dont mess with texas.

[jimrtex]

Even in Texas you can't off people for trespassing in plain daylight, absent a reasonable fear for your physical safety. The free fire zone is offing intruders at night who reasonably seem intent or have broken into your home.  At least I think Texas law is something along those lines. And even in Texas a jury would bag this charming couple (jury nullification of attempts to prosecute trigger happy folks is a big problem in Texas), given the age of the corpse. The couple is very fortunate that I will not be on their jury.

What evidence is there of jury nullification in Texas, let alone it being a big problem?

[jimrtex]

Even in Texas you can't off people for trespassing in plain daylight, absent a reasonable fear for your physical safety. The free fire zone is offing intruders at night who reasonably seem intent or have broken into your home.  At least I think Texas law is something along those lines. And even in Texas a jury would bag this charming couple (jury nullification of attempts to prosecute trigger happy folks is a big problem in Texas), given the age of the corpse. The couple is very fortunate that I will not be on their jury.

What evidence is there of jury nullification in Texas, let alone it being a big problem?

An example of what he's talking about.

I came across that yesterday looking for pictures of the victims in this case, actually.

Of course, the real problem is not juries' attitudes but the insane all-or-nothing "logic" of your typical jury trial - as should be obvious from this article on the same case. If judge or jury had the right to say, this wasn't murder and doesn't deserve life without parole (the sentence sought for Gonzalez), but it's still a dreadful crime and he ought to go to jail, they probably would have done so here.

Nothing to do with jury nullification.  The testimony against Gonzalez was from the other burglars, so a jury might have found it self-serving.  Gonzalez admitted shooting the thief, and said that he thought he was lunging at him and the shooting was accidental.  No beyond a reasonable doubt here.

So what are you going to convict him of?

[jimrtex]

Even in Texas you can't off people for trespassing in plain daylight, absent a reasonable fear for your physical safety. The free fire zone is offing intruders at night who reasonably seem intent or have broken into your home.  At least I think Texas law is something along those lines. And even in Texas a jury would bag this charming couple (jury nullification of attempts to prosecute trigger happy folks is a big problem in Texas), given the age of the corpse. The couple is very fortunate that I will not be on their jury.

What evidence is there of jury nullification in Texas, let alone it being a big problem?

An example of what he's talking about.

I came across that yesterday looking for pictures of the victims in this case, actually.

Of course, the real problem is not juries' attitudes but the insane all-or-nothing "logic" of your typical jury trial - as should be obvious from this article on the same case. If judge or jury had the right to say, this wasn't murder and doesn't deserve life without parole (the sentence sought for Gonzalez), but it's still a dreadful crime and he ought to go to jail, they probably would have done so here.

Nothing to do with jury nullification.  The testimony against Gonzalez was from the other burglars, so a jury might have found it self-serving.  Gonzalez admitted shooting the thief, and said that he thought he was lunging at him and the shooting was accidental.  No beyond a reasonable doubt here.

So what are you going to convict him of?

Read the article:

1. Both sides agreed that the boys had been forced onto their knees.
2. The wound inflicted that killed the boy was on his back.

So, can you explain to me how someone would lunge at you while they are on their knees and you are behind them?

Actually I read as many articles as I could find on the case.

Mr. Turley the author of the article claims that "both sides agreed that he forced them to get on their knees in front of him."   But there is no evidence that Turley was at the trial or had reviewed all testimony that had been presented to the jury.

Accused man's lawyer tells his client's story

But Mr. Gonzalez's attorney Isidro Alaniz said (in an interview after he had been hired, "... he ordered them to stop, and he ordered them to get on their knees. Mr. Gonzalez feared for his life in this moment. When he ordered them to their knees, they refused."

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

[jimrtex]

So what are you going to convict him of?

Me? Murder, of course.

But I wasn't raised in a culture of insanity the Castle Doctrine.

You had written, "If judge or jury had the right to say, this wasn't murder"

I guess I understood that you were saying that it wasn't murder. 

So what crime should the jury have convicted him of?

[jimrtex]

So what crime should the jury have convicted him of?

Still the wrong question.

What is the answer, and maybe I can guess the question.