|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 12, 2012, 09:04 AM | #76 |
Member
Join Date: September 17, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 40
|
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. |
June 12, 2012, 09:15 AM | #77 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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-te...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. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; June 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM. |
June 12, 2012, 09:37 AM | #78 |
Member
Join Date: November 26, 2011
Posts: 32
|
Like all senarios, there will be kooks testing themselves and abusing perfectly good laws written for honorable reasons.
HTC Vision on Tapatalk 2 |
June 12, 2012, 03:32 PM | #79 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Both Sides Rest Their Case
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/s...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. |
June 12, 2012, 03:48 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
June 12, 2012, 04:27 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
I do not believe the CHL instructor would be in any danger of being found of wrongdoing
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
June 12, 2012, 04:39 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
|
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.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998 |
June 12, 2012, 07:52 PM | #83 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
June 12, 2012, 08:26 PM | #84 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
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. |
June 12, 2012, 08:53 PM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
June 13, 2012, 07:43 AM | #86 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
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. |
|
June 13, 2012, 09:31 AM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 13, 2012, 03:00 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
|
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. |
June 13, 2012, 05:25 PM | #89 |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 2, 2012
Location: Parma Hts Ohio
Posts: 12
|
my opinion
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 ....
|
June 13, 2012, 05:41 PM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
The jury should be returning a verdict soon.
|
June 13, 2012, 06:38 PM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Location: West of the Rockies
Posts: 435
|
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. |
June 13, 2012, 06:42 PM | #92 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In any case, we'll probably know fairly soon.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; June 13, 2012 at 07:07 PM. Reason: clean up grammar |
|
June 13, 2012, 06:52 PM | #93 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
The jury has been deliberating since around 1pm with a break at 4pm. Still no word. KHOU has a reporter live-tweeting the trial.
Quote:
|
|
June 13, 2012, 06:58 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
Looks like it's decided...
http://www.khou.com/home/Prosecutor-...158947685.html I only skimmed, but I didn't see what the decided charge was. |
June 13, 2012, 07:04 PM | #95 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
June 13, 2012, 07:19 PM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
Oh, snap... My skimming skills leave a bit to be desired, I see...
|
June 13, 2012, 07:29 PM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
|
I'm relieved to hear the verdict.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998 |
June 13, 2012, 07:38 PM | #98 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
The jury forgot to include the charge of gross stupidity
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.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
June 13, 2012, 08:52 PM | #99 |
Member
Join Date: May 7, 2012
Posts: 41
|
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.
|
June 13, 2012, 09:48 PM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
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
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
|
|