Texas has a, "reasonable expectation of bodily injury or death," in their deadly-force laws. I'll have to look it up after I get back.

In Indiana, if it were shown that the boy was shot in the back (penetration point) and at some distance (gunshot residue scatter), I believe that the shooter would be up the proverbial creek.

 

[Ranb]

Interesting. I had thought that there would be little disagreement as to whether or not shooting an unarmed, retreating teenager, who poses no threat to you, would be wrong.

I agree that shooting an unarmed retreating non-threatening teen in the back is wrong. Are you sure that the descrription you are using for the shooting victim is accurate? The only thing that leads me to believe it might be accurate is that a grand jury has decided to indict the shooter.

One of the surviving burglars says; http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19520847&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6
"The survivor 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."

Ranb

 

[Autolite]

This incident sort of raises the stakes reference the question "What would you do for a Klondike bar"???

 

[fuelair]

So this is eithera false dicotomy, or you feel that death should be an expected possibility with any crime.

Leaving out white-collar crimes, yes, death should be considered by the criminal as a possibility. If you wake me in the commission, unless you have a gun in my face as you do, it is a near certainty (I might miss - though I wait for a clear shot if possible and I won't miss with that) No, I would not shoot in the back - unless you have harmed my wife (you are dead - the only question is exactly how long it will take) or me - or have a weapon and start to turn.

 

[fuelair]

This incident sort of raises the stakes reference the question "What would you do for a Klondike bar"???

And the way things are going, I could see a reality show operating on this premise!

 

[fuelair]

I agree that shooting an unarmed retreating non-threatening teen in the back is wrong. Are you sure that the descrription you are using for the shooting victim is accurate? The only thing that leads me to believe it might be accurate is that a grand jury has decided to indict the shooter.

One of the surviving burglars says; http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19520847&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6
"The survivor 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."

Ranb

If, and only if, this is proven to be true (there will be multiple items of physical evidence if it is) then he should be put under the jail - but the other teens still should also be charged with, tried for and convicted of murder - since it could not have happened if they had not invaded his home - regardless of their reason. The reason should have no bearing - that is the problem I have with the people who put why they did it as an excuse. The homeowner only knows people who can harm him and have no excuse to be in his home ARE IN HIS HOME and he has a right to protect himself/other family members.

 

[Autolite]

The homeowner only knows people who can harm him and have no excuse to be in his home ARE IN HIS HOME and he has a right to protect himself/other family members.

This brings another question to mind. If someone was fatally shot while attempting to steal pop and candy from a private home located in a "Castle Doctrine" state, wouldn't that person be a prime candidate for the Darwin Awards? I personally wouldn't risk my life for anything less than two Big Macs and a large fries...

 

[Gate2501]

I see guns as such a gray area... I always have a different stance it seems on these issues, dependent upon the conditions of the shooting.

In this case, if the facts stand as they are presented in this story, then the property owner should not have shot the teen, unless the teen was coming towards him in an effort to challenge him physically. I say this due to the fact that the property owner was in a nearby shed (an outhouse perchance?), from where he apparently popped out to see these teens breaking into his trailer.

I put myself into this scenario and thought about what I would do. If the ne'er do wells had spotted me as I came out of the shed, I would have shown them the gun and told them to get out of here. If they had not spotted me I would have initially thought to hide, but would have come out and yelled at them after I realized that could create a boxed in situation if they had come looking in the shed for some cool stuff (snacks). A lot of my reaction would also depend on the distance from myself to the recipient of my hot lead.

As the facts seem to stand now... I don't have enough facts.

It does look like it may be a case of hillbilly rage however, but this is my very unprofessional unscientific opinion. I'd love to see what the actual scene of the crime looks like.

 

[Gate2501]

After reading http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19520847&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6 , I think that I would be on the side of the teens. According to this, it would seem that Mr. Gonzales heard the teens in his trailer, and actually went INTO the trailer for a confrontation. I know that this may not be against the law in his state, but if he did do things in this manner, then he was either:

A: An idiot that had no idea someone was gonna get shot.

B: Someone that values the contents of his trailer more than a human life (possibly even his own).

