Note to self, never visit Texas. Ever.

FTFA: 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.

That's not self-defense. Not by a long shot.

Wow what a tough guy. Shot a 13 year old kid in the back for stealing his twinkies. Big man. I guess in Texas if you catch someone in your house their life is pretty much yours to do with as you please. Good thing it wasn't a girl or he'd probably have raped her before shooting her in the head.

I did some stupid stuff when I was 11 or 12. Not breaking into homes. But I'm sure I went on someone's property when I shouldn't have. Guess I should be glad I am alive.

This is why, someday I would love to move the fark out of Texas!

The laws, the people, the roads, all SUCK.

However the Mexican food...


... EL OM NOM NOM NOM!

Who said that they were pleading for forgiveness? Oh yeah, the perpetrators. Who said all they wanted was snacks? Oh yeah, the perpetrators. We don't really know what happened there if theirs is the only story we're hearing.

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

Then, the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range.

I know when I lunge at someone I always do it ass first.

R.A.Danny: Who said that they were pleading for forgiveness? Oh yeah, the perpetrators. Who said all they wanted was snacks? Oh yeah, the perpetrators. We don't really know what happened there if theirs is the only story we're hearing.

Well, they were unarmed kids, were shot in the back and had snacks from the guy's fridge in their pockets when their bodies were taken to the morgue, so I'd say that's at least some evidence that maybe there's something to their story.

But on the other hand, they could have been a recently-activated al-Qaeda cell and this guy deserves the hero tag you gun nuts will bestow upon him.

40below: Well, they were unarmed kids, were shot in the back and had snacks from the guy's fridge in their pockets when their bodies were taken to the morgue, so I'd say that's at least some evidence that maybe there's something to their story.

But on the other hand, they could have been a recently-activated al-Qaeda cell and this guy deserves the hero tag you gun nuts will bestow upon him.


I'm just saying that we're not getting the whole story from TFA.

40below: But on the other hand, they could have been a recently-activated al-Qaeda cell and this guy deserves the hero tag you gun nuts will bestow upon him.

I'm a gun nut, and I want to string him up by his nuts and use him as a pinata. This is disgusting.

1. Texas
2. Sympathetic attacker.
3. Unsympathetic victims.

Survey says: white gunman, latino or black kids.

Hmm... half right

I have no problem shooting someone in my house, if I'm inside, they're inside, and they're a threat.

Walking into my house with a shotgun, forcing four kid crooks on their knees, then shooting one in the back, sounds more like a case of lynching than self-defense.

/Different method, same result.
//Wonder what would happen if he'd shot all four?

AirForceVet: //Wonder what would happen if he'd shot all four?

This article would not have been written since there would be no witnesses to allege that there was foul play.

R.A.Danny: I'm just saying that we're not getting the whole story from TFA.

What more do you need to know? He shot a child in the back

But don't you dare try to buy markers or spraypaint without ID.

John Paul Jones: That's not self-defense. Not by a long shot.

This. Rims. QFT. Insert more validating statements here. This guy deserves the needle, if only because hanging has gone out of style.

Bowen: What more do you need to know? He shot a child in the back

We weren't there, we don't know what kind of light there was, no idea who was moving, nothing like that. I'm not saying the guy was in the right, I am saying we're not getting the story.

R.A.Danny: Bowen: What more do you need to know? He shot a child in the back

We weren't there, we don't know what kind of light there was, no idea who was moving, nothing like that. I'm not saying the guy was in the right, I am saying we're not getting the story.

Gonzalez, who was in a nearby building at the time, went into the trailer and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun. Then he forced the boys, who were unarmed, to their knees, attorneys on both sides say

Exactly whose side are we not getting?

R.A.Danny: We weren't there, we don't know what kind of light there was, no idea who was moving, nothing like that. I'm not saying the guy was in the right, I am saying we're not getting the story.

"Then he forced the boys, who were unarmed, to their knees, attorneys on both sides say."

Anything else?

I'll save my disgust for the jury that acquitted him. he executed them. Pure and simple.
Once he had them in some sort of custody, there was absolutely no need to start shooting. I don't care how LEGAL it is in Texas to do this. IT'S STILL WRONG.

I hope this asshole burns in hell.

40below: attorneys on both sides say

That may be pretty damning, eh?

Thank God he had his penis-extender to kill those dangerous minorities.

HulkHands: Thank God he had his penis-extender to kill those dangerous minorities.

Nice try, but it's "penis replacement". Do keep up on your snark.

/*adjusts monocle*

balin007: Note to self, never visit Texas. Ever.

Feel free to visit us. Just dont break into our homes. Its not like we run around waving guns at everyone that crosses the state line.

/trolling (had to put that in there for the mouth breathers)

I used to think "NO WAY! There's no way gun-humpers would jump in this thread shamelessly attempting to defend this animal who shot unarmed children in the back."

But, sadly, I now realize how many frightened and impotent gun owners there are out there.

Hooray for proportionate response. Evidently, any arbitrarily vicious murder is perfectly okay and legal in Texas as long as it's on your own property.

Yesdog: I used to think "NO WAY! There's no way gun-humpers would jump in this thread shamelessly attempting to defend this animal who shot unarmed children in the back."

But, sadly, I now realize how many frightened and impotent gun owners there are out there.

Funny how someone who steals a loaf of bread in a Muslim country could have their hand chopped off following a judgement of a court. That's barbaric. But in Texas, the penalty for stealing a goddamn Twinkie is summary execution. It's legal and everything, and people are most upset that this guy was even put on trial for what is clearly his god-given right to defend his snack food with deadly force.

