Sure the kid had it coming. He was on his knees with his back to the guy with the shotgun. The guy with the shotgun was afraid for his life. The kid might have attacked him with his butt cheeks--just like Rodney King. The dreaded butt cheek death grip---fear it----FEAR IT!!!!

Texas? What a surprise!

Damnnnnnn where is that switchblade style antenna when You need one.

Larry

How much do You want to bet He gets off just like John Horn. Texas way too trigger happy.

Larry

A soda today, your wallet tomorrow...

A soda today, your wallet tomorrow...

you are a piece of shit, dude

how many 13 year olds get shot every year?

very sad indeed.

larry
he's already gotten off
aquitted

If you shoot somebody in the back when they are on their knees, you should do jail time.

Texas doesn't belong in civilized society. They should become their own country. Then we can laugh and point without it reflecting on our country.

Damnnnnnn where is that switchblade style antenna when You need one.

Larry

#3 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-09-28 01:29 AM | Reply

Antennas against shotguns don't work so well. Only a numbnuts like yourself would even consider it.

Until recently when my hands became unreliable, that same scenario would have occurred here in SoCal (not Texas). Anyone that breaks into any home can expect no different treatment from many people, myself included. I will bet that this home owner was just as afraid as you or I would be in the same circumstances. Those that condemn such a shooting as "cowboy" justice haven't been in the same position. If most people with guns for "protection" used them for just that, does anyone think they will call out for an age check?

A young person died doing a very foolish act. Hopefully a lot of children of the sam age will stop to think of the possible consequences. Breaking into a home is as serious a crime (short of murder) that there is. Death can and does result. I feel more sorry for the homeowner that has to live with what happened. I bet anything he wishes that the boys had choosen another home.

"They should become their own country."

We were from 1836 to 1846.
Then some damn fools up and joined the union.
Pissed Seguin off so much he moved to Mexico.

ADD 1-Just actually read more and in this instance lost much of the indignation that some would condemn this homeowner.

This seems to be one serious HUA act by anyone.

However, my expressed feelings pertain to the innocent homeowner that feels compelled to shot for whatever reason.

ADD 1-Just actually read more and in this instance lost much of the indignation that some would condemn this homeowner.

This seems to be one serious HUA act by anyone.

However, my expressed feelings pertain to the innocent homeowner that feels compelled to shot for whatever reason.

We were from 1836 to 1846.
Then some damn fools up and joined the union.
Pissed Seguin off so much he moved to Mexico.

#12 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-09-28 12:34 PM | Reply

It's never too late to correct the situation. Write your rep--organize your neighbors even if the are a couple hundred miles away. Do what it takes to GTFO of America and start your own country. I swear I will do all I can to support your cause.

" I swear I will do all I can to support your cause. "

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Give me all your money.

Keith204

You have the morals of a murderous piece of shit.

I bet you are a Christian.

Wasn't it Jesus who said "If someone breaketh into your house and stealeth cookies and twinkies, place the transgressors on their knees and shooteth them in the backeth."

I can understand the fear of pants pissers like yourself--it has gotten thousands killed in Iraq to protect you from those terrorists in yur closet. The fear generated by a 13 year old on his knees with his back to you would be more than any pants pisser could bear. He had to be shot. The fear of the dreaded butt cheek death grip---fear it----FEAR IT!!!!

" I swear I will do all I can to support your cause. "

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Give me all your money.

#16 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-09-28 01:01 PM | Reply

I can't do that. All I can do is tell you and your fellow Texans to GTFO and stay gone.

"I can't do that."

No money?

Legalized homicide and George Bush...Texas is one F'd up state.

Bush is from Connecticut.

Why the fuck was this guy even charged anyways?

Back in school in history class teachers kept saying that sitting on a jury is even more important than voting. I hope you know understand why.
Are DA appointed or elected in Texas. If elected then the funcking DA should lose his job.

Bush is from Connecticut.

#22 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-09-28 01:14 PM | Reply

He's a naturalized citizen of Texas. He reflects the culture in which he was brought up.

"He reflects the culture in which he was brought up."

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Connecticut carpetbaggers, all.

Member2586

If you can shoot someone for stealing twinkies--shouldn't cops be able to shoot and kill a man who has just beaten his wife or girlfriend? I mean put his punk ass on his knees and make him beg for his life and then shoot this cowardly jerk in the spine until he stops breathing? Wouldn't that be fair? Or do you place more value on twinkies?

"Why the fuck was this guy even charged anyways?"

Pass the buck to the grand jury.

Wasn't it Jesus who said "If someone breaketh into your house and stealeth cookies and twinkies, place the transgressors on their knees and shooteth them in the backeth."

It was a talking snake who said those words.

The same talking snake who got Eve in trouble.

Connecticut carpetbaggers, all.

#25 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-09-28 01:19 PM

They knew the best place to spawn.

They usually no-bill in burglary cases where an intruder dies.

" the best place "

Midland, gag me.

We should give this guy a medal for cleaning up the neighborhood and I would hope that all other states adopt similar laws allowing people to protect their property from scum.

They usually no-bill in burglary cases where an intruder dies.

#30 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-09-28 01:23 PM | Reply

Oops--I thought my rich uncle was an intruder when I shot him watching Matlock---it was dark and I thought he had one of my twinkies.

OK

Give me all his money.

I thought the 'cowboy code' was you're a low down snake if you shoot a man in the back? So, shooting a kid on his knees is what?

The guy couldn't dial the cops or make the kid lay down on the floor (he already had him on his knees).

I don't get people who are cheerleaders for killing people. Self defense is one thing, shooting a teenager who's on his knees in the back is another.

2 winters ago here in Aalborg a 14 year old boy 6' tall and 180 lbs beat a 48 year old father of 3, and loved local guitar teacher, and football coach to death in the AAB football stadium parking lot at 4 am for the guys wallet. To bad the 48 year old wasn't armed.
The kid only got 2 years. He's 16 now, been lifting weights, and getting tatts for the past 2 years. He's got a little groupy following.And he will be getting out soon...

Screw you, we're from Texas.

Fuck Ya'll We're From Texas

You know Jeff, if these scum had kill the 63 year old guy they could not get the death penalty thanks to the worthless SCOTUS that misinterprets the 8th Amendment.

Don't fuckwit Texas.

You left out that the guy was 63 years old. He's holding four young guys at gunpoint (perfectly legally), and one of them lunged at him. Had the four guys jumped him, his life would have been over. That likely scenario gives him the justification to use lethal force. He didn't just shoot the kid for no reason. His physical harassment of them meant that he was trying to get them to stop breaking into his house, not blow them away. And just because the criminals had Twinkies in their pockets, it doesn't mean that it's all that they would have taken, or destroyed, or burned, or beaten, or raped. Take away the gun aspect, and you guys would be laughing at the dead kid and nominating him for a Darwin award.

Defending a guy who shot a kid on his knees in the back: Member, you have a heart of pure GOLD! Hold onto it, the value's skyrocketing.

DINSEY

He didn't shoot the one lunging at him.

Shoulda shot all 4 of them; coulda gotten 3 more solid gold medals to hold on to while the dollar plummets.

What I am defending is the right of the individual to protect himself and his private property.

I realize that individual rights and private property are foreign concepts to collectivist socialist liberal types so that is why it is hard for you guys to understand what happened here.

Shoulda shot all 4 of them; coulda gotten 3 more solid gold medals to hold on to while the dollar plummets.

#48 | Posted by Scrumplet

I agree.

