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 th