Retired Firefighter Shoots Neighbor, Claims Self Defense - Page 3

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This is the kind of thing that will get those SYG laws repealed and a return to prosecutorial abuse of legitimate self defense.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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MLeake

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!

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?se...cal&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 -

).

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

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by brickeyee

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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-o...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

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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-te...#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

Quote:

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

June 9, 2012, 04:49 PM	#52
gvw3 Member Join Date: January 29, 2012 Location: Chicago Area IL Posts: 75	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. __________________ Criminals promote gun control. It make the rest of us easy prey.

June 10, 2012, 11:34 AM	#58
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&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 - ). __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

June 11, 2012, 06:17 PM	#65
dayman Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2011 Location: The Woods Posts: 1,197	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. __________________ si vis pacem para bellum

June 11, 2012, 08:03 PM	#67
Jammer Six Senior Member Join Date: April 3, 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 827	"There but for your actions..." He's toast, for good reason. __________________ "Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998

June 11, 2012, 10:13 PM	#70
dbaum Member Join Date: May 7, 2012 Posts: 41	noway 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.

June 9, 2012, 04:47 PM	#51
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	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

June 9, 2012, 08:38 PM	#55
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,459	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.

June 9, 2012, 11:10 PM	#56
ScottieG59 Member Join Date: December 22, 2010 Location: Kansas Posts: 61	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.

June 10, 2012, 12:28 PM	#59
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	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.

June 10, 2012, 01:01 PM	#60
geetarman Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 3,157	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

June 10, 2012, 06:08 PM	#61
Marquezj16 Senior Member Join Date: April 3, 2011 Posts: 2,088	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.

June 11, 2012, 07:48 PM	#66
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	News article on today's testimony: http://www.khou.com/news/Neighbors-o...158504225.html The prosecutor is wrapping up his case and the defense could begin presenting witnesses as soon as tomorrow.

June 11, 2012, 08:47 PM	#69
Denezin Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2010 Location: North Carolina Posts: 209	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.

June 11, 2012, 10:21 PM	#71
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	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.

June 12, 2012, 03:48 AM	#72
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Houston Chronicle has some additional excerpts from the video: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...#photo-3055267

June 12, 2012, 06:09 AM	#73
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,459	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.

June 12, 2012, 08:26 AM	#75
RamItOne Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2011 Posts: 990	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