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.
T. Hall
Not one reasonable, sensible, logical, mature, well-thought out response from you. That’s disappointing. Best of luck.
I find this comment revealing. He makes these objections to others but when others point out his own arguments fail by these standards he refuses to address the matter.
It is likely that this individual gave signs that violence was pending in his life.
It seems that all of these “shooters” do.
Bad behavior should be addressed more severely much earlier.
2nd Amendment –
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Paraphrased from the lips of the Founders:
Countrymen, go and join a strong militia to assure the security of this free state. Personally keep and bear arms, sufficient to potential opponents, so that you are ready, on a moment’s notice, to join the most effective and appropriate unit. No law shall infringe your right to do such.
PS to blame shooting murders on the mentally challenged means opening up every person’s med records to universal scrutiny; who then decides who is most mentally ill? God’/Goddess’s a little busy with all our wars, so I elect ME.
A few facts are undisputable amidst all this sound and fury. First, this is indeed par for Albuquerque and has been since at least 1977 when I first arrive there. At a population of 500,000 Albuquerque’s violent crime per capita far exceeded Denver’s at that time, with Denver’s 2 million citizens.
It’s simply a toxic mixture of diverse, proud, ethnic groups each prejudiced against the others (and most united only by a common prejudice against the Heinz-57 type “white girl” – the true minority, numbers wise – who dares to be born with blonde hair and blue eyes then look the rest in the eye without apology.) I packed a .38 to/from everywhere the majority of 20+ yrs but only got to use it on hapless milk jugs every weekend, until it was stolen from my car.
In any event, had the ill-driving crazy traffic jerk vented his undeserved rage via nearly any weapon EXCEPT a firearm the odds of the child being killed in that way, at that time, would have been nearly “nada”. I expect that’s how her mama saw/sees it; having survived the ABQ jungle with a whole skin, I can tell you that hers is the only opinion that’s heard in these matters in ABQ. As is proper.
Karen,
You’re kidding, Washington Times and Crime Research .org? That’s what you’re going with?
The Washington Times is a print version of Fox News; it’s in the business of pushing opinion, it distorts facts, not reports them.
And Crime Research? It’s a gun rights advocacy group masquerading as a neutral research institute. Ted Nugent sits on the board of directors, for crying out loud. This outfit is no more reliable about crime statistics than a landmine advocacy group would be about about travel ideas – “Hike fearlessly!”
Karen, give it up. You’re on the point of debasing yourself. There was no 25% drop in gun related deaths since never. Police departments across the country send their reports to the FBI, not Crime Research .org. The FBI compiles the most extensive sets of crime statistics available. The latest set of data they have is from 2013 and it’s data shows no such drop. Same thing with the CDC’s data. It does appear that gun related deaths of all types, homicidal, accidental, and suicide are on the rise and may in fact outstrip motor vehicle deaths.
Whatever else you have to about Norway and Kamchatka and Irkutsk and wherever else you’re blathering on about is meaningless; meaningless in the context of the ongoing violence.
One man, unarmed, stopped a line of tanks in Tienanmen Square.
Guns are the problem and you can’t continue insisting that a nation of free people can’t craft some remedy. Someday, Americans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that guns are the problem. Remember, the Supreme Court also said that a black man had no right to be free. Remember Dred Scott?
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/10/powerful-ad-illustrating-that-it-is-poor-blacks-particularly-women-who-need-guns-the-most-for-protection/
And here is more data:
Here is the actual data on mass public shootings comparing the US and other countries:
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
(Hint. Norway exceeds the US.)
“The CPRC has also collected data on the worst mass public shootings, those cases where at least 15 people were killed in the attack.
There were 13 cases where at least 15 people were killed. Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany and two in the United Kingdom.
But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany’s and five times the U.K.’s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher.
Small countries such as Norway, Israel and Australia may have only one major attack each, one-fourth of what the U.S. has suffered, but the US population is vastly greater. If they suffered attacks at a rate adjusted for their population, Norway, Israel and Australia would have had attacks that were respectively 16, 11, and 3 times greater than the US.
There is also the issue of what President Obama meant by “mass violence.” If you include bombings, many countries face many more bombings than the US does. Take just the bombing cases in Russia. Russia had few mass public shootings, but it suffered from numerous bomb attacks, with 1.31 mass bombing murders per million people”
Uber driver with permitted concealed carry prevents mass public shooting:
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/04/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/
Oh, look, here is an even more recent study on concealed carry permits associated with a drop in crime:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all
“Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center.”
Now, let’s address the Liberal argument against concealed carry:
“But gun control advocates denounced the report, pointing to other studies showing concealed handguns are more frequently used for non-self-defense killings.
“Concealed carry killers are a threat to public safety. The evidence is clear that all too often, private citizens use their concealed handguns to take lives, not to save them,” a statement from the Violence Policy Center’s Concealed Carry Killers page reads.”
Except, unless a murderer shows up with his firearm in full view, it is going to be concealed . What the Liberals do not tell you is if the shooter had a permit for Concealed Carry, or if he was jut a gang banger who pulled a gun out of waistband. (Which, by the day, looks so stupid to me because it could just fall out and geld him.)
