PDA

View Full Version : Retired Firefighter Shoots Neighbor, Claims Self Defense


Bartholomew Roberts
June 7, 2012, 02:17 PM
In 2010, retired firefighter Raul Rodriguez killed P.E. teacher Kelly Danaher and shot two other men in a dispute over a loud party. According to Rodriguez's account, he went outside with a video camera, flashlight and gun to document the noise. As a result, the first shot of this confrontation and some of the events leading up to it are shown on tape.

http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html (has link to edited video of shooting)
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Video-taken-night-of-fatal-shooting-shown-to-3611376.php (Houston Chronicle coverage - better details)

Rodriguez is currently on trial for murder. The original video is 22 minutes long and jurors were shown the last 7 minutes in which several partygoers ask Rodriguez why he is standing in Danaher's driveway filming. According to some reports, Rodriguez filmed for approximately 10 minutes before he was even noticed by partygoers. The edited version in the link above appears to be a 2 minute edited version of the 7 minute tape. Obviously, the situation could have been handled better.

I thought it would make for good discussion because apparently Rodriguez thought he was handling it well and is now facing murder charges. The presence of the video offers us a chance to see a bit of what Rodriguez saw right up to the first shot.

Additionally, here is Texas law regarding use of deadly force in self-defense:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 7, 2012, 02:37 PM
If I read this correctly and watching the video - the shooter went on another's man property. Then he displayed or made known he had a gun. He refused requests to leave another man's property.

There was a police car already there. He didn't go over to it.

He announced SYG as it is a magic excuse. He announces that he is in fear of his life as a magic excuse he got from some gun source - when he could leave. The victims clearly respond to a threat from his gun by saying they will get their own. Stupid drunk behavior - they should have simply told the law there is a madman threatening them with a gun.

He feels he can reason with the alcohol fogged reasoning of several people. Or was he posturing for some bizarre reason.

This is exactly the problem with the misinterpretation of SYG that we are seeing from some. It is also an indication of a lack of understanding the use of the firearm which is not to SYG but to protect you. Leaving is a better option. Not staying there and instead showing off the gun as it will deter the irrational (sound familar from another thread).

For what it is worth - it seems the shooter wanted the confrontation and was driven by some stupid dominance factor to stay there. Or he was thinking he had an excuse to shoot? And wanted to on some level?

Did he think he was justified? Even if a group charged him - recall (if I read it correctly) he was on another man's land acting threatenly with a firearm. Did they not have the right to SYG which trumps his non-existant SYG claim?

So my quick take (and facts can prove me wrong) that he is to blame.

Here's a good take from Mas Ayoob

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1419141

Dave P
June 7, 2012, 02:45 PM
Not an easy case.

Shooter almost seems to be trying too hard to justify lethal force: filming it; on the phone to 911; repeatedly saying "I am in fear ..."

I assume he can stand his ground, but it would have been very simple (apparently) for him to back off and avoid it all.

TailGator
June 7, 2012, 02:51 PM
From a legal standpoint, Rodriguez may have trouble with (2) ("did not provoke the person against whom force was used"), for the reasons stated by Dr. Meyer.

From a tactical standpoint, he had every opportunity to disengage and de-escalate. A noisy party is something to call law enforcement about. I personally would call non-emergency dispatch rather than 911. Definitely not a reason to put yourself in a position to use deadly force and defend such use in the legal theater.

Brian Pfleuger
June 7, 2012, 03:10 PM
Based on that video, he's a murderer and should go to jail.

As Glenn said, he's chanting "I'm in fear of my life" and "I'm standing my ground" as if they're some kind of magic talisman that gives him the right to kill people.

Trespassing, threatening, refusal to leave, stupid, stupid, stupid.

Is there any fear in his voice? None that I hear. He sounds like he's dictating a video on paint drying.

He doesn't understand the law. He thinks he does. He thinks he's tough. He's not.

Now he's a murderer.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 7, 2012, 03:16 PM
Just wanted to add that I think we have two different tactical discussions here:

1. What could Rodriguez have done better?
2. How could Danaher have handled that in a way that turned out better for him?

I think that last one is worth thinking about. According to testimony, Danaher tackled Rodriguez and was shot. Not sure who is on the video; but you can hear them laughing as they approach. Pretty clearly, they thought they an easy problem to solve. The result of that estimation was one man dead and two others shot.

It seems both parties in this missed several good opportunities to avoid, deescalate or disengage.

Brian Pfleuger
June 7, 2012, 03:23 PM
1)Stay off your neighbors property if you're not invited. Leave when asked. Don't start confrontations. Dont be a posturing jackass. Call the police about loud parties. Understand the law.

2)Call the police about trespassers. Don't be a posturing jackass. Don't get drunk if you can't control yourself. Don't have parties that are unreasonable. Don't tackle people, especially people who have guns. When someone has a gun, go away.

myshoulderissore
June 7, 2012, 04:08 PM
One more reminder that the best practice for most any confrontation (at least in the self defense world) is retreat, if possible. I agree, with the limited info that was linked and that I found, it looks to me like he was mad about being ignored and went too far, and in his mind he would be justified saying the right things and going for it...

Anger and pride are instabilities that are not well mixed with guns.

MTT TL
June 7, 2012, 04:15 PM
This guy seems to be operating with the mental aptitude of Homer Simpson. The fact that he thinks that what he did was okay is just sign of how many stupid people there are in the world.

This not SYG, this is not SD, this is just someone mad at his neighbor with a chip on his shoulder. If he doesn't get a needle I will be shocked.

1- Already covered.

2- Mostly covered. Sure you might have a reason to tackle someone with a gun but not in this case. Seeing how he was not behaving entirely rational it is of no surprise he choose a stupid move.

Get along well with your neighbors if at all possible. Go out of the way to do so. That way they will be less likely to come to your house in the middle of the night with a gun looking to kill you.

dayman
June 7, 2012, 04:22 PM
Jerks like this guy do more to skew public opinion against gun owners and SYG laws than all of the anti gun activists put together.
SYG laws are in my opinion - and probably the opinions of most informed people - very reasonable. However, when public opinion starts associating SYG with "if you have a gun you can use it to win a fight" I think we'll find we have a much harder time getting them added to the books, or keeping them.
Sadly, in our public opinion driven political system, what people think usually trumps the truth.
Most people don't have a vested interest in gun rights, and don't bother to find out what SYG laws actually do. They believe what they see on the news. When we have cases like this guy (and the one-who-shall-not-be-named in FL), people are going to start to think that this is what SYG laws are about.
And when that happens who would blame them for voting against them? Frankly, I would vote against any law that would actually make this guys actions legal.

TheNocturnus
June 7, 2012, 04:30 PM
Seems like he started the whole confrontation. He should have continued to phone the police until they resolved it or filed a complaint with them the next day. He was foolish to walk down there and demand that they quiet down.

Unfortunately this man has made his bed and now he must face the consequences. A CCW permit does not make you a police officer nor does it give you the right to unjustly shoot someone. He was a retired firefighter, I would have expected better restraint from him.

What an idiot...

Doc Maker
June 7, 2012, 04:35 PM
Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Marquezj16
June 7, 2012, 05:35 PM
It would have been different if he was on his property. He should be convicted for his actions.

Mello2u
June 7, 2012, 10:33 PM
This shooter may have believed that his possession and display of his gun was going to act as a magic talisman to keep him safe. However, his magic was not effective against a drunk.

One additional factor in the risky behavior (moving closer to an armed man who is warning you away) of the people who were drinking at the party beyond intoxication, may have been peer pressure. The people who were shot probably did not assess the risk properly because they were impaired and also did not want to appear cowardly in front of their friends.

I think that the prosecution can argue that a reasonable person who was actually in fear of their life would have taken the opportunity to leave the confrontation; rather than stand there arguing and continuing to record a video.

A series of bad choices resulting in bad results.

jimbob86
June 7, 2012, 10:42 PM
This is not "Stand Your Ground": It's not his ground, and he was asked to leave it, therefore he was trespassing.

c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.


As I understand the SYG concept, you may SYG wherever you have a legal right to be. He failed that standard.

He also failed the "has not provoked" standard, in that walking onto somebody's property with a video camera, and refusing to leave, is a provocation in my book.....

Murder. Possibly premeditated/malice aforethought.

icedog88
June 8, 2012, 06:56 AM
Was he on their property? Looks to me like in the video there is a section of road or sidewalk between him and the driveway. People coming down the driveway towards him while he is in what appears to be the street. Hard to tell.

rebs
June 8, 2012, 07:40 AM
I think he maybe in trouble, since he went to another man's house armed and this could be construed as he is the instigator. He went to the trouble, the trouble did not come to him. The whole thing could have been avoided had he waited for the police. Loud music is not a threat to anyone's life. Also the party goers were drunk and you never argue with a drunk person.
Just my opinion, maybe I am wrong. But one dead and two wounded over loud music and noise ? I wouldn't consider loud music and noise as a threat of personal injury. He should have waited at his own house for the police and let them handle it..

TexasJustice7
June 8, 2012, 08:03 AM
If this was in Texas his first mistake is going off his own property to another man's property. If the noise disturbed him he should have called the law.
You do not have the right to go to another man's property and start filming it in Texas.

rtpzwms
June 8, 2012, 08:25 AM
I'm just not sure who was the bigger jackass the party goers or the fireman.

From my perspective why argue with a bunch of drunks? Its a no brainier parties will fizzle out with time, just let it go and let the police handle it.

Going down the street with a gun and a camera what did you think would happen? If you feel compelled to go, do it with a smile like you would like to be part of the party and reason gently and leave with your smile. I would not have gone at all without knowing the host before the party.

This is a case of dumb and dumber! This is in Texas and according to Ron White they're putting in an express lane for murders! I guess the firefighter just wanted to be in the express lane.:eek:

Double Naught Spy
June 8, 2012, 08:57 AM
I think he maybe in trouble, since he went to another man's house armed and this could be construed as he is the instigator. He went to the trouble, the trouble did not come to him.

