MMA fighter fends off four attackers, killing one during home invasion

[Liberal_in_LA]

MMA fighter fends off four attackers, killing one during home invasion: police
New Mexico lightweight Joseph Torrez turned the tables on the reputed gangsters when the thugs forced their way past his fiancee into the Las Cruces mobile home, authorities say.

A New Mexico mixed martial artist won the fight of his life — outside the ring.

Joseph Torrez, 27, repelled a home invasion, killing one man, injuring another so badly he left in an ambulance and persuading two others to run in fear, authorities said.

Torrez and the men clashed on New Year’s Day at his home outside of Las Cruces, reportedly part of an ongoing feud.

One of the attackers, 22-year-old Leonard Calvillo, called ahead to threaten Torrez, the Las Cruces Sun-News reported, citing court documents.




Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mma-fighter-fends-attackers-killing-police-article-1.1567059#ixzz2pfWW6Ycr

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. FYI - calling ahead usually a really bad idea.

[CatWoman]

20. lol

[mythology]

27. Especially when the person you're calling is trained to fight.

Apparently the group hasn't read their Sun Tzu about using deception. I mean chapter one clearly states that all war is based on deception.

[Adam051188]

64. I would be surprised if any of them had read much of anything.

I think Zhuge Liang was smarter than Sun Tzu. mucho trickyo.

[Ranchemp.]

29. Yeah,

you can tell those 4 thugs didn't come from the deep end of the gene pool.

[delta17]

146. Hey, they were nice guys, just misunderstood!

Just kidding, these morons got what was coming to them.

[firsttimer]

2. The MMA fighter should be charged with murder

There is nothing you own worth killing another human being over.

He should have just ran out the back door

[sarisataka]

3. .

[Glassunion]

5. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/115736354

[sarisataka]

9. Yummy

I'll try it tonight

[freshwest]

108. Interesting, revealing thread. But I don't dare say a thing, so I'll join you:

[sarisataka]

133. Still going on...

have a drink to go with the snacks

[freshwest]

144. Oh, goodie. I didn't see anything new this morning and was dissapointed. I'll get some tea. n/t

[Glassunion]

4. You should read the article.

They weren't there for stuff.

[firsttimer]

8. I did read it , the MMA fighter was looking for a fight

Why didn't he call the police when they said they were coming over.
Or run out of the house.

Instead he decided to beat a young man to death.

Also according to the article he might charged.

Apparently I'm not the only one that thinks he should be charged.






Torrez could face charges in the death of Sal Garces, authorities said.

[Ranchemp.]

18. Why should he have to leave his own home?

He's not responsible for the death, the dead one is responsible.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Ranchemp.]

24. If you had truly read the article, like you claim,

you would know that he didn't beat anyone to death, the dead thug was stabbed to death, and how do you know that he didn't call the police? The article doesn't say if he did or didn't.

And I'll bet my shield that this young man doesn't face any charges, which he shouldn't. This sounds, so far, like a clear case of self defense.

[Incitatus]

45. .

[Incitatus]

48. .

[Kurska]

122. And here I was holding out that you actually weren't being serious

Color me disappointed.

[zappaman]

6. Jeez...

[stevenleser]

7. You could have avoided this embarrassment if you had read the article. nt

[firsttimer]

10. keep reading the article

he might be charged

[stevenleser]

11. That has nothing to do with your incorrect assertion. He wasnt fighting to protect stuff

the people that were there were there to hurt or kill him, not take his stuff.

[firsttimer]

13. Im' sorry...I didn't know you were the investigator in the case

The feud could be money owed , same as property

Also why do they call the young man beaten to death and killed a thug in the article.....

hmmm

[Ranchemp.]

26. He wasn't beaten to death,

the thug/gang member was stabbed to death.

The four men are all gang members, a Dona Ana County Sheriff’s spokeswoman said.

Sal Garces, 25, was stabbed to death during the fight. Avalos suffered “severe” facial injuries and was taken to a New Mexico hospital, authorities said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mma-fighter-fends-attackers-killing-police-article-1.1567059#ixzz2pfm9ijxK

Thought you said you read the article?

[firsttimer]

30. I'm sure that's a comfort to the murdered mans family and loved ones

Not only beaten but stabbed also.

[Ranchemp.]

33. Those 4 thugs shouldn't have invaded his home,

Don't want to be injured or killed? Don't go invading someone's home.
This MMA fighter will very likely not be charged, and he shouldn't be.
By the way, the thug wasn't murdered, the killing is being classified as a homicide and it will almost certainly be ruled as a justified homicide.

