Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks

Forums: Guns, Law, Texas, Legal, Murder
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Man on trial for killing snack-scavenging teenThursday, September 25, 2008 | 4:26 PM LAREDO, TX -- The trial of a man accused of executing a boy who broke into his Laredo home looking for snacks -- has many in the border city outraged.
They're upset because the man is being prosecuted for murder over the July 2007 killing. The trial of 63-year-old Jose Luis Gonzalez could wrap up Friday.
Gonzalez had endured several break-ins when four boys, ranging in age from 11-15, got into his trailer to rummage for chips and soda. Gonzalez, who was in a nearby building, had a shotgun. He went into the trailer and confronted the boys.
The unarmed boys claim they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them. A medical examiner testified 13-year-old Francisco Anguiano was shot in the back.

___________________________________________________________

I know, I know: The sanctity of the home, and guns to kill intruders = GOOD. Still, I wonder if there isn't a better way to punish a kid.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 24 • Views: 20,799 • Replies: 179

@edgarblythe,

What isn't obvious is the question of how many times this guy had been burglarized in the previous four or five years, how old that had gotten, or how much psychic damage had been done in the process.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Well, I don't like guns and don't advocate home-defense with weapons, but I doubt very much whether the boys were a) looking for snacks, and b) begging for forgiveness. This article doesn't begin to give us enough information, ie.:

1. Do the boys have priors?
2. Did the older gent ever attack anyone before?
3. Was anything found on the boys belonging to the gent?
4. How recent were the other break-ins?
5. What time of day was this? (Was the older guy in bed?)
6. Are the boys living with their families or .... what?

Too many unanswered questions to decide one way or the other. But shooting is wrong from any perspective, even in a 4 on 1 situation. Look where Jose is now.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

What IS obvious is blowing a kid away in cold blood.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

Well, I don't like guns and don't advocate home-defense with weapons, but I doubt very much whether the boys were a) looking for snacks, and b) begging for forgiveness. This article doesn't begin to give us enough information, ie.:

1. Do the boys have priors?
2. Did the older gent ever attack anyone before?
3. Was anything found on the boys belonging to the gent?
4. How recent were the other break-ins?
5. What time of day was this? (Was the older guy in bed?)
6. Are the boys living with their families or .... what?

Too many unanswered questions to decide one way or the other.

Are you joking? Why are any of those questions relevant?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Well, I'm not going to go into all of them, but if the boys were "known to the police", had priors etc then they weren't exactly out looking for snacks, now were they? Let's be reasonable here.

If it was at midnight when the lights were off, it's a different story than if it had been at 4:00 p.m.

Why were four boys looking for "snacks" (yeah right) in someone else's house? Didn't they have food at their own homes?

How big were they? Did they have weapons?

Did they threaten the old man? (not that 63 is old).

So yeah, I do think the questions are relevant. If you don't see it, you don't see it.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Did they have weapons? They were four against one. Maybe they threatened him. Where the older ones big and brawny?

Nothing's as simple or open and shut as it seems. This article doesn't provide enough information.

0 Replies

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

Well, I'm not going to go into all of them, but if the boys were "known to the police", had priors etc then they weren't exactly out looking for snacks, now were they? Let's be reasonable here.

In a situation where juveniles break into someone's home and the homeowner shoots one of those juveniles in the back (after the youths allegedly plead for their lives), why would it be relevant whether some or all of them had any prior offenses or brushes with the law? That's only relevant when it comes to punishing the juveniles, not in evaluating whether the homeowner was justified.

Mame wrote:

If it was at midnight when the lights were off, it's a different story than if it had been at 4:00 p.m.

You mean the homeowner would be more justified in firing blindly into the dark than knowing what he's shooting at?

Mame wrote:

Why were four boys looking for "snacks" (yeah right) in someone else's house? Didn't they have food at their own homes?

So what? I think it's clear, from the story, that they were breaking the law by being in the trailer. But that has little relevance to the question of whether or not the homeowner was justified in shooting one of the youths in the back.

Mame wrote:

How big were they? Did they have weapons?

Again, how is that relevant in a case where one of the youths was shot in the back?

Mame wrote:

Did they threaten the old man? (not that 63 is old).

While running away?

Now, admittedly, there are probably lots of details that have been left out of this story, and I certainly don't claim to know all the facts. And I'll hasten to add that I have formed no opinions on whether the defendant in this case is guilty or innocent. But in a case like this, where the charge is murder, there are some facts that are relevant and some that clearly aren't. And the ones you've raised aren't.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

From a more in-depth version of the story:

"Gonzalez went into the trailer and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun. The boys, who were unarmed, were forced to their knees, attorneys on both sides say.

The boys claim they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly. Then, the medical examiner testified, 13-year-old Francisco Anguiano was shot in the back at point-blank range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., now 16, testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Anguiano's body outside."

1 Reply

If I were on that jury,
I 'd vote to ACQUIT him and argue in support thereof to get an acquital.
All 4 of them brought it on themselves by committing burglary.
There shoud be no discrimination in the workplace based upon age.
The scene of the burglary was the criminals' chosen place of work.

No good woud come of penalizing a man for defending his property.
Altho I have not read the applicable Texas statute, morally,
the property owner was within his rights to kill anyone who broke into his property.

If the time ever comes that I fall into such depravity
as to commit burglary, I hope that the property owner
will do the same thing to ME, because I will deserve it.

David

1 Reply

Good thread, Ed.
U r a man of refined & astute discernment !

David

0 Replies

@Mame,

Quote:

Well, I don't like guns and don't advocate home-defense with weapons

Just as a point of interest, Mame:
did u intend to imply that defense of one 's home
shud be done WITHOUT weapons ?

What do u have in mind,
as to how home defense shoud be done ?
( Let 's assume that the criminals had the good sense
to rip out the fones and home owner lives half an hour from police. )

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

life isnt fair.

this is why, when someone BURGLES YOUR HOME< THEY BRING A PISTOL< AN THE COMMON THING AMONG CRIMINALS IS NOT TO PULL OUT A GUN UNLESS U ARE GOING TO USE IT< SO WHILE U ARE UNAWARE OF ANYONE TRYING O GET INTO UR HOME< THEY ARE PLANNING AN AMBUSH< AND THEN WHILE THEY ARE FULLY PREPARED< U WILL BE CAUGHT BY SUPRISE AND KILLED.

lol.

theft isnt worth murder.

:/

quite possibly the most idiotic thing you have ever posted.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Tough to see a shotgun blast to the back from point blank range as anything but an execution. I would think, even in Texas, that's murder.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

I hope that the good citizens of Texas on the jury
will support the defendant.

The burglars created the situation.
Let them live or die with the consequences.

David

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Edgarblythe wrote:

Quote:

Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., now 16,
testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Anguiano's body outside."

Kudos, Ed, for your deft and adroit use of the word "executed",
which means carried out, or followed out; most astute

David

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

That additional information puts a whole different spin on it.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Isnt deadly force supposed to be propotional? Is killing some kid for escaping from Gonzales' trailer a deed proportional to the crime commited by the boy ?

I think not. Therefore, Gonzales should be convicted. However, this is TExas were talking about, where ,probably all the jury is packing

2 Replies

Should the punishment not be proportionate to the crime?

0 Replies

I wonder whether this experience
will have any enduring effect upon the criminal careers
of the surviving burglars; my hunch is that thay will not be deterred.

David

0 Replies

Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know