Posted on 04/28/2008 9:35:38 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
LAREDO — A man who shot and killed a 13-year-old breaking into his mobile home has been indicted for murder in a case that could test a new law giving Texans more leeway to defend themselves with deadly force.
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.
Gonzalez told authorities he was asleep in a nearby shed when he heard the teenagers inside his home and was trying to subdue the intruders when his gun went off.
Isidro Alaniz, Gonzalez's attorney, said after the indictment that Gonzalez protected his property within his rights. He said Gonzalez's defense is bolstered by the so-called castle doctrine, a state law enacted last year that gives a person no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force.
While I support self defence,shooting the kid in the back is pretty bad form.
“was shot in the back and later died at a Laredo hospital.”
Don’t shoot as someone is running away from you. Hard to prove you were in fear of your life.
There are many variables.
For example, if someone is swinging a baseball bat at you and you fire at them, your round could well hit that person in the back - even though you were definitely in serious danger and they were not retreating at all.
Similarly, someone could be backing out of your house, apologizing and saying "I'm leaving, I'm sorry, please don't shoot!" and shooting that person in the chest could look like a clean shoot at first glance, even though you shot an unarmed man who was fleeing.
Given the fact that he had accomplices, there are probably several versions of events on offer here.
I will give Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt.
It sounds like Gonzalez may claim that he did not intend to shoot at the boy but that the gun went off accidentally.
I agree that shooting fleeing suspects in the back generally appears to be in poor form.
But in a hand-to-hand, life and death grapple with a suspect (or suspects in this case) whose intentions are unclear, a 63 year old (or anyone who is fatigued or frightened) cannot always choose his shots.
Pressing the gun against the perps back and pulling the trigger may have been the only way the citizen had to stop the attack.
Don’t know enough facts to take a side here, but my pappy always told me that it was pretty risky to be in someone’s home at nite uninvited.
Make this easy.
His house.
Kid broke in to commit a crime.
Homeowner has right to protect property.
Homeowner not guilty.
That was easy.
Indicted by a grand jury for first degree murder. He was asleep in a shed... Sounds like he may have been laying in wait, in other words, was waiting for the kids knowing they would show up, just maybe it happened that way, just a thought.
He was asleep, they broke into his house.
I may think that he shouldn’t have shot the kid in the back, but if the criminal hadn’t been there, committing a crime, he would never have put the homeowner at risk of shooting him.
I would find this man not guilty.
You may be completely correct that he may have been laying in wait, but unless there is more to this, is that patently wrong?
If you live in a crime-filled neighborhood or are just scared of crimes happening to you as you get older, do you have to maintain the look of someone who doesn’t care, or can you lay in wait, just in case?
Unless he was enticing the criminals somehow, like... saying he was storing gold bars in his house & making sure everyone knew where they were and that he’s be gone all night while they were unguarded.
Unless that sort of thing happened, no one made the criminal break in.
I am in sympathy with the old man, but, you can not set a deadly trap either.The fact that the DA went after first degree murder charges seems to imply there is more to this story, IMHO.
Also, had the old man been inside of his house, the outcome of the grand jury may have been different.
Is this guy even legal?
agreed.
“If you’re found here at night, you’ll be found here in the morning”.
"Our position then (in July) was that Mr. Gonzalez was acting in self-defense and was justified in protecting himself with the use of a weapon," Alaniz said. "And my position today is the same. I am confident that when given the opportunity, Mr. Gonzalez will be able to explain to a jury what happened that night."
"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."
"Alaniz contended those statements were self-serving and false."
"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."
If the Grand Jury only heard this side of the story, I can see why they indicted.
Here in Texas you can also shoot ‘em to protect your property i.e. stealing your stuff.
Isn't this considered bad form?
Where were the Po-lice helping to protect the citizenry?
May have been what now they call Man Caves...Shop with a TV, domino table and beer fridge along with the favorite recliner.
This is one for forensics.
If the gun was fired from a distance and fairly level, his defense of accidental discharge is much less likely. If, however, the gun was fired at an odd angle, it was far more likely to have been an accident.
Where the bullet struck on his back is also a big indicator. A novice intending to shoot someone will aim for the center of mass. A more experienced shooter will aim lower, at about belt buckle height. Outside of those two areas also indicates some other variables.
Let’s see believe a 63 year old man defending his home from known and admitted thieves or believe the known and admitted thieves.
That’s a hard one indeed :)
No doubt a hard case.
The concept of a man cave has piqued my interest - I’ve always liked the idea of a large shed with a TV, a fridge with lots of beer and permission to smoke as long as the tobacco doesn’t run out!!!
The truth will out on this one.
Yours truly,
The Woim
I agree, I’d have to hear the rest of the story.
I do wonder, though: why is your home your castle, but not your yard?
It’s called a detached garage (with a second floor). You don’t have one? I don’t anymore either. Bummer.
Assuming this part is even true (sounds like the kid's lawyer told them what to say) the old man probably had them do this to scare them/teach them a lesson, whatever. And then while standing behind them ranting the gun went off.
If you're going to shoot somebody on purpose while standing behind them, you're going for the head. Unless he just missed.
Barring this, if three kids in your home it doesn't matter where you shoot them. Fleeing or not. In your home is in your home.
Ping!
If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.
The castle defense is, by Texas law, an affirmative defense. The defendant provides evidence that he was in his house, and that he was protecting himself and his property from intruders, as opposed to shooting from the window at passers by.
With that evidence, the Jury is to be directed by the Court to aquit.
It is not a protection against prosecution, but given that there were intruders, the details of who shot, when, at what angle do not come into play. It is enough, by law, to establish the minimum of the affirmative defense.
When outnumbered 3 to 1, and facing the possibility of a perpetrator resisting your control of your house, perhaps going for help from more perpetrators, a decision to shoot is not to be second guessed by the Jury. No matter the angle of entry, whether close enough for powder burn, or at a distance because the perp was a fast runner, the affirmative defense should be sufficient.
As a defense attorney I would contest every bit of the evidence, on every possible reason. It is risky because trials are not really good at finding the truth.
I wonder, how many other houses these jerks have robbed?
In addition, the remainder of the burglary gang should serve life without parole for felony murder.
That said, I believe a man's entitled to defend himself and his property and that Gonzales' actions were justified. I merely wanted to point out that the case is not cut and dried.
Shooting someone in the back as they are turned away from you (and likely moving that way) does not help a self-defense defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.