Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks

I can't say I'm surprised when you post david-centric opinions; but lets face it david, the universe is bigger than you are.

" Is all that we see and seem,
but a dream, within a dream ? " Poe

well **** david, that explains everything.

Yeah

For shooting someone in the back.

What will his defence be, David?

"I knew that the kid was running out the back door to come around thru the front door to attack me".

ACQUITTED

LAREDO " A Texas jury acquitted a man accused of killing a child who broke into his home looking for a snack " a case that sparked outrage in this border city, where many thought the man should not have even been charged.

It took the jury of eight men and four women three hours Friday to find Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, not guilty of murdering Francisco Anguiano, who was 13 when he and three friends broke into Gonzalez's trailer to rummage for snacks and soda one night in July 2007.

"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."

Gonzalez said he was sorry for the tragedy but "it was a situation in which I feared for my life."

Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property. In June, a grand jury in Houston cleared a homeowner who shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor's house despite the dispatcher's repeated request that he stay inside his own home.

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

Alaniz is running uncontested for Webb County district attorney in November.

However, Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker maintained during his closing arguments that the case was not about homeowners' right to protect their property but about when a person was justified in using deadly force to do so.

"What really took place here was a case of vigilantism," he said after the verdict. "A 13-year-old boy was killed because a man was enraged."

Anguiano's aunt, who asked not to be named, said in Saturday's editions of the Laredo Morning Times that she was disappointed with the verdict.

"The state fought the case the way it should have," she said. "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."

The 63-year-old Gonzalez had endured several break-ins at his trailer when the four boys, ranging in age from 11-15, broke into the mobile home in July 2007. Gonzalez was in a nearby building at the time.

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

The boys say 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 close 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.

Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun, claiming he feared for his life.

Many people in Laredo, where drug violence across the Rio Grande in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, defended Gonzalez's actions. In online responses to articles published by the Morning Times, comments included statements such as "The kid got what he deserved" and calls to "stop the unfair prosecution."

The kids broke into the mans house.
They did NOT have permission to be there, nor were they there for any legitimate reason.

The homeowner has every right to defend himself, his home, and his possessions by any available means, including deadly force.

I think he should be able to do so without fear of civil or criminal prosecution.

When you break into a persons house, you are choosing to be a criminal, so you are choosing to accpet the consequences, no matter what those consequences are.
Those 4 boys made a choice, they now have to live with the consequences of that choice.

I find it interesting that so many of you SEEM to be defending those 4 punks.

In my opinion, the jury did the right thing.
Now maybe those other boys will have learned and wont break into any more houses.

The right to shoot an unarmed child in the back over Twinkies.

Wow.

When I first saw the title of your posting, Edgar, Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks, I was thinking that this was about something that happened in a distant foreign country.

I was jokingly going to reply, "Where did this happen, Edgar, in Texas?"

Now I see I was right with my first thought.

The right to defend your home against intruders.


Wow.

the right to shoot someone in the back (killing them) over twinkies and a pepsi ,or a t.v.)
wow

If you break into someones home, for ANY REASON, then whatever happens to you is your own fault.
I have no sympathy for the dead boy, because he brought it upon himself.
If he hadnt broken in, he wouldnt have gotten killed.

So dont try that "poor boy, he didnt deserve it" crap with me.
He CHOSE to break in to the house, he CHOSE to accept the consequences.
If it was up to me, all 4 of those boys would have been shot for burglary and theft.

WOW!

Thats 2 hours and 55 minutes to long.

Would that also apply to those who illegally invade sovereign nations?



Words that could one day convict you. My, but you're a kind-hearted, generous soul. You should put in an application for the CIA/FBI torture teams.

What would they be "longing for"?

If a court somewhere decides that somebody illegally invaded a sovereign nation, then yes.
But since no court has made that determination, your question is meaningless.

But, since that was a weak jab at Bush, I'll answer that.
IF Bush had illegally invaded a sovereign nation (and no court or other body with any authority has decided that he did), then if he had been shot when visiting Iraq he would be a casualty.
If Obama gets elected and illegally invades a country, will you say that the same standard holds for him?




Convict me of what?
I havent shot anyone since I got out of the service, and I hope I never have to.
The difference between you and me is that I AM willing to use deadly force to protect myself, my home, or my family.
You arent.

Are you really that dense?
Let me spell it out for you...it should have taken the jury no more then 5 minutes to aquit the old man, because he did nothing wrong.

By some people's reasoning, if a two year old crawled through the doggie door, then proceeded to eat a piece of candy that had fallen on the floor, the homeowner would be justified to shoot him or her in the back with a shotgun.

How do you figure that, or are you just being dim on purpose?

A 2 year old is not capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong, nor is a 2 year old capable of formulating a plan to commit a crime.
If however, you feel the need to shoot a 2 year old, please turn yourself in to the local police.

Teenage boys do know the difference between right and wrong.
They CHOSE (theres that word again, the one the left hates, except regarding abortion) to commit the crime, so they CHOSE (oops, personal responsibility again) to accept the consequences.