Albuquerque police have announced that they have arrested the man responsible for the killing of Lilly Garcia, 4, in a road rage incident. Tony Torrez, 32, reportedly confessed to the crime and the police hit him with a long list of charges that should guarantee that he remains in jail most if not all of his life. Indeed, even a plea agreement at this point would likely place the sentence near the maximum level but, if Torrez confessed, there is little in terms of a defense to present without striking the confession on some grounds.
Alan Garcia was traveling westbound on Interstate 40 when Torrez cut him off in a Lexus in attempting to exit the freeway. The men exchanged words and Torrez pulled out a gun and fired at Garcia’s truck. He hit the four-year-old girl. With the witnesses and alleged confession, Torrez is toast absent some surprising development.
Torrez is charged with murder, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, assault with the intent to commit a violent felony, shooting at or from a motor vehicle, child abuse, child abuse resulting in death and tampering with evidence. He was being held on $650,000 bail.
While the actions of Torrez leaves one, again, depressed about our society, it is important to note that Torrez was captured with the help of a tip. Moreover, two nurses stopped and rendered aid to Lilly until she was taken to the hospital. Finally, thousands of people have gone to a gofundme site to contribute to the family.
Just showing the picture below is enough to secure a death penalty.
Olly,
One of the flaws in your argument is that you’re imputing an either/or fallacy to my proposals. I am not. You are the one stuck on the idea that either we confiscate all the guns from private citizens or we allow everyone to possess firearms on them wherever they go.
You think America can achieve some sort of detente if everyone possesses firearms.
You think that individual possession of firearms will deter the government from doing anything when in fact possession of them will, in all likelihood, induce government action.
You fail to consider accidental shootings and suicides.
Reasonable regulation is not going to eliminate every criminal act, but more guns increases the odds of more gun deaths. It’s that simple. I’d like to reduce the odds that innocent people are victim to moments of rage, crossfire, and other accidental shootings. That’s not unreasonable.
Olly,
“Go ahead, what “reasonable” measures do you have in mind?”
Allowing communities to ban the right to conceal carry. The smallest government at the most local level is that which is capable of governing best. That’s the Reagan panacea. Busy urban and suburban areas, schools, bars, stores, and the like are not suitable places for the proliferation of forearms.
Antonin Scalia has said that some form of firearm regulation may be reasonable and therefore constitutional. I suppose, like obscenity, he’ll know it when he sees it. I bet a ban on conceal carry will meet his standards.
Olly,
“Go ahead, what “reasonable” measures do you have in mind?”
Ending the gun show loophole. This is a no-brainer. These gun shows exist in some twilight zone of reality and sanity, where buyers are bombarded with gun porn and no questions are asked. They are the black marketeers wet dream.
=============================================
Record keeping redux: Without adequate record keeping, there would be no way to discover whether a particular gun store is selling weapons to straw buyers, whether the goods from a particular gun store is winding up in the hands of criminal offenders. Now that there has been a multi-million dollar judgement against a gun store in Connecticut, criminals will increasingly turn to private “patriotic” sellers for their arms.
Olly,
“Go ahead, what “reasonable” measures do you have in mind?”
Record keeping. Ownership of a firearm should be tracked through each transfer of ownership.
I am not saying that a firearm should be tracked as it moves through time and space, as a cellphone can be. I am not saying that there should be a paper trail whenever you lend a rifle to your brother-in-law when he goes hunting. But every time a firearm is sold, it is more than reasonable that a record of that sale should be made.
There is no constitutional right to exchange firearms like they are playing cards.
Olly,
“Go ahead, what “reasonable” measures do you have in mind?”
Background checks. How else are we to know whether someone attempting to purchase a firearm has a criminal background or a history of mental illness?
Whether you care to admit or not, the right to possess a firearm is not an unfettered one. Convicted felons are prohibited from possessing firearms – they are the criminals you claim the need to defend against. Without background checks, there’s no way to prevent convicted felons from purchasing firearms.
T.Hall – most convicted felons know they cannot legally buy or acquire a firearm, so they do it illegally. The Obama administration loosed 5000 of them into Mexico and they are showing in Arizona slowly but surely.
