Texas homeowner shoots 13 year old

[hippl5]

Full story

So a few kids break into a guy's trailer, and he ends up killing one. The thing is, the article doesn't make it sound like it was a split second decision. He forced the kids on their knees, whipped them with the shotgun, kicked them, and then shot one in the back. Although he does say he thought the kid lunged at him.

Who is right in this case?

[Glowstick-warroir]

I think that the home owners at fault.
Shooting the kid was unnecessary, the kid hadn't threatened him to the point where a gun was required. Sure, Legally he may have the right, but "rummage for snacks and soda"? Do you really need to kill some on over that?

[LordJaric]

There is now fucking way he had to use deadly force, these kids wanted food that is all, they shouldn't have broken in in the first place, but come on. If this kid did jump at him (which i find hard to believe that 13 year old kid would be brave enough to do against a armed man) then he could of easily knocked the kid down no problem. What was the jury thinking.

[BrianEtrius]

What can i say? People do stupid things with thinking about it.

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/28/08 02:28 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: What can i say? People do stupid things without thinking about it.

Fixed. Sorry, typo.

[stafffighter]

The right to home defence is just that. The purpose is to deal with the threat. There was no threat remaining and thus, he's just a sadistic bastard.
The very fact that you posted to ask this means that the issue of a lost life is being treated as a legal technicality. That's pretty fucked up in itself.

[ThePretenders]

He shot an unarmed kid in the back? He used excessive deadly force and should have been convicted of murder.

[JoS]

At 9/28/08 05:32 PM, ThePretenders wrote: He shot an unarmed kid in the back? He used excessive deadly force and should have been convicted of murder.

"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."

So if the kid was lunging at him, how doe she get shot in the back?

[johnnycancer]

Was he right to make the kid get on his knees and shoot him? No, of course not.

In a civil lawsuit (a trial for money damages, not where anyone could be sent to prison) he would be liable for wrongful death, because, under civil law, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property. And it doesn't matter that the kid broke into his house. So, if the kid has any family members to bring a suit against the guy, they could get a host of different tort remedies, probably including punitive damages because there's a good argument that the guy acted out of malice - which means they could get pain and suffering damages, which are always huge.

With criminal law, it's a bit more complicated. You can use deadly force to protect your home or property if you have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. Additionally, at least in California, if you kill a burglar while they're inside your home, there's a presumption that you acted reasonably. But it's a rebuttable presumption - which means that you can still be convicted of murder if the prosecution can show that you did not in fact act reasonably. Not knowing all of the facts, it's hard to say exactly how clear it is that the homeowner didn't act reasonably, but, at the very least, if you've subdued a burglar to the point where you've got him on his knees at gunpoint, then you're no longer in imminent fear of great bodily injury and it's not reasonable for you to kill him.

Similarly, for a self-defense claim you have to show that (1) you had a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm and (2) that you responded with reasonable force. Again, with the first element, if the guy is on his knees and you've got a gun pointed at him, you're no longer in imminent fear of bodily harm, so, no self-defense claim. With the second element, it's basically been interpreted to mean that you have to respond with like force - meaning that, if someobody lunges at you, you're within your rights to punch them or otherwise use your bare fists to make them back off. But, if someone lunges at you, you're not within your rights to shoot them.

So, I mean, based on the fact pattern, it looks like there's no viable self-defense claim here. At the very least, I think he would be liable to the victim's family for civil damages. As far as criminal liability goes, he could be charged with anything up to 2nd degree murder (can't be 1st degree because there was no premeditation).

[ThePretenders]

At 9/28/08 05:53 PM, JoS wrote: "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."

So if the kid was lunging at him, how doe she get shot in the back?

I don't know but what is most surprising is that he was acquitted despite the fact that the forensic evidence contradicts his testimony.

[ImaSmartass2]

At 9/28/08 05:53 PM, JoS wrote:

At 9/28/08 05:32 PM, ThePretenders wrote: He shot an unarmed kid in the back? He used excessive deadly force and should have been convicted of murder.

