Ding Dong DUMB!

The silver link is not the only one needed to keep the watch on.

On Saturday, Aug. 30, 2025, Eleven year old Julian Guzman was allegedly shot and killed in east Houston, Texas, by 42 year old Gonzalo Leon Jr.. Young Julian was reportedly shot in the back as he was running away after playing a "ding-dong-ditch prank" at Mr. Leon's home around 11:00 PM.

I consider it evolution in action.

What we know definitely is that Julian is definitely dead and Mr. Leon is definitely in jail on a million dollar bond - so far. He may or may not be convicted by a jury of his peers of murder - or a lesser crime - or none at all! He may die of old age in prison - or not. He may be sentenced to between five and 99 years in prison and fined up to $10,000. - or not.

In any case, Julian Guzman is definitely going to stay dead! His mom, dad, friends, neighbors, and a lot of otherwise uninvolved people are probably going to be sad - or angry - or bewildered - or frustrated, but that won't help! He will never grow up, get married, have children, get a degree or a job, find a cure for cancer, or a treasure somewhere, or purposely rampage through the neighborhood in the middle of the night, antagonizing homeowners, ever again! In addition to being annoying, in a place like Texas, where child murders are approaching one per day, and there are more guns than people, that's culpably stupid as well!

This incident reminded me of a couple of those I reported in my discussion on punishment. It is very similar to what happened to Larry Mugrage, who was shot dead by Charles Martin for habitually trespassing in Mr. Martin's yard, or to Demotric Moore for throwing rocks at Jonathan Watts' house.

Nature (read "God" if you like) removed them from the breeding pool because they did something DUMB! Stupidity has always been the main capital crime of our species. The "kids being kids" defense often doesn't count. If you are convicted, there is no appeal.

Here are some more allegations reported by the Houston Chronicle, ...and some of my thoughts on the matter.

Julian and his cousin rang the doorbell of Leon's home multiple times around 11:00 PM and ran away. In most places I know of, this is a misdemeanor known as "trespassing." It appears that it was done by malice aforethought, which in most religions I know about is known as a "sin." You're not supposed to do either one.

Mr. Leon stepped out of his home and shot at "the boys." On the other hand, shooting at somebody without good reason is known in those same jurisdictions as a "felony."

Julian was hit once and fell to the ground. The reasonable assumption is that the "hit" was the impact of a projectile from a weapon fired by Mr. Leon.

He told his cousin that he couldn't feel his legs as the other boy dragged him to safety and called for help. This symptom is consistent with severing of one's spinal cord by a shot in the back from a firearm.

He was taken to a hospital, where he died Sunday. This is also consistent with being shot in the back from a firearm. The evidence is pretty clear that Mr. Leon shot and killed Guzman.

"The boys" started playing doorbell pranks in the neighborhood after they grew bored while attending a family birthday party nearby. I have to wonder who was chaperoning the birthday party. Somebody in charge should have stopped the kids from leaving or made sure they went straight home.

Julian and his cousin were knocking on other doors in the neighborhood and running away as a joke. So what they were doing is annoying the neighborhood, not just Mr. Leon's house, until somebody stopped them. Mr. Leon just happened to be that person.

Julian's cousin told police that he and Julian had knocked on Mr. Leon's door several times during the night. But they appear to have been attempting to harass, pester, bother and annoy the homeowners, repeatedly, in the middle of the night, when most day workers like Mr. Leon, would be trying to sleep, until they provoked a reaction from one of them, which they got. Mission accomplished!

Mr. Leon walked back into his house after the shooting.
Mr. Leon's wife stated that they lived in their home with their toddler-aged daughter. Regardless of their intent, they may well have been antagonizing the toddler, and exasperating the mother as well.

Mr. Leon appeared before a magistrate judge hours after his arrest. The 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution guarantee him that right.

He was denied an initial bond and was ordered to appear before a district court judge on Wednesday morning. The magistrate is the first line of defense of 5th Amendment against self-incrimination. In this case, to hold him temporarily until a higher court can decide on further disposition.

He didn't say anything during the hearing. ...which, of course, is his 5th Amendment right.

District Attorney Sean Teare said the allegations against Leon make him too dangerous to be released without a high bond. This is Mr. Teare's opinion, not necessarily fact. He doesn't seem ever to have been dangerous to anyone except tormenting pranksters. Nonetheless, he is still entitled to all the protections of the 5th Amendment.