That he went onto another's property with a gun and that he is the instigator doesn't mean he didn't have the right to self defense. Nothing in Texas law that says you can't go to the trouble. Such events don't look good but don't negate his rights. For example, he could have gone down the street and yelled at the party goers and then ended up shooting and killing one or more of them when they followed and attacked him on his way back home. He would still be the instigator, but well within his self defense rights to defend himself. That isn't what happened, of course, but is a way that he could have been the instigator and still in a position to legally defend himself.

The whole thing could have been avoided had he waited for the police.
As Glenn noted, the police were already there and apparently watched a lot of the exchange stating both parties spoke of guns and strange the cop didn't do anything. I wonder if that was actually the police or not. Rodriguez says the police are there, so maybe it actually was, but if the police were there, then Rodriguez definitely should not have been dealing with the party goers. You are right that the whole thing could have been avoided.

Loud music is not a threat to anyone's life. Also the party goers were drunk and you never argue with a drunk person.

Just my opinion, maybe I am wrong. But one dead and two wounded over loud music and noise ? I wouldn't consider loud music and noise as a threat of personal injury.

This is a typical misrepresentation that shows up commonly. It is akin to folks who carry but who say that they are not willing to shoot or kill another over the contents of their wallets. So when they are held at gun or knife point by a mugger, they apparently won't defend themselves against a threat to their lives since the mugger just wants a wallet. Here, they fail to realize that the wallet is no longer the salient issue. Their lives are being threatened. In the Rodriguez case, the guy shot because he was being attacked. He didn't shoot anybody because the music was too loud. The music, like the wallet, was only the reason drawing the parties together.

If Glenn's comprehension of the situation is correct that he was on the other guy's land when he was attacked after brandishing, then the attack may be considered self defense by the party-goers to handle a threat. They have the right to self defense as well.

He should have waited at his own house for the police and let them handle it..
He had made a lot of calls and the police had not arrived. So going over to the party to complain would not have been out of line. However, once he may have thought there would be trouble and after he was told to leave (which was when he appeared to be on the other guy's property, he should have left. If he was on the other guy's property and the other guy told him to leave (and I can't tell this from the vids), then his refusal to leave would be trespassing.

I don't see anything in the video to indicate that he was actually in fear for his life, especially since he said he was, brandished his gun, but did nothing else to get him to safety. His actions do not appear to be of a person who is in fear for his life. I am not certain from the video that his brandishing was legal.

The 'expert' in the first video, Jim Pruett, says that Texas CHL holder are taught to do is to announce that you have a gun, are in fear for your life and that you will use if. That is a crock. He may teach that but announcing you have a gun isn't an aspect covered by other CHL instructors that I know of. I have never heard it in my CHL classes and the two guys that I shoot with who are CHL instructors don't teach to announce that you have a gun.
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html

icedog88
June 8, 2012, 09:17 AM
It still doesn't look like he was ever on anybody's property. He is standing in the middle of the street next to a truck. One partygoer even says he's standing in the middle of the street with a gun.

Frank Ettin
June 8, 2012, 09:29 AM
I guess we'll soon see what the jury thinks.

Seaman
June 8, 2012, 09:43 AM
"Prosecutors said Rodriguez was not in fear for his life and had ample opportunity to leave the confrontation he started....
...Prosecutors said Rodriguez fatally shot Kelly Danaher, a physical education teacher at Sorters Mill Elementary in New Caney ISD, in his own driveway at his wife's birthday party in northeast Harris County. Rodriguez also shot two other men, one a Houston Fire Department captain, just afterward. " [B. Rogers, Houston Chronicle, Updated June 7, 2012]

Wow...poor guy was shot (and killed) at his wife's birthday party, Mr. Rodriguez also wounded 2 other good people...its not like he shot three crack-heads breaking down his front door. Unbelieveable.

When there's a loud party I simply put in my ear-plugs and go to bed.

"I guess we'll soon see what the jury thinks. "

Indeed.

brickeyee
June 8, 2012, 10:11 AM
You do not get to claim SYG if you are in a place you are not legally entitled to be.

Like trespassing on someone else's property after being told to leave.

UtopiaTexasG19
June 8, 2012, 11:22 AM
"The 'expert' in the first video, Jim Pruett"

Jim Pruett was a radio disc jockey for years here in the Houston, Texas area before he sold guns. He has a spot on our local Channel 39 most nights and in my opinion is a embarrassment to the local gun community. Quoteing him for any real facts is a huge stretch of the imagination. Even my wife asks me if the guy is for real with some of the statements he makes on tv.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 8, 2012, 01:41 PM
Some new information from a recent news story:

"Seconds later Houston Fire Department senior captain Ricky Johnson, who testified he was drunk at the party, moves closer to Rodriguez and makes fun of his camera. The argument ends there with the crack of gunfire. "

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18734009/2012/06/07/shooters-video-may-save-or-condemn-him

Johnson was one of the men shot by Rodriguez.

Tickling
June 8, 2012, 01:50 PM
"Prosecutors said Rodriguez was not in fear for his life and had ample opportunity to leave the confrontation he started....

Yes.. Because prosecutors are unbiased. RemembCer it's their job to win cases.

I think some people here are armchairing this to death. From the video it looks like there is a good chance he was NOT on the deceased property. As someone else already mentioned, at one point in the movie one of the parygoers said "theres a [crazy?] man with a gun in the street." Knowing how some parties go, it's no surprise if it spread to the front of the house/street.

As for not "retreating" if there were cops there, then maybe he was depending on them to intervene. Also, at the end of the video it looks like he WAS starting to walk away and got tackled when he turned his back.

Now about it being justified. It's up to the jury, but I can count 3-4 and there probably a LOT more drunk partiers who look to be siding with the deceased. The defendant, Rodriguez, at one point says that they have weapons as well. Which also isn't a stretch of the imagination (broken beer bottles, etc.). I know I'd be in fear for MY life.

If you think about it, the events leading up to the shooting could happen to any of us. It's quite quaint to say "just go to bed" or let the "police handle it." But it sounds like this was not the first time this had happened and the police were called. I'm not sure if Rodriguez is a current or retired firefighter, but remember that often they work long shifts. I know that after working an 18 hour shift at the hospital I'd be a bit testy if kept awake by my neighbors.

While I concur that the situation was badly handled, I do think that this very situation could easily happen to someone with the most innocent motives, e.i., you or me.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 8, 2012, 01:57 PM
Nope, I don't think this one could happen to most folks with quality training or common sense.

Double Naught Spy
June 8, 2012, 02:07 PM
"Seconds later Houston Fire Department senior captain Ricky Johnson, who testified he was drunk at the party, moves closer to Rodriguez and makes fun of his camera. The argument ends there with the crack of gunfire. "

I think that is a bit misleading. It gives the impression that Rodriguez fired because his camera was insulted. The argument did end, but I can't see where the insult to the camera is what caused Rodriguez to shoot.

Yes.. Because prosecutors are unbiased. RemembCer it's their job to win cases.

No, it is their job to prosecute cases. However, you don't have to believe the prosecutor that Rodriguez did had ample opportunity to remove himself from the situation. If he was in fear for his life as he claimed, there was nothing stopping him from walking away to the safety of his own home, but he didn't. That is shown in the video.

Now about it being justified. It's up to the jury, but I can count 3-4 and there probably a LOT more drunk partiers who look to be siding with the deceased. The defendant, Rodriguez, at one point says that they have weapons as well. Which also isn't a stretch of the imagination (broken beer bottles, etc.). I know I'd be in fear for MY life.

And so instead of backing off, you would instead continue to try running your camera, being on the phone with 911, keeping a gun in hand, and using your flashlight like Rodriguez? His behavoir doesn't seem to indicate that he is in fear for his life. Why would all of those things be more important to him than trying to remove himself from the situation?

I guess you could argue that he multitasked himself into dysfunction or maybe he could not walk away because he was running some of his gear with his feet. I don't know, but his actions and his words do not indicate that he was in fear for his life, despite claiming he was.

Brian Pfleuger
June 8, 2012, 02:10 PM
I must respectfully disagree that this is something "that could happen to any of us".

The problem with this logic is that this isn't something that "happened". Robberies, rapes, muggings, these things "happen". This is something he DID, and there's a huge, huge difference.

This could not "happen" to me because I will not initiate confrontation. I will not go looking for trouble. I avoid trouble and deescalate problems at every opportunity. I leave, given any chance. I will not stay unless there is no choice. I will not argue, insult or otherwise escalate a problem.

I have watched that video a couple times now and I come away with the, I believe inescapable, conclusion that he got exactly what he went looking for, exactly what he wanted. This isn't something that happened to him, it's something he did.

Mr. James
June 8, 2012, 04:36 PM
Absolutely, Mr. Pfleuger,

This doesn't "happen" to me, either. I tend to avoid confrontations with neighbors because (a) they're my neighbors, and (b) just as I want to be left unmolested in my daily affairs, I don't believe in molesting them in theirs, even if they are somewhat noisome (and noisy).

That would have to be one out-of-control party for me to even approach the house, smiling, sans flashlight and video camera, with a polite request that they lower the music just a wee bit. More likely, I would just grit my teeth and bear it. Parties, even drunken parties, have a curious tendency to lose steam and peter out after a while. If this were a frequent recurring phenomenon, and the polite smile wasn't working, I'd ask the county police to intervene.

Tickling
June 8, 2012, 04:39 PM
Maybe I should clarify. I said, "the events leading up to the shooting could happen to any of us."

I don't know the whole situation, but come on, suppose you had a neighbor who threw loud parties (from the video it sounds like this had happened before), you called the cops and not much happens. So, perhaps you decide to get some evidence for a more formal complaint/suit. You get a camera and a flashlight and strap on your CCW before you leave the house, perhaps out of habit.

Now here is where the path diverges from "could happen to any of us." Hopefully when confronted with escalation/threat of force in this instance most of us would take the option of retreat. That Rodriguez should have done this I can't argue with. All I was trying to say is that many of us could easily get in this very situation, the difference of course, is HOW we handle it. It's easy, and foolish IMHO, to say "that you would NEVER confront a neighbor in this situation." I live in an apartment complex with other college students and I've asked my neighbors to keep it down (no video camera or gun tho) a few times and could see the situation escalating if I let it.

