Link: https://news4sanantonio.com/news/nation-world/man-fatally-shoots-cousin-during-heated-argument-over-whose-enchiladas-were-spicier-new-mexico-albuquerque-hotter-ervin-joaquin-gutierrez-murder-nathaniel-cavazos

Crossposted from https://slrpnk.net/post/42260633

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A New Mexico man was arrested after allegedly shooting and killing his cousin during an argument over whose plate of green chile enchiladas was hotter.

Ervin Joaquin Gutierrez, 22, was charged with an open count of murder in the Aug. 27 killing of
25-year-old Nathaniel Cavazos.

heated

icwydt

A witness, who identified himself as a cousin to both men, told investigators that the group had spent the afternoon drinking alcohol and cooking green chile enchiladas.

Alcohol and enchiladas: a recipe for irresolvable conflict.

The dispute escalated outside the apartment, leading to a physical fight in which Cavazos punched Gutierrez, leaving him bleeding, the witness reported.

After the fistfight ended and Cavazos began walking away, Gutierrez allegedly drew a handgun and confronted him, shouting, "We're family! We're family! How could you do this to me?" before opening fire, according to the witness statement in the affidavit.

Cavazos was shot three to four times in the back from roughly 10 feet away while unarmed, the document states. Gutierrez then fled the area.

"Family would never beat someone else bloody!"

Promptly proceeds to shoot family member in the back.

Why does this article have multiple AI slop photos of enchilladas? I'd almost understand the one – just to have something there if you're lazy and useless as fuck – but there are four.

Using an ableist slur but pussyfooting around it by swapping out the 't'.

What a little bitch. Commit to being a shithead or don't.

Edit: Since there's confusion: this is a common spelling of the word "retarded" to get around filters. They just used it here, where there is no filter, because they wanted to use a slur but know it's looked down upon to use slurs.

So there are 2 victims? Or no victims? I think i get your point but someone did die though.

• one dead victim, perp is alive and in custody
• They are cousins
• perpSays: they were drinking all day
• perpSays: victim started a fight over who's enchilada was spicier (enchiladas were made from same batch so they couldnt be differently spicy)
• perpSays: victim punches perp (perp probably has defensive wounds or some other indicia)
• perp shoots victim
• perpSays: victim has threatened his life before (this is after the fact to a presumably familial witness)

∴

viable self-defense case? U decide

We're family! We're family! How could you do this to me?"

afternoon drinking alcohol and cooking green chile enchiladas.

They do take their green chile very seriously in New Mexico. So I think the outrage was more oriented at a family member dissing their green chile more than it was about throwing hands. Those are fighting words in Hatch pepper country.

Did you know it was wrong to use the slur but wanted to anyway? Explain to the class.

Am I stupid? What slur is he talking about?

Let's just say i'm glad i'm not a judge.

They're using the word "retarded" but swapping out the 't' for a 'g' as self-censorship. See: the comment below from another user making this more explicit by calling me "fucking retard".

Is there a bullshit crime of passion defense besides the self-defense angle (cousin punched perp)

Thats is or used to be a thing in stereotypicalky "passionate" locales Italy or Spain or something

You're certainly in good company.

It would probably be the difference between murder and manslaughter. Crime of passion usually argues you had no prior intent.

There is a "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment, which has been narrowed by courts so far as honor culture has declined that it's mostly non-operative today. That isn't a defense for someone who attacks someone who says something, but it did recognize that there was a social culture at one point of not being able to just outright insult someone without them having a social obligation to respond violently, so it permitted laws against such insults.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

Fighting words are spoken words intended to provoke a retaliatory act of violence against the speaker. In United States constitutional law, the term describes words that inflict injury or would tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[1] It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Chaplinsky decision

Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a God damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942[1]

The idea here is that you can't just go around calling someone a fascist without expecting them to immediately shoot you or otherwise hurt you in response, so to avoid that, it's constitutionally-acceptable for legislators to pass laws to prohibit someone from calling someone else a fascist like that.

Over the years, it's been steadily narrowed by a series of court decisions.

Post-Chaplinsky

The Court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Paul Robert Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets".

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), even speech such as "Bury the niggers" and "Send the Jews back to Israel," was held to be protected speech under the First Amendment in a per curiam decision. In addition, despite the speech being broadcast on network television it did not direct to incite or produce imminent lawless action nor was it likely to produce such action.