He is quoted as saying, "If you have the ability to draw down on a little 11-year-old who is running away and shoot them in the back and kill them simply because they rang your doorbell, I think that's an individual who is a continuing threat to the community," Mr. Teare is at least initially the prosecutor in this case. It is his job to get a conviction if circumstances warrant. If and when the case goes to trial, Mr. Leon's attorney's job will be to case doubt upon this assertion. some of the considerations are that it was dark, Mr. Leon might have been sleeping, and the continued commotion may well have caused him to fear for his life and that of his family.

Police called Mr. Leon out of his house using a PA system, and he emerged after about 20 minutes. This is additional evidence that Mr. Leon had been sleeping and not dressed, but there may have been other good reasons for the delay. In any case, he complied peaceably.

He was taken to a police station and requested a lawyer. Fifth Amendment again. Also Miranda v. Arizona .

Leon was initially released after being questioned. Apparently the police didn't think he was a clear and present danger to people going about their own business.

District Attorney Teare said there was no evidence to prove that Mr. Leon was acting in self defense. Texas has pretty strong self-defense laws that Mr. Teare, the prosecutor, was quick to claim do not apply here, but that's just his opinion so far.

He is alleged to have declared, "I can promise you that this case is not a castle doctrine case. There's no evidence that Julian had weapons and he didn't take anything from Leon's property, These were kids being kids, an 11-year-old ringing a doorbell, knocking on the door and then running away. Texas law supports the "castle doctrine," It assumes that any legally occupied place such as an automobile or a home is a person's "castle," in which that person has unique protections and immunities, It permits him, in certain circumstances, to use deadly force to defend against an intruder. I find the "kids being kids" position a little too lenient. It's not obvious that Mr. Leon knew, or had reason to assume, they were kids, or were running away, or were not really a danger.

After Julian died, police returned to the home to recover firearms that might have been used in the shooting. A recently fired weapon would definitely be evidence for the prosecution, and the search warrant probably authorized seizure of "any firearms" found.

They found more than 20 guns, including AR-style rifles, shotguns and pistols. This is probably the consequence of the wording of the warrant, and suggests nothing more than the exercise of Mr. Leon's exercise of his right to "keep and bear arms" to protect his home as a lab-abiding Texas citizen. The fact that the Houston Chronicle reported it, however, appears to me to attempt to suggest that he maintained an arsenal of weapons specifically intended to kill annoying little kids.

Mr. Leon doesn't have any criminal history in Harris County. According to court records,

He had lived at the home for nearly five years. He seems like a reasonably solid citizen to me, who minds his own business and doesn't annoy the neighbors. He has a wife and little girl, a responsible job, and a home of his own. Julian Guzman has none of those things, and the world can do without people who purposely annoy homeowners and wake up little girls in the middle of the night!

He worked as the vice president of a taqueria in Houston's East End, according to court records.

