Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[Architect]

Hi

Frankly, a database of where every gun in the state is stored sounds, with hackers rampant and hoodlums paying for stolen credit card numbers, WAAAY too much like a shopping list.

(cough)

Have you considered investigating whether any other countries have such a registration system and whether such security breaches have occured?

(hint: the UK, and no).

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

(cough)

Have you considered investigating whether any other countries have such a registration system and whether such security breaches have occured?

(hint: the UK, and no).

<<cough>>

What're they going to get by breaking into a UK house?

A few shotguns?

Why steal a poor man's credit card when you already have access to more money?

(Hint: Your thugs are already getting better thug-appropriate firearms on the street than they can by house burglary.)

(Oh - and - 'gratz on that, by the way! I'm serious, here!! Anything that cuts down on thugs stealing your stuff that your populace is good with is Ok in my book.)

[ETA] Remember, this is the country where even the president can't do a little political housebreaking and robbery without someone finding out about it.

Headline: Stolen VA laptop recovered; data appears untouched

It happened again, a few months later, in complete disregard of laws forbidding people from taking data samples to work on at home. [ETA Oh - and - they nailed ME both times, for what it's worth. Big deal. I'm pretty much broke.
[/ETA]

How often does that happen in the UK? <<sigh>>

As soon as the government can show me some reasonable way of keeping anything the government has out of the hands of just about anybody that wants it, I may change my mind. [/ETA]

 

[ServiceSoon]

(cough)

Have you considered investigating whether any other countries have such a registration system and whether such security breaches have occured?

(hint: the UK, and no).

Data breach affects 25 million Britons: UK chancellor Alistair Darling is under intense pressure following the loss of personal data pertaining to 25 million Britons. ...
Source:

HM Revenue and Customs has lost yet another package containing the personal details of thousands of people, it has emerged.
Source:

In yet another UK data breach scandal,...
Source:

I think the news articles above is enough

 

[Beerina]

Texas as this, "Castle Doctrine," newly passed, and this trial may serve to delineate exactly how far it can be stretched before it snaps back and bites you.

From that article:

Duty-to-retreat

Some states have a duty-to-retreat clause, which expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.

This is what happens when certain ivory towerites reason themselves into a corner. It is your responsibility to run and hide as much as possible, respecting the thief's right to life above your very property.

How very Christian, though I doubt that's what the Ivory Towerite had in mind.

 

[Drudgewire]

This is what happens when certain ivory towerites reason themselves into a corner. It is your responsibility to run and hide as much as possible, respecting the thief's right to life above your very property.

How very Christian, though I doubt that's what the Ivory Towerite had in mind.

According to wiki, Maryland is the only state with a castle doctrine who also has a duty to retreat clause. The much more common standard is "stand your ground."

 

[volatile]

It is your responsibility to run and hide as much as possible, respecting the thief's right to life above your very property.

As it should be. Property should never be valued more than human life. Can you make an ethically-coherent argument to the contrary?

 

[Drudgewire]

As it should be. Property should never be valued more than human life. Can you make an ethically-coherent argument to the contrary?

I can make an ethically coherent argument that if someone is in my home when they shouldn't be, I'm not necessarily going to just wait around to see if it's only property he's interested in.

And if I'm retreating, it's to reload.

 

[volatile]

I can make an ethically coherent argument that if someone is in my home when they shouldn't be, I'm not necessarily going to just wait around to see if it's only property he's interested in.

And if I'm retreating, it's to reload.

That's a different argument, and not what Beerina was asserting. He said that "respecting the thief's right to life above your very property" was a position worthy of ridicule. I wonder how he might make a substantial, ethically-coherent case to back this up.

We've been over this "death for property" issue before. I honestly implore you to think about the general ethical framework required for your "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude to make any sense, and for the rather disturbing consequences for civilised society were such a framework ever to become widespread.

The death penalty cannot be justified for property crime. I'm actually of the opinion (in common with most of the civilise world) that it can barely be justified at all - but what you're advocating here is not just the death penalty for property crime, but the death penalty carried out by a vigilante citizen in the heat of the moment. What kind of way is that to run a society? And what kind of way is that to think about your fellow human beings?

What are the logical and ethical consequences of this laissez-faire attitude to property (or even self-) defence?

 

[Drudgewire]

That's a different argument, and not what Beerina was asserting. He said that "respecting the thief's right to life above your very property" was a position worthy of ridicule. I wonder how he might make a substantial, ethically-coherent case to back this up.

We've been over this "death for property" issue before. I honestly implore you to think about the general ethical framework required for your "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude to make any sense, and for the rather disturbing consequences for civilised society were such a framework ever to become widespread.

