Indictment handed down in Laredo for murder

[dukalmighty]

The castle doctrine is designed to allow you to use self defense from a perceived threat in your home or property,it's not a carte blanche statute to allow you to execute somebody you are holding at gun point,if it's true they were on they're knees and he shot the kid in the back at point blank range he wouldn't want me sitting on his jury

[KD5NRH]

http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2008/ ... 059454.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not guilty

Gonzalez acquitted in slaying of boy, 13
By JULIAN AGUILAR
LAREDO MORNING TIMES
Published: Saturday, September 27, 2008 7:31 AM CDT
A Laredo man charged with murder after shooting and killing an unarmed teenager who broke into the man's mobile home with three other juveniles was acquitted late Friday.Eight men and four women found Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, not guilty of murdering Francisco Anguiano, who was 13 last July when he and his friends illegally entered Gonzalez's mobile home to take what they said were just sodas and snacks.

Gonzalez said he had the juveniles on the ground and was trying to keep them at bay with a shotgun when Anguiano made a sudden movement toward his feet. Gonzalez perceived the teen to be lunging for him, he testified, and fired the weapon into Anguiano's back, claiming he feared for his life.

The three surviving teens testified that they were subdued on their knees and posed Gonzalez no threat when he shot Anguiano.

After three hours, the jury sided with the homeowner.

"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."

Asked if he wanted to send any message to Anguiano's family, Gonzalez said he was sorry for the tragedy but "it was a situation in which I feared for my life."

Isidro "Chilo" Alaniz, Gonzalez's attorney, said the case was significant for all Laredoans.

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

He also echoed his client's sentiments and offered his condolences to Anguiano's family.

"It was a very, very difficult case because it was a very tragic case. By no means are we happy, in the sense that there was a life lost. Our heart goes out to the victim's family," he said.

Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker told the jury during his closing arguments the case wasn't about homeowners' lack of right to defend themselves but instead about when a person was justified in using deadly force to do so.

"This case was never about homeowners versus criminals. The evidence in this case was compelling enough to show that wasn't the case at all," he said after the verdict. "We (the District Attorney's Office) do not proceed on cases based on labels that are placed on people. We proceed on cases based on people's actions. What really took place here was a case of vigilantism. A 13-year-old boy was killed because a man was enraged.

"When it's all said and done, the members of the jury are the ones who decide what standards we live by and the interpretation of the laws. I think the message that was revealed is that it's OK for a person to take the law into their own hands."

Anguiano's aunt, who asked not to be named, said she was disappointed in Alaniz, the future district attorney of Webb and Zapata counties, and with what she perceived as a lack of justice.

"The state fought the case the way it should have," she said as tears streaked down her face. "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."

For his part, Alaniz congratulated the prosecutors from the office he will head next year and said he was impressed with the way they presented "one of the hardest cases" he's ever tried. He said he would continue to be an advocate for seniors and homeowners' rights when he takes office.

The case brings to a close one that divided the public during its weeklong duration. Some thought Gonzalez was justified in using deadly force, even if it was against an unarmed teenager. Others asserted that Gonzalez was on his property, outnumbered, and didn't know the intruders' intentions. Still more believed Gonzalez acted as the aggressor and beat and shot an unarmed teenager in the back when he should instead have called the police.

In the end, however, a jury agreed, and Gonzalez, for the first time in 14 months, walked away with his future a little more certain.

(Julian Aguilar may be reached at 728-2557 or jaguilar@lmtonline.com)

Sounds like at least one assistant DA will be out of a job when his new boss takes office.

[ErnieP]

Unfortunately, Bad Cases make Bad Law.....

[pedalman]

It also sounds like these jurors (peers of the now acquitted, mind you) are tired of hooligans being given a pass to do as they please.

I'm going to go against human nature and not second-guess this jury's decision. I was not there, so I did not hear all the evidence or the arguments presented. I will say that I was surprised at how quick this trial finished.

[boomerang]

Have the three alleged surviving burglars been tried yet?

[Paladin]

Call me cynical... but from just reading the news articles... I'm skeptical that the burglars were just there to steal "sodas and snacks". I'm also a skeptical that Mr. Gonzalez simply executed Anguiano and then kept the other burglars prisoner.

Holding a criminal at gunpoint is not as simple as most folks think. One homeowner holding 4 teenage-burglars at gunpoint is no easy task. Criminals can and do like to take risks... like trying to take away a firearm that somebody has pointed at them.

I recently took a force-on-force class... and watched an "unarmed burglar" (instructor) walk right up to a "homeowner" (student)... and take the gun from the "homeowner" with out a shot fired. The "homeowner" didn't want to shoot as the "burglar" was "unarmed"... not good.