Training is good. Rational behavior you can't always depend on, even for YOU. We're human after all, it's easy for the mind to get knocked off balance. I see it at the hospital all the time.

Brian Pfleuger
June 8, 2012, 04:53 PM
That's the problem....

You DON'T go looking for evidence. You DON'T strap on your gun.

Sure, anybody might have loud neighbors and cops who don't care, but that's the end of the "it could happen to any of us" because after that, everything he did was wrong. He escalated, antagonized, failed to leave, initiated...


What you do is file a formal complaint against the police department. You talk to a lawyer about a "cease and desist" order, or whatever it would be called. You take smart, legal actions not stupid, antagonistic actions.

Tickling
June 8, 2012, 05:12 PM
I respect your opinion Mr. Pfleuger. And while I agree with you that hiring a lawyer and going through a process of some kind might be "safer," it is not always the best option.

If I hired a lawyer or filled out forms at the local PD every time my neighbors were rowdy during finals week I'd either be broke or wasting a lot of time. Thankfully usually a little politeness works and if not, I have the option of bunking someplace else for the night.

Not everyone can just leave, not everyone can just ignore it, not everyone can afford to drop a grand or two on a lawyer for a noise complaint. A lot of people here have said that if they leave their house they have a gun on. I know several people who when making complaints (trespassing etc.) have been told by the police to get photographs/videos (evidence).

I'm not saying what he did was right. I'm just pointing out that up until he stood there chanting "I'm in fear of my life" and brandishing, he really hadn't done anything terribly unreasonable.

m&p45acp10+1
June 8, 2012, 05:17 PM
Thinking on this situation my grampa's words ring in my mind.

"If you feel you need a gun to go do something out of fear of a person attacking you. Do not go do it."

When carrying I try to live up to that. I ask myself. "If I left my gun at home, would I be here right now?" If I even slightly doubt I would. I leave right then.

I have had problems with neighbors before. Luckily I was renting. I cut losses on the deposit, and moved. To me it was just not worth it.

MLeake
June 8, 2012, 06:16 PM
In the past, when friends or I have thrown potentially loud parties, we've invited the neighbors.

It's funny how they tend not to complain when they've been invited, even when they do not choose to attend.

I have to wonder if there were other causes for bad blood in this case than just the parties.

Catfishman
June 8, 2012, 11:40 PM
Jerks like this guy do more to skew public opinion against gun owners and SYG laws than all of the anti gun activists put together.
I completely agree! Guys don't need to wade into a confrontation, start a verbal assault and feel that it's perfectly ok to mow someone down if it turns physical. I'm afraid some gun owners think SYG gives them this right.

I wish SYG was more clearly understood. I don't want 'a duty to retreat' but a clarification, or maybe maybe a renaming of SYG might help dim witted cowards understand.

icedog88
June 9, 2012, 06:05 AM
To say he "strapped on a gun" before going outside sounds like media skewing. Whenever I go outside, I "strap on".
On the other hand he could have left before brandishing. After he did draw, and threats were made, that's where it gets a bit hairy. As I stated earlier, from the video, it seems like he was never in the neighbors yard but in the street. SYG applies to places where an individual has a legal right to be.
After he drew and one guy says that he will go get his and be equal is where he might actually started to really feel scared. Obviously he was attacked, hence the shaking of the camera and then the shot. His fear was realized, but the questions for me are;
Did he have a legal right to document the obnoxious party? Yes.
Was he armed legally? Yes.
Did he brandish the firearm? Yes, but after a crowd of drunks were advancing on him.
Could he have left safely before brandishing? Yes, but did he legally have to being in the street where it appears he was when the actual confrontation started?
Not saying he is in the right or wrong I can definitely see arguments for both.

Double Naught Spy
June 9, 2012, 07:18 AM
I have watched that video a couple times now and I come away with the, I believe inescapable, conclusion that he got exactly what he went looking for, exactly what he wanted. This isn't something that happened to him, it's something he did.

Yes, but looking for it isn't illegal.

You DON'T strap on your gun.

To say he "strapped on a gun" before going outside sounds like media skewing. Whenever I go outside, I "strap on".

I don't see where this would be media skewing if the statement is valid. It isn't like others don't strap on guns before going out. Ayoob talks about doing this and apparently we have forum members that also describe doing this as well.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob69.html

In fact, it is a phrase he has used numerous times.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSNA_enUS361US436&q=ayoob+strap+on

icedog88
June 9, 2012, 07:32 AM
I don't see where this would be media skewing if the statement is valid. It isn't like others don't strap on guns before going out. Ayoob talks about doing this and apparently we have forum members that also describe doing this as well.

Except it makes it seem that this was the only time he did it instead of as part of a normal routine.

Brian Pfleuger
June 9, 2012, 09:00 AM
I don't care much about the legality of his initial actions. Legal doesn't imply smart.

I believe he intended it to go exactly like it did and he thought SYG would protect him. If SYG laws will be used to justify the behavior we see in that video, I would actively oppose them.

icedog88
June 9, 2012, 09:38 AM
I think in a sense, he may have wanted a confrontation, but it's hard to say that he wanted to shoot someone. If taking a gun when you go outside means you want to shoot someone, then aren't we all going to be guilty if something happens?

Bartholomew Roberts
June 9, 2012, 09:50 AM
Yeah, this guy is going to get murder 1 if the news reports are correct.

One of his past neighbors is going to testify that Rodriguez did the same thing with their family (Come over to complain, create a scene, pull a gun and claim he was in fear for his life). He also apparently was the only person the local firefighters union ever kicked out . They gave him the axe for being "divisive and paranoid.". According to this article, Rodriguez had engaged in similar behavior in his old neighborhood.
Source: http://www.khou.com/home/Former-neighbors-union-Rodriguez-always-paranoid-157943785.html

Additionally ABC 13 in Houston reports that the jury will not hear the testimony of a neighbor who claims that Rodriguez bragged to her that you could basically shoot anyone you wanted as long as you said you were in fear for your life.

Double Naught Spy
June 9, 2012, 11:15 AM
I don't care much about the legality of his initial actions. Legal doesn't imply smart.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone here has said that what Rodriguez did was smart. As for the legality of his actions, that is the crux of trial being discussed, isn't it?

I believe he intended it to go exactly like it did and he thought SYG would protect him. If SYG laws will be used to justify the behavior we see in that video, I would actively oppose them.

So you think SYG laws are a good idea so long as people behave the way you think they should behave, but don't like SYG when they behave counter to how you think they should behave, though (possibly) in a legal manner?

The issues of not being smart and not behaving in accord with your standards are problems rampant in the legal system. I can't begin to tell you the number of people I know who do perfectly legal things that I don't approve of them doing. There would be a lot of laws taken off the books if that was the case and several new ones added. After all, boys are going to date my daughters and no doubt try to exploit the legality of doing so to their advantage. It is terrible, but just because I don't approve of it doesn't mean it needs to be codified by law...at least that is what my Texas House Representative indicated to me.

It is a tough call. Given that he looks to be using SYG in a manner you don't approve, basically for the purposes of a legal advantage for a lethal force incident, then I take it that you would actively oppose concealed carry for the same reason. After all, no doubt the justification for him showing up armed was because he had the legal ability to do so and he used it to his advantage.

It is a very slippery slope when we start deciding that we don't like laws because some people can use them in manners we don't approve. With a paradigm like that, I can see guns rights disappearing very quickly.

brickeyee
June 9, 2012, 11:50 AM
It is a tough call.

Nope.

he was in a place he did not have any right to be.

Virginia has no SYG statute, but it is deeply bedded in our common law.

It does not apply if you are in a place you are not legally entitled to be.

Brian Pfleuger
June 9, 2012, 12:08 PM
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone here has said that what Rodriguez did was smart. As for the legality of his actions, that is the crux of trial being discussed, isn't it?

Not in the context of that quote, we're not. We're talking about his initial actions. Legal but stupid. Later actions even more stupid and either are or should be illegal.


And yes, if SYG allows someone to arm themselves, provoke confrontation and then shoot someone, I would oppose them. That is not responsible behavior.

You can spin my approval of SYG any way you see fit. The law should protect the guy who is walking back to his car from a movie and gets mugged, not the guy who arms himself with the intent to create a confrontation, who does not disengage when given multiple opportunities, continues to antagonize, threatens (or suggests) violence where there is none and then kills someone when the incident gets out of control.

That's my opinion. I'm not going have a discussion based on semantics, absurd extrapolations and intentional spin.

icedog88
June 9, 2012, 12:49 PM
Nope.

he was in a place he did not have any right to be.

Which was where exactly? The confrontation seems to have taken place in the street! At least from the video.

Doc Maker
June 9, 2012, 03:34 PM
The video only shows an edited version of the last seven minutes of a 22 minute tape. Apparently, he went onto the driveway and was confronted.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 9, 2012, 04:30 PM
According to the testimony of one of the men who was shot, the confrontation on the video was described as happening "in the middle of the driveway.".

youngunz4life
June 9, 2012, 04:42 PM
I don't believe he was on the deceased or party goer's property. It is possible he was on some sort of easeway. Personally every little bit is gonna help for this guy: the police being there, the not on property part, being in TX instead of NJ, etc and the main reason why is that stuff seems to be pennies and nickels compared to the 100 dollar bills and checkbook the prosecutor has. the guy seems like an idiot. I don' think he went out there trying to kill someone, but no a retired citizen absolutely does not strap on a gun over a noise disturbance at a neighbor's house. The cop probably got an ass-chewing after-the-fact but he was probably beside himself...a noise disturbance isn't even a misdemeanor crime it is a ticket. It is his house and he has every right to blare music until if and when the cops ticket him and he keeps ignoring police warnings. None of which so far mentions the fact that the guy is emotional and letting his frustration and emotions run his actions. There is no place for that while holding a gun. These guys are drunk and obviously stupid for pushing the issue with a man with a gun. Also, the guy seems stubborn as an ox and a mule put together: "I am in fear of my life, i am standing my ground"....basially i am on the phone and since I am in this situation I am going to shoot someone instead of retreating because I am an(fill in the blanks). I might be right and justified with my wife, but that doesn't give me the right to argue and fight with her all of the time too. Either way this guy is gonna have to take major accountability in a plea deal or roll the dice and hope to get lucky...the camera might save him but I don't think so...who knows. Also, i see no evidence in the video of him trying to leave....he is emotional and wants a phone operating officer to hear people in the backround upset over a man threatening with a firearm. i would be upset too

James K
June 9, 2012, 04:47 PM
Since when does "stand your ground" mean going armed on someone else's property where you have no right to be, pulling a gun, and shooting people who are in no way threaten you with death or grievous bodily harm.