[firsttimer]

36. I see you like using that term thug to describe the young man murdered

hmmmm

I wouldn't be so sure to bet your shield on it as you said.

Hopefully this will fall on the right prosecuting attorneys desk.

[Ranchemp.]

42. You're right, he wasn't a thug,

more like a rabid animal.

And I'll bet that he won't be charged, this is, so far with the known facts, a clear case of self defense.
Why are you so bent on defending these 4 POS's?

[firsttimer]

50. I do not support killing a human being when there are other options

This fighter choose to end a life when he could have taken his family out of there and called the police.

They were not rabid animals , they were young men , human beings

[Ranchemp.]

53. And how do you know he didn't call the police?

And how do you know he had time to get out of there?
I thought you said you read the article?
So far, you've gotten just about every "fact" wrong.

Calvillo arrived shortly after with 20-year-old Nathan Avalos and brothers Sal and Raymond Garces and pounded on Torrez’s door, authorities said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mma-fighter-fends-attackers-killing-police-article-1.1567059#ixzz2pfutJorh

Keep digging. this thread ain't going too well for you.

[firsttimer]

55. It would be in the article if he dialed 911 , and you know it would

[Ranchemp.]

57. Not always.

Now I'm certain you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[firsttimer]

67. It would be in the court documents AND it most certainly would be in the article by the attorney

statement defending the MMA fighter..............




I do in fact know what I'm talking about

[Ranchemp.]

71. What court documents?

Link?
And you have no clue if his lawyer has said it and it wasn't reported.

[firsttimer]

77. The attorney is giving a play by play

No where does he mention 911 was called when the fighter had been threatened

You know for a fact the attorney would have reported this in the interview.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_24833028/one-man-dead-after-new-years-home-invasion

[Ranchemp.]

79. You said court docs.

The link isn't court docs.

Dude, give it up, you're going down in flames.

[firsttimer]

80. No I said it would be in the court documents

You know I'm correct . The attorney who is representing the MMA fighter in that article where he gave a long play by play
on how the incidents transpired would include a 911 call

Why would you not admit this ?

I'm not proving you wrong I gave you more information you hadn't read.

[qazplm]

81. right

because as we all know, if a guy who looks like him, lives where he does, calls the cops, they will immediately come out.

And as we all know, if he just leaves for awhile and calls the cops, the gang bangers totally won't just come back later.

You're ridiculous.

[Shandris]

82. Quite often (read: virtually always), I find these kinds of comments from people...

...who live in nice, affluent neighborhoods, have garages, nice vehicles, and incomes over $40,000. Very seldom do you hear them from people who live in areas where police response is measured in hours, if at all.

It's an amazing coincidence.

[CBGLuthier]

111. No, they were rabid animals.

They forfeited their humanity at the door they broke through.

[Katashi_itto]

152. You've never been in a real fight have you.

[firsttimer]

155. I don't know why you would ask me a question like that

What is a real fight? , are you saying someone needs to be killed for it to be a real fight

[Katashi_itto]

158. A fight where your opponents are actively trying to kill you.

You've been lucky.

You seem to think in a fight like that, you have the luxury of making leisurely decisions and everything simply falls in place like the movies.

He made a call to survive. Outnumbered 4-1, they were armed with knives. Regardless of his background. since it sounds like he was an enforcer for their gang/crew so he is not clean by any means.

He was in a position that he was defending his life. It was that elementary. They invaded his home.

If someone invaded my home, I would aim to kill, and I would have no problem with it either.

I'm interested to know if he was wounded, from a technical perspective. My instructors have always said, knife fights are the ones you must expect to get wounded in.

[go west young man]

153. Sadly....

human beings can be some of the worst creatures on Earth. Hitler, Pol Pot and John Wayne Gacy were human beings. There's idealism and then there's reality. I too wish it were otherwise.

[Mojo Electro]

160. You cannot be serious.

I honestly don't believe you are serious about this.

[Katashi_itto]

151. Not a thug. Incorrect, he's a dead thug.

[Ranchemp.]

161. You're right,

and good riddance.

[Katashi_itto]

163. Yeah I didnt see much loss there either

[Logical]

47. This thread is not going well for you! :-) nt

[firsttimer]

54. I could join in the celebration of a young man's murder

I'll stay where I'm at.

[Logical]

58. You would rather the family be terrorized. I get it. n-t

[Glassunion]

129. Definition of Thug

Webster - Thug: a brutal ruffian or assassin

Would a group of four men, who are known gang members, one of which had a weapon, who then proceed to break a window and kick in the door of a mobile home (where they had no legal right to be), then grab a knife (deadly weapon) from the kitchen, be sufficient for the label thug?

