Criminal law, Society

Albuquerque Police Nab Driver Who Allegedly Shot and Killed Four-Year-Old In Road Rage Incident

1022 tony torrez6412334_1445435749.4648Albuquerque 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.

151021-lilly-garcia-jsw-01_04a0df3f0efcbc03b7c44c7e61b26344.nbcnews-ux-600-700Torrez 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.

IMG-3498-jpg

273 thoughts on “Albuquerque Police Nab Driver Who Allegedly Shot and Killed Four-Year-Old In Road Rage Incident”

  1. Paul C. Schulte
    1, October 23, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    T. Hall –

    The citizens of Dodge City knew the reality of gun violence and they also knew how to deal with it; if you own a gun, don’t bring it into town.

    Until the arrival of Wyatt Earp, Dodge City was a free-for-all. Then Wyatt, as Chief Deputy Marshall established a Deadline on Front Street. North of that line was the commercial district of Dodge City. No guns were allowed. South of that line were the saloons and brothels. Guns were allows and gun fights continued.

  2. Oh, I almost forgot. You guys like to point to Switzerland as a prime example so much. Let’s do it. Individuals are allowed to own firearms, but not ammo. Furthermore they are intended to be used for national defense, not carried around in public.

    And every who is expected to possess a firearm undergoes rigorous training that impresses the safety aspect to the hilt.

    Yes, by all means, let’s look to Switzerland for examples.

  3. Olly,

    “What are the reasonable limits? Where should the community and by extension its governing body look to guide their actions?”

    This is where I got the impression you were capable of rational discussion. What are reasonable limits? I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people in rural areas to possess firearms because their isolated circumstances makes them vulnerable. Likewise, hunters require firearms.

    As I’ve said further up, I believe that if a community decides to outlaw possession of firearms, it should have the right to do so. Small, localized government, most responsive and answerable to its constituents is that which governs best. I think that’s reasonable.

    I think it’s reasonable for states to prohibit individuals from carrying weapons around in public. The right to bear arms is fundamentally different from other rights, like freedom of expression or the right to marry the person of your choice. The unrestricted right to carry arms implicates public safety so drastically in a way that unrestricted freedom of expression or gay marriage does not. It should be pointed out that even freedom of expression has its reasonable limits, where certain words and phrases are recognized as ‘fighting words’.

    In addition, I think it’s essential to ensure that firearms do not fall into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill and unstable. Reasonable restrictions may also apply to children. Therefore, background checks and a system of tracking the sale and possession of firearms is necessary. You can’t get around the qualifying phrase of the Second Amendment about a well regulated militia, try as you might to ignore it, and those two requirements, background checks and a tracking system, would certainly meet the requirement. The Second Amendment never promised you a black market in guns.

    Likewise, a reasonable concern for public safety demands that limitations be imposed on the size of ammo clips, the speed which guns may fire, and the caliber of ammo that individuals may possess.

    But the notion that individuals have a right to possess military assault weapons capable of quickly killing many people seems unreasonable. I know you think you’re going to fight off the government should one toe of their jackboots cross your property line, but that’s pretty much delusional. First off, there’s almost no chance those boots’ll ever be walkin’ all over you. The irony is that if they do come a knockin’, it’ll be to confiscate your horde of weapons. I only hope that if that unlikely day ever does arrive, that you do the honorable thing and place yourself on the front line. Molon labe, indeed.

  10. Hi Paul Schulte,

    I was replying to you regarding your information about Dodge City. First, you said they didn’t allow guns, even the restrictions applied to only the north side of town, then you said they did.

    The point is, they saw fit to create a gun-free zone somewhere within their borders

    1. T. Hall – where did I say they did not allow guns in Dodge City? I know someone said it and you said it, but I am pretty sure I did not say it.

  15. LOL!

    T. Hall,
    You still haven’t answered my second question. That’s okay, it’s one you have to ignore because the only correct answer destroys your entire gun control argument. I will not be awaiting your response.

    As for proving a negative. To also ignore the POSITIVE effects of CPP in deterring crime demonstrates you won’t ever conclude guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens to be a good thing. Fortunately, the founding fathers understood human nature and they knew unalienable rights would be threatened by power, greed and ignorance; so we have our Bill of Rights and they will be defended whether you like them or not.

    MOLON LABE

  16. Olly, prove you weren’t in the bathroom just now. You asking me to show proof of fights or confrontations that didn’t occur because someone had a gun.

    Seriously, I feel misled. I thought I could’ve expected a more intelligent conversation from you.

  17. Wait Rick, there’s more…more scholarship!

    Try this, buddy:

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a (shotgun) at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument…. Without obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (militias) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in mind. U.S. v. Miller 307 US 174 (1939)

    As the language of the Second Amendment itself indicates(,) it was not framed with individual rights in mind. Thus it refers to the collective right ‘of the people’ to keep and bear arms in connection with a ‘well regulated militia’…. Reasonable gun control legislation is clearly within the police power of the State and must be accepted by the individual though it may impose a restraint or burden on him
    Burton v. Sills, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 53 N.J. 86, 1969. Appeal dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court

    Since the Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear arms’ applies only to the right of the satte to maintain a militia, and not to the individual’s right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.
    Stevens v. US, 440 F.2d 144, 1971

    Appellant’s theory…is that by the Second Amendment he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that….. It must be remembered tat the right to bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution. Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610, 1973

    It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective right rather than an individual right…. It is an erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than thoise of the state US v. Warin, 530 F2d 103, 1976

    These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties…. The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia.'”
    Lewis v. US, 455 US 55, 1980

    Construing (the language of the Second Amendment) according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation od a militia…. We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
    Quilici v Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 1982

    Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession military weapons…. The rule emrging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon
    US v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1992

    You want scholarship? There’s your scholarship, sport. Same for KFC who claimed that the militia issue had been dealt with many times. That’s how it’s been dealt with and that’s pretty much where things stood until the Roberts Court, stacked with several venal jurists, stood legal interpretation on its head and unleashed the greatest public health crisis to face this nation since the 1918 flu pandemic. The blood of thousands of innocent victims stains the robes of those 5 Justices who overturned the DC law in Heller and again in McDonald v. Chicago

    1. T. Hall – all males of a certain age are automatically members of the Arizona militia. My personal evaluation of the amendment requires that the citizens have available weapons equal to any army, navy or air force we would oppose. So, if I want an aircraft carrier I can have an aircraft carrier. If I want a nuclear submarine, I can have a nuclear submarine.

  18. http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/guns/watch-responsible-gun-owner-shoots-8-year-old-daughter-dead-while-braiding-her-hair-video/

    “Well, here we go again. An 8-year-old girl is dead because her own mother dropped a gun while braiding her daughter’s hair, and it discharged shooting the daughter in the head.

    Marsha Lynch told police that she was brushing her daughter’s hair when a handgun fell to the floor and discharged, striking both of them.

    Police said the bullet went through Marsha Lynch’s leg and struck her daughter, Sharia, in the head. Sharia Lynch died before she could be airlifted to the hospital. Marsha Lynch is continuing to recover from surgery at Floyd Medical Center. Three other children in the home – an adult son and two young daughters – weren’t injured.

  19. T. Hall,
    You can’t prove it, therefore just ignore it. Pretty much the extent of the progressive left’s intellectual curiosity.

  20. Olly,

    First part: can’t prove a negative. Like Ben Carson’s Popeye’s store manager, shoulda made a report.

    hold on for part two.

Comments are closed.