This is the kind of thing that will get those SYG laws repealed and a return to prosecutorial abuse of legitimate self defense. And it is the kind of thing that allows the anti-gun gangsters to demand more gun "control" (ban) laws to "protect good citizens from rabid, insane, right wing, fascist NRA killers."

Jim

gvw3
June 9, 2012, 04:49 PM
This guy is toast. Down in Texas he is going to fry for this. It sounded to me as if he was looking for an excuse to shoot somebody. I may be wrong but that's what it sounded and looked like to me.

Mr. James
June 9, 2012, 04:53 PM
Right or wrong, I believe Mr. Rodriguez is toast.

I have to wonder if there were other causes for bad blood in this case than just the parties.

I strongly suspect this is the case. None of my neighbors would confront me with a video camera, and then a drawn handgun, for making too much noise. Nor would I them. 'Course, I'm not wont to host loud parties! :p

As Doc Maker points out, the public is only seeing edited versions of the video. The jurors will, no doubt, see all twenty-two minutes.

As I understand it, Stand-Your-Ground won't really be relevant in these proceedings if the prosecution can demonstrate that the initial confrontation was on the neighbor's driveway/lawn, and/or Mr. Rodriguez initiated the confrontation.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 9, 2012, 05:07 PM
I strongly suspect this is the case. None of my neighbors would confront me with a video camera, and then a drawn handgun, for making too much noise. Nor would I them. 'Course, I'm not wont to host loud parties!

I thought it might be an ongoing thing as well; especially given his "I am not losing to these people again!" comment to the 911 dispatcher; but according to the article I linked, he pulled this same stuff in his previous neighborhood and had not lived in this one all that long. Apparently next week's testimony includes former coworkers and neighbors who are going to testify that way.

I think the guy just may have a screw loose when it comes to interacting with society.

Aguila Blanca
June 9, 2012, 08:38 PM
This was not a good shoot, and it was not a poster child case for any stand-your-ground law. The so-called "expert" in the first video is an idiot. The prosecutor summed it up very succinctly -- the shooter mouthed all the words he learned in his CHL class, but his actions did not match his words. If someone is standing in the middle of a public street and one has a gun, if that person is "in fear for his life" he would not continue to stand there and roll video while continuing to escalate the argument. He had already called the police. All he had to do was leave, and nobody would have been shot.

ScottieG59
June 9, 2012, 11:10 PM
Most of us who have carried a concealed weapon for a long while (30+ years for me), have been in various potentially volatile situations.

It is smart to consider the possibilities. Go to face people down when you are angry and armed? Not smart. Criminal? I do not know. It is just not smart.

When I am angered, I have learned to sit back and cool off.

I have been in arguments and confrontations while armed. The gun never came out or was even disclosed to the other side.

Regardless of the possible explanations, we will have to wait for the trial. My vote so far is that this guy will be in prison and will also be sued for anything that can be found.

My dirtbag neighbors have loud drunk parties from time to time. I just toss the beer cans back onto their lawn while they sleep off their hangovers.

brickeyee
June 10, 2012, 11:18 AM
I don' think he went out there trying to kill someone

That just means it is not first degree (premeditated) murder.

It is still second degree murder.

He fired with the intent to kill.

There was no reason to even have a firearm for a 'noisy party' problem.

It is not like the police respond with a SWAT team.


When all you own is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 10, 2012, 11:34 AM
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8694721

If you read through some of the stories - he may have a history of bragging about it being ok to shoot someone if you announce some mantra and brandishing to intimidate his neighbors.

Kind of answers the question that your past utterances will be researched. They seem not be allowed in the trial but if you trust jurors not to hear of such - that might be naive.

I've mentioned before that if something is excluded by the Judge in front of the jury - some studies indicate it has more impact. If it was excluded without them knowing about it - he dodged that. Of course, the jurors might see it anyway (- don't look at the paper or TV - :rolleyes:).

Bartholomew Roberts
June 10, 2012, 12:28 PM
Without being there, I've got no way of knowing; but it sounds like the excluded testimony would be a good candidate for objection on the grounds of being hearsay.

However, he is going to have a harder time with former neighbors that are going to testify to past behavior as opposed to a statement he supposedly made. Lucky for him, he never made such a stupid declaration on a gun forum (or the prosecutor doesn't know about it if he did) or the prosecutor might have managed to get it into evidence anyway.

geetarman
June 10, 2012, 01:01 PM
Any way you slice it, when you pick up a firearm to use on a human, you had better know what you are doing.

This guy is about to find out the hard way.

Geetarman:D

Marquezj16
June 10, 2012, 06:08 PM
The more I read about this guy, the more he is depicted as a murderer.

What can we learn from him?
I would have not done what he did in the first place.
You go looking for trouble, you will find it.
Saying those words does not justify murder.

brickeyee
June 11, 2012, 01:09 PM
it sounds like the excluded testimony would be a good candidate for objection on the grounds of being hearsay.

It is not hearsay to testify to what someone told you.

Frank Ettin
June 11, 2012, 01:28 PM
It is not hearsay to testify to what someone told you. It is when the purpose for which it's offered is to show that what he told the witness is true.

In general, hearsay is defined as an out of court statement, repeated in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. There are many exceptions to the general rule that hearsay is not admissible, e. g., hearsay by a party to the litigation. Also, an out of court statement can be repeated in court for various purposes other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted, e. g., state of mind.

Double Naught Spy
June 11, 2012, 05:22 PM
Since when does "stand your ground" mean going armed on someone else's property where you have no right to be, pulling a gun, and shooting people who are in no way threaten you with death or grievous bodily harm.

I am not sure why you asked this since it has nothing to do with the situation.

This is the kind of thing that will get those SYG laws repealed and a return to prosecutorial abuse of legitimate self defense. And it is the kind of thing that allows the anti-gun gangsters to demand more gun "control" (ban) laws to "protect good citizens from rabid, insane, right wing, fascist NRA killers."

Especially if this sort of thing is based on inaccurate descriptions about events that didn't happen. However, if you are going to pose queries in such a manner, why not through out the fact that it is this sort of situation that will get CHL laws repealed as well. Remember, the only way Rodriguez was able to legally take his gun to where the confrontation occurred was because he had a CHL.

dayman
June 11, 2012, 06:17 PM
Especially if this sort of thing is based on inaccurate descriptions about events that didn't happen. However, if you are going to pose queries in such a manner, why not through out the fact that it is this sort of situation that will get CHL laws repealed as well. Remember, the only way Rodriguez was able to legally take his gun to where the confrontation occurred was because he had a CHL.

I had a hard time following that. But I think that's exactly the point that was being made. The idiotic, and murderous actions of psychos like this guy cast a bad light on all CHL holders. It's not fair - but what is?
I for one would really like to see national CHL reciprocity, but I feel that there will be public support for it every time some CHL holder goes nuts. Public opinion of CHLs is rocky enough without stuff like this throwing fuel on the fire.
And - whether we like it or not - public opinion is extremely important.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 11, 2012, 07:48 PM
News article on today's testimony: http://www.khou.com/news/Neighbors-of-retired-firefighter-accused-in-fatal-shooting-say-he-was-a-bully-158504225.html

The prosecutor is wrapping up his case and the defense could begin presenting witnesses as soon as tomorrow.

Jammer Six
June 11, 2012, 08:03 PM
"There but for your actions..."

He's toast, for good reason.

Double Naught Spy
June 11, 2012, 08:43 PM
Especially if this sort of thing is based on inaccurate descriptions about events that didn't happen. However, if you are going to pose queries in such a manner, why not through out the fact that it is this sort of situation that will get CHL laws repealed as well. Remember, the only way Rodriguez was able to legally take his gun to where the confrontation occurred was because he had a CHL.

I had a hard time following that. But I think that's exactly the point that was being made. The idiotic, and murderous actions of psychos like this guy cast a bad light on all CHL holders. It's not fair - but what is?

Nope, not the point being made. The summary description of the events was what doesn't appear to be accurate based on what has been reported. That statement was...

Since when does "stand your ground" mean going armed on someone else's property where you have no right to be, pulling a gun, and shooting people who are in no way threaten you with death or grievous bodily harm.

Of course, no law says you can do this, but if we are going to say that he did this based on SYG law, then you also have to include the fact that he did it based on CHL law as well. Heck, why not ask where these actions are okay in the Second Amendment?

I don't see where Rodriguez's action were any different than some idiots who have preceded him before SYG was in place.

Denezin
June 11, 2012, 08:47 PM
Was he on his own property in danger? No. Was he on a public sidewalk or public property with his gun defending himself? No he was on the victims property when he shot the victim. He should have called the law and made a report. If that didnt work then something would have been a miss. Sounds to me he didnt like his neighbor and he wanted to off him the easy way. Funny isnt it that people that are the true victims defending their selves are the ones who get grilled on trial but people like these who bully people with their guns or go shooting to make it a point they get off on a technicality. Hope he gets a cell and they throw away the key.

dbaum
June 11, 2012, 10:13 PM
Noway was he in the right.He decided to go there and confront- with a gun.He should have let the cops handle it.He wanted to shoot someone, and did, and now should go to prison.He had no need to.I see no reason he couldnt have left the scene way before the probs started.Idiot.

kilimanjaro
June 11, 2012, 10:21 PM
It seems clear to me the man planned and rehearsed a confrontation mantra he felt would exonerate him in court. He is about to find out he was a belligerent fool who is going to spend a very long time in prison, and rightfully so.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 12, 2012, 03:48 AM
Houston Chronicle has some additional excerpts from the video:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Lawyer-says-rest-of-video-proves-self-defense-in-3625123.php#photo-3055267

Aguila Blanca
June 12, 2012, 06:09 AM
I can't believe the attorney for the defense thinks this video is going to help his client. The moron is standing still, right in front of the property, apparently on the telephone with the police, claiming he is in fear for his life, yet he doesn't make any move to leave the scene of the confrontation. SYG gives you a right to defend yourself without having to retreat, yes, but SYG does not provide a free license to initiate a confrontation and then claim you are in fear for your life when you obviously are NOT in fear for your life.