How about their extensive criminal records and prior convictions including violent offenses?

Why are all of the pictures of the 4 "young men" (including the deceased) mug shots?

One of the "young men" was on parole and wearing a court ordered monitoring device on his ankle. For some silly reason, he is being held without bail.

[firsttimer]

131. So hell lets just kill all of them

One poster called them rabid animals.

Hell the Police know who all the gang members are in LA, New Mexico , Chicago , New York , Detroit and in every prison where they are being housed.

Lets just kill all gang members.
According to some ........ all Gang Members are just rabid animals.

What do we do with rabid animals?


Is that how people feel here?


Hell , back stories don't matter on how some young men came from poverty and broken homes

Being 12 , 13 years old and only joining a gang because it's the only family they have ever known.

None of that matters.......they are all rabid animals to be scorned and shot down

[Glassunion]

134. Calling someone a Thug, is a far cry from a call to kill them all. You're exaggerating.

So, to you, does coming from poverty and a broken home excuse their behavior? Is running drugs, human trafficking, dealing guns, or committing violent crimes, excused by the fact they grew up poor with their single mom?

All folks are doing here is calling them names. If you feel that calling someone names = kill them all, I honestly feel bad for you.

I could give two shits how they were raised, brought up, lacked education, etc... They are people with violent convictions in their past. They are playing violent, stupid games and deserve the scorn. You are the one saying they should be shot.

[firsttimer]

136. You do know that many of them never even had a single mom at home that cared

"Is running drugs, human trafficking, dealing guns, or committing violent crimes, excused by the fact they grew up poor with their single mom? "


Some of those single moms were drugs addicts who couldn't tell you if their 12 year old child
were even home half the time .

So the child is drawn into the only thing he knows in the neighborhood he lives.

It's a gang , they have him selling drugs for them at a young age.

So you ask me if it's an excuse ? It's not an excuse........it's the only life these kids know
in the poverty and parent less life they are born into.

[Glassunion]

138. Not sure what your point is.

So you say it's not an excuse. Great. Can we continue to call them names? If thug or rabid animal is too much for your sensitivities, would it be ok to call them doodie heads or something similar? But frankly, IMO anyone who uses violence to get what they want, has zero excuse, and I'm going to call them names. ***little secret*** - calling someone names does not actually hurt them.

[firsttimer]

137. And this statement from you is not right...

"I could give two shits how they were raised, brought up, lacked education"




You should care

[Glassunion]

139. Context is your friend.

Here is the rest of the statement. "I could give two shits how they were raised, brought up, lacked education, etc... They are people with violent convictions in their past."

Stop cherry picking.

[firsttimer]

140. I wasn't cherry picking

Whether you include the whole paragraph or not.

You need to care what's happing to our young children in the ghettos
and parent less homes and why they are turning to a life of crime.

What you said is you don't care why these young men turned to a life of crime.

The only thing that MATTERS IN THEIR PAST is their criminal record

[Glassunion]

142. I don't care about the 4 men in particular.

That was the context of my statement. You're inventing the rest.

[firsttimer]

143. I can only go by what you wrote

"I could give two shits how they were raised, brought up, lacked education, etc... "



It doesn't matter whether you are talking about these 4 or the next 4 this happens to




What you wrote is happening all over our country to young kids that will turn to crime
because of the conditions they are raised in.

We need to care to stop this.

[Glassunion]

145. The next 4 violent criminals this happens to. Guess what?

I'm gonna call them names too. Really bad ones.

[firsttimer]

147. That wasn't the statement we are talking about

but you know that already...

[Glassunion]

149. Ha.

Here is the post with the statement we are discussing in context. I'll bold the important bits.

Calling someone a Thug, is a far cry from a call to kill them all. You're exaggerating.

So, to you, does coming from poverty and a broken home excuse their behavior? Is running drugs, human trafficking, dealing guns, or committing violent crimes, excused by the fact they grew up poor with their single mom?

All folks are doing here is calling them names. If you feel that calling someone names = kill them all, I honestly feel bad for you.

I could give two shits how they were raised, brought up, lacked education, etc... They are people with violent convictions in their past. They are playing violent, stupid games and deserve the scorn. You are the one saying they should be shot.

[firsttimer]

150. No it's not

I don't want to go back and forth on this since we both know
we were talking about not just the 4 in particular but
all young kids that could be lead to a life of crime due to parent less homes , poverty etc..


We all need to care or we lose our humanity

[Glassunion]

159. Yes, yes it is.

All I was talking about were these 4 convicted violent criminals. They (the fab 4) are thugs. You assumed the rest.