Here are some more allegations reported by the Houston Chronicle,	...and some of my thoughts on the matter.
Julian and his cousin rang the doorbell of Leon's home multiple times around 11:00 PM and ran away.	In most places I know of, this is a misdemeanor known as "trespassing." It appears that it was done by malice aforethought, which in most religions I know about is known as a "sin." You're not supposed to do either one.
Mr. Leon stepped out of his home and shot at "the boys."	On the other hand, shooting at somebody without good reason is known in those same jurisdictions as a "felony."
Julian was hit once and fell to the ground.	The reasonable assumption is that the "hit" was the impact of a projectile from a weapon fired by Mr. Leon.
He told his cousin that he couldn't feel his legs as the other boy dragged him to safety and called for help.	This symptom is consistent with severing of one's spinal cord by a shot in the back from a firearm.
He was taken to a hospital, where he died Sunday.	This is also consistent with being shot in the back from a firearm. The evidence is pretty clear that Mr. Leon shot and killed Guzman.
"The boys" started playing doorbell pranks in the neighborhood after they grew bored while attending a family birthday party nearby.	I have to wonder who was chaperoning the birthday party. Somebody in charge should have stopped the kids from leaving or made sure they went straight home.
Julian and his cousin were knocking on other doors in the neighborhood and running away as a joke.	So what they were doing is annoying the neighborhood, not just Mr. Leon's house, until somebody stopped them. Mr. Leon just happened to be that person.
Julian's cousin told police that he and Julian had knocked on Mr. Leon's door several times during the night.	But they appear to have been attempting to harass, pester, bother and annoy the homeowners, repeatedly, in the middle of the night, when most day workers like Mr. Leon, would be trying to sleep, until they provoked a reaction from one of them, which they got. Mission accomplished!
Mr. Leon walked back into his house after the shooting.
Mr. Leon's wife stated that they lived in their home with their toddler-aged daughter.	Regardless of their intent, they may well have been antagonizing the toddler, and exasperating the mother as well.
Mr. Leon appeared before a magistrate judge hours after his arrest.	The 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution guarantee him that right.
He was denied an initial bond and was ordered to appear before a district court judge on Wednesday morning.	The magistrate is the first line of defense of 5th Amendment against self-incrimination. In this case, to hold him temporarily until a higher court can decide on further disposition.
He didn't say anything during the hearing.	...which, of course, is his 5th Amendment right.
District Attorney Sean Teare said the allegations against Leon make him too dangerous to be released without a high bond.	This is Mr. Teare's opinion, not necessarily fact. He doesn't seem ever to have been dangerous to anyone except tormenting pranksters. Nonetheless, he is still entitled to all the protections of the 5th Amendment.
He is quoted as saying, "If you have the ability to draw down on a little 11-year-old who is running away and shoot them in the back and kill them simply because they rang your doorbell, I think that's an individual who is a continuing threat to the community,"	Mr. Teare is at least initially the prosecutor in this case. It is his job to get a conviction if circumstances warrant. If and when the case goes to trial, Mr. Leon's attorney's job will be to case doubt upon this assertion. some of the considerations are that it was dark, Mr. Leon might have been sleeping, and the continued commotion may well have caused him to fear for his life and that of his family.
Police called Mr. Leon out of his house using a PA system, and he emerged after about 20 minutes.	This is additional evidence that Mr. Leon had been sleeping and not dressed, but there may have been other good reasons for the delay. In any case, he complied peaceably.
He was taken to a police station and requested a lawyer.	Fifth Amendment again. Also Miranda v. Arizona .
Leon was initially released after being questioned.	Apparently the police didn't think he was a clear and present danger to people going about their own business.
District Attorney Teare said there was no evidence to prove that Mr. Leon was acting in self defense.	Texas has pretty strong self-defense laws that Mr. Teare, the prosecutor, was quick to claim do not apply here, but that's just his opinion so far.
He is alleged to have declared, "I can promise you that this case is not a castle doctrine case. There's no evidence that Julian had weapons and he didn't take anything from Leon's property, These were kids being kids, an 11-year-old ringing a doorbell, knocking on the door and then running away.	Texas law supports the "castle doctrine," It assumes that any legally occupied place such as an automobile or a home is a person's "castle," in which that person has unique protections and immunities, It permits him, in certain circumstances, to use deadly force to defend against an intruder. I find the "kids being kids" position a little too lenient. It's not obvious that Mr. Leon knew, or had reason to assume, they were kids, or were running away, or were not really a danger.
After Julian died, police returned to the home to recover firearms that might have been used in the shooting.	A recently fired weapon would definitely be evidence for the prosecution, and the search warrant probably authorized seizure of "any firearms" found.
They found more than 20 guns, including AR-style rifles, shotguns and pistols.	This is probably the consequence of the wording of the warrant, and suggests nothing more than the exercise of Mr. Leon's exercise of his right to "keep and bear arms" to protect his home as a lab-abiding Texas citizen. The fact that the Houston Chronicle reported it, however, appears to me to attempt to suggest that he maintained an arsenal of weapons specifically intended to kill annoying little kids.
Mr. Leon doesn't have any criminal history in Harris County. According to court records,
He had lived at the home for nearly five years.	He seems like a reasonably solid citizen to me, who minds his own business and doesn't annoy the neighbors. He has a wife and little girl, a responsible job, and a home of his own. Julian Guzman has none of those things, and the world can do without people who purposely annoy homeowners and wake up little girls in the middle of the night!
He worked as the vice president of a taqueria in Houston's East End, according to court records.

All that having been said:

As a registered safety engineer and a certified safety professional, I know a thing or two about what causes catastrophes. It often it has nothing whatever to do with accidents. Rather, it is the consequence of a long chain of events, choices and actions, the break of any link of which would have the same effect, allowing the catastrophe to occur.