The death penalty cannot be justified for property crime. I'm actually of the opinion (in common with most of the civilise world) that it can barely be justified at all - but what you're advocating here is not just the death penalty for property crime, but the death penalty carried out by a vigilante citizen in the heat of the moment. What kind of way is that to run a society? And what kind of way is that to think about your fellow human beings?

What are the logical and ethical consequences of this laissez-faire attitude to property (or even self-) defence?

I agree with you in principle, and have said repeatedly I'm not shooting anyone over a television.

But there's a lot of grey area where you can't possibly know what someone's intentions are until it's too late. I support the Castle Doctrine because it says you don't have wait around to find out.

 

[Architect]

I think the news articles above is enough

No, with respect you're hand-waving. The specific question was whether the register - if stolen - would be used a shopping list; now, is there any evidence of that happening?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

No, with respect you're hand-waving. The specific question was whether the register - if stolen - would be used a shopping list; now, is there any evidence of that happening?

Ask me if I care about evidence of it happening.

The government can't keep my Social Security number, payment arrangements, address, phone number, and a list of medications I'm currently taking out of the hands of a bunch of cut-rate street hoods.

Then, after a couple of months and a mess of new laws, regulations, and policies, they can't do it AGAIN!

I'd rather not let them know about my precise tactical strength as well.

Besides: One of the most valuable things about a list like that would be who's NOT on it.

Two kinds of shopping lists, you see. I'm sure that all the anti-gun people would appreciate having the jackassulants know exactly where the easy targets are.

 

[tiger]

Yep you break into someones house you better expect your going to face a gun sooner or later. Doesn't really matter if they were running away or not if your in someones house the homeowner has the right to defend his life. How do you know even if their running away that they don't have a gun and just turn around and shoot you. This seems like a case of the parents of the burglars crying over their sons when their sons put themselves in that situation. I don't have alot of sympathy for people who break into other peoples houses.

 

[Architect]

(sighs, shakes head)

 

[drkitten]

It may work that way over yonder, but over here, with all this, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty," stuff running around, If I shoot someone, under any circumstances, I don't have to prove anything.

The prosecution has to prove that I broke the law to convict me: No proof of a broken law, no conviction.

In this case, the prosecution has to demonstrate, pretty much positively because it's a murder, that either the shooter was not in danger or that the level of force he used was not appropriate.

Er,.... you might want to consult with a lawyer about this. If you already have, you might want to consult with another lawyer and get a second opinion.

"Self-defense" is a typical example of what is called under law an "affirmative defense"; you are acknowledging the commission of a criminal act but claim -- "affirm" -- that the act was justified under the circumstances. But in order to establish this claim, YOU must establish the facts of the circumstances are what you claim. (This is codified in the legal maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat -- "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not who denies.")

You typically do not have to establish these facts "beyond reasonable doubt," but you do need to be credible enough to be believed. If you simply say "it was in self-defense" and offer no supporting evidence, the prosecutor will simply shrug, turn to the judge/jury and say "that's an obvious lie; there is no way he could have been afraid of a person kneeling in submission in front of him" and the jury will convict you, and you will have no grounds for appeal.

Even in a "castle defense" situation, YOU still need to establish that the relevant facts of the castle doctrine apply; i.e. that you reasonably believed that the intruder intended to commit burglary or some equivalent felony; if you shoot a submissive or fleeing felon, he no longer intends to do such, and castle defense no longer applies.

 

[Passingtrucker]

Justifiable homicide

The fact that the burglar / intruder was shot in the back is a clear indication he was fleeing, or had turned and was in the process of fleeing from the scene. I live in California, and own a small arsenal of handguns, so its prudent that I research the laws of what constitute "justifiable homicide," the use of lethal force to legally take a human life. "Justifiable homicide" is to kill with malice intent, but only when there's a clear and present danger of death or serious injury to yourself, or another person, if you choose not to use lethal force. The intruders were unarmed, and intended to raid his food supplies. Its likely a criminal background check was conducted, and revealed the juvenile burglars had probably never been arrested before, which contributed to the prosecution's testimony that the home owner, 63 year old Jose Gonzalez, had used excessive lethal force when he was clearly in no danger of being killed, or suffering serious injury had he simply sat there and told the intruders "I have a gun." Had one of the intruders charged at him, it would have been a case of self-defense. But the juveniles had turned and decided to flee when they realized he had a gun, and the legislative intent of "right to bear arms" clause of the U.S. Constitution had served its purpose. Jose went beyond the legislative intent when he took aim and fired his gun at the fleeing burglars.

 

[CaptainManacles]

The intruders were unarmed, and intended to raid his food supplies. Its likely a criminal background check was conducted, and revealed the juvenile burglars had probably never been arrested before, which contributed to the prosecution's testimony that the home owner, 63 year old Jose Gonzalez, had used excessive lethal force when he was clearly in no danger of being killed

I'm sure it's reasonable to expect him to know those things. Obviously you think he was psychic. Maybe he should apply for the million.