I don’t imagine the fact that Japan has very strict gun laws, and a much higher suicide rate than the US, would mean anything to Mr. Hall. According to World Health Organization statistics, Japan has a suicide rate[per 100k] of 18.5, ranking them 17th on the list. The US has 12.1 suicides per 100k and is 50th on the list. Whether you chose to blow your brains out, hang yourself, stab yourself, head in the oven..whatever, dead is dead.
DBQ, I was just watching the Oklahoma State football game and they mentioned this horrible crash. The driver was believed to be intoxicated. So, I think we need to ban cars and alcohol as well.
“Let’s talk about some reasonable measures that we, as a free people, can take to regulate the spread of guns in this country.”
T. Hall,
We have a southern border wide open for the trafficking of anything you can imagine. The only people that will be affected by additional regulations will be those intent on following the law; everyone else will acquire a gun already in the United States or they will smuggle them into the country. Therefore nothing changes for the bad guys. Irresponsibility, stupidity and insanity are part of the human condition as well, so what “reasonable” regulation will address these subsets of society that is not already in place?
Go ahead, what “reasonable” measures do you have in mind? Let’s assume additional reasonable and constitutional measures are discovered, what then? Because criminals will not be deterred because they lack the weapon you regulated away from them.
The bottom line is you are trying to solve a problem that is not actually the problem. Even if you removed every gun held in this country, the problem(s) remain. Bad guys exist and they will discover the means to achieve whatever their goals are. We will still have irresponsible, stupid and insane people throughout society doing what they do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287820/At-three-dead-27-rushed-hospital-car-traveling-50mph-plows-crowd-Oklahoma-State-University-homecoming-parade.html
BAN CARS!!!!
Too many people who are not responsible are driving. Therefore we must take cars away from everyone….just to be safe.
😐
Schulte: I could go for executing someone within minutes of sentencing, if it were proven by incontrovertible evidence that someone committed an act as heinous as this one (subject of post above). Unfortunately, I still don’t think that will deter incidents of rage or mental illness. The proliferation of guns in this country make it too easy for rash behavior to result in death and serious injury.
Murder rates aside, as Ellen reminds us above, there are also too many accidental shootings and suicides because of the ease in which guns have become available.
Bam-bam: Nothing hostile in my thoughtful response to your comment. I remembered illegal immigration was something you brought up while forgetting the bit about the criminal justice system.
With all due respect, your comments are not the most important bits of information for me as I go through the day. and I didn’t go back and review.
I did, however. take up your topic of “societal issues”, particularly in regards to sentencing guidelines, thereby validating your point as something worthy of discussion. True, though it may be, that I don’t agree that tougher sentencing is an adequate solution for the problems of gun violence this nation is facing, I did pay your comment it’s full intellectual due by offering a reasoned response.
If you’re someone looking for blanket agreement, then you’ve come to the wrong place.
If you’re one of these people who takes disagreement as hostility, then you’ve come to the wrong place.
Sometimes, when adults disagree, their discussions can become contentious. I’m sorry if you were upset by any of this. Nevertheless, my response to your comment was reasoned, civil, and intellectually respectful and well within the bounds of debating propriety.
It’s a shame that you allowed your sensitive nature to interfere with your ability to reply to my response with same seriousness I paid you.
I accept your embargo and try to endeavor.
T. Hall
Perhaps if you learned to read and comprehend material, before going on full attack mode, you would realize that unrestrained immigration was just one issue that was mentioned in my earlier threads.
____________________________________________________________________________________
October 22, 2015 @11:14 am
Blame a government and a criminal justice system for allowing, what I can only imagine is, an individual with a long list of arrests to freely roam our streets. Blame a justice system which puts dangerous people like this out on the streets and fails to lock them up, thereby turning our roads into killing fields. Plenty of blame to go around.
____________________________________________________________________________________
October 22, 2015 @12:09 pm
A criminal justice system, so ineffective and weak, that it allows dangerous criminals to walk freely among us, must also shoulder some responsibility. A very easy concept, which is, obviously, lost on some.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Others appear to engage you and your openly hostile and belligerent approach. You seem to have an unresolved anger problem. Good luck with that. I, for one, will no longer respond to you. I suggest that others do the same.