"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."

So if the kid was lunging at him, how doe she get shot in the back?

Damn beat me to it. Unless he lunged backwards, which is stupid, the trailer owner made that up. He probably just wanted to set an example to the others. What a bastard.

He should be convicted

[HogWashSoup]

The kids at night get shot and fight, deep in the heart of Texas!!!

It is in Texas, anyone from there is an idiot.
Plus was just a 13 year old, they are pests anyways.

[poxpower]

YOu know what?

When you commit a crime, you shouldn't expect to get away with it.
Fuck you kids, boo hoo, you committed a fucking crime, knowingly so and it went bad. Tough shit, that'll teach you robbing the property of a crazy bastard.

Let this be a lesson to every robber in the world. If you think you're just going to get a slap on the wrist at WORST if you get caught, think again. There's some really fucked up individuals out there who'd like nothing more than catch you and shoot you.

I say good riddance.
Also I just gained 50 asshole experience points.

[Earfetish]

People shouldn't break into houses.

I kinda agree wholly with Texan's hardcore gunloving, because in the UK, someone could break into your house armed with a baseball bat and if you killed them you'd almost certainly get done for murder. Even if you felt threatened. You'd have to fight them with a baseball bat back, you couldn't use a knife or a gun or anything.

[Earfetish]

At 9/28/08 06:36 PM, poxpower wrote: When you commit a crime, you shouldn't expect to get away with it.

I agree. We should be allowed South Africa style car-alarms, that spray you with sulphuric acid or set you on fire or something if you try to rob a car. People should feel threatened when they try to attack other people or to steal other people's property, you should be aware that you take your life in your hands when you're committing a crime against a person. Even if you're 13.

Did you guys all break into houses when you were 13? No. The kids who did? What are they doing now? Being violent dickheads and causing even more grief to a society that could do without it. One less arsehole in the world.

[thedo12]

I have to disagree with the last two guys,

they were 13 year old kids, people do stupid shit when there that young , you have to find a middle ground between this.

hell id be dead by now if only 1 person in my life was like that.

[zambota]

Well whatever you're thoughts you have to admit the fact that kid got owned.

[KeithHybrid]

Two words.
Stupid Texass.

[LordJaric]

At 9/28/08 06:05 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 9/28/08 05:53 PM, JoS wrote:

So if the kid was lunging at him, how doe she get shot in the back?

Damn beat me to it. Unless he lunged backwards, which is stupid, the trailer owner made that up. He probably just wanted to set an example to the others. What a bastard.

He should be convicted

That was what I was thinking.

[poxpower]

At 9/28/08 06:40 PM, Earfetish wrote:

I agree. We should be allowed South Africa style car-alarms, that spray you with sulphuric acid or set you on fire or something if you try to rob a car.

That would rule.

Crime should be a lottery where you can actually lose some time.
Right now, the worse that happens is you go to jail with a face full of mace. What's so bad about jail? If your life is so shitty that you resort to crime, then I can imagine that having free food and bed and not having to work isn't too bad.

The supreme irony is that the worse thing about jail is the other criminals. What a bunch of retards. They could all make jail pleasant but instead they choose to keep fighting and make it hell.

Fuck em'.
Crime is lower than begging. I'd sooner beg on a street corner than try to rob someone's home. I'd sooner apply for government aid.

Want to save money, you dipshits? Then live together in a small appartment. Even with a McSalary, 3-4 guys can live PRETTY WELL in a shitty appartment somewhere. Fuck I live in a pretty nice place with 2 other people and I bet I don't spend more than 6-7k per year.

That means that if the 3 of us worked at Mc Donald's, we could bank a clean 15k per year total and still have the internet, food, warm beds.

People are dipshits. Fuck them.

[Proteas]

At 9/28/08 06:01 PM, johnnycancer wrote: In a civil lawsuit (a trial for money damages, not where anyone could be sent to prison) he would be liable for wrongful death, because, under civil law, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property.