[Katashi_itto]

164. Well if you are in a situation like that, and I doubt you ever will be. You can appeal to their

humanity while they knife you.

[FrodosPet]

162. None of that matters.......they are all rabid animals to be scorned and shot down

I don't know about shot down (if they avoid their desire to hurt innocents), but yes, regardless of your background - if you participate in a criminal gang, you deserve to be scorned. And while I mourn all deaths and all imprisonments - with gangsters I mourn a lot less than the poor baby caught by a stray bullet, or the young woman full of dreams and vitality raped and murdered by some piece of shit, or the wedding party with one bad guy guest that gets bombed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Is it be a better comfort to have a murderous gangster for a son?

[firsttimer]

41. Did it say the murdered man had been convicted of murder at some point in his life?

I didn't think so....

So why would you call the young man murdered a murderer?

[Ranchemp.]

46. Why do you keep on saying murdered?

This is a homicide, soon to be classified as a justifiable homicide I'll bet.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Notice how he challenges me on pre-judging the deceased but he makes no qualms

about prejudging the MMA fighter. Apparently legalisms are only for the chosen, favored few.

[Ranchemp.]

56. Yep, and it's crystal clear he has no knowledge of the law.

I just don't get why he's defending these thugs and condemning the victim.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. He does have an established violent criminal history and he didn't go for tea and biscuits.

Okay, maybe he just wanted to muss things up a bit; you know how these young rapscallions are these days. Still, there were plenty of witnesses, women and children, and we can only wonder what four known gang members would do under such circumstances.

But, please, tell us how comforted you would be having those violent thugs for your children. How comforted would you be knowing they went as a group to confront someone with whom they had a longstanding feud in front of his family? How comforted would you be if they had gone to that house, did what they had planed to do to whatever degree they intended and then left again safely?

And if that was your family and you were comforted by them successfully doing what they intended to do then -- screw you and your entire family; you should have raised them better.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

72. If someone calls and tells me they're coming to hurt my family...

...I'll do everything in my power to stop that from happening. And if I happened to be an MMA fighter, I'd use my hands and body to kill the living FUCK out of the person who said he was on his way to hurt my family. You may want to give your own family a PSA letting them know you'll be useless when it really matters.

[Ranchemp.]

78. +1000. eom

[DisgustipatedinCA]

86. For the record

For the record, I'm very anti-gun. I know that you're not. That's a matter of policy for me, as I'm sure your beliefs are. But here's a crazy hypothetical: if someone happened to leave a gun at my house and I received a call threatening my family, I'd use that gun like it was going out of style. I still don't want to own a gun, and I still want lots of restrictions placed on gun usage and ownership, but if my family is threatened, the Prime Directive kicks in and nothing else matters at all. The point of my post? Guns, hands, feet, bar stock, candelabra--any port in a storm. Anyone who communicates a serious threat to someone's family risks forfeiting their life, as one particular motherfucker could attest, except that he's all dead now. This guy is either 16, or trolling, or both.

[Ranchemp.]

87. I too, would use whatever was at hand to defend myself and family,

whether it be a firearm, knife, baseball bat, hands/feet.
And I am pro 2A, but not fanatically so, there are reasonable restrictions I'd like to see also, to me, a firearm is a tool that I use in my profession, just as an arrest warrant is a tool in my profession.

Yeah, this guy is either a teenager or a troll, haven't figured out which yet.

[pokerfan]

12. How about his life

or the life of a loved one?

[firsttimer]

14. He knew they were coming but he choose to stay and fight

He and his family could have left after calling 911

[pokerfan]

28. and return when?

Were they going to give him an all clear?

[firsttimer]

43. There are many options other than waiting to kill another human being

[pokerfan]

68. The home invaders had options as well

such as not invading a home in the first place.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

74. And spent their life running in fear of them coming back?

I say, good for him for giving that bad feller a dirt nap. He won't be doing that again that's for sure and his pals will think twice about it as well.

[Shankapotomus]

100. You're forgetting something

The MMA fighter had no idea where the 4 intruders were when they made the call. We are speculating here on hindsight. For all the MMA fighter knew they could have been making the call from outside his trailer.

[dionysus]

103. just for you, i'm glad he took one out to give the other 3 a lesson.

[Demo_Chris]

15. I suspect that this is a troll, but...

On the off chance it's not...

That kind of philosophy is a LUXURY many of us cannot afford. Some of us, myself among them, are desperately poor and trying our best to provide for our families in a system that seriously doesn't give a flying fuck whether we live or die. Nothing worth fighting for? My FAMILY is worth fighting for. You would have a harder time finding something I can do without.

