dont mess with texas.

[Smash255]

Cold Blooded Murder

[John Dibble]

I'm all for the ability of a home/property owner to shoot intruders, but even this takes the cake for insanity. The trespassers didn't actively do anything, and there were kids there. I couldn't fathom how that would look at all suspicious to give reason to fire on them.

It was nighttime. They may not have seen the kids, at least not from the start. From what I've read, it sounds like this is the order of events:

1. The victim's group are in two cars on a public road near the couple's house.
2. They stopped on the side of the road so that one of the boys could take a leak.
3. The couple yelled at them to get off their property (they weren't actually on their property, even if they were close) and shot at one of the cars after it had started to leave.
4. The couple then got on their own four wheeler, caught up to the victim's cars 100 yards or so away at the government owned levee, and Gayle Muhs fired a shot at the back of one of the victim's groups vehicles.
5. The victims screamed at them to stop and that there were children in the vehicle.
6. More shots were fired in response.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=7557222&page=1

A murder charge is now being pursued. Now that I have a better picture, I agree with it because they actively chased down the victims far from their own property and continued to shoot after being informed of the children in the vehicle.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm all for the right to defend your property, but the boy here posed no threat.  1st degree murder with the death penalty is what I'd push for as a prosecutor.

This is clearly not first-degree murder; there's no indication of premeditation. Second-degree murder, though, definitely.

They claim they thought the kid was trespassing - they would've then had to go back to wherever the gun was in the house and get it.  It was premeditated, not a crime of passion.

They brought a gun to the place where they committed the crime.

In a robbery that turns fatal due to being disturbed by someone, that counts as premeditation. I don't see why it wouldn't here.

It wouldn't necessarily count here because they believed the victims were on their property unlawfully, and they do have a lawful right to defend their property. They did not plan to have the victims enter their property, so their actions were reactionary rather than premeditated. The problem is they overreacted and shot off their gun when there wasn't a clear and present danger, and they did not even provide ample warning before doing so, so their actions were undeniably criminal.

But you only have a right to use lethal force to defend property when there is a reasonable threat.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm all for the right to defend your property, but the boy here posed no threat.  1st degree murder with the death penalty is what I'd push for as a prosecutor.

This is clearly not first-degree murder; there's no indication of premeditation. Second-degree murder, though, definitely.

They claim they thought the kid was trespassing - they would've then had to go back to wherever the gun was in the house and get it.  It was premeditated, not a crime of passion.

Passion can have a longer half life than the time it takes to go back into the house and get a gun, don't you think? I am not saying this was a crime of passion (in which event it would be voluntary manslaughter, not murder at all, even second degree murder), but it might have been.

I thought 2nd Degree murder was crime of passion.

No, although it is an entirely statutory construction, without a common law tradition. It is homicide not driven by passion, but also not a calm cold blooded premeditated act either, and certainly not one with aggravated circumstances. Shooting though lighted windows of homes for kicks at night (maybe while high), and killing someone at the wrong window at the wrong time, might be an example of second degree murder.

In CA, it may be different, but shooting through a window for kicks would be manslaughter in TX.

Manslaughter is defined by TX Penal code as "A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual."

In TX, it would be a first degree felony unless "At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree."

It's not caused by "sudden passion" defined as "passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation," and therefore, I stick with my original interpretation: the man should be charged with murder, a felony of the first degree.

Source for TX penal code: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.005.00.000019.00.htm

Actually, there is recklessness (manslaughter), and then there is malignant heart recklessness (murder), and shooting through lighted windows of homes at night is in the latter murder category, and that is true everywhere basically. Here is a snippet from Wiki that I picked up per a google:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But is that Texas law?

[Sam Spade]

It's there in the statute, Inks.  Not the same language, exactly, but it's there - 19.02b2.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's there in the statute, Inks.  Not the same language, exactly, but it's there - 19.02b2.

But you'd still need to prove intent to harm the individual.

[Sam Spade]

It's there in the statute, Inks.  Not the same language, exactly, but it's there - 19.02b2.

But you'd still need to prove intent to harm the individual.

Like I said - it's not exact.  But "intent to murder" is not the same as "intent to commit serious bodily injury" because normally if the person dies under those circumstances, you were probably reckless.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's there in the statute, Inks.  Not the same language, exactly, but it's there - 19.02b2.

But you'd still need to prove intent to harm the individual.

Like I said - it's not exact.  But "intent to murder" is not the same as "intent to commit serious bodily injury" because normally if the person dies under those circumstances, you were probably reckless.

But according to Torie's scenario, they were shooting through a window just for kicks.  I don't see intent to injure there.  Lights on in a window doesn't even ensure that they knew people were home.  We leave our lights on at night for safety reasons.

Although at this point we're nit-picking a 2 sentence scenario that would have much more context in a real criminal case. 

[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?

[minionofmidas]

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.

[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?

[John Dibble]

It wouldn't necessarily count here because they believed the victims were on their property unlawfully, and they do have a lawful right to defend their property. They did not plan to have the victims enter their property, so their actions were reactionary rather than premeditated. The problem is they overreacted and shot off their gun when there wasn't a clear and present danger, and they did not even provide ample warning before doing so, so their actions were undeniably criminal.

But you only have a right to use lethal force to defend property when there is a reasonable threat.

That contradicts what I said how exactly?

[John Dibble]

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?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It wouldn't necessarily count here because they believed the victims were on their property unlawfully, and they do have a lawful right to defend their property. They did not plan to have the victims enter their property, so their actions were reactionary rather than premeditated. The problem is they overreacted and shot off their gun when there wasn't a clear and present danger, and they did not even provide ample warning before doing so, so their actions were undeniably criminal.

But you only have a right to use lethal force to defend property when there is a reasonable threat.

That contradicts what I said how exactly?

Sorry - I misread that last sentence.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[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?

[minionofmidas]

So what crime should the jury have convicted him of?

Still the wrong question.

[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.