Some may be appalled that this Texas homeowner used deadly force when a bunch of teenagers broke into his home.
Yes, they were looking for drinks and snacks… supposedly. But consider this: when you’re an elderly homeowner and a bunch of individuals break into your home, is your first thought, “Oh! They must just be hungry!” or “Someone’s in my house, and I need to protect myself!”
Luckily, the jury in this case thought the latter was a logical rationale, so they acquitted Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, of murdering Francisco Anguiano, who was 13 when he and three friends
broke into Gonzalez’s trailer in July 2007.
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.”
No, a 13-year-old boy was killed because he invaded someone’s home. It’s called breaking and entering, and it’s a crime. Why is it that his age needs to absolve him of dealing with the consequences of his actions?
Sep 30, 2008 @ 01:36:20
This is the kind of thing I have been chewed out for advocating in the past. I have actually been told that since I believe in deadly force even if the attackers may not have a gun, I will be convicted if I ever am forced to defend myself. When someone breaks in, or starts attacking, it is not the time to second guess the victim’s reaction. You are not going to assume that they won’t kill you. Not if you want to survive the encounter.
Sep 30, 2008 @ 01:50:51
I think it depends on what state you live in.
Oct 02, 2008 @ 20:40:11
Jose deserves an award for having done a civic duty. Calendar years don’t really count; I’ve seem a number of pretty beefy 13 year-olds. Good riddance. Any report on the citizenship status of those involved?