All rights come from private property. If private property did not exist then chaos (no, not anarchy) would ensue because everyone would take whatever they wanted from whoever.

Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun

Ah, the "ole they were coming right for us" defence.

The defence lawyer must watch South Park.

Coupla things here.

A murder charger was unwarranted here.

Manslaughter perhaps, but not murder.

That was never gonna fly, particularily in Texas.

Next, this is TEXAS fer fooks sakes. Don't these kids know how to read?

Texas juries live fer an opportunity to free a guy charged with this kind of crime.

Home invasion and theft are serious crimes and when you factor in the previous occurances the scenario that eventually played out was almost inevitable.

Like in the Horn case Spud take is that there were no heroes here only victims.

The kids get their posthumous Darwin Awards and the old trailer dweller gets a kick square in the goolies to make up fer not getting so much as a slap on the wrist by the authorities.

Be Well.

Shooting people in the back is a cowardly act.

He didn't shoot the one lunging at him.

Come on, this 63 year old guy isn't Gene Autry or the Lone Ranger. He's not going to be able to spin around on a dime and aim his shotgun to take out only the guy lunging at him.

Gonzalez probably had his 16 gauge shotgun trained on the four kids and when the one kid lunged at him it probably caused him to have an instinctive jerking reaction causing him to pull the trigger and one of the bullets ended up hitting the 13 year old in the back.

It had to have gone down like that or else the man with the shotgun would have blasted away the teenager who lunged at him.

Why don't people learn that in Texas you don't go in and rob people in their homes.
If you do, you'll probably end up coming out of the house on a stretcher with a sheet pulled up over your head.

Cowardly or not, the kid shouldn't have been breaking into his house.

"Why don't people learn that in Texas you don't go in and rob people in their homes.
If you do, you'll probably end up coming out of the house on a stretcher with a sheet pulled up over your head."

Maybe so... but they will not catch Blue Duck....

What I am defending is the right of the individual to protect himself and his private property.

When they were unarmed, on their knees, with their backs to him begging for their lives---he was fully protected, and his land was safe. After that, it was cold-blooded murder.

I realize that individual rights and private property are foreign concepts to collectivist socialist liberal types so that is why it is hard for you guys to understand what happened here.

Not at all--as usual, you are mistaken. Liberals recognize individual rights and the right to protect ones life. We just place human life above some cookies and twinkies. Christians such as yourself can't understand these alien concepts.

And as usual--you dodge questions.

If you can shoot someone for stealing twinkies--shouldn't cops be able to shoot and kill a man who has just beaten his wife or girlfriend? I mean put his punk ass on his knees and make him beg for his life and then shoot this cowardly jerk in the spine until he stops breathing? Wouldn't that be fair? Or do you place more value on twinkies?

One last question--are you "pro-life"?

#49 | Posted by member2586 at 2008-09-28 01:57 PM | Reply

"but they will not catch Blue Duck...."

Posted by JeffnDenmark

ff

CHRIS

The same crowd said the guy who shot the Mexican in the back a few months ago outside was well within his rights. If you think shooting people in the back is OK you should definitely move to Texas. That's about the only place you're going to get away with it.

I have guns, a pair of handcuffs in the dresser drawer, and a nice Louisville Slugger too. Someone breaks into my house, they're going face down on the floor...cuffed while I either call the cops of hit the alarm button. They lunge towards me they'll get shot. But, I'm not shooting anyone in the back. That's for lowlifes.

Jeffendenmark

Same questions for you as in my 2:23 post to member2586.

No surprise it's Texas. Texas is like Saudi Arabia. Take the oil out of Texas and you set them back a thousand years. It's a shame Texas politics has had such an influence on the politics of the country as a whole. Nothing but bad news.

"If you can shoot someone for stealing twinkies--shouldn't cops be able to shoot and kill a man "

Cops now have tasers and feasible deny ability for that end.

member2586

Should we give the death penalty for breaking and entering? How about for assault? How about for driving over peoples lawns or stealing apples from their tree? If you advocate shooting unarmed 13 year olds in the back for stealing cookies and twinkies---these other crimes should definitely have the death penalty also, wouldn't you say?

Bob,
answer to your question.
Every situation should be judged on it's own merit.
I'm not the judge or the jury.
Just a normal guy that doesn't want to see the right to defend my home taken away.

Cops now have tasers and feasible deny ability for that end.

#62 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-09-28 02:29 PM | Reply

So? That wasn't the question was it? What about the other questions? Were they invisible?

"It's a shame Texas politics has had such an influence on the politics of the country as a whole."

You sure got that right!...And it all began with that friggin' LBJ! Last democrat I ever voted for in a presidential election.

Was the shot hitting the 13 year old in the back an instinctive shot caused by a jerking reaction with his finger on the trigger when the other kid lunged at him?

Until someone can tell me the man INTENTIONALLY took aim to shoot the 13 year old in the back and then pulled the trigger, I'm going to say he pulled the trigger when he became startled when the other kid lunged at him. Why didn't he shoot the kid lunging at him if it wasn't just a jerking reaction of his finger on the trigger?

Were you all there?

Bob,
Here's my question to you.
So if 2 or 3 mad dog killers with knives are kicking down your door at 3am, are you going trust your life to the police arriving on time and saving you?

Every situation should be judged on it's own merit.

#64 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-09-28 02:34 PM | Reply

Shooting an unarmed 13 yr old that was on his knees with his back to you definitely qualifies as justified.

What kind of case would you find unjustified? So the cops have tasers--they have guns too. If this guy can shoot defenseless thieves--why can't cops shoot people for the same thing, and why not have the death penalty for breaking and entering.

Too bad this 63 year old guy didn't have four car antennas in the trailer with him.

He could have taken all four teenagers down with no problem.

Bob,
Here's my question to you.
So if 2 or 3 mad dog killers with knives are kicking down your door at 3am, are you going trust your life to the police arriving on time and saving you?

#68 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-09-28 02:38 PM | Reply |

Do you think that is the same scenartio as shooting an unarmed 13 year old that's on his knees with his back to you?

Are those two scenarios same same to you?

2 or 3 mad dog killers with knives are kicking down your door at 3am = unarmed 13 year old that's on his knees with his back to you

Is that what you are trying to say?

CHRIS

What were your feelings about the guy who shot the fleeing Mexican outside in the back? All while dispatch was telling him NOT to go outside and take things into his own hands...

I counted a lot of folks on that thread saying it was perfectly justified.

"LBJ! Last democrat I ever voted for in a presidential election."

Please tell me how you voted for LBJ when he assumed office after Kennedy was shot, and he didn't run for a second term.
Or did you mean you for the Kennedy/Johnson ticket?

I was only 5 when Kennedy was killed.
I remember walking into the kitchen after school, and my mom was standing there crying. I asked her why she was crying, and she said someone just shot the president.
That's probably why I have been reading about the Kennedy assassination for years, and now 911. I have been in tune to the new world order even before I knew what the new world order is.

I feel bad for Mr. Gonzalez. He was put in a bad situation. However, Texans don't seem to have a problem in general with what would amount to murder in most places. To wit:

"In June, a grand jury in Houston cleared a homeowner who shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor's house (in the back) despite the dispatcher's repeated request that he stay inside his own home."

" shot the fleeing Mexican "

They were Colombians.
They were burglars.
The grand jury deliberated and said "no bill."

JeffnDenmark

I'll answer that question, even though you haven't answered my questions.

