Texas is a cancerous mole on satan's taint

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
We're going to execute another murderer today. He killed a mentally challenged person. Oh well, who are you going to weep for? The murderer? Feel free.

I'm against the death penalty, but I'm not going to shed a tear for the murderer.

I just don't understand why we don't lock them up in Abu Ghraib.

[MrFun]

So junk food like Snickers, Twinkies, Twizzlers, and the like are more valuable than human life.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
We're going to execute another murderer today. He killed a mentally challenged person. Oh well, who are you going to weep for? The murderer? Feel free.

After countless DP threads, you still don't understand. The anti-DP people here do not weep for murderers.

As for this case... I think it's safe to say that Laredo isn't a very civilized place.

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

Or, actually, why don't we lock up the death row inmates in an iron maiden for 23.5 hours of the day?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
We're going to execute another murderer today. He killed a mentally challenged person. Oh well, who are you going to weep for? The murderer? Feel free.

Let's this thing cleared up Johnny Reb.

Just because I'm opposed to the death penalty does not mean I harbor sympathy for murderers who have actually committed their crimes. They need to be locked up.

[Deity Dude]

Well just in case anyone is interested, there is another newspaper account of the story. This is the reason why they try cases in a courtroom and not the press.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18659944&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6

Just hours after switching attorneys, Jose Luis Gonzalez, the Laredo man charged with murder after shooting and killing a teenager who broke into his mobile home with three friends, gave his lawyer the authority to tell Gonzalez's side of the story.Isidro R. Alaniz - who Gonzalez hired Thursday after initially requesting the services of attorney Eduardo Jaime earlier in the week -said the shotgun blast that killed Francisco Anguiano, 13, was an accident. He said the shot came only because his client was defending himself and his property.

"He came face to face with four individuals ransacking his home," Alaniz said. "He ordered them to stop, and he ordered them to get on their knees. Mr. Gonzalez feared for his life in this moment. When he ordered them to their knees, they refused."

A standoff ensued. One of the teens, Alaniz said, made a motion toward Gonzalez. Alaniz said that it was then that Gonzalez began to strike the teens with the barrel end of the shotgun and, while trying to get Anguiano to kneel, the gun went off.

Anguiano refused to kneel, Alaniz said. "In the commotion, the weapon went off and he was shot."

Alaniz said that recent statements made by one of the survivors were false.

Tuesday the teen in question said that while Anguiano lay bleeding on the floor, Gonzales continued to point the weapon at the other teens and strike them. Those allegations, Alaniz said, were not true.

"That, we maintain, is a fabrication," Alaniz said. "We maintain those statements are self-serving statements."
He added that although the sheriff's department interpreted the allegations as true, he is confident that a jury would not.

"I myself do not understand the rationale being used by the sheriff's department, plain and simple. They are taking the word of these kids," Alaniz said. He added that he was surprised that the teens have not been charged with any crime.

Alaniz also said that the entire event took less than a minute, not more than five as the teen said.

"When the gun went off, everyone was in shock," he said. "It happened so fast."

It sounds perhaps that the first story may be a little one-sided since the events are obviously in question. I am not taking a side as to whether the boys were telling the truth or the homeowner because I wasn't there, nor was I in the court. Neither were any of the people here who rushed to judgment and condemned an entire state.

I will say as a matter of law the homeowner is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Also, as a matter of common sense I would presume the innocent victim of a crime to be innocent for what occurred after the crime. This story goes on to say that the homeowner has no previous criminal record, had a concealed weapons permit and a heart condition.

OK so here is the other Executive summary.

An elderly homeowner with a heart condition, who's house has been broken into numerous times, discovers 4 boys ransacking the house. He knows not why they are there. He points a gun at them and tells them to kneel. They refuse and a standoff occurs. While being outnumbered 4-1 by teenagers he begins to hit them with the barrel end of the gun (which shows intent not to kill them) in an attempt to get them to obey his command to kneel. During this altercation one of the boys makes threatening gesture towards the homeowner. At that point the gun goes off and tragically the thief, who refused to be subdued and lunged at the homeowner is tragically shot.