Let’s talk about some reasonable measures that we, as a free people, can take to regulate the spread of guns in this country.
bam-bam: I believe your earlier assertion was that open borders were in some way responsible. Now, you want to go with tougher sentencing? Fine, let’s go.
The death penalty is the ultimate sentence. Colorado imposes the death sentence, but that didn’t deter a gunman from walking into an Aurora movie theater and opening fire with an automatic weapon.
Then again, Connecticut did abolish the death penalty months before Adam Lanza stormed into a grade school with a military assault rifle; somehow I don’t think that affected his decision.
People think stiffer penalties will somehow deter violent gun offenders. This shooter in New Mexico was beyond considering the consequences of his actions, he was in a rage.
Could more effective prosecution for his prior offenses kept him off the street. Perhaps. We don’t know what evidence a zealous defense attorney presented on his behalf.
You want to talk about societal issues? Fine.
Let’s talk about a pressure cooker economy squeezing the working class;
let’s talk about a fear-mongering political class and a propaganda industry masquerading as a media;
let’s talk about the propaganda adjunct called the entertainment industry that glorifies and feeds the gun fetish of this nation and depicts violence without consequence, and worships anger and aggression.
T.Hall – Justice must be swift and sure. If we were to execute people within 10 days of sentencing, I think the murder rate might go down some. Right now, if you are sentenced to death, you can stave it off for 18-20 years.
As I mentioned previously, you can’t begin to examine this crime without trying to comprehend the societal failures which have, to an extent, allowed violent behavior, such as this, to go unabated.
From:
The Republic
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Albuquerque authorities say road rage killing shows state criminal justice system is broken
By MARY HUDETZ and RUSSELL CONTRERAS
Published: 10/23/15 8:35 pm EDT – Updated: 10/23/15 8:36 pm EDT
ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico — The man charged in the freeway killing of a 4-year-old girl in New Mexico had been previously arrested on aggravated battery, domestic violence and a violent incident involving a gun.
In each case, Tony Torrez — arrested in Tuesday’s shooting that police say was brought on by road rage — evaded prosecution.
Now, authorities are citing his history and that of a convicted felon accused of shooting and critically wounding an Albuquerque police officer this week as examples of a criminal justice system they say is broken, underfunded and can leave law enforcement and the public more vulnerable to violence.
Both the shootings of 4-year-old Lilly Garcia and Officer Daniel Webster, each just a day a part, have unnerved many in the state’s largest city and prompted local officials to press lawmakers to enact sentencing reform they say would keep criminals off the streets. At a news conference, Police Chief Gorden Eden called for stronger sentencing laws that would include enhancements for repeat offenders and gang members.
“If we had a criminal justice system that was not turnstile justice, we would not have a dead 4-year-old and we would not have an officer struggling to take every signal breath,” Eden said. “I think it speaks to the systematic failure of the Legislature and it speaks the systematic failure of the court system.”
Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry and Eden both have signalled they will push for tougher crime measures in the next Legislative session. Their criticism of lax sentencing laws come after recent FBI statistics showed the city’s violent crime rate has steadily increased in recent years, which Berry has blamed squarely on repeat offenders.
“Our officers too many times have had to go out and re-arrest offenders,” Berry said. “We have got to make things better for a little 4-year-old on her way home from school.”
Lilly Garcia and her brother were in their father’s Dodge truck after being picked up from school when police say another car forced the vehicle out of its lane on Interstate 40. Garcia gestured toward the other driver and swore at him, and the man in the other car, who police say was Torrez, opened fire, hitting Lilly in the head. She was pronounced dead that evening at University of New Mexico Hospital.
A day later, Officer Webster was shot by Davon Lymon, a repeat offender, outside a pharmacy during a traffic stop, authorities said. Webster, an eight-year veteran, remains in critical but stable condition at UNMH.
Not everyone agrees with Eden and Berry that stricter sentencing will resolve the gradual but steady uptick in Albuquerque’s crime rate, or keep the same offenders from committing violent crimes. Jerry Ortiz y Pino, a Democratic state representative from Bernalillo, outside Albuquerque, said resources would be better spent rehabilitating criminals, helping them obtain GEDs and build job skills.