And here is another documented fact:
“But according to the latest report, concealed carriers are among the most law-abiding citizens in the country, even more so than police officers.
In Florida and Texas permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors of felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted, according to the report.”
So the next time some Liberal claims that concealed carry is a threat to public safety, remember that they are being coy, and are referring to criminals who have hidden illegal guns on their bodies, or are otherwise breaking the law.
THall, I noticed that you did not provide a link to your data so that I could determine if I agreed or disagreed with the findings. Again, you have relied on your “feelings” in the argument, but you present them as facts. You are mistaken about the actual data.
THall:
“Your arguments are so weak it’s ridiculous. The places with highest rates of gun violence that you cite are places with the highest rates of crime, period.”
Right. That’s exactly my argument. Criminals break the law and commit violence, and criminals with guns break the law and commit gun violence.
You’ve got it. Owning a firearm does not make anyone a criminal, and law abiding citizens follow gun laws while criminals, by definition, do not.
By Jove, you’ve got it.
Now, on to the next issue. For some reason, anti-2nd-Amendment people are unable to unwilling to grasp that firearms deter crime. If you have 2 neighboring houses, and one has a “this is a gun-free-zone” sign with peace symbols and unicorns, and the next one has an NRA sign and “this property is guarded by S&W”, they seem at a complete loss as to which any reasonable criminal would target. For some reason, they cannot understand that criminals do have a sense of self preservation, although, admittedly, it’s not strong enough for them to stop breaking the law. Still, when faced with one house where they have a reasonable expectation of getting shot, they will choose the other one.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all
“An 86-year-old Illinois man with a concealed carry permit fired his weapon at an armed robbery suspect fleeing police last month, stopping the man in his tracks and allowing the police to make an arrest.
Law enforcement authorities described the man as “a model citizen” who “helped others avoid being victims” at an AT&T store outside Chicago where he witnessed the holdup. The man, whose identity was withheld from the press, prevented others from entering the store during the theft.
Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.”
Unfortunately, the Freddie Gray et al mobs has resulted in police no longer proactively policing, so that crime right is back up.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities
Not that you would recognize anyway T. Hall.
Karen,
Your arguments are so weak it’s ridiculous. The places with highest rates of gun violence that you cite are places with the highest rates of crime, period. The ease of access to guns has increased gun violence exponentially, while accidental shootings are rising across the country, even in those places where crime rates are relatively stable.
Incidentally, studies show that gun violence has increased in every state as conceal carry permits have become available.
DBQ,
Clever trick to supplying my answers to your own questions, but sorry. Gay marriage is victimless, gun violence is a national health crisis. People having gay sex in a parking lot does not compare to someone shooting at shoplifting suspects as they drive away.
Guns are the problem and it is psychotic not to acknowledge that they are.
Olly,
Not one reasonable, sensible, logical, mature, well-thought out response from you. That’s disappointing. Best of luck.
T.Hall –
Need a cite for this!!!!
DBQ and Karen,
They’ve got no rational and reasonable answer to the criminal, insane, stupid person behind the gun so the obvious solution is to eliminate the legal right to a gun. This impacts everyone EXCEPT the criminal, insane and stupid person illegally acquiring a gun or using some other weapon. There really is nothing more to be said, they are being willfully ignorant.
MOLON LABE
And what are they so terrified of? Other people with guns, in other words…each other.
I’m not “terrified”. Prudent, aware and cautious.
BUT…..when you can guarantee me that those other people who are criminals, robbers, rapists and insane people will not have guns….guarantee…..then we can talk. Until then MOLON LABE buckoo.
I’m advocating for the rights of communities, of empowering them to pass laws for themselves to prohibit guns within their jurisdictions.
So……if you advocate for communities to pass laws for themselves, laws which circumvent or curtail the rights of the people as guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I take it that you are in favor of communities and States passing laws that prohibit gay marriage too?
I thought not. You only want to prohibit things that YOU personally don’t like and allow things that you DO approve of despite what the communities would like to see done.
Hypocrite much?
T. Hall
Conceal carry laws, imposed upon all fifty states by the Supreme Court, encourage people to arm themselves in public.
This is incorrect. Concealed carry laws allow people to arm themselves in public, they neither encourage nor discourage people from doing so.
I’m advocating for the rights of communities, of empowering them to pass laws for themselves to prohibit guns within their jurisdictions.
1. Since you’re advocating the Bill of Rights not apply to small jurisdictions do you also support applying that approach to the “Right to Privacy”?
2. Don’t you think it a little bit odd you’re advocating confiscation on a thread where your allies are calling people against confiscation “paranoid”? Do you have anything to say to them?
3. What is your response to people who note you’re against constitutional government?
And what are they so terrified of? Other people with guns, in other words…each other.
Makes one wonder what happened to “the home of the brave”. Sounds more like the home of the heavily armed frightened citizens.
Fear and loathing…