I have a digital watch band, as shown in the photo. All the links are critical, not just the silver one. If any one of them breaks, the watch falls off! One could argue that if Mr. Leon hadn't been at home, or if he hadn't heard the knocking, or if he and his family were heavy sleepers, or if he didn't have a gun, or if he had been more responsible, or if he had been a bad shot, or if his gun had been empty, or if it had jammed or misfired, or if he had known it was just kids playing a stupid prank, Julian Guzman would still be alive, and that's the truth.

But it is equally true that if Julian and his companions had stayed home, or remained at the party, or had been properly supervised, or had gone straight home if they were bored, or been taught by their parents not to annoy other people, especially at night, This tragedy could not possibly have occurred, either.

And it is a tragedy! Houston may have lost a valuable citizen. His restaurant may lose its manager, possibly to the detriment of its employees and investors, if any. His wife may have lost a husband, and maybe her home. His little girl may have to grow up without the care and example of a father. In any case, the family is likely to incur a lot of debt defending him, even if he walks away scot free.

Mr. Teare is going to work very hard to make all those things happen, but after all, that's his job! That's what the taxpayers, including the Leon family, pay him for. It's a necessary expense in a nation governed by laws instead of at the mercy of law breakers.

But I maintain that the real criminals here are the Guzman parents and whoever was responsible for the unsupervised birthday party! The parents should have raised their kids better and supervised them more effectively. Whoever is responsible for the party should have been responsible for the grade school age partygoers as well, and seen to it that everybody was present or accounted for! Eleven year olds are required to be supervised in Texas! That's the law!

Unfortunately, there are people who don't care enough to know what the laws are or don't believe that they apply to them. Julian Guzman was one of those. This proves that the "kids being kids" attitude is very, very dangerous!

It got Julian Guzman killed and put Gonzalo Leon in jail in lieu of a million dollar bond! It's almost certainly going to bankrupt his family!

If people grow up believing that the laws don't apply to them, They may cheat on their taxes, or misrepresent the value their assets to get a loan, or lie under oath or to achieve positions of power and wealth, or misappropriate funds, or assault and defame others, or otherwise do whatever they please, regardless of who is hurt or killed in the process, or how many! And if a judge rules against them, they will simply ignore the judgment, or bribe immunity or an executive pardon from a sympathizer who can grant that.

Our whole species is better off without them!

It is extremely unlikely that Mr. and Mrs. Guzman or the party sponsor, or the other kids involved, will ever go to trial. It is at least equally likely that Mr. Leon will go to trial. Mr. Teare has already laid out the strategy; that Mr. Leon, in full possession of his faculties, and ability to make important decisions, intentionally and purposely shot whom he knew to be a "little" unarmed eleven year old boy solely because he was ringing his doorbell, knowing full well that neither his own person, home or family was in any danger. He might use the cache of recovered firearms to prove malice aforethought! The facts known so far are strong evidence to support him. If he picks a jury of parents of irresponsible kids, he may get a conviction and a stiff sentence. I would not like to be the attorney defending this case - or the trial judge!

I would like to be on the jury, though. Supporting evidence of what happened is not necessarily proof of guilt, and the jury decides what the facts are and whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or not. Convincing arguments are that it was dark, that Mr. Leon just woke up, that he didn't really know what was happening, that everyone in the house was on edge because the little girl was terrified, that Mr. Leon's lack of a criminal record showed that he was a responsible gun owner, that he surrendered of his own free will, etc. I have been on several juries, and in each case, I have been very careful, if I have voted to convict, to assure that I either have no doubts at all about the defendant's guilt, or, if I have any, that they are due to personal prejudice and I cannot honestly say they are reasonable, which is the criterion for acquittal.

Without making a judgment about Mr. Leon's guilt before the law, I might be inclined to employ the option of jury nullification, a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence. If those who really are responsible for the broken link are not even going to be tried, let alone convicted, I think whoever is tried, convicted or not, should get the same sentence. Both the Leon and the Guzman families are going to feel sad and regret that this situation ever happened. Both are likely to reconsider their attitudes toward raising children, neighborhood pranks. and momentary lapses of good judgment. Mr. Leon is going to pay a huge fine in the form of legal expenses, win or lose, and the Guzmans will have paid with their son. Nobody is going to profit from further suffering of anyone that certainly would not have resulted except from the ill advised and unlawful actions or omissions of Julian Guzman, his associates, and those responsible for him.

All concerned will be wiser and in a better position to contribute to the betterment of the human race if the matter is simply closed.

Think of it as evolution in action!

John Lindorfer