Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 09/27/2008 View Fri 09/26/2008 View Thu 09/25/2008 View Wed 09/24/2008 View Tue 09/23/2008 View Mon 09/22/2008 View Sun 09/21/2008
1
2008-09-27 -Lurid Crime Tales-
Acquittal In Texas
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2008-09-27 16:11|| || Front Page|| [10327 views ]  Top

#1 Okay, I suppose I'll swim against the tide: if the boys were on their knees, unarmed, and no threat to the man, and the boy was shot in the back, then it was murder (or at the least manslaughter) and not self-defense.
Posted by Steve White 2008-09-27 16:36||   2008-09-27 16:36|| Front Page Top

#2 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 is justified in using deadly force to do so

If the state demonstrated that it was serious about crime rather than doing 'just enough' to keep the unwashed masses in place and storming their governmental offices, you might make that point. When government spends far too much time and resources on behalf of sociopathic and destructive members of our society who carry out the death penalty in our homes, streets, neighborhoods, business and even schools without due process and without appeal and then government spits in the face of the families and love ones saying 'we must adhere to the process of the law', you're going to get this response. Law, which is an extension of government, derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. It's apparent a large body of the legal fraternity doesn't grasp that fundamental point. It's not a game. Don't talk, do. Then you'll change the attitude.
Posted by Procopius2k 2008-09-27 16:45||   2008-09-27 16:45|| Front Page Top

#3 These were children. They were not a threat to Mr. Gonzalez. For goodness sake, Mr. Gonzalez shot the boy in the back while he was on his knees and apologizing. The jury was wrong to acquit.
Posted by ed 2008-09-27 16:56||   2008-09-27 16:56|| Front Page Top

#4 Gonzalez is obviously a racist

/sarc

Given that the guys 63, been repeatedly robbed/vandalized, and a 13 yr old punk is equally capable of killing you, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on his fear of being attacked by the "lunging" yout. The best way to avoid this consequence? Don't burglarize other people's residences. Not that hard, is it? The fact that all he got was snacks is irrelevant. If next month's $1000 mortgage or rental payment was on the counter, is there any doubt this punk wouldn't have taken it? F*ck him and his atty
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2008-09-27 17:13||   2008-09-27 17:13|| Front Page Top

#5 Although I lament the death of a child, he made his decisions. Can he be held accountable, at 13, for bad judgement? Yes. If you don't want to get into trouble, don't do anything to get INTO trouble. At 13 he knew right from wrong.
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2008-09-27 17:17||   2008-09-27 17:17|| Front Page Top

#6 who was 13 when he and three friends broke into Gonzalez's trailer to rummage for snacks and soda one night

Four teen aged boys broke in at night to rummage? In Texas?? Four teen aged boys engaged in mischief make up a small mob, as difficult to control as a herd of rampaging cats. They're lucky only one got killed. Perhaps the aunt would have been happier had the old man only knee-capped each one by way of a lesson to respect others' property, and to keep them waiting nicely until the police arrived, instead.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife  2008-09-27 17:32||   2008-09-27 17:32|| Front Page Top

#7 Ed, I usually agree with you in most of your posts. This time you're wrong. Those punks are lucky only one of them is dead. They put their lives on the line when they left the public sidewalk and walked on to that man's property, much less broke into his home. THEY MADE THE DECISION TO PUT THEIR LIVES AT RISK. No one forced them to do that and the fellow who shot them acted in a very rational fashion. Four teen boys can be just as deadly as a pack of wolves. Witness the number of people who have been kicked to death in the U.K. recently by packs of young people.

Moreover, who's to say what would have happened if they had broken into a different home. If they get away with it this time, there's a good reason to assume there will be a next time. Maybe next time they break into a home with a young woman there. What do you think they would do with her? Maybe you think they'd have done nothing. I think it would be a case of multiple rape and possible murder.

No sympathy here for these boys. In fact, I'm grateful to Mr. Gonzales for removing one thug and seriously intimidating the others. They, at least, will think twice before they pull that stunt again and one of them never will. Maybe that will educate a few other would-be criminals as well. Crime SHOULD be a high-risk endeavor.

One last comment, on an unrelated issue. Last week you completely and unequivocally tore General_Comment a new one on the issue of the SU 30's. That pro-Russian troll had it coming and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing that. Well done, and thanks.
Posted by Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-09-27 17:48||   2008-09-27 17:48|| Front Page Top

#8 I confess that at the age of 13, I was incapable of knowingly putting my life at risk. I did some stupid things (though I never broke the law), but if at age 13 you would have tried to explain this to me, Jolutch, I don't think I would have gotten it.


Because I was a KID.



This was manslaughter. At least.
Posted by Steve White 2008-09-27 19:45||   2008-09-27 19:45|| Front Page Top

#9 This was manslaughter. At least.

Theoretically. Practically, it's anarchy. In all respects.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-27 20:00||   2008-09-27 20:00|| Front Page Top

#10 I was a kid. At 13, I knew that breaking into someone's house was wrong, always has been. This punk obviously thought it wasn't. He and his thug friends (gang?) didn't care and at least only one paid the price. If they were in my abode, the 12 gauge wouldn't discriminate, and I'd be deliberate about phoning it in. I'm an asshole, I guess, SW, but I know what's right and wrong
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2008-09-27 20:07||   2008-09-27 20:07|| Front Page Top

#11 Hang on a second, someone broke into this guys house, so he shoots the intruder. Where's the problem?

Whomever brought this man up on charges, should be brought up on charges.
Posted by Mike N. 2008-09-27 20:38||   2008-09-27 20:38|| Front Page Top

23:53 Old Patriot
23:35 JohnQC
23:23 Jonathan
23:04 bigjim-ky
22:50 bigjim-ky
22:50 Mike N.
22:47 Cyber Sarge
22:37 FOTSGreg
22:18 Anonymoose
22:12 djh_usmc
22:06 trailing wife
22:06 newc
22:05 trailing wife
21:54 trailing wife
21:31 Scooter McGruder
21:29 bigjim-ky
21:27 bigjim-ky
21:22 rjschwarz
21:21 Old Patriot
21:14 Penguin
21:12 Frank G
21:09 Frank G
21:07 tipper
21:07 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com