The police had just arrived. If he had been in fear for his life, he would have left and allowed the police to handle it.

dayman
June 12, 2012, 07:27 AM
I don't see where Rodriguez's action were any different than some idiots who have preceded him before SYG was in place.
There's no real difference. However, if the public perception of SYG laws is that they legalize stuff like this we'll find they start going away.
I think we're in agreement that this seems to have to real connection to SYG, but in an election driven system the perception is often more important than the facts.

RamItOne
June 12, 2012, 08:26 AM
If he walked out there with a concealed weapon and asked them to turn the music down and lets say the group started throwing glass beer bottles at him and charged him then fine blast away. But I don't see him having a strong case. It's like he was a politician with no substance during a speech, just using key words like stand my ground, I'm in fear for my life etc thinking that would save him legally

tws92E05
June 12, 2012, 09:04 AM
Having been in law enforcement for over 20 years in the area where this occurred I have been following this case very closely. I have been and always will be a huge supporter of concealed carry here but this guy hurts the cause for everyone.

One of the issues that the defense will have to prove will be was Rodriguez' actions reasonable. He threw out all the scripted phrases of standing his ground and he was in fear of his life. BUT if you are in fear of your life would a reasonable person continue to stand their ground and film for several more minutes leading up to the shooting. A reasonable person will most likely retreat to a safe distance even though they are not obligated to do so. By standing your ground in a situation in which you are claiming to be in fear of your life doesn't hold water here. When you are in fear of your life it is one of two choices no more no less. Fight or Flight. He did neither for 3 or 4 minutes. Instead of one of those choices he phoned the police again and continued to film.

The defense says Rodriguez will take the stand in this case which I highly doubt but if he does I think like the video it will hurt his case of self defense. A first year law student will be able to blow gapping holes in his self defense strategy.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 12, 2012, 09:15 AM
Except the way the Texas law is worded, the jury is not allowed to consider whether he could have retreated in determining whether his actions were reasonable IF he qualified for the SYG protection.

The jury must find that he was in a place he had a legal right to be (i.e. not on Danaher's property) and that he did not provoke the confrontation. If Rodriguez cannot show those two elements to the jury, then the jury can consider whether or not a reasonable person would have retreated in that circumstance - and if the jury gets that far, I am pretty sure Rodriguez is going to prison.

Although I suppose that based on the testimony the jury could conclude that Rodriguez went there looking for an excuse to use his gun and could find his fear unreasonable without considering the retreat issue, though I think that would be a tough needle to thread.

More testimony from yesterday reported by the Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Jurors-see-two-sides-of-Houston-man-accused-of-3626044.php

Rodriguez's neighbor Pete Fornols testified that the day prior to the shooting, Rodriguez had used some foul language to describe Mr. Danaher, so apparently there is some pre-existing anger there, at least on his side. Fornols also testified that Rodriguez called him 13 times that night trying to get him to help complain about the music.

ThorInc
June 12, 2012, 09:37 AM
Like all senarios, there will be kooks testing themselves and abusing perfectly good laws written for honorable reasons.

HTC Vision on Tapatalk 2

Bartholomew Roberts
June 12, 2012, 03:32 PM
The prosecution finished its case today with the testimony of the widow of Kelly Danaher, which apparently had the jurors crying.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sides-rest-houston-stand-ground-trial-16550563

The defense made a motion to dismiss the case claiming they had clearly shown all the elements of self-defense. The judge denied the motion and the defense decided not to call ANY witnesses.

It seems to me that Mr. Rodriguez is looking at a very high probability of prison as a result of his choices that night.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 12, 2012, 03:48 PM
One neighbor, Terri Hackathorn, told jurors Tuesday that Rodriguez bragged about his guns and told her one could avoid prosecution in a shooting by telling authorities you were in fear of your life and were standing your ground and defending yourself.

-- That's in one of the stories. Sorry I lost the link. We were discussing if they would hear that.

Interesting side note, from the reports that his CHL instructor said things like this in class (in a link somewhere) - would the instructor be liable in civil court? Could the shooter (from the clink) sue the instructor?

Mods - sorry if this is diversion. Not my forum.

youngunz4life
June 12, 2012, 04:27 PM
I do not believe the CHL instructor would be in any danger of being found of wrongdoing

Jammer Six
June 12, 2012, 04:39 PM
I think most instructors use a pretty standard liability-damage waiver.

I do, and everyone I know who teaches does. Won't stop someone from suing, of course, but it will stop them from winning.

Morally, we're no more liable than the gun manufacturer.

Frank Ettin
June 12, 2012, 07:52 PM
...The defense made a motion to dismiss the case claiming they had clearly shown all the elements of self-defense. The judge denied the motion and the defense decided not to call ANY witnesses...It'll be interesting to see if the jury gets self defense instructions.

Aguila Blanca
June 12, 2012, 08:26 PM
The whole case is interesting, and I think the entire world must be following it. That link to the Houston Chronicle article took forever to load.

My read at this stage is that his only chance will be to appeal based on ineffectual representation during the trial. I imagine a motion to dismiss is probably standard operating procedure, but to then rest without calling any witnesses when the motion is denied simply astonishes me. If the attorney for the defense genuinely believes that video is going to help his client, then I know a defense attorney who got sold some bad dope.

Frank Ettin
June 12, 2012, 08:53 PM
...but to then rest without calling any witnesses when the motion is denied simply astonishes me. If the attorney for the defense genuinely believes that video is going to help his client, then I know a defense attorney who got sold some bad dope. Unless any witnesses he might be able to call would be worse.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 13, 2012, 07:43 AM
It'll be interesting to see if the jury gets self defense instructions.

I am thinking they will get to see it, though I am interested in how it will be worded and whether he will get SYG instructions. Apparently there was enough controversy over the instructions that they delayed the closing arguments until today in order to work them out. So the jury should start deliberating today as well.

A quick highlight of some of the testimony so far:

1. The man who is laughing who rushed Rodriguez is Johnson, a Houston firefighter. He had a blood alcohol level of 0.27 when he was tested. He was injured severely enough that they put him into an induced coma, and the combination of alcohol and coma apparently came with a fair amount of memory loss of the incident.

For me, it highlights the difficulty of trying to control a crowd of drunk males, regardless of whether they are friendly to you or hostile.

2. We heard from many of Rodriguez's neighbors. All of them testified for the prosecution, including ones Rodriguez tried to get to help him with his complaint.

3. Ken Ellis, one neighbor, testfied there were four shots fired total. Two close together and then two separate shots a little later. He also testified that this was the first time there was a party at this place in three years, so I am not sure where the preexisting hostility that Rodriguez had for Danaher mentioned in other neighbor's testimony came from.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 13, 2012, 09:31 AM
In another trial, a noticeable delay between shots was used by the prosecution to claim this indicated a premediated kill shot. Chris Cox reported on the case in the American Rifleman.

Wonder if this was mentioned?

DogoDon
June 13, 2012, 03:00 PM
Interesting point, Glenn, but I seriously doubt the prosecution could prove that the delayed shot (if indeed there was one) is the shot that killed the victim.

My prediction: he won't get off for justifiable homicide. If I were a juror, I'd probably vote for manslaughter, given the fact that both sides appear to be at fault.

Nighthawk681
June 13, 2012, 05:25 PM
this guy is guilty of excessive force not murder...he had chance to retreat but,stayed... when given a clear order to stop and stay put ,you might want to do as you are told to prevent being shot,but on the other hand dealing with stupid drunks and numb brain cells guess what...drunk always lose...if I'm on a jury and the real facts and all the facts are presented ,I would vote not guilty....now that being said the dispatcher should have a car respond code 3 when she heard the word gun......and the dispatcher knew the disturbance call had elevated from loud music to a physical confrontation ....

thallub
June 13, 2012, 05:41 PM
The jury should be returning a verdict soon.

Glockstar .40
June 13, 2012, 06:38 PM
its people like this that mis-use our laws that make it hard for us to defend ourselves. a gun is a tool to be used to protect yourself or others. not as an intimidation factor to get some partyers to turn down their music.

imo (from what i saw and heard) thats murder. if he was gonna be so in fear of his life he shouldnt of gone in the first place. and the fact that he took a gun with him shows me he was on an ego check and was wanting to justify killing someone.

Frank Ettin
June 13, 2012, 06:42 PM
this guy is guilty of excessive force not murder...He's guilty of either murder or manslaughter because someone died by reason of his acts. That is, of course, unless the jury exonerates him finding his use of force to have been justified or finds the shooting to have been an excusable accident. The jury finding his actions to have been justified seems unlikely, and an excusable accident finding seems extremely unlikely.

In any case, we'll probably know fairly soon.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 13, 2012, 06:52 PM
The jury has been deliberating since around 1pm with a break at 4pm. Still no word. KHOU has a reporter live-tweeting the trial.

..if I'm on a jury and the real facts and all the facts are presented ,I would vote not guilty....

So what are the REAL facts that would lead you to that not guilty vote?

myshoulderissore
June 13, 2012, 06:58 PM
Looks like it's decided...

http://www.khou.com/home/Prosecutor-in-stand-your-ground-trial-said-Rodriguez-was-neighborhood-bully--158947685.html

I only skimmed, but I didn't see what the decided charge was.

Frank Ettin
June 13, 2012, 07:04 PM
...I only skimmed, but I didn't see what the decided charge was. First paragraph of the story (http://www.khou.com/home/Prosecutor-in-stand-your-ground-trial-said-Rodriguez-was-neighborhood-bully--158947685.html) (emphasis added): HOUSTON—A jury has found a retired Baytown firefighter guilty of murder in the killing of his neighbor in a dispute over loud music....

myshoulderissore
June 13, 2012, 07:19 PM
Oh, snap... My skimming skills leave a bit to be desired, I see...

