Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/29/08 11:26 AM, Proteas wrote: So by your logic, if the state is allowed to execute someone for a particular crime, then I can forgo giving the assailant a proper trial and blow their brains out myself if I so choose?

I was referring to the arguments that "you mustn't get away with crime" or "he should have known he had it coming when he broke into the house".

If that's true, and the consequences were acceptable and proportionate to the crime, then clearly the state should execute every single burglar from now on.

At 9/29/08 11:47 AM, AapoJoki wrote: If that's true, and the consequences were acceptable and proportionate to the crime, then clearly the state should execute every single burglar from now on.

There's a difference between the taxpayer paying the state to execute every single burglar and the state allowing one man to kill a burglar. Obviously if he'd been caught by the cops he wouldn't have been executed, but that's beyond the point - you should be allowed to kill people who are trying to damage you.

No-one said it was proportionate, just that he should be allowed to do it. It would be disgraceful if the homeowner was put in jail for murder for killing an intruder.

Funnily enough, this reminds me that a few years ago I was arguing on the exact opposite side.

You break into my home...steal my property, possibly are armed.
I say shoot all of them.
Give him a medal for hitting his target.

Let it hopefully be a lesson to the rest of the little bastards that, BREAKING INTO SOMEONES HOME IS A POSSIBLE DEATH SENTENCE.

The sanctity & rights of people in their homes should be of the highest importence & it should be made perfectly clear if you do a B&E you have only one right ...the right to be killed with no consequences to your killer.

i cant belive theres people who are actualy defending him

Though in all fairness, I think he should pay the parents some reparations.

Maybe a 24 pack of Pepsi cans or a box of twinkies.

At 9/29/08 01:02 PM, morefngdbs wrote: The sanctity & rights of people in their homes should be of the highest importence

So, if we're resorting to "sanctity" of things, how can you argue that a person's right to defend his home or property is more sacred than a human life? Not that I think this was a case of property defence, anyway.

Theft and damaging of property are actions that can be reversed and compensated (in most cases). Taking someone's life is not.

At 9/29/08 08:26 AM, cHunter wrote: The jury would obviously try to reason out why the child was shot in the back, so if they still gave him a not innocent verdict I think he's not guilty of murder, rather it was self defense.

Okay, let's say the kid actually did somehow manage to scrape up the reckless courage to make a backwards lunge while unarmed towards a man who has a shotgun to his back. After being beaten by a gun (which is metal and wood, if you don't know getting hit by metal kind of hurts; just a little bit) and kicked. Let's just say that actually happened.

He's 13 years old, what the fuck is he gonna do next? It's not like he's a kung fu master and can take out an adult with solely his fists.

In my eyes he only got away with this sort of vigilantic vengeance because the town he is in has a rampant drug violence problem, and children are probably stereotyped as part of the problem, we have no reason from the provided article to assume they were anything but hungry children, there is no stated history of violence or to a lesser related extent drug use.

At 9/29/08 01:42 PM, Rideo wrote: Okay, let's say the kid actually did somehow manage to scrape up the reckless courage to make a backwards lunge while unarmed towards a man who has a shotgun to his back. After being beaten by a gun (which is metal and wood, if you don't know getting hit by metal kind of hurts; just a little bit) and kicked. Let's just say that actually happened.

Because you were there so you know exactly how the situation played out?

He's 13 years old, what the fuck is he gonna do next? It's not like he's a kung fu master and can take out an adult with solely his fists.

If he shoves the guy off balance making him fall over (the guy is in his 60's, is he not?) then the others who ranged from 11 to 16 could get up and beat him to death. Obviously you're underestimating the strength of a large group of teenagers.

In my eyes he only got away with this sort of vigilantic vengeance because the town he is in has a rampant drug violence problem, and children are probably stereotyped as part of the problem, we have no reason from the provided article to assume they were anything but hungry children, there is no stated history of violence or to a lesser related extent drug use.

So just because it was their first time breaking into someone's house and stealing their belongings we should let him off? The kid, according to the court case, broke in and then attempted to attack the man. Defending oneself is not vigilantism, it's self defense.

At 9/29/08 02:41 PM, cHunter wrote: Because you were there so you know exactly how the situation played out?

Did I say that it didn't happen that way? I simply put the perspective in your proposed scenario, sorry if it sounds less realistic when you read it written simply like that, but that is what you were saying.

He's 13 years old, what the fuck is he gonna do next? It's not like he's a kung fu master and can take out an adult with solely his fists.

If he shoves the guy off balance making him fall over (the guy is in his 60's, is he not?) then the others who ranged from 11 to 16 could get up and beat him to death. Obviously you're underestimating the strength of a large group of teenagers.

3 kids is not a large group of teenagers, there were three of them, all unarmed, all children. They would be afraid of the man with the gun shoved in their backs, not thinking "Hey! I could totally just do a backflip, hit the gun out of his hands and then beat him to death! Yeah!" They would be shitting their pants and thinking "oh fuck, I just want to come out of this alive" which is more likely seeing as they pleaded for their lives. People don't plead for their lives and then lunge at a man with a gun, they plead because they think it's the only option left.

In my eyes he only got away with this sort of vigilantic vengeance because the town he is in has a rampant drug violence problem, and children are probably stereotyped as part of the problem, we have no reason from the provided article to assume they were anything but hungry children, there is no stated history of violence or to a lesser related extent drug use.

So just because it was their first time breaking into someone's house and stealing their belongings we should let him off? The kid, according to the court case, broke in and then attempted to attack the man. Defending oneself is not vigilantism, it's self defense.

He attempted to attack the man? They were stealing twinkies and soda. They were unarmed, jesus christ who is defending the self here? The coca-cola?

Moreover you missed the point of my last paragraph, the man was let off because teens in his area are probably seen as a trouble to society, but that stereotype does not necessarily qualify them as such. Hot damn these kids could be poor and starving and just looking for a measly bite to eat and you claim he shot them in self-defense?

Beyond that I never said they should be let off, but every person deserves a trial in the court of law when they are convicted of a crime; I don't support vengeful vigilantism.

At 9/29/08 11:47 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

If that's true, and the consequences were acceptable and proportionate to the crime, then clearly the state should execute every single burglar from now on.

The state shouldn't act like a lone dude in a trailer with a shotgun.
What the state does with captured criminals is not the same as what you get yourself into if you suddenly decide you're going to commit crimes.

If you want to commit a crime, you're going up mano-y-mano against whoever you're committing a crime against. Until you get into the back of a police car, your fate is up to the guy who you're trying to fuck over.

I think that's a fair social contract. Maybe he'll just knock you out. Maybe he'll call the cops. Maybe he'll shoot you in the face with a gun.

Though shit if you lose the crime lottery.

At 9/29/08 03:39 PM, poxpower wrote: If you want to commit a crime, you're going up mano-y-mano against whoever you're committing a crime against. Until you get into the back of a police car, your fate is up to the guy who you're trying to fuck over.

Then what's the point of having laws in the first place, if we can just take vengeance on people who commit crimes against us? Because that's exactly what the homeowner did. Had it been a legitimate case of self-defence or a panicked reaction that made him pull the trigger, then I would understand the verdict. But he had the kid at his mercy and killed him execution-style.

At 9/29/08 11:39 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Or something like that.

I hate to break it to you, but one of the key definitions of Justice is "the moral principle determining just conduct." Morality helps to determine the law, not the other way around.

And when did I use my own morality to say anything

I had you confused with gradenator, who's point you stepped in to respond to.

At 9/29/08 11:47 AM, AapoJoki wrote: If that's true, and the consequences were acceptable and proportionate to the crime, then clearly the state should execute every single burglar from now on.

Works for me. I've got a tall tree and a short length of rope they can borrow....

At 9/29/08 01:42 PM, Rideo wrote: we have no reason from the provided article to assume they were anything but hungry children,

Then why didn't they just go and shoplift from the local 7/11 like regular kids? Why'd they have to break into this guy's house?

there is no stated history of violence or to a lesser related extent drug use.

They knew he wasn't home when they broke in, that shows a prior knowledge of the man and his house and a possible tie to the previous break-ins, which NO ONE here has bothered to address.

At 9/29/08 03:08 PM, Rideo wrote: 3 kids is not a large group of teenagers, there were three of them, all unarmed, all children.

They were minors, teenagers specifically. And thanks to puberty probably as big as the 63 year old man. If you want to play the "innocent children" bit, then where were these kids parents? Why were these kids out robbing somebody's house for snack food?