In 1972, the Court held that offensive and insulting language, even when directed at specific individuals, is not fighting words:

• Gooding v. Wilson (1972): "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you."[2]
• Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972): "mother fucking."[3]
• Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1972): "god damn mother fucking police."[4]
• Brown v. Oklahoma (1972): "mother fucking fascist", "black mother fucking pig". Found constitutional because the "speech [may] have been anticipated by the audience."[5]

In Collin v. Smith (1978) Nazis displaying swastikas and wearing military-style uniforms marching through a community with a large Jewish population, including survivors of German concentration camps, were not using fighting words.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) redefined the scope of fighting words to "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs" in juxtapose to flag burning as symbolic speech.[6]

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Virginia v. Black (2003), the Court held that cross burning is not 'fighting words' without intent to intimidate.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), respondents' counsel argued that the Court's definition of fighting words required immediacy, imminence, intent and proximity. Justice Ginsburg stated that the Court had rejected spreading the concept beyond words that immediately trigger an instinctive reaction.[7] The Court held that even "outrageous" and "hurtful speech" such as: "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11", "America is Doomed", "Don't Pray for the USA", "Thank God for IEDs", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "Pope in Hell", "Priests Rape Boys", "God Hates Fags", "Fags Doom Nations", "You're Going to Hell," and "God Hates You" is to be considered public debate, particularly when conducted on public land, and must enjoy "special" First Amendment protection. Lone dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

Use the slur and own being a shithead or shut up. "Regarded" is as pathetic as maga trying to dogwhistle "fuck joe biden" with "let's go brandon"

And none of them are New Mexican enchiladas, we like 'em flat here.

Trump logic number 1.

Now that's a New Mexico ass headline

My first thought was “green or red?”.

Did the victim have a gun? Was there a reason the perp didnt just walk away?

I see a lot of "this is a good reason to shoot someone because they made me angry" and not a lot of "I feared for my life and killing someone was the only thing I could do to prevent it" in your list.

What the actual fuck? I read this whole article and they didn't answer the question. Who's enchiladas where hotter?

Ya, all that will have to come out as part of the Defense if he want the aquittal.

Its certainly possible

Asking the real questions holmes.

A witness, who identified himself as a cousin to both men, told investigators that the group had spent the afternoon drinking alcohol and cooking green chile enchiladas.

Green chile is best chile.

Did the victim have a gun?

Investigators noted that a handgun belonging to Cavazos was later recovered roughly 10 yards from his body, though witnesses stated he did not have it drawn during the shooting.

Was there a reason the perp didnt just walk away?

A witness, who identified himself as a cousin to both men, told investigators that the group had spent the afternoon drinking alcohol and cooking green chile enchiladas.

Alcohol and machismo.

I don't remember what they wrote, but I can imagine it.

• perpSays: victim punches perp (perp probably has defensive wounds or some other indicia)
• perp shoots victim

This is a lie by omission.

After the fistfight ended and Cavazos began walking away, Gutierrez allegedly drew a handgun and confronted him, shouting, "We're family! We're family! How could you do this to me?" before opening fire, according to the witness statement in the affidavit.

Read that as "Man fatally shoots cousin during a heated argument over whose echidnas were spicier" and it didn't make much sense

It doesn't make sense any way you read it.

I'll be thinking of this story next time a company claims that, "We're a family here."

Percent chance they were drunk: 110%

Hey Ervin, my enchiladas are spicier than yours

Without condoning... or condemning... I understand.

A witness, who identified himself as a cousin to both men, told investigators that the group had spent the afternoon drinking alcohol and cooking green chile enchiladas.

You are correct.

Puro

Flat?! That ain't an enchillada. It's a tostada or a quesadilla.

Sounds like a good last day

Spoken like someone who has never had one.

https://freshchileco.com/blogs/fresh-chile-recipes/the-original-hatch-red-chile-enchiladas-a-family-recipe-from-the-heart-of-hatch-new-mexico

It won't be long before neurodivergent is a slur, too:

New research reveals mixed feelings about the terms “neurodiversity” and “neurodivergent”

No, I have had tostadas. 😤

A tostada is nothing like an enchilada.

What do you mean flat?

From another reply I posted:

https://freshchileco.com/blogs/fresh-chile-recipes/the-original-hatch-red-chile-enchiladas-a-family-recipe-from-the-heart-of-hatch-new-mexico

I get it.

ass headline

eh, I thought it was okay

;-)

Oh. Food gatekeeping.

Fuck food gatekeeping. I'll take this plate of enchiladas. And a plate of more standard Texmax ones. And some Mexican ones. Give them allllllllll to me and keep them away from people who don't appreciate good food.