Jammer Six
June 13, 2012, 07:29 PM
I'm relieved to hear the verdict.

TXAZ
June 13, 2012, 07:38 PM
His tone doesn't sound anything like the few people I've heard first hand who were truly in fear of their life.

His video didn't do him any favors IMHO.

The jury did their job.

dbaum
June 13, 2012, 08:52 PM
good call.HE WAY outstepped his bounds.He is a flat out killer.Shooting someone over loud music?Im glad he's going to prison.

Deaf Smith
June 13, 2012, 09:48 PM
Gang,

Just spend today reading about this whole thing.

The Idiot bragged about ways to get around the SYG law and kill someone, he brought a gun to ANOTHER persons house to argue with them, displayed the gun, and he shot the guy after 'someone lunged at him'.

So yea, I'd convict him of murder (as they did.) And personally I say it was an easy case. I would not loose a minute sleep convicting this guy.

The SYG law was designed for those minding their own business and someone comes up and assaults them. It was NOT to go around provoking fights and then 'standing your ground'.

Well he paid the price for his arrogance and blood lust.

Happy Huntsville he goes.

Deaf

thallub
June 13, 2012, 10:05 PM
So yea, I'd convict him of murder (as they did.) And personally I say it was an easy case. I would not loose a minute sleep convicting this guy.

+1
Same here.

Double Naught Spy
June 13, 2012, 11:45 PM
The defense made a motion to dismiss the case claiming they had clearly shown all the elements of self-defense. The judge denied the motion and the defense decided not to call ANY witnesses.

Wow, that is really telling all by itself.

A quick highlight of some of the testimony so far:

1. The man who is laughing who rushed Rodriguez is Johnson, a Houston firefighter. He had a blood alcohol level of 0.27 when he was tested. He was injured severely enough that they put him into an induced coma, and the combination of alcohol and coma apparently came with a fair amount of memory loss of the incident.

I think that was the most crucial aspect of the conflict in that everything sort of hinged on Rodrigquez being rushed. He claimed to have shot out of self defense and he was fending off an attack (not saying it warranted lethal force), but was the "attack" of him actually an act of self defense on behalf of the party goers dealing with a threat? He had already brandished at that time and was opting to remain in the area as a threat. They certainly did not back down and in fact pursued the threat as Rodriguez had apparently backed up some distance (but still was not leaving and was still acting in a threatened manner - that he had a gun made his backing of inconsequential. It may not be prudent or good form to advance on a threat like that, but not illegal.

3. Ken Ellis, one neighbor, testfied there were four shots fired total. Two close together and then two separate shots a little later. He also testified that this was the first time there was a party at this place in three years, so I am not sure where the preexisting hostility that Rodriguez had for Danaher mentioned in other neighbor's testimony came from.

Pre-existing hostilities don't have to come from the same set of circumstances as the current hostilities. People get mad at their neighbors for all sorts of reasons.

...he brought a gun to ANOTHER persons house to argue with them

I have no problem with the guy taking a gun to another person's house to complain. That actually would be the prudent thing to do. Turning the situation around quite a bit, had Rodriguez been killed by a bunch of drunk guys when he went to a party and complained about the noise and it was noted that he had a CHL but did not bring his gun, no doubt we would have thought him stupid for not letting the cops handle it and stupid for leaving the gun at home as he should have known that complaining to the neighbors likely would not be taken very well by the neighbors.

The SYG law was designed for those minding their own business and someone comes up and assaults them. It was NOT to go around provoking fights and then 'standing your ground'.

While it certainly was not for provoking fights (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm), nothing in the law says or indicates people have to be minding their own business for SYG to apply.

mete
June 14, 2012, 01:27 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159047/Raul-Rodriguez-guilty-murdering-Kelly-Danaher.html

Yes , he got what he deserved. 'Stand your ground' doesn't mean you can do anything you want !

Marquezj16
June 14, 2012, 06:08 AM
I'm glad the jury convicted him. This guy was a murderer. He might have caused damage to the SYG law, did more work for the anti-gun than for gun owners. sad.

Grant D
June 14, 2012, 08:22 AM
He got what he deserved,and I think they need to have a talk with his CHL instructor.

Brian Pfleuger
June 14, 2012, 08:32 AM
I doubt there's any problem with his instructor.

We talk about these deadly incident "buzz words" (though I never thought of them as such until now) on this forum, all the time.

This guy thought those words were his Get Out of Jail Free card rather than ideas or thoughts to be communicated to LE after a deadly encounter.

I wonder how this will affect other cases, where people ARE genuinely in fear of their lives. Won't be hard for the prosecutor to be like "Yeah, that's what he said too, sorry, your magic words don't work any more."

Those phrases do, suddenly, seem very cliche.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2012, 09:40 AM
It does bring up a good training discussion, especially for those who train CHLs. It is important to convey that there aren't any set of "magic words" that are going to get you out of a bad situation.

Another thing I don't think gets enough emphasis is non-verbal communication. For example, your open palms facing towards a potential threat, hands forward about chest high (like "Hands up" done halfway) is pretty much universally recognized as a non-confrontational gesture - at the same time, it keeps your hands where you can block attacks or begin presenting a weapon if necessary.

One of the few good things about this case, is that it provides a really valuable teaching point - especially with the available video.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 14, 2012, 10:30 AM
Somewhere I read that his instructor was something like a radio personality in the area, known for blather on the airwaves. Plus, in his class he did emphasis the magic words, get out of jail nature of SYG, in fear of my life, etc.

But I can't find that post here or elsewhere anymore. Didn't come up in the Googles. :D

Anybody remember that.

Nanuk
June 14, 2012, 12:04 PM
This guy thought those words were his Get Out of Jail Free card rather than ideas or thoughts to be communicated to LE after a deadly encounter.

EXACTLY!

Your actions and deeds will demonstrate your thoughts more accurately than a practiced mantra.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 14, 2012, 02:04 PM
From another list that I asked about the instructor -TX law seems to protect the instructor - Gov
Code §411.208:

(a) A court may not hold the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or employee of the state, a peace officer, or a qualified handgun instructor liable for damages caused by:

(1) an action authorized under this subchapter or a failure to perform a duty imposed by this subchapter; or

(2) the actions of an applicant or license holder that occur after the applicant has received a license or been denied a license under this subchapter.

(b) A cause of action in damages may not be brought against the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or employee of the state, a peace officer, or a qualified handgun instructor for any damage caused by the actions of an applicant or license holder under this subchapter.

(c) The department is not responsible for any injury or damage inflicted on any person by an applicant or license holder arising or alleged to have arisen from an action taken by the department under this subchapter.

(d) The immunities granted under Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not apply to an act or a failure to act by the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer of the state, or a peace officer if the act or failure to act was capricious or arbitrary.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2012, 04:32 PM
I think even without that statute, you would have a hard time showing proximate cause.

Deaf Smith
June 14, 2012, 05:03 PM
While it certainly was not for provoking fights (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378I.htm), nothing in the law says or indicates people have to be minding their own business for SYG to apply.

Well DNS... if you are not provoking the fight and you are legally there, yea you are minding your own business.

He had an ongoing FEUD with them. He went there with a camera for 20 minutes. He told people how to evade the SYG law with language.. the same language he used in the 911 call. He argued with them. So he was not 'minding his own business.'

SYG law is for those who do not provoke and thus are minding their own business.

Deaf

tws92E05
June 14, 2012, 05:44 PM
Glenn

The radio personality you are thinking of is Jim Pruett, he was on the radio here in Houston back in the 90's and now owns a local gun shop in Cypress Tx. They had him on one of the news channels as a local firearms and CHL experts reviewing the video tape from this shooting.

In his interview he basically told the reporter that Rodriguez should get off because he told the guy that was shot everything that he was taught in his CHL and that was all he needed to do to justify using deadly force.

I can believe that he actually thinks that way. His shop is less than a mile from my home and a neighbor who was not very familiar with pistols was interested in getting his CHL. He went to Pruett's shop and asked him about the CHL and several pistols. He asked Pruett what he carried and Jim takes out his pistol, then another and another. After it was all over he had about 4 pistols and something like 8 knives layed out on the counter and told my neighbor that is what he carries everyday. I told my neighbor to take his CHL class somewhere else and he did.

I haven't been in his shop for over two years and do not plan on ever going back. He is way over priced and the only guy that worked there that had any snap up and quit. The last time I was in his shop one of his workers was carrying a Beretta 92f in single action on their hip. I asked him if he thought he was carrying a 1911 and he told me that was just how he liked to carry it. I turned around and walked out and have never been back.

Jammer Six
June 14, 2012, 05:52 PM
Maybe the shooter will sue the "instructor".

Then there'll be a big sale at a gun shop, one less fool with business cards and one less fool on the street.

Then we can all get some sleep.

On another note, this is one of the problems with stand your ground laws in general. (The Florida law is even worse.)

A better approach is to write law about what we can't do, not what we can do.

P.S. As I wandered away, thinking about this, I was thinking it wouldn't be very easy to write a reasonable law about when it would be legal to stand your ground and when it wouldn't. Which sort of reinforces my point-- if the law doesn't say I can't do it, I should be able to do it without worrying about the law. Which is the way I'd like it. If you can't define a law about when I have to retreat, I should be free not to do so.

And when you set out to write that law, it seems to me it would be very difficult to write.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2012, 06:10 PM
On another note, this is one of the problems with stand your ground laws in general. (The Florida law is even worse.)

I don't see a problem with the law here. It worked as designed. The only problem is Rodriguez did not have a solid understanding of the law regarding use of deadly force in Texas. Also, it seems like Rodriguez was more focused on a "When can I shoot someone?" mindset instead of a "When MUST I shoot someone?" mindset.

If you can't define a law about when I have to retreat, I should be free not to do so.

Which is pretty much how the Texas law is written... if you are:

1. In a place where you have a legal right to be;
2. Have not provoked the fight; and
3. Are not engaged in a crime

then you do not have to retreat in order to claim self-defense... however you still have to show all the elements required for self defense (Something a hypotehtical reasonable person would see as an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury).