And way to come into a 15 page long thread and make a point that's been made 30 times already.

 

[ServiceSoon]

No, with respect you're hand-waving. The specific question was whether the register - if stolen - would be used a shopping list; now, is there any evidence of that happening?

I am very disapointed, that trick usually works. Your question was a two part question. You asked if a breach has occured. I was showing that all governments loose information. I don't think the government should have any information they can't justify having.

What is one of your materialist hobbies? Lets say you are into a certain music genre and you have a stellar record collection. These records are highly sought after and are thus very expensive. Would you want a list of your record collection along with your address public? What if your record collection was considered a fringe genre? You are updatnding law abiding citizen, but some people just don't understand your love of this type of music. Would you want your nehibors to know what type of music you listened to? Is it any of their business?

Even if I could provide evidence that this list of gun owners' would be used as a shopping list, the next step for you as a skeptic is to consider it an anomoly. So what is the point?

 

[leonAzul]

As a frame of reference…

The OP began with a reference to the indictment by a grand jury of Jose Luis Gonzalez, after his arrest some nine months earlier.

Earlier in this thread I expressed my support for the so-called "Castle Law", and I still stand by that.

Yet if there is evidence that the trespassers were compliant, then of course JLG is guilty of excessive force! Evidence trumps belief--every time!

Clearly, there is much evidence to be examined. Given that most of the evidence was subsumed by a grand jury, and that the four alleged perpetrators are minors, we shall see precious little.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Update: Not guilty

Gonzalez acquitted in slaying of boy, 13
By JULIAN AGUILAR
LAREDO MORNING TIMES
Published: Saturday, September 27, 2008 7:31 AM CDT
A Laredo man charged with murder after shooting and killing an unarmed teenager who broke into the man's mobile home with three other juveniles was acquitted late Friday.Eight men and four women found Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, not guilty of murdering Francisco Anguiano, who was 13 last July when he and his friends illegally entered Gonzalez's mobile home to take what they said were just sodas and snacks.

Gonzalez said he had the juveniles on the ground and was trying to keep them at bay with a shotgun when Anguiano made a sudden movement toward his feet. Gonzalez perceived the teen to be lunging for him, he testified, and fired the weapon into Anguiano's back, claiming he feared for his life.

The three surviving teens testified that they were subdued on their knees and posed Gonzalez no threat when he shot Anguiano.

After three hours, the jury sided with the homeowner.

"I thank God and my attorney, the jury and the judge," Gonzalez said in Spanish after the verdict. "It was a case where it was my life or theirs, and it's a very good thing that they (the jurors) decided in my favor."

Asked if he wanted to send any message to Anguiano's family, Gonzalez said he was sorry for the tragedy but "it was a situation in which I feared for my life."

Isidro "Chilo" Alaniz, Gonzalez's attorney, said the case was significant for all Laredoans.

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

He also echoed his client's sentiments and offered his condolences to Anguiano's family.

"It was a very, very difficult case because it was a very tragic case. By no means are we happy, in the sense that there was a life lost. Our heart goes out to the victim's family," he said.

Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker told the jury during his closing arguments the case wasn't about homeowners' lack of right to defend themselves but instead about when a person was justified in using deadly force to do so.

"This case was never about homeowners versus criminals. The evidence in this case was compelling enough to show that wasn't the case at all," he said after the verdict. "We (the District Attorney's Office) do not proceed on cases based on labels that are placed on people. We proceed on cases based on people's actions. What really took place here was a case of vigilantism. A 13-year-old boy was killed because a man was enraged.

"When it's all said and done, the members of the jury are the ones who decide what standards we live by and the interpretation of the laws. I think the message that was revealed is that it's OK for a person to take the law into their own hands."

Anguiano's aunt, who asked not to be named, said she was disappointed in Alaniz, the future district attorney of Webb and Zapata counties, and with what she perceived as a lack of justice.

"The state fought the case the way it should have," she said as tears streaked down her face. "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."

For his part, Alaniz congratulated the prosecutors from the office he will head next year and said he was impressed with the way they presented "one of the hardest cases" he's ever tried. He said he would continue to be an advocate for seniors and homeowners' rights when he takes office.

The case brings to a close one that divided the public during its weeklong duration. Some thought Gonzalez was justified in using deadly force, even if it was against an unarmed teenager. Others asserted that Gonzalez was on his property, outnumbered, and didn't know the intruders' intentions. Still more believed Gonzalez acted as the aggressor and beat and shot an unarmed teenager in the back when he should instead have called the police.

In the end, however, a jury agreed, and Gonzalez, for the first time in 14 months, walked away with his future a little more certain.

(Julian Aguilar may be reached at 728-2557 or [email protected])
Source

...

 

[casebro]

Shadow of a doubt.