Jose Luis Gonzalez is 63 years old. His trailer home has been broken into several times.  He is sick and tired of it.  15 year old Jesus Soto, 13 year old Francisco Anguiano and two other teenage boys were prowling his neighborhood one night. They were hungry.  Word must have been out that the Gonzalez trailer was an easy mark for free food. The boys decided to let themselves in and help themselves. They apparently thought  the coast was clear.  Gonzalez was in a nearby building at the time.  He returned home and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun.  Soto testified at trial that they were all unarmed.  Soto testified that Gonzalez forced them all to their knees.  There was testimony that the boys begged for forgiveness while Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly.  Gonzalez then shot and killed 13 year old Anguiano.  Gonzalez was charged with the murder.

At trial Gonzalez testified that  he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun. The medical examiner testified that Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. There was testimony that  two mashed Twinkies and some cookies belonging to Gonzalez were stuffed in the pockets of his Anguianos’s shorts.

It was the opinion of the  Assistant District Attorney that the Texas “Castle Law” did not apply. He stated:

“What really took place here was a case of vigilantism. A 13-year-old boy was killed because a man was enraged.“

What is  the Texas Castle Doctrine? Here is an overview:

In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat when an intruder unlawfully entered their home. Is this what happened in this situation? The law also extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces. The Castle Law allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

• Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
• Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
• Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances.

It took the jury of eight men and four women three hours Friday to find Jose Luis Gonzalez  not guilty of murdering 13 year old Anguiano. Should Mr. Gonzalez should have been acquitted?  This sounds more like a “gangland” execution than a person afraid for his life.   It is not clear how Aguiano who was on his knees could have “lunged” at Gonzalez and get shot in the back.  Did he rise up and hop backwards at him?   If anyone was afraid for their lives it was the subdued teenagers as they were being kicked and beaten by Gonzalez.

Unfortunately  for Francisco Anguiano the  Texas Castle Doctrine statute does not distinguish between Twinkies,  jewelry or a plasma television.  The statute does not impose any circumstances to define when something transitions from a deadly force situation to the requirement of a non-deadly response.  There is no question that the boys entered his home unlawfully.  Under the statute he had no duty to retreat. He had no duty to ask them  what they were doing there. He had no duty to call the police. He had no duty to ask the to leave.  He had no obligation to anything or anyone but the danger he perceived himself in even if that perception was flawed.   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.

Druker’s argument seems reasonable but is legislatively flawed.  The legislature passed the Castle Law in part so homeowners would not have to go through that thought process before defending themselves.  If someone enters your home unlawfully  the intent is to do you harm. End of story.  A story however with many unwritten chapters and thousands of possible scenarios in between.  After his acquittal Gonzalez said he was sorry for Anguiano’s death, but “it was a situation in which I feared for my life.”

Did the venue matter?  Laredo is town plagued by cross-border Mexican drug cartel violence.  Fears are high.  Tempers are short. Triggers are quick.  Juries both empathize and sympathize with residents under siege.  It should also be noted that Gonzalez’s attorney Isidro “Chilo” Alaniz, is running unopposed for district attorney.  That  does not bode well for any future hungry kids looking for a free snack.

Motto of Story?  If you live in Texas steal your Twinkies from the local 7-11.  You will live longer.

Here is another example of how far Texas grand juries and juries are willing to go to protect homeowners T In June, a grand jury in Houston cleared a homeowner who shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor’s house despite the dispatcher’s repeated request that he stay inside his own home.  The video is below.

Man Shoots Thieves Robbing Neighbor’s House; 911 Tapes Released

What do Joe Horn, The Second Amendment and the Texas Castle Law all have in common? The answer is that they have all come together in a bizarre set of circumstances to give Mr Horn a pass for shooting two people in the back who he thought were burglarizing his neighbors home. Both would be burglars were killed.

Mr Horn was recently “no billed” by a Houston grand jury for fatally shooting two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor’s home. What makes this story noteworthy is that Mr. Horn was actually on the line with police emergency services when he shot both of the suspected perps in the back with his shotgun. 911 tapes capture Mr. Horn telling the operator he was going to kill them with the operator trying to talk him back into his own home. There was little doubt that the two illegal immigrants had burglarized his neighbor as they were spotted by Mr. Horn crawling out of of window with bags of items from the home. Was Mr. Horn in the right in blowing away these two guys?

According to the Harris County District Attorney:

“Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbor’s property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he’s out of town”

This case has put Texas newly amended “Castle Law “under the microscope as well the integrity of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. The amended law significantly broadens the circumstances under which a homeowner or vehicle owner can use deadly force to protect his/her home or vehicle. There is now a broader “presumption” that under certain circumstances the use of deadly force is reasonable. This will certainly make it easier for a grand jury to say “but for the grace of god” and let someone walk.

To add insult to injury, U.S. representative Sheila Jackson Lee. She is seeking a Congressional investigation into the Harris County Criminal Justice system. The Harris County District Attorney’s Office has been rocked by questionable practices in the last year including pornographic and racially charged emails that mocked Islam and a botched indictment for arson involving Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina. This culmniated in the resignation of Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.

We have now shifted from “What’s mine is mine” to what belongs to my neighbor is mine as well. Have the lines of self defense and murder been blurred beyond distinction? Are we breeding a new generation of “Ipod Vigilantes” laying in wait for the poor sap thief who tries to steal the $400 dollar Ipod placed conspicuously on the drivers seat with door unlocked?

I wonder if Ben Franklin hid with gun waiting when someone tried to steal his fife off his horse.

What good is the right to bear arms if there is no right to pop a cap in someone as I see fit?

©2008 Brian Cuban

Texas Law and the U.S. Supreme Court are coming together in a timely fashion to determine my right to blow your brains out…..

The Dallas Morning News published an interesting piece the other day about Texas new “Castle Law“.   Without going into details, this law significantly broadens the circumstances under which a homeowner or vehicle owner can use deadly force to protect his/her home or vehicle.   There is now a broader “presumption” that under certain circumstances the use of deadly force is reasonable.   This will certainly make it easier for a grand jury to say “but for the grace of god” and let someone walk…….

I share the concern of Dallas prosecutors that it will de-criminalize acts that should be classified as murder but then again I have never been the victim of a home invasion. (Knock on wood).   I have no doubt I would feel differently if I had…..

This article is also a timely intersects with the argument about to take place before the U.S.  Supreme Court interpreting the “right to bear arms” provision of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.   They are being asked to determine whether the right to bears arm as outlined in the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right. Arguably one of the most important  and polarizing cases before the court since the Constitution was drafted….

We have now shifted from “What’s mine is mine” to “What’s mine is mine and by the way… F***K you!”    I am not going to going into the specifics of the law but the laymen’s version for me to know and for the next person who I catch trying to steal my IPOD out of my car is that law under certain circumstances now gives me a much broader presumption that   I was acting properly when I put one between your eyes to protect my 400 dollar IPOD.  

 My prediction is that we are now going to have roving groups of what I will call “IPOD VIGILANTES”  who will  park their vehicles  in high crime areas with their pricey electronics gadgets in the front seat  laying in what for that unsuspecting music lover to attempt a snatch…..  

I wonder if Ben Franklin hid with gun waiting when someone tried to steal his fife off his horse….

What good is the right to bear arms if there is no right to pop a cap in someone as I see fit?