| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Acquittal In Texas |
| 2008-09-27 |
| A Texas jury acquitted a man accused of killing a boy 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 Anguiano's death, 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 is 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." Gonzalez had endured several break-ins at his trailer when the four boys, ranging in age from 11 to 15, broke in. Gonzalez, who was in a nearby building at the time, 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, 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. Many people in Laredo - a town just across the Rio Grande from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where drug violence runs rampant - 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." |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #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 |
| #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 2008-09-27 20:07 |
| #9 This was manslaughter. At least. Theoretically. Practically, it's anarchy. In all respects. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-27 20:00 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 2008-09-27 17:32 |
| #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 2008-09-27 17:17 |
| #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 2008-09-27 17:13 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |