Suspect in ‘King of the Hill' actor's death ‘immediately' confessed: police
The 56-year-old suspect in the fatal shooting of Jonathan Joss, who voiced the character John Redcorn on the popular animated 'King of the Hill' series reportedly 'immediately' confessed to the murder, according to multiple media reports.
The tragic violence unfolded on June 1 at around 7 p.m. on Dorsey Drive in a San Antonio, Texas neighborhood.
At the scene, local police found the 59-year-old actor near the roadway.
'The officers attempted life-saving measures until EMS arrived. EMS pronounced the victim deceased,' police said in a statement.
Joss' former neighbor, 56-year-old Sigfredo Alavarez Ceja, was detained at the crime scene, with police later saying in their report that the man 'immediately told them, 'I shot him,'' the Daily Beast reported.
The police report, which was obtained by People, also detailed the timeline leading up to the deadly violence, saying that a woman had given Joss and his husband a ride to their former residence to pick up some mail.
Ceja reportedly approached the couple after they arrived, parking his vehicle 'directly behind' the woman's and began arguing with the victim.
In a June 2 post to Facebook, Tristan Kern de Gonzales, the actor's husband, claimed the violence was homophobia-related and that police had ignored earlier reports of threats against them.
'My husband Jonathan Joss and I were involved in a shooting while checking the mail at the site of our former home. That home was burned down after over two years of threats from people in the area who repeatedly told us they would set it on fire,' Gonzales wrote. 'We reported these threats to law enforcement multiple times and nothing was done. Throughout that time, we were harassed regularly by individuals who made it clear they did not accept our relationship. Much of the harassment was openly homophobic.'
Gonzales said that while getting their mail, the couple saw the skull and harness of one of their three dogs, all of whom died in the January fire that arson investigators are still looking into.
It was while they were both overcome with grief at the site that he says Ceja began yelling 'homophobic slurs' at the pair before raising a gun and firing at them.
'Jonathan and I had no weapons. We were not threatening anyone. We were grieving. When the man fired, Jonathan pushed me out of the way. He saved my life,' Gonzales wrote. 'He was murdered by someone who could not stand the sight of two men loving each other.'
Initial statements from police claimed there was no evidence linking Joss' sexual orientation to his murder. But San Antonio Police Chief William McManus walked back that assertion Thursday, calling the earlier statement 'premature.' He confirmed that investigators are now considering whether homophobia played a role.
Tributes have poured in since the actor's death. 'King of the Hill' creators Mike Judge, Greg Daniels, and Saladin Patterson said in a statement, 'His voice will be missed… and we extend our deepest condolences to Jonathan's friends and family.'
In addition to 'King of the Hill,' Joss appeared in 'Parks and Recreation,' 'Ray Donovan,' 'Tulsa King,' and 'The Magnificent Seven.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
39 minutes ago
- News24
‘That twin effect?' SA's amapiano DJ duo TxC stun at BET Awards in hip-linked gowns
TxC taking a selfie before being interviewed by BET International on the red carpet. Bethany Grenald Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once. Start your FREE trial now Show Comments ()
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
3 Questions To Ask Yourself To Boost Your Personal Brand
Who made Superman's personal brand what it is today? And what can you as an experienced leader learn ... More from that? Photo: Actor Brandon Routh launches the New Wax Figure of Superman from "Superman Returns" - June 27, 2006 at Madame Tussauds in New York, United States. (Photo by Michael Loccisano) As an experienced leader, your personal brand may not be as visible as Superman's. But just because you don't wear an S on your chest or a cape on your back, don't think your personal brand doesn't matter. In fact, if you suddenly find yourself job hunting, it's likely your personal brand that will determine whether or not you succeed. So what is your personal brand? And how do you boost it if it's not a matter of buying a shinier – and tighter – suit? In the movie, Batman Begins, Batman's alter ego Bruce Wayne argues that people need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy – and that he can't do that as a man: 'As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed. But as a symbol… As a symbol, I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting.' Is that the answer to what your personal brand is? A symbol that makes you incorruptible and everlasting? As opposed to a man – or woman – of flesh and blood? With the promises of AGI flooding the news, it's tempting to say yes. After all, the job market is insatiable when it comes to people and machines that can out-think, out-pace, and out-perform other people and machines. And doesn't that call for super-human leaders who can shake everyone out of apathy? Before you rush to