[firsttimer]

19. I don't think applauding a young man beaten to death by a trained MMA

fighter is something to be supported.

The fighter and his family had another option where no one would have been killed .


But instead he beat a young man to death.

The article doesn't even call him a man......they call him a thug

[Demo_Chris]

31. I was responding specifically to your "nothing you own" comment...

In any case, telephoning someone and notifying them that you and your pals are going to go to their home and hurt them, well that's simply indefensible and we probably shouldn't try. They went to this man's home, he didn't go to theirs. And since these guys clearly KNEW the MMA victim well enough to call, it hardly seems reasonable to expect him to run for the hills every time they ring up and threaten.

[Captain Stern]

34. Like someone already pointed out, nobody was beaten to death.

And I'll add young 'men' don't threaten to kill people and then break into their houses to do just that. Thugs do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. "The fighter and his family had another option"

So did the dead man and his three criminal cohorts but only one of the parties had the legal and moral right to be in that home that night.

[NutmegYankee]

59. How do you know they wouldn't have been cornered in a car?

Or they fled to the home of family and the attackers went there instead, now involving more potential victims?
While the young man may have been able to outrun the attackers, what about his family? Or do you believe that slow runners deserve death?

Your position is absolutely ludicrous and ill-logical to the core! Sometimes people engaging in violent felonies get themselves hurt.

[qazplm]

83. its absolutely to be supported

he killed a young man that said he was going to kill him and his family and then shortly thereafter showed up at his house and forced his way in with three other guys to do just that.

That's a pretty good description of a thug. A man doesn't do that. A thug does.

four on one, at his home, shortly after threatening him. This was going to go down sooner or later, your responses are beyond ridiculous.

[geek tragedy]

85. If you keep this up, some will conclude you are a troll. I am not saying you

are a troll, but you are risking being labeled one.

Also, they were in a mobile home. Ever seen a back door on one of those, genius?

[firsttimer]

90. Yeah genius

Some even have decks built off them.

Are you serious.

[uppityperson]

94. Mobile homes have 2 doors. Some smaller travel trailers don't, but mobile homes, even single wides

typically do. wtf







http://www.fleetwoodhomes.com/floor-plan-search/?address=98358

[geek tragedy]

95. I dont remember the ones where I grew up having back doors--they were also about half that size.

No mud rooms or en suite bathooms either.

But, that was a few decades ago.

[uppityperson]

97. Smaller travel trailers may not, but if they are big enough for a bed and kitchen, they do. I've

lived in an 18 ft one with 2 doors, and in a single wide while building our house with 1 1/2 bedrooms, a bath, a kitchen and living room area (small living) and 2 doors. It was an older one, yrs ago. I've been in modular homes with 2 doors, but those are more like "real houses" vs trailers.

A friend lived in a 10 ft one with only 1 door, but that was a travel trailer, mot a mobile home trailer.

Also decades ago.

[dionysus]

101. the tiny ass 1970s trailer i grew up in had 2 doors. thats from 4 decades ago.

[Liberal_in_LA]

135. yup, the ones i've been in has second door in kitchen. makes sense for fire safety

[Mopar151]

99. At worst, it's a mutual combat situation.

Had a situation much like this in the family I used to room with. A couple of the nephews lived in an old trailer "down back"- and the whole outfit was pretty rough - one of 'em slept with a .44 under his pillow.
The boys caught one of their small town rivals - son of a big shot contractor - inside the trailer, with a club. They administered a savage beating, at gunpoint, and left him permanently disfigured.
I heard that the big shot Dad called the Chief of Police shortly thereafter, to file a complaint. "Is he alive? That's as good as it gets, for you. He was caught inside the dwelling, with a deadly weapon, They acted in self-defense. If they'd shot him, you'd owe for the bullet."

[Ranchemp.]

16. Did you forget this?

[avebury]

17. According to the article:

Torrez’s fiancee, son and the fiancee’s sister were all home at the time, authorities said.

So Torrez should have run out the back door and leave innocent people at risk?

He defended himself and others. If he had used a gun on the attackers the authorities probably wouldn't even be thinking of charging him with anything.

It is a clear case that the attackers picked the wrong guy to pick on. I don't think he should face any chargers. It sure looks like a case of self defense.

[CatWoman]

21. huh?

[Logical]

23. Don't break into peoples houses. People are killed in home invasions. n-t

[Packerowner740]

25. Maybe his families safety was worth fighting for.

[NutmegYankee]

32. In general, your home is seen as a refuge of last resort.

I.E., you have no duty to retreat. It's your castle and you can defend it to the last man.