One other point: If he really wanted execute these kids why not shoot all 4?


Again I am not taking a side in this story - I just thought the other side should be heard.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MrFun


Let's this thing cleared up Johnny Reb.

Just because I'm opposed to the death penalty does not mean I harbor sympathy for murderers who have actually committed their crimes. They need to be locked up.

Good idea. California is asking for a bail out. They have all these prisons, housing the Mansons and the whoever else. Good way to think. (?)

[chequita guevara]

So if it was a face off, how did he shoot them from behind and above? The guy's a murderer and a lying sack of ****.

[Deity Dude]

I guess you were there and know all these facts. All I am saying the first story loses credibility because it only gave one side. Obviously the most knowledgeable people about the case, the jury, disagree with your assessment Of course, they only sat through the trial and heard both sides. You read a one-sided newspaper account. I guess you do know more about it.

Again, I don't know who was wrong, I just thought it might be interesting to hear the other side. Obviously some people only want to hear the side they want to hear.

Furthermore there is one unquestionable fact about this case. If the teenagers hadn't broken into the old guys house we wouldn't even be talking about this.

[chequita guevara]

A newspaper account based on the trial or the murderer's lawyer's account . . . . hmmm, which is likely to be more objective . . . . hmmmm, which one

[Q Classic]

I mean, the main problem with the death penalty is that it lets the perpetrators off too easy. They get to die.

I mean, it's not like we have to pay much to house them in an Iron Maiden in the middle of the desert, right?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
A newspaper account based on the trial or the murderer's lawyer's account . . . . hmmm, which is likely to be more objective . . . . hmmmm, which one

This was the defense attorney's account of the defense he planned to present in court. Whatever defense he presented, I assume this is what it was, was heard by a jury that heard both sides.

My point is that it was really easy to read that one account and jump to a conclusion. After hearing both sides I am incapable of making a conclusive judgment. I can't find a transcript of the trial online anywhere.

I will say that if the case the defense attorney presented in the article is the same one he presented in court. And there wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that story false. I would have to reluctantly find the homeowner not guilty.

We just don't know enough about it from the 2 articles, one highlighting the prosecutors case and one highlighting the defendants case, to make the judgment you seem very ready to make.

If you walk into your house and 4 people are robbing it and you point a gun at them and tell them to kneel and a struggle occurs and the gun goes off and kills one of them you are innocent.

If under the same circumstance they kneel and you pop one of them in the back of the head you are guilty, even under Texas Law.

That's why when I heard the story presented as both sides agreeing on the second scenario but 12 people voted unanimously innocent I knew there had to be more to the story.

[SlowwHand]

Bingo.

[Felch]

Deity Dude

These things aren't always as cut and dry as some folks want us to think. It's too bad the kid got shot, it really is. But it would be worse to send an old man to prison for an accidental shooting while defending his home.

Also, why not just shoplift a 7-11?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

This was the defense attorney's account of the defense he planned to present in court. Whatever defense he presented, I assume this is what it was, was heard by a jury that heard both sides.

My point is that it was really easy to read that one account and jump to a conclusion. After hearing both sides I am incapable of making a conclusive judgment. I can't find a transcript of the trial online anywhere.

I will say that if the case the defense attorney presented in the article is the same one he presented in court. And there wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that story false. I would have to reluctantly find the homeowner not guilty.

We just don't know enough about it from the 2 articles, one highlighting the prosecutors case and one highlighting the defendants case, to make the judgment you seem very ready to make.

If you walk into your house and 4 people are robbing it and you point a gun at them and tell them to kneel and a struggle occurs and the gun goes off and kills one of them you are innocent.

If under the same circumstance they kneel and you pop one of them in the back of the head you are guilty, even under Texas Law.

That's why when I heard the story presented as both sides agreeing on the second scenario but 12 people voted unanimously innocent I knew there had to be more to the story.

Careful Deity! You don't want to come across as being moderate or objective or you will have Che call you on being dumb.