Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Anybody heard anything about Jesus Gonzales case?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Archangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    OTP, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    231

    Anybody heard anything about Jesus Gonzales case?

    Did a search on JS Online. Found only old stuff.

    Any word?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Scheduling conference tomorrow, 13 July 2010

    http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails...w+Case+Details

    Two counts of First Degree Intentional Homicide.

    There has not been a news update since 30 June 2010.

  3. #3
    McX
    Guest
    the worst crime here is that they are prosecuting someone for defending themselves.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Archangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    OTP, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    231
    Looks like hearing tomorrow?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Looks like hearing tomorrow?
    If you are responding to my post and if "hearing" means scheduling conference, then, yes.

  6. #6
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    what a crock!

    Why are they wasting their time & taxpayers' money on this?
    Intentional homicide means he meant to kill them. Since he was defending himself, rather than hunting for someone to shoot, it's not intentional, and self-defense is a defense to homicide.
    Sheesh.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    That's what the case and, hopefully, trial will be about. Intent of something is obvious by going armed. Jesus was not charged with murder or with reckless homicide.

    Read Wisc. Stats. Chapter 940, Crimes Against Life and Bodily Security, 940.01 First−degree intentional homicide and 940.03 Felony murder.

    First-degree intentional homicide opens the door to the defense of privilege, in Wisconsin including self-defense.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 07-12-2010 at 12:57 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    the worst crime here is that they are prosecuting someone for defending themselves.
    Part of the great responsibility of carrying a firearm is being willing to defend your actions in court should you choose to take a life. You should be willing to articulate why the taking of another life was justified in order to prevent loss of yours. You should be willing to articulate why you felt your life was in danger.
    If your child were shot and killed, I am certain that you would demand that the shooter would be able to justify their actions. Since no physical harm was done to Jesus and the men shot had no weapons on them, the prosecutor is forcing Jesus to justify his actions in court. If deadly force was justified, this trial should go well for Jesus.

    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Why are they wasting their time & taxpayers' money on this?
    Intentional homicide means he meant to kill them. Since he was defending himself, rather than hunting for someone to shoot, it's not intentional, and self-defense is a defense to homicide.
    Sheesh.
    The question which needs to be sorted out is if deadly force was justified. This goes back to the WI Statute regarding self defense. You can not draw and shoot unless you are in immenant danger to lose your life. If someone only verbally threatens harm and they have no weapons, deadly force is difficult to justify in WI. You may not use deadly force to defend against property. Not a single punch was thrown by either side in this case before the gun was drawn and fired.
    I sincerely hope that Jesus was justified in his actions and that the facts will support it in court.
    939.48... The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 07-12-2010 at 01:47 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Not a single punch was thrown by either side in this case before the gun was drawn and fired.

    1. Do you know this?
    2. If you do KNOW this, why are you publishing it on an open forum?

    Also, I do not think fisticuffs are necessary. If someone keeps approaching while I have my gun pointed at them I'd have a tough time not pulling the trigger unless I something that shows I won't be attacked.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    1. Do you know this?
    2. If you do KNOW this, why are you publishing it on an open forum?

    .
    Please excuse my poor choice of words. There has not yet been a trial and any "evidence" for self defense which should include all actions by the 2 men shot has not been made public. A better choice of words would be that there was no claim that any punches were thrown either by Jesus or the men shot in the criminal complaint or the media reports.

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Also, I do not think fisticuffs are necessary. If someone keeps approaching while I have my gun pointed at them I'd have a tough time not pulling the trigger unless I something that shows I won't be attacked.
    If you shoot someone for simply "approaching" you , then you should be prepared to serve time as a felon. You had better be justified in using deadly force before you even draw your firearm. If you carry a firearm you should think of it as your last line of defense and be prepared to use your hands and feet first. The primary purpose of your feet being to get your threatened butt away from the threat.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 07-12-2010 at 02:15 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Criminal defense is a very specialized practice of law.

    Criminal defense is a very specialized practice of law and I'd leave it to my hired criminal defense lawyer. Like my good friend Dale T. Cobb of Charleston, SC firm Belk, Cobb, Infinger & Goldstein, PA We first met on bicycles.

  12. #12
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    If you shoot someone for simply "approaching" you , then you should be prepared to serve time as a felon. You had better be justified in using deadly force before you even draw your firearm. If you carry a firearm you should think of it as your last line of defense and be prepared to use your hands and feet first. The primary purpose of your feet being to get your threatened butt away from the threat.
    I guess I didn't say it right. I guess I'll know what I mean when it happens.

    I don't want to clutter up this thread.