Glockstar .40
June 14, 2012, 06:28 PM
^^^
EXACTLY

Jammer Six
June 14, 2012, 06:34 PM
There are two problems I see there: one is, as this case demonstrates, idiots live among us. When Idiot A pays Idiot B to teach him about firearms, the body count goes up. Add a poorly written law, a particularly stupid instructor and a wanna-be killer, and the antis get maximum fuel for their fire for the least investment.

Two is the view that, quite simply, we don't need a law to stand our ground. A law that says it's okay to do so doesn't help you. Ask Rodriguez if you don't believe me. It's much too easy to show that, at the very least, there will usually (if not always) be doubt about whether you "provoked the fight."

Far better to leave the burden of proof where it belongs. We only need laws when (and if) it's illegal to stand our ground.

That philosophical distinction may seem subtle, but it's important, at least to me. The main reason I find it important is because it makes law that restricts the actions of a law abiding citizen more difficult to write, and that, above all, is what I want.

MLeake
June 14, 2012, 06:42 PM
The whole point of SYG is to prevent prosecutions in cases where prima facie evidence suggests valid self-defense, and to remove a duty to retreat from consideration so long as other factors indicate valid self-defense.

Those two goals are worthwhile. Legal costs incurred are likely to be much higher, when prosecutors aren't restrained from charging despite an appearance of lawful self-defense.

Rodriguez failed the prima facie test. The shooting didn't look remotely good.

Jammer Six
June 14, 2012, 07:03 PM
I suggest there would have been doubt had he been bright enough not to film his own confession.

We'd have been right back at he-said-they-all-said then. And the case could have gone forward, or even worse, hinged a jury of one.

In this particular case, he'd have been standing there chanting "I'm in fear for my life" instead of "I'm in fear for my life and I'm standing my ground", and hopefully, he'd still be going to prison tonight.

Like filing a lawsuit, nothing prevents a prosecution except a prosecutor. What a stand your ground law might prevent is a conviction or a trial.

On the other side, I've been thinking about stand your ground laws and the other people in this case.

Do you think they needed a law to protect them from the state regarding their actions that night?

And I disagree, vehemently, that those goals are worthwhile.

We should not require protection from prosecution. Prosecution that we need to be protected from indicates that it's far, far to easy for the state to prosecute us, and to pass laws that limit our freedom.

The burden must remain on the state, and never on the citizen. Better to let a thousand guilty men go than to convict one innocent man.

Doc Maker
June 14, 2012, 07:11 PM
To me, this case represents the duty that we as instructors have to vet our students provide correct information. Rodriguez was taught a (mis)interpretation of SYG by a layman. Coupled with Rodriguez's apparent mental illness, this became an avoidable tragedy. It has been my experience that the questions a student asks are a window into their motivation for taking the class. I train people with Simunitions, so when someone lights up the role player, we watch him VERY carefully.

Jammer Six
June 14, 2012, 07:15 PM
Doc, I don't believe anything can be done to prevent whackjobs from being whackjobs.

If it hadn't been stand your ground, he'd have found another way.

Nighthawk681
June 14, 2012, 07:58 PM
I just herd today that this guy was convicted of murder...I wonder if they took in account of his fellow fire fighters testimony was a factor in his conviction???do to they thought he would eventually shoot someone do to his paranoia....I did not see that until later on and boy was I wrong......

MLeake
June 14, 2012, 09:37 PM
For one thing, while the video helped the prosecution, there were direct witnesses to the shooting and its lead-up, and there were indirect witnesses (with regard to the incident) who testified to statements the defendant had made prior to the incident which showed state of mind (and possibly premeditation).

So, I doubt the results would have been different without the video.

As to whether an ideal law would make it harder for the state to decide to prosecute - that would be fantastic, but until somebody comes up with a workable way to do that, I'll keep SYG in the states that have it, thank you much. I would not mind at all, though, if they changed the name of that set of laws from "Stand Your Ground" to "No Duty to Retreat." Different connotation, and sometimes connotation is important.

And, Jammer Six, Florida law does actually prevent prosecution if the facts in evidence support a self-defense claim. The case-that-shall-not-be-discussed notwithstanding, the law is supposed to prevent charges from being filed, and lawsuits from being brought.

Jammer Six
June 14, 2012, 10:16 PM
My point. It doesn't work, because it can't work.

Preventing charges from being filed isn't an attainable goal. Or, for that matter, a goal I would want.

MLeake
June 14, 2012, 10:23 PM
It may not be a goal you want. However, since prosecutors have (and realistically must have) qualified immunity for their prosecutions, there really is no other practical way to prevent bogus prosecutions.

And if you don't think bogus prosecutions occur, look up Janet Reno's history as a prosecutor in S Florida. She is not the only example of a prosecutor who would charge anybody who used a gun, but she is a glaring one.

Anything that makes prosecutors decide that charging for political gain, advancement of a political agenda, or publicity is likely to ultimately embarrass them is just fine in my book.

As I see it, SYG and related laws simply force a prosecutor to be conservative about which cases to charge, and discourage the charging of questionable cases.

Jammer Six
June 15, 2012, 12:04 AM
Okay, we disagree on principle and philosophy, then.

TexasJustice7
June 15, 2012, 01:31 AM
Bartholmew Roberts: 1. In a place where you have a legal right to be;
2. Have not provoked the fight; and
3. Are not engaged in a crime

then you do not have to retreat in order to claim self-defense... however you still have to show all the elements required for self defense (Something a hypotehtical reasonable person would see as an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury).

I agree with the jury's verdict. And I do not see any problem with the SYG law in Texas. I am disabled myself, and I would never have approached the homeowners regarding the noise. That was a job for the police.

But I oppose any change in the Texas SYG law. A person like me that is disabled, if assaulted even by someone unarmed with their fists is life threatening. I don't think this law will be changed in Texas and I oppose any change in that Texas Law.

I recently heard the NRA president defedning the SYG law on TV, and while I am not a member of the NRA I agree with what I heard him say about it.:)

MTT TL
June 16, 2012, 08:39 AM
I have no problem with the guy taking a gun to another person's house to complain. That actually would be the prudent thing to do. Turning the situation around quite a bit, had Rodriguez been killed by a bunch of drunk guys when he went to a party and complained about the noise and it was noted that he had a CHL but did not bring his gun, no doubt we would have thought him stupid for not letting the cops handle it and stupid for leaving the gun at home as he should have known that complaining to the neighbors likely would not be taken very well by the neighbors.

He was stupid to go at all. Thinking that you can reason with a bunch of drunks that are already causing problems is very poor judgment. Thinking that you can brandish a weapon to impose your will upon a bunch of drunks is beyond the pale. He was stupid for not letting the cops handle it, even if he did not like the way they were handling it or making the problem go away fast enough to suit him.

youngunz4life
June 17, 2012, 05:36 AM
mleake,

how about 'make my day'. I believe that is a name used sometimes

dayman
June 17, 2012, 06:04 AM
I agree with those that said that they didn't have a problem with people bringing a gun when they go to talk to their neighbors. I have a gun pretty much every time I leave the house. Bringing the gun wasn't the problem.
The problem was that he went looking for a fight. If he'd found the people that owned the house, politely asked them if they could try to keep the volume down and then left nobody would have even known that he had a gun.

MLeake
June 17, 2012, 08:48 PM
I really dislike "make my day."

Great movie line, but very poor politics.

youngunz4life
June 17, 2012, 10:52 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_My_Day_Law

3rd paragraph down....passed into law 1.5yrs after the line was used on the big screen

MLeake
June 18, 2012, 12:20 AM
younggunz4life, the "politics" part goes along these lines:

Imagine yourself defending SYG type laws to your theoretical sister, who is an associate VP at a theoretical liberal university. Would you rather defend "No duty to retreat" or "Make my day!" if you had to debate the merits of those laws?

IMO, "Make my day!" sounds like gun owners looking for an excuse to play vigilante - and I'm a life NRA member, CCW holding, martial arts practicing, retired Navy, current defense contractor type. If I think "Make my day!" sounds belligerent, how do you think it sounds to my sister, or to others who might be not only in the other camp, but even on the fence?

It's bad politics, in that "Make my day!" only appeals to people who are already on the pro-side - and it doesn't even appeal to all of them.

youngunz4life
June 18, 2012, 06:07 AM
I can understand where you are coming from. I do not think there is an exclamation point in the name, but point taken. My thing is this political correctness and trying to please everyone syndrome...I just don't believe in it. In all honesty I am not buying into the stand your ground arguments going on now either. I hope as well as don't see them being repealed, but it is obvious certain cases(or one case) at the moment have the law in the spotlight. The law makes sense to me. period. judge judy said something one time and it made sense int he 90's just like it does now...if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, that means it is a duck. I personally don't see anything wrong with the 'make my day' law and books shouldn't be judged by their covers anyways. the law made sense in 1985 and seemingly was more acceptable(at least in certain states like CO), and the law still makes total sense just as stand your ground does...it is just under the microscope so to speak. months before the "case" in recent news it was gaining traction. again, I just don't see it stopping as stand your ground isn't really the issue in that case.

I guess it doesn't hurt to have the law on your side in that "Case" being probed in FL, but I just don't see how it helps in this particular matter. I think some people seem to think it is bad because it is a free pass? huh? I think much of the anti gun sentiment comes from colliding and differing state laws on CCW which pretty much just leads to confusion even by law enforcement. I believe these confusions such as the stand your ground law which is being heavily misinterpreted would be better understand with national CCW. CCW anywhere in america...sortof like LEOSA allows for law enforcement...would still have all these state laws that differ but People would understand whether for CCW, against CCW, scared of CCW, etc, etc that it is allowed and it makes sense. I mean its getting ridiculous when people think a neighborhood association booklet might start determining if stand your ground is allowed. there is too much confusion. I appreciate where you are coming from, but why should 'make my day' or "fill in the blanks" have to apologize or change names for something that makes sense. it just makes things sugarcoated and can make things worse in some instances

MLeake
June 18, 2012, 06:24 AM
To you, the name doesn't matter because you like the law.

To Joe Public, who may very well be opposed to the law, or on the fence about the law, a name can make a great deal of difference.