I would do everything I could to stop them, but if I had them on their knees with their backs to me--I wouldn't shoot them. It's like shooting POWs. Same with that Horn guy in Texas---he was under no threat, and neither were his neighbors since they weren't home---it was just property loss. Everyone knows TVs and stereos are more valuable than human life. At least, people like you know that.

And I don't include ZATOICHI in with that bunch of Texans.

Well, maybe I should....

Hey Bob,
I answered your question. see 2:34 post.
Now without retoric, just answer.
Would you trust your life to the police in the before mentioned scenerio?

Please tell me how you voted for LBJ when he assumed office after Kennedy was shot, and he didn't run for a second term.

#73 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-09-28 02:45 PM | Reply

Johnson won the Presidential election of 1964 when he ran against Goldwater.

"Please tell me how you voted for LBJ when he assumed office after Kennedy was shot, and he didn't run for a second term."

Another F in 20th Century American History.

"In 1964, Johnson won the Presidency with 61 percent of the vote and had the widest popular margin in American history--more than 15,000,000 votes. "

"I would do everything I could to stop them,"
So then would you bare a weapon? A gun?
BTW, I'm not defending this guy. I don't know if he was right or wrong.
I'm defending the right to bare arms.

JeffnDenmark

Your answer was a wussy anwer as shown by my response at 2:38. Your answer did not answer the question.

I asked you about different scenarios. You failed to answer.

Johnson, as we all know, didn't run for a second term of his own. I understood what BBob meant.

"Please tell me how you voted for LBJ when he assumed office after Kennedy was shot, and he didn't run for a second term."

I can see how much history YOU know. Kennedy was elected in 1960 (I voted for him too) and was killed in 1963. Johnson assumed the remainder of JFK's term and ran against Goldwater in 1964. He won, served one term and didn't run for reelection.

On topic:

Where I live you have to drag burglars inside before shooting them.

"I'm defending the right to bare arms."

Posted by JeffnDenmark

I'm defending the right to bare arms.

#82 | Posted by JeffnDenmark

Millions of women and men in the hot summertime thank you. Long sleeved clothing is very uncomfortable in 90 degree weather.

LOL

All I'm saying is, in both cases, a grand jury has deliberated and did not indict.

BTW, I'm not defending this guy. I don't know if he was right or wrong.
I'm defending the right to bare arms.

#82 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-09-28 02:52 PM

Actually, it is "bear" arms. Naked arms aren't an issue. You ar defending this guys right and everyone elses right to shoot unarmed children who are on their knees with their backs to you if they break into your house to steal cookies.

No way around that. Now defend your position. If that scenario is fine--why can't cops shoot people for breaking and entering? Say a homeonwner catches some thieves and holds them there until the cops come--and then lets the cops shoot them? That should seem very reasonable to you.

And don't forget the right to arm bears.

OK... That's right... I forgot that Kennedy was shot in November, before the election...
I'm half asleep now anyway. It's getting close to bed time.

"In 1964, Johnson won the Presidency with 61 percent of the vote and had the widest popular margin in American history--more than 15,000,000 votes. "

Right you are, Zat...Quiz question: There have been only THREE democrats elected with a majority of the popular vote since Lincoln was elected in 1860. Johnson was one, who were the other two?

"Where I live you have to drag burglars inside before shooting them."

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Sounds messy.
I just shoot 'em in the front pasture and the buzzards clean it up in a few hours.

"why can't cops shoot people for breaking and entering"
Cop shoot people all the time, and get away with it.
They are only supposed to defend theirs and others lives.
So If this guy was ruled by a judge to be in the right, who am I or you to say what is right. I wasn't there. I didn't see what happened. Were you?

Bob,
What's your point anyway? Should this guy be hung by his nuts or what?

I didn't see what happened. Were you?

#97 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-09-28 03:02 PM | Reply

The article was very explicit with no dissenting view from the defense. He shot an unarmed 13 yr old that was on his knees in the back that had broken in to steal cookies and twinkies. Not much confusion there.

You think it was justified. I don't.

I'll catch this thread in the morning with a cup of coffee.
I'm going to bed...

Bob,
What's your point anyway? Should this guy be hung by his nuts or what?

#98 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-09-28 03:05 PM | Reply

I'm not sure Jeff--what do you think should be done with someone shoots an unarmed 13 yr old that was on his knees in the back that had broken in to his house steal cookies and twinkies.

To me it would be manslaughter at least--probably second degree homicide. I'd suggest ten years minimum.

Killing unarmed defenseless children for stealing cookies from your house should be against the law. But that's just me. You go for it if it makes you feel safe.

Sorry Bob,
I'm to tired to keep up....
I don't condone or reject what this guy did. I would have to read the trial transcript to decide.
Good night...

"There have been only THREE democrats elected with a majority of the popular vote since Lincoln was elected in 1860. Johnson was one, who were the other two? "

Three?

There was Tilden, but Hayes had one more electoral vote, so he won, & Roosevelt in '32, '36, '40 and '44.

If things go as they usually do in Texas, the geezer is dead meat.

Truman was another who won and carried the popular vote

"Truman was another who won and carried the popular vote"

Despite the McCain Wins Debate! ads....

1868 Grant(R) 52.7%
1872 Grant(R) 55.6%
1876 Tilden(D) 51.0% but Hayes(R) had one more electoral vote so he won.
1896 McKinley(R) 51.0%
1900 McKinley(R) 51.6%
1904 Roosevelt(R) 56.4%
1908 Taft(R) 51.6%
1920 Harding(R) 60.3%
1924 Coolidge(R) 54.0%
1928 Hoover(R) 58.2%
1932 Roosevelt(D) 57.4%
1936 Roosevelt(D) 60.8%
1940 Roosevelt(D) 54.7%
1944 Roosevelt(D) 53.4%
1952 Eisenhower(R) 55.2%
1956 Eisenhower(R) 57.4%
1964 Johnson(D) 61.1%

DANFORTH

Do you know whether or not they had the balls to actually run those "McCain wins Debate" ads?

Carter

Killing unarmed defenseless children for stealing cookies from your house should be against the law.

And when one of these "defenseless children" (age 15 and probably the size of an adult male with twice the strength of the 63 year old man) LUNGES at you -- then what do you do? Let him and the other "three defenseless children" grab your gun and shoot you with it, or at the very least beat you to a pulp?

If things go as they usually do in Texas, the geezer is dead meat.

That was one of the first thoughts in my mind when I read this story and why I believe the shooting was done as a reflex action with his finger on the trigger -- he was scared when the one kid lunged at him and just pulled it unintentionally and shot the 13 year old.

ANYONE knows that this man is now going to have to live in fear in his trailer for the rest of his life because there will be hundreds of gang members and local vigilantes both in Texas and Mexico who will put a price on his head.

He will never have a day of peace of mind again where he won't have to worry about someone wanting to kill him as payback.

I just shoot 'em in the front pasture and the buzzards clean it up in a few hours.

Tres vert!

Very eco-friendly of you.

No Koyaanisqatsi at Zat's place.

Be Well.

/Spud's feeling muuuuch better now!

WooT ^_^

"Very eco-friendly of you."

Thanks

Koyaanisqatsi
#112 | Posted by dethspud

Great movie.

Especially the scene with the hotdogs compared to people on the escalators at Grand Central.

And Philip Glass too.

"Philip Glass"

Philip Glass - Koyaanisqatsi

I have no problems like my buddy Phil does

~Zat

Wowsers! Spud was gonna complain about the slug invasion currently going on in Spud's back garden but after seeing that pic Spud is decide to just not bother mentioning it.

That's gotta be in South America.

