Americans enjoy their sense of themselves as pioneering, free-range sorts. They value their "freedom" and their scrappiness. That's all well and good, if somewhat simplistic. But I feel like some of the responses here are born out of that kind of blind renegade spirit--a spirit that, while certainly useful at the dawn of our country and in all our various creative endeavors, has morphed in contexts such as this into a rigid, ignorant and dangerous attitude of fear masked as aggression.

I love this country, a lot. But we can be brave and righteous and compassionate all at the same time. Those who seek to justify a killing that was not strictly necessary are at the very least at risk, I think, of perverting the pride and spunk they associate with their national identity into a rather barbaric version of its former self-- of disrespect, or at least lack of meaningful consideration, for human life.

Or, maybe, yet another reason never to break into someone else's house?

Sorry, but it works my nerves when people think that because of the castle doctrine, Texans are all a bunch of crazy gun nuts like the guy on "The Simpsons" who dances and shoots his pistols in the air.

Yes, this was excessive interpretation of the castle doctrine. Yes, he shot a child in the back. These points are true and shameful. I've never been to Laredo, but understand that at one point it was the auto-theft capital of Texas. If I lived in a high-crime area where police were not likely to show up quickly or even at all, I'd want to be able to defend my person and property. And, as someone else pointed out, these kids weren't apprehended while doing something you know, lawful.

I'm sorry for the death, but please don't be blind and bigoted about the entire state because of this.

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

and

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

Ok, I understand that under stress things get hazy and otherwise innocent actions can be misinterpreted, but I can't see how you can shoot someone in the back while they are lunging towards you.

I disagree with his vigilantism in the end it was still a murder, justifiable in the eyes of the law yes, but it was still an act of murder. The kids broke in, but he forced them to surrender then shot them. Regardless of how much easier killing them there it is it doesn't make it right.

Amen! If someone breaks into my house I don't take time to check ID, I fire. Kill them all!

I shall now laugh.

Ha ha ha.

You got me fellas, I almost believed you for a minute.

Although this story is of younger kids I'm all for shooting but not with a "live" load. I was raised country and rock salt will make you want to be shot with lead shot.

I don't agree with the "gangland" approach this guy used. Once he had them down he should have called the cops. Not psychologically terrorize them and then shoot one of them in the back.

Rock salt stings for days as it slowly melts and rarely can be removed like a lead pellet.

Was he justified in shooting them? Probably not. Why did he shoot them? Probably because, while they were on their knees, one of the kids said something that really pissed him off, and he pulled the trigger. That's my guess. But, maybe not. Maybe one of the other kids lunged for him. There is no question he had every right to be scared, with four almost adults in his house. We know that children that age don't have full moral faculties yet. He had no way to know that none of them would be armed, or that they wouldn't try to swing around and take the rifle from him.

It doesn't seem fair to me to punish someone severly for a situation which they didn't ask for or initiate. I guess he could have just sat back and waited 15 minutes for police to show up, but, until he pulled the trigger, he acted in a reasonable way. How you react to a stressful situation should be criminally different from the situations you willfully initiate.

All in all, if I was the prosecutor, I would have pushed for a charge of manslaughter.

On a side note, I think someone should conduct a study on a connection between junk food and violent, irrational behaviour.

It's not necessary to shoot and kill 11-year-olds over petty crimes to 'teach people a lesson.' Really, it's not. There's 5 criminals in this story and one of them stands out.

Strangely enough, my home state of Wisconsin has both incredibly strong gun control laws and a small fraction of the crime per capita that Texas has... (The difference is even more noticeable for violent crimes.)

Really? You must be new to this planet? Once you've stayed here a while, you'll be totally convinced of the stupidity of humans and you wont give it a second thought.

Even if the guy SHOULDN'T have shot the kid, that doesn't mean the guy should be locked into a cage for doing so. That erodes one's right to defend their dwelling and property- the next prosecution might be of a 17 year old "kid" coming in through the window... and the next an adult who turns out to be unarmed... then very quickly a man no longer has the right to defend his home. Given what I've heard, I couldn't and wouldn't have shot the kid, but if there were a group of them and they didn't immediately comply with my orders restraining them from potentially harming me (hands in the air, or get on the floor, etc) then I'd feel I had little other choice.

Something is not ringing true about his whole story. No matter how you feel about guns or the ability to protect yourself and your twinkies, no law should give a person the right to execute another person, whether young or old, male or female. That's why you have a justice system. That's why you have police.

The story seemed to say he killed two boys. I kinda skimmed, though. I wonder if he has any remorse?

These kids didn't get shot while playing on a public basketball court, people. They were breaking and entering someone else's private home. Last time I checked, that was ILLEGAL. AND they were doing all this before they were old enough to drive! Niiiice...bet they were on the fast track to college, huh?!

The guy whose home they broke into had no way of knowing if these intruders intended to raid his fridge or cut his throat. I'd love to see what any of you bleeding-hearts would do if you should suddenly be confronted with someone breaking into YOUR house while you're eating your veggie burger and watching "Dancing with the Stars".

Are you going to ask them what they intend to do or are you going to do whatever you can to stop them from hurting you or your kids?

I don't give a watery, lukewarm crap how old the person is if they're breaking into my house or trying to attack me. I'll do my best to kill them first. NO ONE has the right to make me a victim.

If you think an 11 or 15 year old kid isn't capable of murder, well...you need to get your head out of your ass and read the news once in a while.

The kids in this story could have done one simple thing to keep themselves alive and unhurt. They could have chosen not to commit a crime. Those "free" Twinkies they thought they were going to get wound up costing them plenty and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Justice has been served. Lock and load!!!

Stealing Twinkies and setting kittens on fire are two different things. The first might not lead to anything. The second is a huge red flag that something is wrong... what you'd call "the criminal mind".

I'm so glad I don't live in Texas. I'd hate to think what these guys will try to get away with next. Shooting the neighbours' toddler because she decided to pick the flowers in your garden? *shudder*

They start off with breaking and entering - then they move onto stealing cars. Then they mug someone. If they don't get caught or killed, they move onto rape and homicide.

IT HAS HAPPENED THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

Yeah right. It's his fault they broke in. I hope y'all have someone break into your house. I'm sure you'll automatically know that they mean you no harm and just want some cookies.

Hypocrites.