Hot damn these kids could be poor and starving and just looking for a measly bite to eat and you claim he shot them in self-defense?

Could have been, but they weren't. "Homeless kid gets shot looking for twinkies in trailer" would have made the national headlines, and it would have been noted in the opening article.

And let me ask again something most of you have been ignoring; where the kid's parents in all this? Why were they out robbing houses for snack food?

At 9/29/08 03:52 PM, AapoJoki wrote: But he had the kid at his mercy and killed him execution-style.

You know, we're lucky to be hearing about this case at all. He shot one kid out of a group of... what.. three? Four? They could have ran into that one psycho that would have shot all of them on site and fed the bodies through a would chipper for his own amusement.

At 9/29/08 03:52 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

Then what's the point of having laws in the first place, if we can just take vengeance on people who commit crimes against us?

You can't take vengeance on someone.
The only loophole is when that person is directly in contact with you or your property and is knowingly trying to fuck you over.

So for instance, I could have a burgler system in my house that has bear traps and shit, and as long as people understood that breaking into my house = beartraps, then no one can do shit.

Same deal if you try to mug me. If you are mugging me, you understand that I can take your knife and jab it in your eye. But if you mug me and get away with it, then it's in the cop's hands, I can't hunt you down to kill you.

But the moment that you're committing the crime, you're not protected by any laws. That's what I say.

We Texans shoot first then explain ourselves later.

At 9/29/08 06:18 PM, poxpower wrote: But the moment that you're committing the crime, you're not protected by any laws. That's what I say.

The way I see it, the moment the boys were committing a crime was already over when the man fired the gun. It can't be said that the homeowner was "directly in contact", as you defined here, with the burglars anymore, nor were the burglars in the process of fucking him over anymore. They had attempted a theft, and it failed.

Instead of stabbing the mugger with his own knife in a fight situation, it's more like smacking the mugger unconscious first, then proceeding to stomp his head with your foot till he dies.

At 9/29/08 06:42 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

Instead of stabbing the mugger with his own knife in a fight situation, it's more like smacking the mugger unconscious first, then proceeding to stomp his head with your foot till he dies.

Yeah that works too.

When you commit a crime, you forfeit all your rights until the cops come and get you or you get off the property of the person you are committing a crime against.

At 9/28/08 06:36 PM, poxpower wrote: YOu know what?

When you commit a crime, you shouldn't expect to get away with it.

Um... not getting shot to death is not getting away with it when you're talking about stealing some fucking Twinkies at age 13. Even if the 13 year old kid got arrested for that crime, he'd probably just be sent home to his parents, and at most get some community service or something.

Something like that would be a reasonable punishment for a 13 year old. Having his life ended is not even close to a reasonable punishment. At that age people are not smart enough to gauge the consequences of their actions. Even if it was a 25 year old who did it, death is still not a reasonable conclusion to minor theft and trespassing.

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.

You're a monster if you actually believe the stuff you're saying right now and aren't just trying to sound tough for whatever reason.

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'm sure you've NEVER, EVER stolen anything right? I'm sure you've NEVER, EVER trespassed on someones property right?

If you say you haven't, you're a liar. If you say you have, then you deserve to be shot execution-style by your logic, and probably 99% of all children in the world should have been killed the same way as well.

What the man did was murder, because he methodically detained and executed a child. He played the judge, the jury, and took it upon himself to be the executioner as well. If you think stealing Twinkies deserves death, then what punishment does a murderer deserve?

At 9/29/08 06:52 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Um... not getting shot to death is not getting away with it when you're talking about stealing some fucking Twinkies at age 13.

I'm not saying it's the correct response, I'm saying that if that is the response, then tough shit.
They shouldn't have thought "well at worst we'll be grounded".
No, at worst A CRAZY BASTARD WILL SHOOT YOU. Whatever the age, there is no free pass when you commit physical crimes. You take your chances and your life is at the mercy of the one you wrong.

Most likely he'll figure out that you're just a kid and shouldn't get shot.

But.

Maybe he's crazy.

I'm sure you've NEVER, EVER stolen anything right? I'm sure you've NEVER, EVER trespassed on someones property right?

Huh no I never broke into someone's property to steal anything.

If you say you haven't, you're a liar.