They got the biggest snakes in the farkin' world there.

Philip Glass - Koyaanisqatsi

Luff that music and the film.

A touchstone fer Spud is that.

Be Well.

"That's gotta be in South America."

Amazon

The Amazon Queen is Phil's boat.

Here she is at Phil's place in Colombia.

Phil getting some exercise.

Amazon

The Amazon Queen is Phil's boat.

~Zat

So when Spud orders a book from Amazon.com is Phil is guy who makes the dangerous trek up from the south in order fer the book to arrive at Spud's door?

Wow, never imagined he was putting folks to such trouble.

Bless him!

Took a look at some of Phil's pictures of hawt chicks at Carnival and thought...

Hmmmm, thought Amazonian chicks were much larger fer some reason.

Ta fer the cool pix!

Sorry fer the lame jokes.

Is Sunday, Spud's enjoying it inordinately doncha know.

Be Well.

"Spud's enjoying it inordinately"

Are those shots from Fitzcarraldo?

Shots?

img.photobucket.com

** best Spicolli voice **

"Hey Bud, let's party!"

Be Well.

Shots?
#124 | Posted by Zatoichi

And another thread turns to alcohol. lol.

Since post 122 is muy caro for me, I guess I'll hit the corner liquor store and finish my sunday right.

This is more like what I was thinking by that question.

Klaus!

And when one of these "defenseless children" (age 15 and probably the size of an adult male with twice the strength of the 63 year old man) LUNGES at you -- then what do you do? Let him and the other "three defenseless children" grab your gun and shoot you with it, or at the very least beat you to a pulp?

#110 | Posted by CalifChris at 2008-09-28 03:46 PM | Reply

How did the kid "lunge at anybody. They were on their knees with their back to him. The guy said he thought the kid he shot in the back--the 13 year old--was lunging at him. If he was "Lunging" at the guy--he would have been shot in the front.

What was the guy afraid of? Oh yeah. The dreaded butt cheek death grip---fear it----FEAR IT!!!!

GOOD......................

Klaus!
#127 | Posted by Zatoichi

As far as looks go, he was by far my favorite vampire.

I spent 7 halloweens as a kid trying to reproduce that look.

13 year Old Murder Suspect Arrested

The 13-year-old is the third person taken into custody in connection with the August 17th shooting death of 13-year-old Daniel Saesee, who was attacked as he walked in the area of Court and Sweet.

wonder if the kids had the gun would they have spared the homeowner.

13 year Old Murder Suspect Arrested

The 13-year-old is the third person taken into custody in connection with the August 17th shooting death of 13-year-old Daniel Saesee, who was attacked as he walked in the area of Court and Sweet.

wonder if the kids had the gun would they have spared the homeowner.

SEMTEX

He f-ed up by not shooting him in the back.

If you want to get away with killing someone in Texas you shoot them in ... the ... back.

Sorry to hear the kid was shot, but beyond a reasonable doubt means that we cut some slack to the guy who had his home broken into.

Maybe he really wasn't afraid for his own safety, but "maybe" isn't enough to send someone off to prison.

in liberal maryland if you wake up and find intruders in your house you had better be able to prove your life was in danger before you shoot or your ass will be arrested,and probability sued by said intruders.

DINSEY

He didn't shoot the one lunging at him.

#47 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-09-28 01:46 PM

No, he fired BECAUSE of the one that lunged at him--and I'm sure the one that lunged at him stopped in his tracks once the shot was fired. The real moral of the story is DON"T BREAK INTO HOUSES IN TEXAS. It's kind of like people going to Singapore and spitting gum onto the sidewalks and then complaining when they get caned.

Keith204

You have the morals of a murderous piece of shit.

I bet you are a Christian.

Wasn't it Jesus who said "If someone breaketh into your house and stealeth cookies and twinkies, place the transgressors on their knees and shooteth them in the backeth."

I can understand the fear of pants pissers like yourself--it has gotten thousands killed in Iraq to protect you from those terrorists in yur closet. The fear generated by a 13 year old on his knees with his back to you would be more than any pants pisser could bear. He had to be shot. The fear of the dreaded butt cheek death grip---fear it----FEAR IT!!!!

Fear the Butt Cheek Death Grip

#17 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

BB-you haven't a clue about me. No one that does would have said crap like that. Stick to outer space expose's and leave thinking to those capable of it.

Part 2-Read ADD 1

NEXT

Kill Them First!!!

So remember this well:If you're going to rob a bank or break into someone's home in Texas make sure you bring a weapon to kill the bank tellers or the home owners and quickly - because they'll surely get off with killing you if they get the chance! Remember Kill them First - because this is how the Law works in Texas!!!

I don't get people who are cheerleaders for killing people. Self defense is one thing, shooting a teenager who's on his knees in the back is another.

#38 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-09-28 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Au for the win.

What the fuck is wrong with the legal system in texas? This is 1st degree murder.

If it isn't, then nothing else can be.

Picture the town of Laredo, Texas

Picture it's neighbor -- Nuevo Laredo, Mexico -- one of the worst towns for violence on the Mexican border located right across from Laredo, Texas by an easily crossed bridge

Picture the inside of a small trailer in Laredo

Now picture it filled up with FOUR teenage males who you have NO IDEA what they are looking for in your trailer. Guns? Money? Someone to kill for a thrill? Or twinkies?

Picture one scared very 63 year old guy who is fed up to here with constantly being robbed.

Put ALL FIVE crammed together in one small trailer. One move on anyone's part and the whole scene becomes chaotic.

I love the way all you non-border town Easterners and Southerners think you know it all and what you'd do when you don't know jack crap about the extreme violence crossing over into these U.S. border towns. These "children" could easily have been looking for drugs as NL is a hotbed of drug cartel violence.

Do you know if he DELIBERATELY shot the kid in the back or was it a reflex reaction of him pulling the trigger when another kid made a move? You DON'T know. You weren't there. It took more than 1/2 an hour for the cops to arrive. All the other three kids had their stories down pat -- another reason why the cops didn't believe the kids' version. Each kid said they went there to get "sodas and a snack" when questioned individually. No one gives the exact same wording when questioned separately by the cops but these three did because they had time to get their story together. One of the cops told the 63 year old guy he "should have shot all four of them" so they couldn't have made up a story to make it look like they were "innocent children" just out to rob someone's home "for a snack and soda" and make the homeowner the bad guy.

Where was the 13 year old's parents when this kid was out breaking into homes at midnight?

I think the lesson to be learned is don't break into somebody elses home and you won't get killed. If you want twinkies late at night go to 7-11

Sorry CC...but your story is BS.

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. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., now 16, testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Anguiano's body outside.

Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun.

Shot in the back when he lunged for the old guy, huh? Twinkies in their pockets?

If he feared for his life he wouldn't have been beating the shit out of 4 boys already on their knees.

That's the story from the three boys who were the ones who broke in the trailer.
You are going to take their word over the man who had his home broken into.

The ones who broke in to rob him were the ones who gave the story about "being on their knees" about "having the shit beat out of them" (btw -- were they bruised and bloody when the cops arrived?). It was the three teenage robbers whose story it was about "begging for mercy." These three had a full half hour to get their story together before the cops arrived. Funny how you libs will always believe ANY criminal first and foremost before you ever believe the victim.

I want to see the court testimony and hear the cops version about blood and bruises on the three who claimed they were beaten and kicked. I want to hear Gonzalez' version too. Where are those reports?

These three had a full half hour to get their story together before the cops arrived.

30 minutes of talking?