[Lancero]

37. Aka, the Castle Doctorine...

More commonly known as SYG, or Stand Your Ground.

New Mexico is one state that doesn't have a specific law about that on the books.

That said, apparently they called to let him know? That they called warning him beforehand, and him choosing to stay, may mean that his killing could be considered premeditated.

Honestly, I support his actions - But the laws may not.

Edit - Since NM doesn't have a CD/SYG law in place, then DtR may take precedence - That is, Duty to Retreat. Given that they called him, his actions may be considered a violation of that.

[NutmegYankee]

40. No stand your ground is different than castle doctrine.

They are not the same and never have been. The opposite to stand your ground is the duty to retreat. But it has been British common law and precedent for centuries in the USA that this duty did not apply once you were within your home.

[Lancero]

44. Not really...

SYG is a expansion upon the Castle Doctrine.

[NutmegYankee]

52. But an expansion from an existing concept isn't actually that concept - it's a new concept

Castle doctrine, which gets smeared in the SYG fight, has been around for centuries and is a logical law. Once you are in your home, the intent of an attacker to harm you is well proven by them bashing their way in. And you may in fact be trapped in said home, such as in a bedroom. Running from the home may in fact expose you to even greater danger to yourself and others. Say you run to the neighbors for safety - they now may also be hurt by your attacker.

SYG is the concept that you can meet force with force in a public place. Prior laws required you to retreat (but a home was a valid place to retreat to). Now SYG allows you to fight back right where you stand. Obviously, this has had some questionable applications. Practically no rational person questions the right to defend yourself within your own home.

As for the man, given the "basic common law" history of Castle Doctrine, it's doubtful a jury would ever convict. I doubt he will be charged.

[Lancero]

62. In general yes...

But your forgetting one point.

That the people who broke in, called him beforehand.

Castle Doctrine doesn't give you the right to create a situiation where you have to kill someone in your house.

His choice to stay in his home, even after they called him before hand, means the death could be premeditated.

I haven't heard of cases similar to this though, so it's hard to say what the police would decide to do. It's 50/50 honestly. While he was defending himself in his own home, he was given ample time to either leave, or call police, before they broke in.

[Ranchemp.]

66. We don't know if he called 911,

nothing in the article says whether or not he did, and he might not have had time to get himself and family out of there, the article says that the 4 thugs showed up shortly after the call.

[Lancero]

73. We don't know what shortly after is either

Could be a minute. Could be five. Could be ten. Could be fifteen.

That said, doesn't take much time to get out of the house. Walk out, get in car, start car, leave. Doesn't take more then a minute or two.

Preparing for a trip takes time yes, but if you knew someone was coming after you then logically you'd want to get the hell out fast.

[Ranchemp.]

75. True,

but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the victim, as I suspect the DA will also.

[NutmegYankee]

76. Except you now put yourself at further risk.

If caught outside, the result could be disastrous for your family. If caught in the car, you are basically a sitting duck. A house (or trailer) gives you places to hide and provides a door that must be broken down by your attackers. That shows intent to kill very clearly. Think about it - the men broke down the door! And you have many items within the home that can be used to defend yourself.

Leaving the home is a bad idea. I cannot disagree more with your argument.

[Lancero]

88. Depending on where you hide...

You are also a sitting duck in your house.

Closet? Weaker doors, enclosed space. If they come to kill you and your in the closet, your dead.
Bathtub? Bathroom door may or may not be sturdier then the closet doors, but the front door is generally the sturdiest. So if they wanted you dead, and could break the front door, then the bathroom door would be easier. And again, your in a enclosed space, and thus dead.
Under the bed? A cliche place to hide, but effective. A lot of people, even knowing that it's a good hiding place, wouldn't think to check it. Still though, depends on the size of the person and how far from the ground the bed is. You may not be able to fit under it, so this isn't that reliable of a place.
In the dryer? (Yes, it sounds odd. But I've hid in the dryer many times when I was younger when playing hide and seek) Same as above. It's a rarely checked place, but you'd have to be able to fit.

Frankly, if someone calls saying "I'm going to kill you" then running is your best option. At least then the person after you would be unsure of where you are.

But yeah, about going outside being fatal? I really don't want to bring this up, but... All the kids killed at Sandy Hook? They were inside the school when they were shot. The ones that made it outside weren't shot. So... Yeah... I've got 27 names that show staying inside is fatal.

