Indictment handed down in Laredo for murder

[Luggo1]

on a home intruder shooting case.

Man who killed 13-year-old intruder indicted for murder

The Associated Press
LAREDO, Texas — 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.

[bdickens]

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.

Maybe not murder, but it sure looks like he confessed to manslaughter.

[KD5NRH]

Gonzalez told authorities he was asleep in a nearby shed

Nobody seems to be wondering why the guy was sleeping in a shed with a gun, when his house was right there. That just smells really fishy to me.

Also, the house was unoccupied when they entered, so at least the letter of the castle doctrine wouldn't apply. I'd love to see a test case in favor of a resident unknowingly walking in on a burglar, but this sounds more like an ambush.

[aardwolf]

9.42 + burglary = not guilty

With the revolving door criminal system, maybe what we need is more citizens ambushing crooks in the act.

[Liko81]

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.

His CD defense is gone. If he didn't mean to pull the trigger it's manslaughter. This is why you say "I'll be happy to answer your questions as soon as I have consulted with a lawyer", and repeat it like a broken record, if you are ever involved in a gunfight.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Based upon the sparse details given, Mr. Gonzalez's attorney is probably mistaken about application of the Castle Doctrine. I say probably, because I think he believes his client will be able to rely upon the presumption that he reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary. As KD5NRH mentioned, the presumption applies only to an occupied habitation (in this case his home) and there was no mention that his home was occupied. So the presumption part of the Castle Doctrine (TPC §9.32) will not be available.

The "no duty to retreat" provisions of the Castle Doctrine will apply, unless he provoked an attack, or was engaged in criminal activity himself at the time. The immunity from civil liability provisions of the Castle Doctrine will also apply, if he is acquitted.

The bottom line is Mr. Gonzalez may be able to rely on some of the Castle Doctrine's provisions, but the big one -- the presumption -- will not be available to him, based upon the information published.

Chas.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

• (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
  against whom the deadly force was used:
  • (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
    attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
    habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.

[Glock 23]

probably just indicting for murder so its easier to plea deal down to manslaughter.

murder, IMHO, will be extremely difficult to prove and even more difficult to get 12 Texas jurors to find him guilty.

[dukalmighty]

I might be psychic but something tells me he was sleeping off one in the shed and the kids knew where to get beers they just weren't expecting him to wake up out of his nap so quick and get confronted,just my .02

[Liko81]

Based upon the sparse details given, Mr. Gonzalez's attorney is probably mistaken about application of the Castle Doctrine. I say probably, because I think he believes his client will be able to rely upon the presumption that he reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary. As KD5NRH mentioned, the presumption applies only to an occupied habitation (in this case his home) and there was no mention that his home was occupied. So the presumption part of the Castle Doctrine (TPC §9.32) will not be available.

Maybe we're looking at the wrong part of Castle Doctrine. Instead of TPC 9.32, how about 9.42:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

The action, from what we know, meets the first tenet (the teens were unlawfully interfering with his property). It may meet the second if the teens had any sort of weapon (thus making it very reasonable that deadly force would be needed to stop them), and if it meets the second for that reason it would meet the third (if deadly force is needed, it can usually be shown it's the only thing that would work as it is the last option).

[Disturbed]

I am 100% for protecting the right to protect ones home/land, and I hope this case gets shot down fairly quickly in the mans favor. Its just really sad that this new law has to be tested on a 13 year old boy doing what some misguided 13year old boys do.

[WarHawk-AVG]

This day and age a 13year old boy can just a fast (if not faster) kill you or rape someone

Sad sign of the times

[Mr.Scott]

It doesn't matter if the guy walked in from outside into his home (castle) and caught the buggers in the act. Just because he was not in his residence at the time that CRIMINALS entered it, does not mean it is no longer his residence(castle). He still have every right afford to him to use deadly force. The reasoning for castle doctrin is so VICTIMS don't have to second guess an intruders intentions and can immediately asses the threat as one that will result in the bodily injury or death of the lawful occupant of the home.

Anyways, YEAH for the weekend

[pbwalker]

Looks like this one is still quite active...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428222,00.html

[CHLSteve]

Do you guys know of a good way to track these cases as they make their way through the judicial system? I would very much like to know the outcome, but have to rely on happing to be "reading the news" the day the story is published. (or read it from this site)

Is there a good tracking system to keep up with all these cases?

Edit: ah, some new facts from the above link.

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.

Some guy has to take to another level and ruin it for everyone. If these statements are true, the guy should be charged.

[pbwalker]

Some guy has to take to another level and ruin it for everyone. If these statements are true, the guy should be charged.

Did they not break in? Is there not a Castle Doctrine? Yes, it is a bad situation and it is a shame that a teenager had to die, but the law is the law is it not? I would say that this is one of those rare situations that can be argued both ways, but I agree that the law was followed in this instance. Would I have handled it differently? You bet...