You mean, 30 minutes of talking when one of their friends just got blown away? And the guy that did it is still around?

Funny how you libs will always believe ANY criminal first and foremost before you ever believe the victim.

This comment is beneath you. I don't always believe the criminals. These are kids for christ sake. And the only thing of "value" they found on the dead boy was cookies and twinkies.

PS- How the fuck do I "lunge" at someone and get shot in the back?

Use some common sense, chris. This whole thing stinks. I don't trust texas juries anymore, not after the horn case.

BTW- the author of the castle doctrine in Texas doesn't even think Joe Horn was justified in shooting those two burglars.

You are going to take their word over the man who had his home broken into.

No. I'm going to take forensic evidence into account. He was shot in the back, chris.

Unless he was spinning around to grab a loaded gun behind him, there's no reason the old man should have shot that kid in the back.

Then, the medical examiner testified, Francisco was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Mr. Gonzalez said he thought the boy was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun.

Alexandrite

Read these 5 pages of bloggers' post that I brought back on here and linked for you at the end.
Very interesting and it sheds more light on the case.

The shooter even knew one of the boys.
Also, as one pointed out, if the shooter did shoot the 13 year old out of vengence and vigilantism he would have shot ALL FOUR of the boys -- not just one. Texas would have given him that legal right.

It's sad case no matter what but the homeowner had no way of knowing what their intentions were when they broke in. It appears they were laying on their stomachs and the 13 year old made a move to get up causing the homeowner to get spooked and he shot him -- which could have easily hit him in the back but it's not like he had his back turned to him.

Have you ever been inside a small trailer????
Do you know how close it would be inside their with four teenage males and the homeowner! I'm surprised more bullets from the gun didn't spray on everyone else.

Do you know what these border towns are like? Constant crime.

Anyway, here's the link and it's not to change your mind -- just to give you more viewpoints on the case. I always like to read posts from other news articles where the people know a little more about the case.

if the shooter did shoot the 13 year old out of vengence and vigilantism he would have shot ALL FOUR of the boys -- not just one.

Unless he came to his senses after blowing one away.

Speculation here, but most likely one of the boys tried to run. Maybe the old coot thought the sudden movement was an attack.

Doesn't matter. He entered his home after knowing the burglars were in it, got them to their knees, and then killed one of them.

Do you know how close it would be inside their with four teenage males and the homeowner!

Which is why you don't walk in to confront burglars. Cover the exit with a shotgun and then have your neighbor call the cops.

Had anyone in this situation used common sense, no one would have died. Pity the actual adult of this tragedy acted as stupid as the kids.

I'm pleased that there is one less criminal in my country. I wish this guy would have shot all 4 of these Jr Criminals.

"Bush is from Connecticut."

Yeah but he put on a cowboy hat and threw out a few down-home sayings and all your goober neighbors fell in love with him. The simple minded are easily manipulated.

Facts are the guy shot a 13 yr old in the back. Facts are the guy said the 213 yr old luned at him. Facts are if someone lunges at you--you shoot them in the front--not the back.

The guy is a cold blooded murderer. He said he shot the kid that lunged at him. No other kid made a move.

I'm pleased that there is one less criminal in my country. I wish this guy would have shot all 4 of these Jr Criminals.

#150 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-09-29 09:05 AM | Reply

How about the death penalty for breaking and entering? Is that your idea of the country you want to live in?

" the 213 yr old luned(sic) at him "

That'd be bOoB.

"How about the death penalty for breaking and entering?"

That's the way it works, bOoB.

Just shoot them in the face and we wouldn't have any of this nonsense.

How about the death penalty for breaking and entering? Is that your idea of the country you want to live in?

#153 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-09-29 09:24 AM | Reply

If they aren't killed in the act by a home owner or a concerned citizen then I'm fine with them recieving jail time. It's a risk they'll have to decide to take.

The country I want to live in is the one I currently live in.

Shooting unarmed children in the back when they are on their knees begging for their life is wrong, people.

That you sad fucks can't see that shows what shitheels many American citizens have become.

"Shooting unarmed children in the back when they are on their knees begging for their life is wrong, people."

But, he was scared for his life. Not so scared that he couldn't beat the children or give them orders but scared enough that he just had to shoot one in the back. They call that "Texas scared" because nowhere else would a jury believe such a load of bullshit.

Does anyone else notice that BOob is so fucking stupid, he makes Jeff look smart. Now that is a task to be proud of.

What's sad is that some of you bleeding heart liberals are taking the criminal boys at their words instead of the home owner. Funny the article never gives the homeowners side other than he feared for his life. I'm sorry that this boy lost his life but him and the other little criminals made their choices and it sounds like it wasn't the first time. Funny how there was no medical reports corroborating that he beat them, etc. But of course you wimpy liberals always will manufacture lies to make your point. This is why the 2nd Amendment is so important because you liberals have raised your children to expect that life and people owe them something. We are taking this country back from you liberal pukes, by force if necessary. And we'll start by keeping anti-gun Obama and as many Democraps out of office as possible.

"the article never gives the homeowners side other than he feared for his life"

I can't get the link to work right now but there is a quote in there that he saw the kid flinching or making a move or something lame like that. It doesn't sound like he disputed that the kid was on his knees and shot in the back at close range. They can figure all that stuff out now anyway so if it wasn't true it would have came out during the trial.

Basically, the guy was a pussy who is scared of children who are on their knees begging for their lives. Because one flinched. If you think this guy is normal, you are a wussy. If I were as big a coward as you, I'd probably want to take my gun with me everywhere too.

What's sad is that some of you bleeding heart liberals are taking the criminal boys at their words instead of the home owner.

That might have something to do with the following:

He lied about what gun he used.

He knowingly went into his trailer with burglars in it, putting himself in a life or death situation instead of calling the cops and GUARDING THE DOOR WITH HIS GUN.

Everyone showed bad judgment in this scenario. Problem is, the oldest guy was the dumbest and he had the gun.

DARWINISM IN ACTION.

Tough. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. In Texas, your property is sacred.

Musta been some killer weed, to get the munchies that bad.

"Maybe so... but they will not catch Blue Duck...."

LOL...He was caught eventually...by a couple of worn out ole Rangers with holes in their underwear.

Shooting unarmed children in the back when they are on their knees begging for their life is wrong, people.

I dont think we have the full story. Kids lie. Especially today's kids. If they are brazen enough to break into your house, they are brazen enough to hurt you. Everyone on all sides will say things to make their story to their benefit. I only go on facts. The kids were in the house. Period. They shouldnt have been. Period. They suffered the consequences. I dont know that the kids were on their knees. That is what the kids say. Dont go into a house that isnt yours, this never happens. But you liberals wont admit that..

Boaz

Why would the article lie? Do you think the kids wrote the article? The article told the facts that were testified at the trial. The article told both sides of the story.

This guy shot a 13 yr old in the back when the 13 year old was was on his knees. He beat the kids with the shotgun barrel and kicked them. He said he was in fear for his life when the 13 yr old "lunged" at him. I guess he turned the kid around in mid lunge to shoot him point blank in the back.

This is not disputed by the defense.

This would not have happened if the juveniles hadn't broken into someones home. After that, we can go around and around placing blame. Where were the parents? Why didn't they teach these kids better? These border towns have become incredibly dangerous due to the drug cartels. This man had no idea what these kids were liable to do. Many gangs have 12 and 13yr old members, and there are a lot of hispanic gangs in South Texas. I'm not saying these kids were gang members, but how would this old guy know. I repeat, if they had never broken into his home, this would never have happened. For those of you who continue to defend the criminals and terrorists of the world, perhaps you are the ones who need to find another country.