[NutmegYankee]

92. The Sandy Hook reference is a ridiculous appeal to emotion fallacy.

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)

An active shooter situation is very different than a targeted attack. An active shooter is seeking the most people to kill, and is looking for groups to kill. dispersing from the group will generally save you as he is going for the herd. A targeted attack seeks you. And he will follow you. Outside, if the attacker has a gun, there is little escape. No one can outrun a bullet. The children who got out survived because the gunman chose to not pursue them. He focused on the two rooms. They were not caught in the open. They were within a building and by fleeing the building while the gunman was occupied, forcing him to have to decide to pursue or not, they lived. Basically, the building served to keep them from his sight. Even in military training, it's recognized that being attacked in the open is the most dangerous. You are the most exposed.

Now, you basically made the case for Castle Doctrine. Once an attacker is in the home, you no longer have a duty to retreat and can use anything around to defend. But your chances of successfully defending yourself are far better in the home than in the open. You make the assumption that they wouldn't be caught outside and that they had sufficient time to flee - that cannot be proven and you cannot know that if a threat is made to you. For all you know, they are out on the street watching the house and waiting for you to come out.

[NutmegYankee]

70. Precedent has often held the opposite.

Many a woman has been told (called and threatened) they are about to die by an ex who then travels to her home and is shot on entry. Given the nature of death threats, the burden would be on the prosecutor to prove that the man defending his home could not have possibly thought it was just a threat, but knew with complete certainty that they really were coming. That is going to be nearly impossible.

[pokerfan]

106. Interesting

So if the home invaders call ahead of time, castle doctrine is somehow nullified? You are no longer allowed to defend yourself? Is there case law on this? What if it was a prank? Still have to leave home?

[H2O Man]

105. silly

[RC]

107. Me thinks you should study up on what being a Democrat, or better yet, being a Liberal really means.

Running is not always the answer. the MAA fighter has a right to defend himself. The four thugs did not have any right to invade his home. It was clearly self defense.
And besides, you have it wrong, it is; "There is nothing you own worth dying for".

[snooper2]

112. There are a number of things worth killing another human over

You want a list?

[TheKentuckian]

126. Patently absurd. You're welcome to suicide by invader but have no right to demand others do the same

[dbackjon]

156. Oh really?

What if they didn't give him that chance?

[Travis_0004]

157. Maybe he couldn't get out the front door.

Maybe he wasn't willing to leave his son, fiancee, and fiancee's sister alone in the house.

There is no way I would charge him with murder. He was acting to defend himself.

[Packerowner740]

22. This is about 40 miles from my house

I didn't hear about this.

[Jenoch]

38. I would like to know more about the 'fued'.

[Niceguy1]

60. dumbasses got what they deserved

I have no sympathy for people who do home invasion

[Taitertots]

61. "Torrez could face charges in the death of Sal Garces". New Mexico isn't a stand your ground state.

[Ranchemp.]

69. SYG isn't a factor here,

Castle Doctrine would apply as it happened in his home, AKA, his castle.

[Taitertots]

84. You are correct, but I don't think New Mexico is a castle doctrine state either

[immoderate]

96. That makes no sense to me.

You can't protect your home in New Mexico?

--imm

[spin]

109. You are technically correct but ...

Castle Doctrine

New Mexico does not have a law based on the castle doctrine, per se. However, the state’s self-defense statute does not require victims to retreat when they or their property come under attack. The law, which has been on the books since 1907, is somewhat vague. Courts have held in past rulings that deadly force must be merited; in other words, a landowner cannot justifiably shoot someone merely for trespassing on his property.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/New-Mexico-Gun-Laws.htm

[geek tragedy]

89. NM has no duty to retreat, so same difference nt

[Ranchemp.]

91. Correct.

It's a modified version of Castle Doctrine, so I believe that the DA won't charge this young man with a crime and will rule it a justifiable homicide.

[geek tragedy]

93. only hitch is if this was some kind of set up--he and the other thugs conspired to kill the one thug

Is this guy really that good (record of 1-5) that he could mess three street fighters up that bad in close quarters?

[dionysus]

104. probably. a crappy pro _____ usually is exponents better than the best amateur ______

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

[boomer55]

63. Don't do the crime don't suffer the cosequences

One less scumbag in the world no loss there.

[CFLDem]

110. +1

[Eleanors38]

98. Well, liberal softy me got the jury duty on this one...

And firsttimer got a pass -- barely, benefit of the doubt. I agree that I could not have stabbed or beaten 4 home invaders; and I'll be damned if this old hog is going to sprint to an old delivery van. That's why I keep a .357 at-hand.