C: Someone looking to get a legal frag on a burglar.

The ONLY way that I would enter my trailer/home armed, after seeing or hearing someone inside burglarizing it, would be if I had a loved one inside.

The teens are in no way in the right for this, and Mr. Gonzales is definitely not totally right or wrong until his intentions can be deciphered, along with being tried against the allegations that he restrained and beat the boys.

I would hate to be on this jury, because if he did not beat and restrain them, then I would probably have to exonerate him due to state law. Even though I think that what he did was not right.

 

[qayak]

I think it is obvious that the man is not being charged with murder simply because he shot a teen, who had broken into his home, in the back. The charges are in the other details.

1- Home had been broken into previously.
2- Sleeping in a nearby shed.
3- Forced all three to kneel and began beating them with gun.
4- Shot kneeling teen in back.

I would say that the charges are first degree because this was premeditated. The owner was sleeping in a nearby shed and probably admitted to police that he was waiting for the teens who had broken in previously. He catches the teens and makes them kneel on the ground.

Up until this point everything is okay.

Then he makes his first mistake. He begins beating the teens with his gun. He has now committed assault with a weapon. He is now the aggressor and the teens have every right to defend themselves.

Whether the teen who was shot tried to defend himself and was shot for it, the gun simply went off by accident, or the guy shot the teen on purpose, the fact is, he shot the teen during the commission of a crime, the assault.

And so, he has been charged with first-degree murder as he should be.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Texas Statutes, Penal Code, Chapter 9. Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility, Subchapter C. Protection of Persons:

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE[0].
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: ... (emphasis mine)

There's a LOT of, "reasonable belief," stuff in what follows, as well.

It does look like the shooter has a pretty good case, what with the, "committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery," part, and was only indicted because the, "reasonable belief," aspect needs to be more closely examined.

Remember, please, that Grand Jury only decides if a trial should be held, depending on the presence and quality of the evidence and the current interpretation of the cited laws.

Also: One of the problems with this sort of thing is that we're seeing it filtered through the reporter's own opinions. As such we're not getting a complete picture.

... clip ...

I would hate to be on this jury, because if he did not beat and restrain them, then I would probably have to exonerate him due to state law. Even though I think that what he did was not right.

Big difference between, "Innocent," and, "Not Guilty."

 

[Drudgewire]

I'm shocking myself here after seeing the thread title, but I'm leaning towards "charge the guy." The point of the castle doctrine is to be able to use a firearm to defend yourself and your family. Using one to "subdue," even if I believed his version of events about it "just going off" (which I don't) leads to this sort of situation which becomes fodder for the anti-gun crowd.

In the same way the cops in New York were completely justified to use lethal force, this guy wasn't.

That said, he'd probably want to have me on his jury.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Leaving out white-collar crimes, yes, death should be considered by the criminal as a possibility.

Why leave those out?

If you wake me in the commission, unless you have a gun in my face as you do, it is a near certainty (I might miss - though I wait for a clear shot if possible and I won't miss with that) No, I would not shoot in the back - unless you have harmed my wife (you are dead - the only question is exactly how long it will take) or me - or have a weapon and start to turn.

Wait I am talking to the wrong person again. As you have stated that you will intentionaly try to manipulate such situations so that you get to kill someone, I should know not to expect you to ever restrict the use of violence.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm shocking myself here after seeing the thread title, but I'm leaning towards "charge the guy." The point of the castle doctrine is to be able to use a firearm to defend yourself and your family.

No it really seems especialy if fuelair is typical of not trying to choose the safest solutions to a situation, but the fun of getting to shoot people.

 

[Architect]

Big difference between, "Innocent," and, "Not Guilty."

Some of us live in a country with three verdicts: guily, not guilty, and not proven.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Some of us live in a country with three verdicts: guily, not guilty, and not proven.

I've always said that you guys are probably less NUTS than we are.

 

[Gravy]

We don't know for sure about Gonzales, but the surviving teens ARE murderers. They ought to get punished worse than the homeowner.

What a blazingly ignorant comment.

 

[Gravy]

"...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.

Re-reading this thread for comprehension may give you a clue as to why the man was charged with first-degree murder.