Monster

This isn't about protecting yourself pr protecting your home

This is about some one shooting people in the back when they are on their knees begging for their life.

When is that justified.

To many Christians it seems that it is justfied if the teens are found in your kitchen eating your twinkies. If that is the case--take the teens--put them on their knees, and shoot them in the back.

That's what Jesus would do.

Fortunately I'm an atheist. I hold human life a little higher.

Do we know for sure that they were all on their knees and blasted without provocation? In the Joe Horn case, he claimed that one of the bad guys was advancing on him, and turned to flee as he fired. I'm not saying I know what happened in either case, and I don't think it would be right to execute these guys while they are on their knees and complying with your command to "not FN move!" Still, I can't help but come back to the point that if these kids had not broken the law in the first place, they definitely would not have been shot. We'll probably never know exactly what happened in that trailer.

Do we know for sure that they were all on their knees and blasted without provocation?

There is no dispute by the prosecution about them being on their knees. The shooter claimed the kid he shot lunged at him. If the kid lunged at him---how did the kid get shot in the back at point blank range?

In the Joe Horn case, he claimed that one of the bad guys was advancing on him, and turned to flee as he fired.

If Jow Horn would have been a cop--he would have been fired. Joe horn was never in any danger. He is a cold blooded murderer--another back shooting liar.

I'm not saying I know what happened in either case, and I don't think it would be right to execute these guys while they are on their knees and complying with your command to "not FN move!"

I agree.

Still, I can't help but come back to the point that if these kids had not broken the law in the first place, they definitely would not have been shot.

I agree again--however--they were kids--on their knees--begging for their life. They were wrong--sure. But the man killed in cold blood. He was never in danger for his life, and his property was safe--until he started blasting away with his shotgun.

We'll probably never know exactly what happened in that trailer.

We know exactly what went on in that trailer. There were witnesses and testimony. The facts were in the article.

"We know exactly what went on in that trailer. There were witnesses and testimony. The facts were in the article."

The witnesses were also the criminals. I'm not claiming they are lying, but I also wouldn't take their word every time over the original victim. Nor do I trust every word I read from the media.

Regardless, I wish it wouldn't have happened. If someone had broken into my house and I had them at gunpoint, I would try my best to let the cops handle it. However, if I felt at any time that me or my family was in danger....I'm doing whatever I have to do to make sure my family stays safe and alive.

On a side note, how hard do you suppose the race card would be thrown if the homeowner in this case was anything but Hispanic (especially white)?

The witnesses were also the criminals. I'm not claiming they are lying, but I also wouldn't take their word every time over the original victim.

The defense did not dispute the facts that they were on their knees with their backs to him. There is no question the kid was shot in the back at point blank range.

Regardless, I wish it wouldn't have happened. If someone had broken into my house and I had them at gunpoint, I would try my best to let the cops handle it. However, if I felt at any time that me or my family was in danger....I'm doing whatever I have to do to make sure my family stays safe and alive.

Which is the point. No one is saying you can't protect yourself, your family, and your property, even if lethal force is necessary. However, once you, your family, and your property are safe, killing people in cold blood should be against the law.

On a side note, how hard do you suppose the race card would be thrown if the homeowner in this case was anything but Hispanic (especially white)?

I don't know the racial tensions or biases in the area. Hopefully it wouldn't make any difference what race the shooter was or what race the victims were.

Fair points, but I still have trouble feeling too much sympathy for someone who commit crimes and put themselves in the situation where this could happen. These kids may have had twinkies in their pockets, but I highly doubt they broke in for "snacks".

My race question wasn't limited to that area of Texas. In fact, I had the DR crowd in mind when I posted. I'd guess that this town has a majority Hispanic population.

I don't know the racial tensions or biases in the area. Hopefully it wouldn't make any difference what race the shooter was or what race the victims were....

You've got a real short memory.
Go back over the Joe Horn threads when two illegal aliens from Columbia -- part of a robbery ring and hard core drug dealers -- got shot by the "white" Joe Horn. His race was mentioned in every third post by the libs whining about the poor gangsters being shot. Not a peep about race in this case but they never shut about about Joe Horn being a white guy.

No doubt. The Joe Horn case conversations were all about racism. "Joe killed these 'undocumented workers' because they were Mexican"..even though the weren't. But they were "brown", so Joe shot them. It was disgusting how hard the race card was thrown in that case.

If the accomplice in a crime is killed in the course of the crime, aren't they also guilty of murder. Were these three juvenile miscreants prosecuted?

Maybe the sob sisters should consider mandating the issue of cell phones to people who can't afford them so that if they are intended victims, they can call the police without leaving the criminals untended.

It seems that the police were not effective in prevented this old fellow from repeatedly being terrorized. If the police had been effective and deterred thse young criminals by putting them in lockup, then this situation would not have arisen. The victim in this case needed to resort to self-help, which demosntrates a failure in policiing. Repeated victim. I wonder if these criminals will intrude on anyone again in the near future.

I wonder if these criminals will intrude on anyone again in the near future.

#179 | Posted by Johnson at 2008-09-29 11:16 PM |

If they do, you can bet they'll go in with a gun and shoot the first person they see.

His race was mentioned in every third post by the libs whining about the poor gangsters being shot. Not a peep about race in this case but they never shut about about Joe Horn being a white guy.

#177 | Posted by CalifChris at 2008-09-29 10:05 PM | Reply

Bullshit. You were all on board for shooting the illegals. No lib mentioned anything about him being white.

Bullshit. You were all on board for shooting the illegals. No lib mentioned anything about him being white.

#181 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

No, Buffalobullshitforbrains, I was backing up Joe Horn's right to defend himself when the two men who just left robbing the house next door entered Horn's own yard and moved towards him. A cop testified to that fact in court so he was within his rights or he would have been in jail. You are the racist turd that just now brings the subject of "illegals" into the equasion. I don't care if those two criminals on the Horn thread were born in Houston, Tijuana, or in Switzerland -- they had no right to rob next door and then walk on over to his property to where he felt threatened, justifiably or not.

Just like on the Horn thread, and on this thread too, you'd rather see every homeowner shot dead as long as the criminals were alive and well and set free to rob and murder for a second time. God forbid a man tries to protect his own home. Maybe you ought to ask yourself why you have such a love for criminals over law abiding citizens.

I'm tired of your rudeness. Don't talk to me anymore.

Califchris

You are tired of my rudeness? I am tired of your lies.

No one is against people defending their home, their family, their lives, or their porperty.

You can believe a Texas cop that says the guy was on Horns property--I know them for the lying sacks of shit they are.

I know Horn shot both in the back.

I know Horn was in no danger at any time.

I know that you lied about liberals bringing up he was white every third post.

I know that you were the one bringing up the "illegals" on the thread of Horn, and seemed OK with them being shot in the back since they couldn't stay in their own country.

Maybe if they kept themselves and their families back in their own country where they belonged to commit their crimes instead of coming here illegally (and commiting more crimes after they got here) they wouldn't be lying on a slab in a Texas coroner's office.

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-12-16 07:29 PM | Reply

I make the rules on who I talk to. Not you. Maybe you can spend your time writing letters to Horn and Gonzalez and tell them what hero's back shooting cowards have become in modern society.