We live in a world of sound bites. We live in a world where people skim headlines, instead of reading articles. Most readers will gloss over what the law actually says, but take note of what it is called.

I am not worried about "political correctness," as you put it. I am worried about alienating voters whose votes we need, because somebody decided to use a snappy name for a serious law.

That isn't political correctness, it's pragmatism.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 18, 2012, 10:11 AM
I would like to comment about strapping on your gun.

It's a touch complex. Many of us carry a gun whenever we go out and the location we are going to is legal. It is just a part of everyday equipment, like your wallet.

The nuance is when you strap on your gun to go to a potential confrontation with a specific human. Why a human, because I go hike where there may be critters and thus I have gun. It's a generic risk, like a generic mugger.

But if I think I'm going to a place where I have a higher than normal everyday risk of confronting a particular person and need a gun - maybe I shouldn't go to that particular place to engage that particular person.

Does this make a difference? In a case report in the American Rifleman, an individual went over to a place to argue about owed money. He OC'ed over there as was his right. He also competed with firearms. He ended up shooting the person and claimed SD.

The prosecution claimed that OC'ing over to the person was premeditation.
That he competed was premeditation.
He fired a string of shots, paused and fired another. The prosecution claimed that last shot was a 'kill' shot and premeditated.

Currently being appealed. First lawyer seemed not so competent.

So being seen as strapping on your gun, which is your right - could look bad.

All this clearly indicates, the 'if it is a good shoot cliche' isn't worth spit.

OuTcAsT
June 18, 2012, 03:20 PM
I have no problem with the guy taking a gun to another person's house to complain. That actually would be the prudent thing to do.

No. Actually that would be a stupid thing to do on many levels.

1. You are going into a situation that is on someone else s property, this puts you instantly at odds with the law concerning self defense, you have no right to be there, carrying or not.

2. While you could simply phone the neighbor and ask him to tone it down, or call LE and complain, you have taken it upon yourself to become an "uninvited guest" This puts you at a disadvantage, and you have put yourself at unnecessary risk.

had Rodriguez been killed by a bunch of drunk guys when he went to a party and complained about the noise and it was noted that he had a CHL but did not bring his gun, no doubt we would have thought him stupid for not letting the cops handle it

I submit that had he: A. "let the cops handle it" or B. "not brought his gun" we would likely not be discussing this at all.

I see no problem with phoning a neighbor, or even knocking on his door and politely asking he crank it down a notch, and that failing, calling LE to complain, but if you feel the need to arm yourself to do so, common sense should tell you that you probably should not go.


he should have known that complaining to the neighbors likely would not be taken very well by the neighbors.

Again, simple common sense dictates that if ya think it's not gonna go well, maybe you should not be there, carrying or not.

But if I think I'm going to a place where I have a higher than normal everyday risk of confronting a particular person and need a gun - maybe I shouldn't go to that particular place to engage that particular person.


I absolutely agree Glenn.

Just my .2

MTT TL
June 18, 2012, 07:15 PM
1. You are going into a situation that is on someone else s property, this puts you instantly at odds with the law concerning self defense, you have no right to be there, carrying or not.

That is not even true. Although I agree with most of the rest of your post.

Double Naught Spy
June 18, 2012, 08:29 PM
No. Actually that would be a stupid thing to do on many levels.

1. You are going into a situation that is on someone else s property, this puts you instantly at odds with the law concerning self defense, you have no right to be there, carrying or not.

Not true. Just because I am not on my own property does not mean that I don't have rights to self defense. However, if you know of a particular Texas law that states this, please share it as it would seem to be a rather key law lacking from CHL instruction courses.

2. While you could simply phone the neighbor and ask him to tone it down, or call LE and complain, you have taken it upon yourself to become an "uninvited guest" This puts you at a disadvantage, and you have put yourself at unnecessary risk.

Generally speaking, I don't consider any of my neighbors to be a risk to me and I have no more concern about confronting them than they would confronting me. I am not going to disarm just because I want to ask my neighbor to turn down his stereo.

Uninvited guest? I don't recall seeing that stipulated in the trespass laws, but going up and knocking on the front door to address the homeowner is not considered being an uninvited guest anymore than a cop or door-to-door salesman would be an uninvited guests. It is the point of contact, a standard point of contact commonly used. If I have not previously been told not to enter the property and the property is not posted against trespass, then there is no problem with being there so long as not being told to leave.

But if I think I'm going to a place where I have a higher than normal everyday risk of confronting a particular person and need a gun - maybe I shouldn't go to that particular place to engage that particular person.

I also have no problem with this statement, but I won't disarm just because I am going to knock on the neighbor's door and ask him to crank it down. Just because I don't think there will be a problem doesn't mean a problem won't occur...and it may not even be with the neighbor having the party.

I submit that had he: A. "let the cops handle it" or B. "not brought his gun" we would likely not be discussing this at all.
Based on my own experience, big parties don't quiet down even after a visit from the neighbor. The party in question was a big party, so the cops should have handled it but Rodriguez was impatient and had issues apparently. And had he not brought his gun (as if the gun is the problem???), you are right, we likely would not be discussing the indicent here, but not because something didn't happen. Instead, it would be discussed on one of the unarmed combat or non-firearm combat forums discussing how it was that Rodriguez got beat to a pulp.

MLeake
June 18, 2012, 10:16 PM
Except that for many minutes of recording, without the gun having been shown, Rodriguez was not beaten to a pulp. So, there's "theoretical" could, and then there's what actually happened - which is at odds with the theoretical.

Rodriguez was not threatened until he produced the weapon. Jeered, yes; told to leave, yes. No physical move, nor reasonable threat was conveyed until he showed that he was carrying.

brickeyee
June 19, 2012, 01:18 PM
Just because I am not on my own property does not mean that I don't have rights to self defense.

You do not have the right to bring a firearm onto someone else's property without their consent.

If you refuse to leave you are trespassing.

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2012, 01:43 PM
Posted by MTT TL
That is not even true.


Posted by Double Naught Spy Not true.

Please show me what gives you the right to be on my private property ?

thallub
June 19, 2012, 01:56 PM
The guy was a confrontational and delusional moron. He will reside at Huntsville, TX for an extended period of time: As it should be.

TailGator
June 19, 2012, 03:52 PM
You do not have the right to bring a firearm onto someone else's property without their consent.

If by that you mean that the consent of a property owner is required for concealed carry, that is not correct in many states, but is true that some states require the consent of a homeowner to carry inside the home. Property owners can order you off their premises for virtually any reason, but requiring informed consent of a property owner is an uncommon provision in firearm law, to the best of my knowledge.

Jammer Six
June 19, 2012, 03:52 PM
Turn it around.

You come onto my lawn. You tell me to turn my porch light off, because my porch light bothers you. I tell you no. You pull out a gun, turn on your camera, announce that you're standing your ground and dial 911.

I blow you away.

Who was defending himself?

Who has castle doctrine behind him?

Who started it?

He belongs in prison.

brickeyee
June 19, 2012, 04:15 PM
If by that you mean that the consent of a property owner is required for concealed carry, that is not correct in many states

Name a state that allows you to carry without the owner's consent.

That is a basic property right in all 50 states.

You do not have ANY right to enter private property and do ANYTHING.

PERIOD.


Your presence on private property is at the whim of the owner.

If they do not like you hair color they can tell you to leave, and then have you charged with trespassing of you refuse.

It is NOT the same as a business that is open to the public.
They have a few more restrictions, but you can still be told to leave and charged with trespassing if you refuse.

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2012, 05:31 PM
It is NOT the same as a business that is open to the public.

Exactly, brickeyee.

When you enter private property (IE: my yard) You are not in a place you have a right to be.

I may, or may not grant you the privilege to be there, but that is vastly different than a "Right"

Brian Pfleuger
June 19, 2012, 06:25 PM
Actually, virtually all states allow you to carry on private property without the owners consent. If they find out, ask you to leave and you refuse, it's trespassing but very few places require permission of any kind, prior.

a7mmnut
June 19, 2012, 06:46 PM
TWO years ago???Why do they keep insisting he is a "retired fire fighter"? Another dunce trying to get our rights removed. Thanks--not.:mad:

-7-

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2012, 09:51 PM
Actually, virtually all states allow you to carry on private property without the owners consent.

OK, but you still have no right to be on my property.

Brian Pfleuger
June 19, 2012, 10:05 PM
That's not the point. You do have the right to bring a firearm on someone's property without their consent to bring the weapon. Of course you don't have the right to be on their property without their consent. If they tell you to leave and you refuse, you're trespassing, but the weapon is irrelevant.

The statement was "name a state that allows you to carry without the owners consent". The answer to that is "virtually all of them do". You're not allowed to BE THERE without the owners consent but virtually no jurisdiction requires consent to carry a weapon on private property.

I carry a weapon on private property without the owners consent all the time. I'm allowed to be there but no one ever consented to the concealed weapon.

MLeake
June 19, 2012, 10:32 PM
My issue isn't with the fact that a guy who had a complaint was carrying a weapon. I normally carry, and if I were going to a neighbor's to ask them to keep the noise down a bit, I wouldn't disarm before going - unless I anticipated being asked to come in, join, and drink.

My issue isn't whether it's wrong to approach a neighbor about noise levels. It shouldn't be a big problem.

My issue isn't with going onto somebody else's property with the intention of talking with them. We all do that. Some of us routinely do that while carrying concealed. If the property is not posted, there is nothing wrong with going up and knocking on the door.

My issues with this case are not related to the gun, nor the request, nor the property. My issues with this case are with apparent intent, and actions in evidence, that show Rodriguez was not looking for a solution, but a confrontation. Going looking for a confrontation, particularly while armed, is a bad, bad idea.

Frank Ettin
June 19, 2012, 11:28 PM
Starting to get circular.

Frank Ettin
June 27, 2012, 10:12 PM
Just by way of follow up, it appears that Rodriguez was sentenced to 40 years in prison. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shooter-headed-prison-210731482.html)

I've added this just to "complete the loop", but I see no reason to reopen the thread. If anyone thinks he can convince me to reopen the thread, he can try by PM.