  13. #13
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Part of the great responsibility of carrying a firearm is being willing to defend your actions in court should you choose to take a life. You should be willing to articulate why the taking of another life was justified in order to prevent loss of yours. You should be willing to articulate why you felt your life was in danger.
    If your child were shot and killed, I am certain that you would demand that the shooter would be able to justify their actions. Since no physical harm was done to Jesus and the men shot had no weapons on them, the prosecutor is forcing Jesus to justify his actions in court. If deadly force was justified, this trial should go well for Jesus.



    The question which needs to be sorted out is if deadly force was justified. This goes back to the WI Statute regarding self defense. You can not draw and shoot unless you are in immenant danger to lose your life. If someone only verbally threatens harm and they have no weapons, deadly force is difficult to justify in WI. You may not use deadly force to defend against property. Not a single punch was thrown by either side in this case before the gun was drawn and fired.
    I sincerely hope that Jesus was justified in his actions and that the facts will support it in court.
    Yes, but it would be decent to be able to answer those questions before a Grand Jury so if answered satisfactorily by the defendant there will be no trial. If a simple majority of your peers finds no true bill, then what is the likelihood a unanimous 12 will find otherwise?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Criminal defense is a very specialized practice of law and I'd leave it to my hired criminal defense lawyer. Like my good friend Dale T. Cobb of Charleston, SC firm Belk, Cobb, Infinger & Goldstein, PA We first met on bicycles.
    Before going ahead with an action which may require you to enlist the assistance of a Criminal Defense expert, one should be well informed so that you are making prudent choices. These choices will give you the highest probabliity of prevailing should your actions come under scrutiny.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Interesting.

    940.01 - ANNOT.
    A defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that he or she actually believed he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend himself or herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Yes, the 'reasonable fear' element of self-defense made plain.

    The elements of common law self-defense are four, be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, attempt to withdraw.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Interesting.

    940.01 - ANNOT.
    A defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that he or she actually believed he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend himself or herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.
    This assumes that the defendent knows of this violent past.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    6. Third, we hold that a defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that she actually believed she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable.

    IK:
    The above is an excerpt from the WSC ruling in State v Head. It says nothing about knowing. It says use evidence.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    6. Third, we hold that a defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that she actually believed she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable.

    IK:
    The above is an excerpt from the WSC ruling in State v Head. It says nothing about knowing. It says use evidence.
    Read it again. It states that the defendent may use this violent past as a factual basis that they believed they were in immenant danger.
    In other words, they believed that because of the victim's past and character that they were in danger. Because this person harmed others or themself in the past they believed that this person was going to harm them.
    It is not a get out of jail free card that you may kill a felon even if your belief that the force used to defend yourself was necessary if it is actually an unreasonable belief.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 07-12-2010 at 03:32 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Read it again. It states that the defendent may use this violent past as a factual basis that they believed they were in immenant danger.
    In other words, they believed that because of the victim's past and character that they were in danger. Because this person harmed others or themself in the past they believed that this person was going to harm them.
    We are talking hypothetically, right? Because we shouldn't discuss Jesus's case.

    Anyhow, hypothetically, does this mean that the defendant has to know that the potential attackers had previously done dangerous/illegal things or is this a post incident judgement?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    We know that carjackings are frequently violent incidents causing reasonable fear of bodily harm during a carjacking and justifying (making righteous) self-defense. Evidence can be discovered during trial preparation.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    We are talking hypothetically, right? Because we shouldn't discuss Jesus's case.

    Anyhow, hypothetically, does this mean that the defendant has to know that the potential attackers had previously done dangerous/illegal things or is this a post incident judgement?
    That is the way the quoted text reads. It is a valid defense (knowledge that the victim had previously committed violent acts and had a violent character) if the belief that the defendent was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and belief that the force used was necessary to defend themself was unreasonable.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    We know that carjackings are frequently violent incidents causing reasonable fear of bodily harm during a carjacking and justifying (making righteous) self-defense. Evidence can be discovered during trial preparation.
    The reasonable fear must be of "great" bodily harm or death in order to justify the use of deadly force. It certainly helps your case if the carjacker is armed.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25
    Counselor, ya gotta see my great hangnail!

    Quote Originally Posted by http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Great_Bodily_Harm
    The term "great bodily harm" forms the basis of many statutory definitions regarding the implied use of deadly or lethal force. Regrettably, statutes remain obscure as to what actual types of injuries constitute a judgment that great bodily harm has occurred. A search of case law shows that most determinations of great bodily harm are decided on a case-by-case basis, left up to a judge or jury to evaluate and declare.

    Some examples of great bodily harm cited by the court include:

    1. scarring 2. permanent disfigurement 3. broken bones 4. Extended hospital stays (in one case "extended" was meant to mean overnight.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    I can only imagine what Iggy_Kist must have written, but you have found the point, that legal quibbles are for legal asses to ride to work. I-ANAL I am retired.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •