Original story "I don't know what happened, your Honor, I fired a warning shot at his head and he just fell down"
Well if what the medical examiner had to say was true... that's certainly going well beyond the legal limits of defending your property. /not going to Texas.
Well his attourny claims that he forced them onto their knees at shotgun point..... doesnt sounds like they were beating him up... In my opinion its murder, maybe in an american court its excusable in defense of your property, but he still shot and killed someone.
He shot one at point blank while he was on his knees... hardly seems to be 'self defence' to me... and its not like the boys were pillaging his house and raping his daughters - they just wanted a Twinkie to chow on... sigh: might have been more sensible to knock and ask)
Manslaughter with extenuating circumstances IMO. When you've been burgled several times already and confront the burglars with adrenaline and a gun, you are not likely to think too clearly anymore. I can sympathise with the man. But it was excessive use of force.
In all honesty I would have said not guilty too. The little b4stards broke into his home and they deserve what they get for being where they were not suppose to be. They clearly have no respect for other peoples property and they got themselves killed when they crossed that line. I can picture it this way in my environment: chavs in the area constantly causing trouble, stealing from your house, your property - Its going to really get to you and enrage you. I hope this sets an example for other would-be theives. Excessive force, Yes I agree but still not guilty in my opinion.
The kid was shot in the back and the man's defence was that he thought he was lunging at him?? How can you lunge at someone behind you? The other thing I don't understand is that he is quite obviously guilty of killing the kid, he shot him and he died therefore he killed him. Surely the question is whether it was murder, manslaughter or self defence (which seems to apply to property as well as person in the US) Moriquendi
The problem is that he was tried for murder. In law, guilt is sort of a binary state in relation to a specific charge: either you are, or you are not. So even if as a jury member you think that he is guilty of manslaughter you can only rule that he is "not guilty" of murder. In scenarios like this, the premeditated quality of murder is a difficult charge to make stick. The prosecutors should have hedged their bets and charged him with manslaughter.
Well if the guy did walk free from the murder charge, can't he then be tried for manslaughter? If so, then i'd say good on them for trying to get him on a more serious charge.
I've heard about double jeopardy, but i didn't know it applies even to a different charge? That's dumb.
No, dumb on them. He cannot be tried for the same offense twice (although the family of the kid he shot can bring a civil law suit against him for compensation), so all that the prosecution has managed to establish is that what Mr. Gonzales did was not murder. Hardly an ideal situation... Better to establish what his actions can be legally defined as. This is not something you want to linger in a legal limbo.
Isn't the UK system that the jury decides whether the accused is guilty of murder, manslaughter, etc? Seems more logical, even when applied to driving offences. Essentially I don't give a damn about Americans blowing each other away but they will insist on taking their cowboy attitudes abroad.
A combination of private/public gun ownership and the death penalty definitely don't make the US a safer place.
They just wanted a snack? So what? If someone breaks into a house, I think it's reasonable for the occupant to assume their life is in danger. It's reasonable to pull a gun, yell that you've got it and the intruder needs to get the f out. If they don't... well, that's where the self defense classes come in, and some choices that have to be made in a split second, under extreme pressure, with deadly consequences. Ugh. I pity cops, I don't think you can pay someone enough to have to do that. I don't think I'm likely to end up in that situation, and I really, really don't want to have to make those choices, therefore I don't own a gun. Pulling the trigger once you've already got said intruders on their knees in front of you, and it's a bunch of dumb kids and not a knife-wielding drug addict, that's different. Nexxo's right as usual, they should have tried the guy for manslaughter.