Buffalochip

Are you saying what I wrote in my 12/16/07 post you quoted is not true? That even if they had not come into this country illegally and had been caught committing a robbery next door to Joe Horn who lives in Texas, that Joe Horn would still would have made the decision to go to their country of Columbia anyway and hunted these men down and shot them? That is the ONLY way my statement you quoted could be proven to be false. What a moron you are.

As for your pompous "eyewitness" allegations about the Horn shooting (which I have numbered for reference)...

1. You can believe a Texas cop that says the guy was on Horns property-- I know them for the lying sacks of shit they are.

2. I know Horn shot both in the back.

3. I know Horn was in no danger at any time.

In your quote No. 1 -- how do you "know" all Texas cops are "lying sacks of shit"?

In your quote No. 2 -- You again are WRONG. One guy -- not "both" -- was shot in the back.

In your quote No. 3 -- how do you "know" Horn was never in danger, or, that in Horn's mind he did not perceive he was in danger. Were you inside his mind, were you in front of Horn's house? You were not. An undercover police officer was however.

So the jury should have had BuffaloBob who doesn't even live near the state of Texas, let alone have witnessed the shooting, be the final word of wisdom.

What a joke.

Califchris

You think back shooters are hero's. I don't. I think they are cowards.

I proved you a liar. That was the purpose of my post.

YOU claimed libs brought up race every third post.

Libs never brought up his race as being a factor.

That makes you a liar.

Happy to help.

Kerry was a back shooter.

Kerry was in a war. Snipers are heroes.

The man Kerry shot was armed with a rocket launcher. There was no doubt as to his intent.

Your partisanship is showing.

You're an idiot. How is a fact "partisan"?

"How is a fact "partisan"?"

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias"
-Steven Colbert

BuffaloChip

You are the liar.
Below are just a few posts from "Police Describe Joe Horn" thread.

As for me, any time I made a comment on another Joe Horn thread about his right for defense that racebaiter "ThePerfectStorm" would accuse me of racism. Then the other fool Furio would jump in and accuse me of racism. You libs don't have to use the word "white" to imply your racist comments. Those ignorant fools implied racism every chance they got. TPS was one of the worst. So don't hand me your crap and say libs never made comments to imply racism on the Horn threads. Shows how ignorant you are.

Here's just a sampling of posts where the issue of race on the Horn thread was brought up by libs on the "Police Describe Joe Horn" thread. I had not posted on that particular thread.

Whew! its ok people! They were illegal aliens! Go about yer business.

Posted by donnerboy at 2007-12-08 01:11

Yeeha! 2 less wetbacks running rampant! That'll show all those border-jumpers what Amerrica is all about. Best way to fix the Mexic-uhh, immigration problem! Joe Horn = Real American Hero, like G.I. Joe and Bill Brasky!

Posted by Scrumplet at 2007-12-08 01:59 PM

For those too lazy to read the entire article, here's a few facts:

The guys were Colombian, not Mexican.
It doesn't say the first guy ran at him, it says the first guy got closer to him as he ran but was angled toward the street.
By the way, the 911 call audio was on break.com (accompanied by the usual racist comments by the enlightened conservatives that frequent that site).

Posted by RastaCyborg at 2007-12-08 02:22 PM

This is rediculous! Horn should be brouhgt up on several charges, least of all, ignoring a police order. Besides, self defense or not, it is not a plain clothes officer responsibility to determine if charges should be brought on a persn after he kills someone. He should have been arrested immediately regardless. This is about racism, immigration and stupidity. America is a bad place right now and God needs to help us now.

Posted by UpsetCitizen at 2007-12-08 02:47 PM

Just a general question-since the righties are describing these guys as animals who deserved to die, if Horn had shot two 13 y/o white neighbor kids in the back for stealing his neighbor's PS2, would you all still say they had it coming?

Posted by northguy3 at 2007-12-09 12:16 PM

" From your various comments you don't lke Hispanics or Blacks do you?"

Posted by furio at 2007-12-09 01:51 PM |

Take your risk. Get enough "People of Color" on your jury for killing a petty thief and you'll be in jail getting corn holed for the rest of your life by Big Black. Nothing better for loving in the Pen than a pillsbury doughboy good ole boy.

Posted by furio at 2007-12-09 06:52 PM | Reply

You're an idiot. How is a fact "partisan"?

#188 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-09-30 03:55 PM | Reply

It was partisan in that you left out salient points in the event, equating the circumstances of Kerry shooting someone in the back as the same as someone placing unarmed children on their knees and shooting them point blank in the back. Too bad you needed that explained to you.

Your stupidity is showing.

Eat your words, hypocrite.

#190 | Posted by CalifChris at 2008-09-30 04:04 PM | Reply

Pffft

None of your posts said anything about Horn being white. That means you changed the rules. Here---pay attention to what you said.

Go back over the Joe Horn threads when two illegal aliens from Columbia -- part of a robbery ring and hard core drug dealers -- got shot by the "white" Joe Horn. His race was mentioned in every third post by the libs whining about the poor gangsters being shot. Not a peep about race in this case but they never shut about about Joe Horn being a white guy.

#177 | Posted by CalifChris at 2008-09-29 10:05 PM |

So your "His race was mentioned in every third post by the libs" is proven bullshit. Your post was bullshit. That means you are a liar.

In addition--most of those posts are from righties.

boob,
Kerry is a back shooter. Fact. There were no qualifiers.

Kerry's a back shooter!

FACT!

(where is that guy anyway)

Buffalochip

BFD -- it wasn't exactly "every THIRD post" -- so what. And I told you the word "white" doesn't have to be used to imply racism. Even calling him "redneck" implies the same thing. How can you look at yourself in the mirror and tell me those posts I listed above were not implying racism by Horn or bringing up the fact the ones who got shot were minorities who were shot by a white guy [Horn]. Don't be so stupid or you're not even worth debating.

You have just been made to eat your words and now you can't stand it.

As for your next ludicrous comment --

In addition--most of those posts are from righties.

BS -- Furio, Rastycyborg, Scrumplet, Northguy3, donnerboy -- they are all "righties"????

You really are desperate aren't you. Yep, those posters are all hardcore, Bushloving righties.
hahahahahaha

101

FACT!

You know the word "fact" is the equivalent of a cuss word in BuffaloBob's dictionary.

(where is that guy anyway)

James Dean, James Dean, where art thou? lol

Furio, Rastycyborg, Scrumplet, Northguy3, donnerboy -- they are all "righties"????

Damn!

You beat me to it.

Califchris

You are simply doing the republican/communist trick of repeating your losing statements even after you have been proven beyond all doubt to be lying. In your sick mind you probably even believe you are telling the truth.

Again--even in little things, you must lie for some reason. I said MOST of the posts were from righties. I never heard of half of them, But on reflection, the first two are clearly sarcasm. Rastycyborg was only pointing out racist comments by conservatives on another site--why you posted that post--who knows. Upset citizen is a rightie, and he says nothing about Joe horn being white. Northguy 3 asks a hypothetical question and doesn't mention anything about Horns race--why you posted it is anyones guess. Furio didn't even mention Joe Horn. You are proving yourself a liar post after post.

boob,
Kerry is a back shooter. Fact. There were no qualifiers.

Kerry's a back shooter!

FACT!

(where is that guy anyway)

#193 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-09-30 04:47 PM

Your partisanship is showing. Again.

Buffalochip

You are simply doing the republican/communist trick of repeating your losing statements even after you have been proven beyond all doubt to be lying. In your sick mind you probably even believe you are telling the truth.

I never knew a Repubican could be a communist. I am, of course, neither one but since when has truth ever gotten in your way.