“All of that is stuff that has been tried and failed,” he said. “We’ll spend $40,000 locking up a man, guarding him, and keeping him behind bars, but we won’t pay $10,000 for him to be rehabilitated. You cannot solve this problem by locking up the population.”
Meanwhile, critics of some of the state’s crime laws— including Gov. Susana Martinez — say the state’s “three strikes” law especially is uneffective, contending it is so narrow that no inmate is currently serving a life sentence under it.
There’s also a lack of targeted funding efforts for district attorneys’ offices and law enforcement agencies, especially in high-crime areas of the state, Attorney General Hector Balderas said.
The shootings this week occurred as Balderas has launched a task force to examine how repeat offenders leave the state’s criminal justice system quickly and commit more crimes — a move prompted after another repeat offender in May was accused of killing a police officer in Rio Rancho, an Albuquerque suburb.
Lymon is being prosecuted in federal court as “a worst of the worst” offender under a program meant to keep repeat criminals off the streets. A federal criminal complaint against him said he fired six times at Webster outside a pharmacy during a traffic stop.
In 2002, court records show, Lymon pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and aggravated battery, and to fraud and forgery the year before. He also faced aggravated battery and kidnapping charges last year that records show were dismissed.
Torrez, who police say confessed to shooting Lilly Garcia after a lane dispute with her father, has been tied to violent crimes in New Mexico dating back a decade, but all the cases were dropped, including a 2006 fight in which he was charged with aggravated battery and assault. A grand jury indictment said Torrez assaulted another man with a handgun and applied force to a woman with the weapon or touched her with it, intending to injure her.
The only crime for which he’s been prosecuted was a misdemeanor speeding violation in 2013.
Around that time, charges including abandonment or abuse of a child and aggravated battery of a household member were dismissed for lack of evidence. Prosecutors also were not able to proceed with 2006 domestic violence charges.
In Tuesday’s shooting, he has been charged with murder, assault, child abuse and other crimes.
Balderas, the attorney general, said state lawmakers have to become smarter about how they appropriate public safety funds, saying prosecutors and law enforcement are not always getting the resources needed to vigorously go after criminals and argue cases.
“I do believe the justice system is being overrun right now by very violent situations,” he said. “There are simply not enough law enforcement and prosecutors to match the challenges being faced in our communities.”
Steg: For all I know, Copperud is wearing a tinfoil hat in a bunker somewhere. Better minds than his have thoroughly disagreed with his “analysis”.
Olly: You don’t get to ask any questions until you’ve dealt with my answer to your first question.
Schulte: Twist and shout. If you can’t say anything relevant ,then don’t say anything at all.
T.Hall – remember what Thumper Rabbit’s father said: If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.
T. Hall,
Your refusal to answer the most fundamental question on law is noted. You can’t do that yet you criticize what you consider an activist court because they have ruled against your wishes. Guess what slick, when you hold the rule of men above the rule of law, sometimes you will lose. Stop whining about your progressive government acting EXACTLY like a progressive government; it’s childish and irrational.
Now if you’ll excuse me I have a moat to dig.
T.Hall – I have been remiss to not remind you that you owe me two citations for broad sweeping statements you made, without support.
T. Hall – The prof has some pretty good logic, eh? Do you disagree with his analysis? If you click the link and read the full article, you see the author also is exasperated with judges ruling to the contrary, which was why he sought out this authority on language- to have a very solid footing for which to argue the individual right to keep and bear arms.
According to Professor Copperud, the language says what us English speakers read it to say.
Spare me your phony patriotism. The constitution has been misinterpreted by five venal judges who have forced the NRA’s twisted version of the Second Amendment on this nation.
The blood of innocent victims is smeared on their robes.
Guns are the problem and they need to be regulated.
Steg; Whatever about Prof. Copperud. See the court decisions from the first 200 years of our history.
T. Hill,
My son is still reviewing your post but AGAIN, you have FAILED to acknowledge the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Hold on a second……no son, I didn’t see where he actually answered the question.
Okay, I’m back. My son suggested I rephrase the question.
Do you believe the constitution is the supreme law of the land?