Gonzalez had endured several break-ins at his trailer when the four boys, ranging in age from 11 to 15, broke in.

How many times should you be victimized before you are allowed to protect your home? Oh, it's ok, they are only kids and they are stealing Twinkies. Hell, he should have just given them a key.

the_cnidarian: How many times should you be victimized before you are allowed to protect your home? Oh, it's ok, they are only kids and they are stealing Twinkies. Hell, he should have just given them a key.

No, you hold them at gunpoint until the police show up.

Maybe if that doesn't work you can shoot them - but let's at least give it a shot...er, try.

R.A.Danny: Who said that they were pleading for forgiveness? Oh yeah, the perpetrators. Who said all they wanted was snacks? Oh yeah, the perpetrators. We don't really know what happened there if theirs is the only story we're hearing.

That's why you never leave witnesses in that situation. So there is only one story...yours.

I'm really sorry, but that's the way that it works. You break in, you die. And that's just from the dog.

Not to be a troll, but the main point here is...

Don't ever break into any house ever for any reason whatsoever when you're in Texas.

Fark em. You break into my house, you assume the risk of the job. I will shoot and worry about your feelings later.

40below: Yesdog: I used to think "NO WAY! There's no way gun-humpers would jump in this thread shamelessly attempting to defend this animal who shot unarmed children in the back."

But, sadly, I now realize how many frightened and impotent gun owners there are out there.

Funny how someone who steals a loaf of bread in a Muslim country could have their hand chopped off following a judgement of a court. That's barbaric. But in Texas, the penalty for stealing a goddamn Twinkie is summary execution. It's legal and everything, and people are most upset that this guy was even put on trial for what is clearly his god-given right to defend his snack food with deadly force.

Unless this guy kept his snack food at a remote location, I think you're ignoring the fact that, no matter how PC you paint it, an unwelcome man invaded another's home.

When you wake up to people you don't know raiding your fridge, will you presume their intentions are pure, and that they just want Twinkies? When you ask what they're doing there, do you expect them to just submit and answer you honestly? If so, what if they lie to you, pin you down, kill you and then rape and murder your giant neck and --I don't want to be involved with what might look like fat-bashing. You can do whatever you want.

Bowen: the_cnidarian: How many times should you be victimized before you are allowed to protect your home? Oh, it's ok, they are only kids and they are stealing Twinkies. Hell, he should have just given them a key.

No, you hold them at gunpoint until the police show up.

exactly.

Chariset: 1. Texas
2. Sympathetic attacker.
3. Unsympathetic victims.

Survey says: white gunman, latino or black kids.

No, the survey says you didn't even glance at the article.

Here's a new rule: don't break into people's houses, period. I would have sympathy for the victims if the guy was lost and wandered onto his yard. But lets be clear: they were there to steal someone else's hard earned property.

Past the age of 5 we know not to take something that belongs to others. If we stopped indulging their kleptocratic fantasies, maybe they would stop doing it.

SilentStrider: Bowen: the_cnidarian: How many times should you be victimized before you are allowed to protect your home? Oh, it's ok, they are only kids and they are stealing Twinkies. Hell, he should have just given them a key.

No, you hold them at gunpoint until the police show up.

exactly.

I agree with this in principle. It's easy to say "Just hold them at gunpoint." That's not realistic though.

djmaverick: Past the age of 5 we know not to take something that belongs to others.

Yet we struggle with the concept of not shooting a kid in the back when you are in complete control of a situation.

Odd how that works.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I'll bet those kids never break into a house again.

It's not clear from this poorly-written article whether he "caught them stealing snacks".

queezyweezel: I'm a gun nut, and I want to string him up by his nuts and use him as a pinata.

Hang him up and shoot at him like he's a hornets nest!

I know states can't secede on their own but can the rest of us kick them out? I think we're all starting to realize that getting Texas into the Union was one of the biggest mistakes the US has ever made.

No Hero tag?

40below: But in Texas, the penalty for stealing a goddamn Twinkie is summary execution.

Come on now, just because they had Twinkies, it doesn't mean they weren't zombies.

Bowen: the_cnidarian: How many times should you be victimized before you are allowed to protect your home? Oh, it's ok, they are only kids and they are stealing Twinkies. Hell, he should have just given them a key.

No, you hold them at gunpoint until the police show up.

Maybe if that doesn't work you can shoot them - but let's at least give it a shot...er, try.

In this case, that's what the shooter claims he did -- he was holding them at gunpoint, and one of them was lunging at him.

the_cnidarian: I agree with this in principle. It's easy to say "Just hold them at gunpoint." That's not realistic though.

Well, if they lunge at you, fire away. Protip: you can argue that they lunged at you when you don't shoot them in the farking back.

Duffster: Not to be a troll, but the main point here is...

Don't ever break into any house ever for any reason whatsoever when you're in Texas.

TFA aside, this is probably a good rule of thumb.

People kill, not guns right guys? You can't have your cake an eat it too folks. Supporting gun rights, also means you support this type of outcome in court.

Another win for the gun lobby, eh? Yay for freedoms! USA! USA!

/sarcasm

"Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property."

He was protecting his property. Who cares if they were kids.

sullyman I will shoot and worry about your feelings later.

If you had people break into your home and shot them out of concern they might have a weapon, I wouldn't even consider you to have done wrong even if they were unarmed teenagers stealing snacks. However, that is not the same as what amounts to execution over petty theft. That man is a f*cking disgrace.