So either I'm a criminal or a liar? haha

If you think stealing Twinkies deserves death, then what punishment does a murderer deserve?

Sorry, it doesn't matter what you steal.
If you enter someone's property with the internet to harm or rob him, you forfeit your life.

alright guys once me and my mates were drunk and we passed a factory with no locks on the doors and we went inside and stole the fire extinguisher

At 9/29/08 06:57 PM, WadeFulp wrote: He ordered them down. If one got up and came at him, or started to move towards him

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.

Hit them with the barrel, shot in the back at close range. Obviously wasn't going towards the home owner, he was running away. Basically it's legal cold blooded murder. According to Texas law YES, he should have gotten off. But just because it's legal, doesn't make it the best course of action. Obviously it was break and enter to commit theft, and by law, Texans are allowed to use lethal force to protect property.

I'm saying it again, America seriously needs to overhaul it's laws. Lethal force wasn't necessary, a simple citizen's arrest would have been fine. Call the cops and get the boys charged with B&E to commit theft. This isn't the wild west anymore, time to catch up with the rest of the world.

Well, legally I am prone to side with the homeowner, but seriously, the criminal was a kid, no need to kill him....

Look, the man had his house three times be for.
Not once, not twice, but Three times.

Would you bit a bit angery? Have a bit of a vengeance complex, prehaps you think "If I kill them, no one else will break into my house." Or maybe he had it in mind that next person might be dangerus.

BOTH sides were clear that he killed them excutoin style. You dont shot some one in the back of the head point blank on accident, or with out clear thought.

Also, I mean, look at his mug shot? Think he is a friendly guy?

At 9/29/08 07:24 PM, Glowstick-warroir wrote: Also, I mean, look at his mug shot? Think he is a friendly guy?

Of course, I bet he does charity work, goes to church, drives a school bus. Yup, he's definitely an upstanding citizen of Texas, a real role model for young Americans. They should really build him a statue.

At 9/29/08 06:57 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

At 9/29/08 06:52 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um... not getting shot to death is not getting away with it when you're talking about stealing some fucking Twinkies at age 13.

He wasn't stealing Twinkies. He was INSIDE someone's home, with TWO other people. 3 teens vs a 62 year old man? Some 13 year olds can be pretty big. They could be armed. Would you want to mess with 3 teens if they all had a knife on them?

The guy held them at gun point THEN shot the kid. It was obvious that they weren't a threat anymore based on the story. He chose to execute the kid.

Executing someone in such a manner is not congruent with the self-defense theory.

Why should the home owner take a fucking chance?

Based on the story, it doesn't seem like he was taking a chance. It seems like he got trigger happy and killed someone out of spite, not out of fear.

The home owner didn't ask to be put in that situation, those fucking kids put him there. It's their problem.

Those kids stole candy. A 13 year old ended up getting shot to death for stealing candy and trespassing. Although none of that would have occurred if the kids didn't trespass, that still doesn't clear the man of wrongdoing. Based on the story, it seems he killed the kid without just cause.

I'm all for self defense and especially home defense, I'm a gun owner myself. I would have no problem shooting someone if I really saw them as a threat. But I certainly wouldn't shoot someone in the back after I got them on the ground and they were no longer a threat. Better yet, I probably would have chased them out instead of trying to exact vigilante justice.

At 9/29/08 07:00 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/29/08 06:52 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Um... not getting shot to death is not getting away with it when you're talking about stealing some fucking Twinkies at age 13.

I'm not saying it's the correct response

Then what is the correct response?

They shouldn't have thought "well at worst we'll be grounded".
No, at worst A CRAZY BASTARD WILL SHOOT YOU. Whatever the age, there is no free pass when you commit physical crimes. You take your chances and your life is at the mercy of the one you wrong.

You're ignoring the fact that an adult was involved here. It was the adult that killed the kid... does he deserve no punishment at all?

Just because the kids committed a crime first, does it warrant ANY response of any kind no matter how seveure?

The reason I called you a monster is because as far as I've seen you haven't really defended the guy on the grounds that he was defending himself. It seems like your position is that the kid deserved to die first and foremost.

I just came up with a brilliant idea to get rid of all those pesky door-to-door evangelists... O_o

There are still people who are crazy enough to do things like that!

WHAT IS THIS!?!??!?!?