I know I will have more fun at my dentist appointment this afternoon than I would have staying here and retorting with you as you continue to go around and around in circles.

I never knew a Repubican could be a communist.

I never said republicans are communists. I said republicans and communists use the same tactic of repeating their lies even after they have been proven wrong.

I am, of course, neither one but since when has truth ever gotten in your way.

I never said you were either one of them. I said you were using the same tactics of republicans and communists. Your poor logic and lack of comprehension of the written word is showing.

I know I will have more fun at my dentist appointment this afternoon than I would have staying here and retorting with you as you continue to go around and around in circles.

Too bad you aren't posting after the appointment--you could blame your poor showing on the gas. As it is, you have been shown to be a liar. Libs weren't saying anyting about Horn being white or a redneck or honky or anything else. Your delusions have been shown to you for what they are--delusions.

#200 | Posted by CalifChris at 2008-09-30 05:56 PM | Reply |

I expect Gonzalez will be incinerated when his trailer is fire bombed in retaliation. Please god.

"I know I will have more fun at my dentist appointment this afternoon than I would have staying
here and retorting with you as you continue to go around and around in circles.

- CalifChris"

...Too bad you aren't posting after the appointment -- you could blame your
poor showing on the gas....

#201 Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I laugh out loud more from reading your nonsensical posts than I ever could from getting a dose of laughing gas from my dentist.

I expect Gonzalez will be incinerated when his trailer is fire bombed in retaliation. Please god.

#202 | Posted by Laius at 2008-09-30 06:15 PM

Yesterday you said Gonzalez "was dead meat."

You've only been posting on here for two days with some rather violent views towards this man who was being robbed in his own home.

Ever post here under another name?
I think you probably have so why not just get the guts to write your hopes for his death under your real user name?
If you want Gonzalez dead at least don't cower under some new phony username to say so.

"You can believe a Texas cop that says the guy was on Horns property--I know them for the lying sacks of shit they are."

Maybe you have your own experiences that justify this statement in your mind, but that is pure trash. I know several Texas Lawmen, Sherrifs Dept, DPS, HPD..at all levels. Almost all of them are among the most stand up guys (and one gal) that I know. Are there dirty cops..sure...but Texas doesn't have the monopoly. I'm trying to take a new approach on DR and cut back on the useless namecalling and argumentative banality (sometimes it is deserved and unavoidable...anyone seen Celery lately), but I have to call BS on this one. It's like calling all black people thieves, all Mexicans lazy, and all white people racists.

A Texas cop.

www.oneranger.org

I have a frame with his book cover and a 2 dollar bill he autographed and gave to my son---who's named after him.

"Say what you mean and mean what you say" has successfully guided 6 generations of Mao's as they scratched a living from the Chihuahuan desert.

That's what he wrote to my boy.

Funny how you can follow the same advice on a hard-left website and get "dumped" for it.

Funny how you can follow the same advice on a hard-left website and get "dumped" for it.

#208 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-09-30 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

WAHHHH!

Mao-
Even though you are comically wrong on a regular basis, eg:

I'm also amused at this notion of McCain somehow "fearing" a debate. Anybody whose head isn't firmly implanted in their ass knows that one candidate is qualified and presidential, and the other isn't. Even the Obama camp is aware of that perception. Make no mistake, Senator McCain is going to wipe his ass with the neophyte Man-Child.

I'm looking forward to the juxtapositioning on national teevision.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-09-24 04:57 PM ,

I thought you got suspended AGAIN for your 'protest too much' gay bashing.

Mao-
Well, maybe it was this crap:

Does your pussy hurt again, Alexis?

#210 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-09-30 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.vagisil.com

There ya go, buttercup.

*pat pat*

#211 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-09-30 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pinche is still crying about the moderation policy...*sniff*

You have a few options, guy:

a) Talk to rogers via email.
b) Go somewhere else.
c) Piss and moan about it impotently on a thread wasting space.
d) STFU and stop being a douche.

Lucky for us you always choose "c".

Make no mistake, Senator McCain is going to wipe his ass with the neophyte Man-Child.

He did.

Other than that, your post---and the point you were attempting to make with it---makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

You're a troll, Mao. You weren't always a creepy troll, but you are now. I mean, really, you hurl sexual insults as your regular schtick: pussy this, faggot that. It's embarrassing.

I thought you got suspended AGAIN for your 'protest too much' gay bashing

I guess you thought wrong, huh?

Make no mistake, Senator McCain is going to wipe his ass with the neophyte Man-Child.

He did.

LOL.

He did.

You're in the minority on that opinion. But...buck up buttercup, you've always got your peer group: takeitez, obamanigger, bl2, ect.

You're a troll, Mao.

And you're a coward that lacks the balls to attach his name to a single screen name for longer than a month or so at a time.

My moths.

You're in the minority on that opinion.

Its not really an opinion.

But whatever makes you feel good.

My moths.

#221 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-09-30 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

Its not really an opinion.

Yes, it is.

But whatever makes you feel good.

But whatever makes you feel good.

What makes me feel good is hearing McCain wipe his ass with Obama in debate.

He's got a bracelet too, you know.

Mao-
re: "Its not really an opinion."

In the sense that it's stupid, then I guess that depends on how stupid a comment has to be before it's not even an opinion. I think, under your definition, it's probably not an "opinion". Pretty much all polling gave the debate to Obama.

But you are definitely flaming, though deeply closeted. Who else would have such vicious tirades against "pussy" AND "faggots" as a regular and repetitive theme to their posts?

What makes me feel good is hearing McCain wipe his ass with Obama in debate.

There are pills for hearing voices that aren't there. Invest in some.

Alexandrite-
LOL. Mao must already have those.

He's got a bracelet too, you know.

I am not sure that one hiding on his ankle is a good thing.

I am not sure that one hiding on his ankle is a good thing.

Is that a racial comment?

I hope not.

Boyd might be black again today.

And that might be pretty offensive to him.

Have fun with your next tirade against "faggotry" and your sexual insults in general, Mao. It's probably only a few drinks away. You used to be interesting. But you've gone off the deep end, to put it charitably.

...lacks the balls to attach his name to a single screen name...

~Mao Tse Dung ...er Pinche Mao

Be Well.

Mao Tse Dung ...er Pinche Mao

That's because I had to register a name back when Rogers decided to ruin the site.

And it doesn't take a Great Leap Forward in comprehension to connect a Mao Tse Dung to a Pinche Mao.

Especially when compared to the unbridled faggotry exhibited by the metamorpheses from a Boyd to a Barney to a Badweek to a Cooper to a BetelG...

...and then lying about it when challenged....

...and then lying about your race...

back when Rogers decided to ruin the site.

You could always leave, honey.

You used to be interesting

Well, you never were.

And I obviously still am, as evidenced by your moth-like attraction to my presence here---and your rolling and continual need to point out the fact that I used to be interesting.

I've noticed that's kind of a pattern with you and the little dog that pants and yips about you.

You could always leave, honey.

The "honey" thing doesn't work for you, Frances.

You're way too effeminate for that to work as a form of condescension.

It's just awkward.

Sorry. :(

Is that a racial comment?

You can go as far out of context as you want but at the end of the day, you're pissing on your own back.

you're pissing on your own back

You'd kill for my prostate.

Don't worry, honey. I still find you interesting. Stupid, abusive, and wrong. But interesting.

Can't help it. I have to laugh at the most arrogant person in the room when they're dead wrong and clueless about it.

You're way too effeminate

Enough with the "unbridled faggotry" boy.