Except, in this instance, it IS legal to defend your home and property with deadly force as per Texas law. The man at the center of all this was found not guilty, and there's several other instances in Texas law where homeowner's have shot and killed people breaking-and-entering their domiciles AFTER they've left, of which a few such instances were cited in the article.

The law is on this man's side, like it or not.

And it doesn't matter that the kid broke into his house.

Uh, yeah it does, it was private property and they had no business being there. That's breaking and entering, which, regardless of intent can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor in the least and a felony in the most, carrying a minimum 3 year prison sentence if it's your third offense. While the article does not state whether or not the kids in question had broken in before, the fact that they broke in when he wasn't there and the fact they only took snack food indicates a prior experience with the homeowner and his habits, and could be used against them.

there's a good argument that the guy acted out of malice

He was the victim of MULTIPLE break ins, of course there was some malice involved.

While I don't like the way he handled the situation, I am certainly not about to show sympathy for the punk kids involved with all this. Screw 'em.

[therealsylvos]

At 9/28/08 06:36 PM, poxpower wrote:
Also I just gained 50 awesome experience points.

* fixed

[fli]

Proteas, there is such a thing as using discretion.
There's such a thing as using enough force, and it's another to useing excessive force.

Perhaps if the owner's life was at stake in an immediate sense, I can see this as being okay.
But the boy was literally begging for his life.

This is a case of one being trigger happy.

[Proteas]

At 9/28/08 08:21 PM, fli wrote: Proteas, there is such a thing as using discretion.

I said I didn't like the way he handled the situation, did I not?

[johnnycancer]

At 9/28/08 07:49 PM, Proteas wrote: of course there was some malice involved.

So you see why punitive damages would be warranted then.

[Proteas]

At 9/28/08 08:59 PM, johnnycancer wrote: So you see why punitive damages would be warranted then.

Not really, as I already pointed out (and you refused to respond to) the fact that the law is on the man's side, and there's already a precedent in Texas for such a thing.

[johnnycancer]

At 9/28/08 09:09 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/28/08 08:59 PM, johnnycancer wrote: So you see why punitive damages would be warranted then.

Not really, as I already pointed out (and you refused to respond to) the fact that the law is on the man's side, and there's already a precedent in Texas for such a thing.

I think I mentioned that I didn't really know Texas law - in talking about self-defense, I thought I said I assumed it was like California, if not, I'm saying it now. So, you say Texas law is different. Fine. I don't know enough about it to disagree with you.

Since you're obviously legally sophisticated, then you realize that if you admit the man acted ouf of malice, then he couldn't have been acting out of self-defense, right? Because the point of self-defense in a criminal prosecution for murder is that it negates a mental state of malice.

So unless Texas recently got rid of mental state requirements in its criminal code, then the law is not on the homeowner's side if he acted out of malice. It's only self-defense if you acted out of imminent fear of great bodily harm. If you kill someone because you're pissed off at them, by definition that's not self-defense.

[Proteas]

At 9/28/08 09:25 PM, johnnycancer wrote: I think I mentioned that I didn't really know Texas law - in talking about self-defense

The law as it applies to this situation was spelled out in the topic starter's article.

You did read the opening article, right?

Because the point of self-defense in a criminal prosecution for murder is that it negates a mental state of malice.

The criminal phase of the prosecution of this case is already over, rendering this a moot point.

If you kill someone because you're pissed off at them, by definition that's not self-defense.

Not under Texas law it isn't.

[cHunter]

I actually find it pretty funny that some kids break into a house and one gets shot. Good! Hopefully other idiot kids will get the picture. I hate it when people side with the children in a case like this. Just because they're young doesn't mean they should be able to get away with anything. Thank god this guy won the case.

[Prinzy2]

So you can execute a 13 year old for stealing a couple twinkies, but border patrol gets thrown in jail for shooting an illegal alien drug dealer who tried to kill them?

America needs to seriously overhaul it's laws.