decide on a symbol that can neither be ignored nor destroyed, let's ask who made Superman and Batman's personal brands what they are today. Was it their alter egos, Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne? The comic book writers who invented the superheroes? The actors who embodied them on screen? Or the millions of readers and viewers who have followed them through generations? Of course, there is no single answer to who created Superman and Batman's personal brands. And the same goes for you and your personal brand. No matter how much time you spend defining who you are and what you want others to think and say about you, you cannot control how you are perceived. What you can – and should – do is ask yourself three questions that have guided flesh and blood humans for millennia. In the early 1700s, the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz came up with what is often described as the greatest philosophical question of all, namely: why is there something rather than nothing? This may seem like a peculiar question – not least in the context of personal branding. But reminding yourself of how Leibniz took the age-old question of why our universe is the way it is to the next level by asking why there is a universe at all can actually be a really good way to boost your personal brand. In addition to asking yourself questions about your personal values and career goals, asking questions that put you and your contribution as a leader in the greatest possible context will help you focus your efforts where they matter most. After all, if there is no industry, company, product, or customer demand for you to lead, your values and career goals will be as redundant as Batman without Gotham. So to boost you personal brand, don't focus on your personal brand. Instead, focus on why there is something rather than nothing for you to lead. And how you can help take industries, companies, products and customers to the next level. Great philosophical questions can be divided into three categories. Epistemological questions about how we know what (we think) we know – e.g. 'why is there something rather than nothing?' Ethical questions about what is the right thing to do. And existential questions about who we are as humans. Common to these three categories of questions is that no one – least of all a machine – can answer them for you. Also, they cannot be answered once and for all. And with ethical questions, like 'what is the right thing to do?', you must not only ask them again and again, you must ask them again and again – each day! While the advantage of being a symbol is that you can, in the words of Bruce Wayne, be incorruptible and everlasting, the advantage of being human is that you cannot. You can become corrupt, and you will eventually die. 'How is this an advantage?', you might ask. And you should. It only takes one bad decision to destroy your personal brand. And there are no guarantees. Even when you think you're making all the right decisions based on all the right answers, others may see it differently. And that's the advantage of being human: that your personal brand is negotiable. Changeable. Evolving. Just as it only takes one bad decision to destroy your personal brand, it only takes one question to start fixing it. It's not your answer to 'What is the right thing to do?' that make or break your personal brand. It's your willingness to keep asking it. Being corruptible, negotiable, and changeable is not only essential to your personal brand. It's essential to being you. Unlike Clark Kent and Superman, and Bruce Wayne and Batman, you and your personal brand are not two distinctive entities. Your flesh and blood is indistinguishable from your personal brand and vice versa. That's why you act differently in different situations. While Batman, who, in the words of the Joker, is destined to do the same thing forever, you are neither 'an unstoppable force' (like the Joker describes himself) nor 'an immovable object' (like Batman). You, like the people on the boats in The Dark Knight Rises, act according to who you are right here and right now. Sometimes you do as expected, sometimes you don't. Being a flesh and blood human as opposed to a symbol means asking the existential questions that help you assess and adapt to the situations you find yourself in. While the promise of AGI and superheroes is to out-think, out-pace, and out-perform everything and everyone, your job as a human leader is to see and hear the world from within. Like the industries, companies, products, and people you lead, you are a temporal being. You occupy a specific place at a specific time in history that enables you to see, hear, and act on some things and prevents you from seeing, hearing, and acting on others. It is because you are situated that you are able to take a position, make your perspective count, and build a personal brand. Not in spite of it. Because you cannot be everywhere at once, it matters where you choose to spend your time now. And now. Every moment, you prioritize and focus on something instead of something else. Someone instead of someone else. This prioritization and focus is what determines whether or not you succeed. In your job hunt and everything else.