[flvegan]

102. That's a damn shame. Only one of them dead.

[jerkstore90210]

113. Frankly I'm a little disappointed everyone is so quick to judge

there's no video evidence of what happened that night, the only testimony about what happened appears to have come from Torrez himself, hardly the most unbiased source. The article notes that "Torrez and the men clashed on New Year’s Day at his home outside of Las Cruces, reportedly part of an ongoing feud." "Ongoing feud" suggests back and forth between the participants, we have no idea what precipitated this or if the phone call that they were coming to get him was real.

Quick judgments like this are exactly what happened in the Trayvon Martin case where the only person able to tell his side of the story is the survivor.

I do not know what happened here, but I would expect better than to jump on the side of one who has a clear bias before all the facts are in.

[Ranchemp.]

114. He wasn't the only witness,

there was his girlfriend and his child in the house when the invasion happened.

Deputies say Torrez, his fiancee and a toddler were at home at the time of the invasion. Authorities say the fiancee tried to use her body against the front door to keep the men from entering.

http://www.policeone.com/media-relations/articles/6716548-Police-Trained-MMA-fighter-fends-off-4-attackers-1-killed/

And, 3 of the thugs survived, although I doubt they'll tell the truth.
Nope, I'll back the the MMA fighter, you know, the one who was ATTACKED IN HIS OWN HOME!!!

[jerkstore90210]

115. Again, you are assuming he was attacked

The fiancee is also clearly biased, and the toddler probably isn't much of a witness. We don't know what happened at this point and you are jumping to conclusions.

[Ranchemp.]

116. The police seem pretty sure he was attacked in his own home.

LAS CRUCES, N.M. — Authorities say a resident who is a trained mixed martial artist killed a man suspected of taking part in a New Mexico home invasion.

Dona Ana County sheriff's officials say 25-year-old Sal Garces died this week from stab wounds after he and three other men broke into Joseph Torrez's home north of Las Cruces on Wednesday.

As I said, I'll take the owner of the home over the word of the thugs that invaded his home.

[jerkstore90210]

117. Police sided with Zimmerman at first, too.

You keep calling them thugs but the only evidence so far that they invaded his home is his word.

Hypothetical - If they had not invaded his home, say if they were invited to come over for a BBQ, and if Torrez was the aggressor, would you still refer to them as thugs?

[Ranchemp.]

118. You don't think the police would be able to determine if his home were invaded?

There would be plenty of evidence of a struggle in that home, and the police would know.
Sorry, not buying your hypothetical, these thugs got exactly what they deserved.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[jerkstore90210]

120. I do not have much confidence in the investigatory skills of the police.

But I am glad that you are able to determine with certainty what transpired that night. Perhaps you should apply for a position on the jury, they can just skip the trial and go right to sentencing.

[Ranchemp.]

121. I've got plenty of skills in investigations

so I know how LE investigations operate.
What jury? Chances are minimal that this young man will be charged, it will almost certainly be ruled as self defense, ergo, a justifiable homicide, and, the other 3 thugs may be charged with murder.

[jerkstore90210]

123. I'm quite sure you do.

And it appears you turn those invaluable skills of yours to bear on this case and read a few newspaper reports. Very thorough investigation, officer. Well done.

And you misunderstood, as you are convinced that this was self-defense and the people entering the home were thugs you should act as a juror on the thugs' trial so things can be sped up.

[Ranchemp.]

125. It's not officer, it's Deputy U.S. Marshal.

And I am convinced, by all accounts so far, that this is a case of self defense, do you have anything that this is something other that self defense?

[hughee99]

119. A story for those who say you shouldn't "blame the victim"... n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

124. He should have used a gun instead

He could have killed them quicker.

[Blue_Tires]

127. I'm curious to know what the "ongoing feud" was about....

and why the assailaints are "gangsters and thugs" but Torrez isn't....

[Glassunion]

130. Torrez is not being labeled a thug most likely because he does not have a criminal history beyond a

DUI.

The 4 "misguided" youths however all have extensive criminal histories (including violence) and are known to the authorities as members of the Eastside Locos - The most violent gang in the area. Also, one of the "assailants" is being held without bail, as he was on parole, and funny enough was wearing a court ordered monitoring device on his ankle at the time of his arrest.

As to the ongoing feud... Well we have to wait and see.

[Blue_Tires]

132. ok...thanks....

I know nothing about Torrez or his personal history; it's just usually a safe bet that hardcore street gangs don't start beefs with "civilians" without some kind of provocation...

And I know it's neither here nor there, but remember Aaron Hernandez had a mostly clean (i.e., nothing serious) criminal record before his house of cards came falling down...

[geek tragedy]

141. because they their records include violent crimes and his doesn't nt

[Boom Sound 416]

148. Sweet

[notadmblnd]

154. I guess they wern't expecting him to go all Jackie Chan on their asses.