It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stand Your Ground? Texas man kills teacher over noise complaint.

page: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by solarjetman
 


The police had already been out and determined the noise didn't violate the law. They might have refused to come out a second time. (or 3rd or 9th whatever the case actually was)



Oh so it seems he's just an A-Hole of the neighborhood, I mean nobody else was calling cops?

You know like the next doors neighbors...

Ack it's hard to remain neutral.


“This is a difficult defense to mount,” legal analyst Dana Cole told ABC News. “He had no injury, he brought a gun to a noise complaint, and it appeared he was escalating it by baiting the party-goers.”



edit on 8-6-2012 by Apheon because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hellbjorn012
 


Don't be so dense. You're talking about one guy in the frame, and ignoring that there were four more surrounding the cameraman. Give me a break.


SM2

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by Apheon
 


if it went down exactly as it did on the recorded video, then yes. I have. He met the legal requirements of SYG. He had a legal right to be there ( in the street) he stated that he felt like his life was in danger.


(Emphasis mine)

There's this thing that people do sometimes. Maybe you've heard of it. It's called lying.

The guy blew somebody away because they had their stereo turned up too loudly. He was not attacked. He went into somebody else's property. He didn't have someone else come into his. He wasn't defending himself. He was the aggressor.

Castle or SYG doctrine maintains the right of self-defense, if someone trespasses on your property while armed, and threatens your life. It does not promote the right of someone to offensively trespass on someone else's property, and shoot them without provocation.

The latter is called murder. The man in this case is guilty of murder, and deserves to go to jail for the standard length of time that murderers are customarily sentenced for.

Rather than focusing primarily on how you can best make apologies for a fellow militant, canine/human hybrid in this thread, you might want to think about that for a few moments.



Really? Are you serious? Another person that decides to ignore the video that is actually police evidence in the trial? Look at the freaking video, HE WAS NOT ON SOME ONE ELSE'S PROPERTY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he was on the street, holy crap people just ignore the facts around here don't they? He was most assuredly attacked, at the end of the video right before the gun shots, you can hear the footsteps of people running towards him, the police and news reporters even verify that he was tackled right before the gun was fired.

So, how about before we say anything about this case, you look at the evidence before a making a knee jerk reaction based on pure opinion of guns in general.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by solarjetman
 


The police had already been out and determined the noise didn't violate the law. They might have refused to come out a second time. (or 3rd or 9th whatever the case actually was)



Oops, I had read that like police were on their way. Well if that's the case, then that's even worse IMO. The neighbors were partying within the law, and as such he had no right to go over there and demand to turn the music down. Well he could, but I don't see how he could expect anything BUT a confrontation if he knew damn well they weren't technically doing anything wrong-- considering there are a million and one ways to deal with a "problem" the police can't do anything about, he chose the absolute most aggressive way possible-- hence the camera and flashlight and premeditation to record it all...
edit on 8-6-2012 by solarjetman because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apheon

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by Apheon
 

one could just as easily argue that the teacher put himself in his position. Calling the police does not always work. Asking someone to keep it down is not vigilantism, which is all he went to do. Everything else after that was him reacting to the action of the party goers, as the video shows.


The teacher is dead, there are no more consequences he could face.

btw premeditation is a beast in terms of legality.
en.wikipedia.org...

He over stepped his bounds, he is a not a penal code enforcer, thus it borders into Vigilantism.
www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;


I see you are ready to argue your point til you vomit, and thats cool but I leave you to that, my only points were both parties were idiots, many chances to avoid this, and it's something that should've never occurred, if you can't agree with that, it's okay it's your right.


But now me and you will have to deal with consequences, maybe sometime in the future we will have to legitimately defend ourself and it will come into question because of yahoos like this who are looking for an opportunity to use their CCW, in a future court case. I'm all for CCW, but it doesn't mean just because you took the class you are the law or some master mind when deciding when the rule of law is applied.

Either way this guy has a long hard road ahead of him, and I'm sure he regrets things went down the way they did.

edit on 8-6-2012 by Apheon because: (no reason given)


Well, i will agree with you that both parties made some pretty moronic decisions that night. I will also agree that a CCW holder should never be out looking for trouble or a reason to use a gun. Having a concealed carry license is a big responsibility and you had better be sure that you are in the right before you use it.

My argument was just that, given the set of facts and evidence we currently have, the shooter was legal in the action. That does not mean I would have handled it in the same manner, just that in my opinion, the law is on his side in this particular set of circumstances.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
As a person who has owned firearms his whole adult life and is even a member of the nra and believes in the stand your ground defense - the guy made a huge error in judgement.

I had some neighbors move in the other day and they started playing the drums at 1am with there door open the very first day they were there.

I called the night manager for our area after about 5 minutes - couldnt be found, cops didnt care and it was not a great night for me. At no point did I even think about a gun.

Yes it sucks, yes people are aholes and its certainly likely the cops never even came out the first time let alone had a talking to the white boys about there latino neighbors call. But so what.

It seems like the guy did have the right to shoot after being attacked but he shouldnt have been there in the first place - it wasnt a life or death issue and partying isnt really a crime is it ?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


Hey man I'm glad we are coming closer in agreement, it was a very tragic thing that happened, and I completely agree those guys were effin' nuts to rush a man who says I have a gun and I will shoot you, whether someone has a gun or not. Yet they called the bluff there(i'll shoot) and a man died. IMHO his fragile ego should've been more protective over his preservation, almost feel like you must be careful when you consume alcohol because you've no idea what sort of situation may lay around the next turn.

It's a mad world out there.
edit on 8-6-2012 by Apheon because: not almost, but you must be careful whilst drinking because your judgement isn't what it is sober...



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2



My argument was just that, given the set of facts and evidence we currently have, the shooter was legal in the action. That does not mean I would have handled it in the same manner, just that in my opinion, the law is on his side in this particular set of circumstances.


No, actually the law is on the side of the victim in this case. Because of the premeditation.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

He got his gear together, loaded a pistol, went out looking for a confrontation, baited the unarmed victim and killed him.
His video will be his undoing and send him to the joint for a long long time where he will find out what it really means to be "the victim" ...... can't fix stupid. He asked for it and he's going to get it.

And now his family will suffer because of the cost of him having to lawyer up and the civil law suits that are going to be filed against him over and above what will be filed by the DA.

edit on 8-6-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by SM2



My argument was just that, given the set of facts and evidence we currently have, the shooter was legal in the action. That does not mean I would have handled it in the same manner, just that in my opinion, the law is on his side in this particular set of circumstances.


No, actually the law is on the side of the victim in this case. Because of the premeditation.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

He got his gear together, loaded a pistol, went out looking for a confrontation, baited the victim and killed him.
His video will be his undoing and send him to the joint for a long long time where he will find out what it really means to be "the victim" ...... can't fix stupid. He asked for it and he's going to get it.

And now his family will suffer because of the cost of him having to lawyer up and the civil law suits that are going to be filed against him over and above what will be filed by the DA. Can't fix stupid...
edit on 8-6-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


he is a concealed carry permit holder, he carries his pistols like you carry your wallet that does not mean it was premeditation. He took the camera to prove that the noise level was too high. How did he bait the deceased?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
i hate how they label. man kills teacher

he killed a person, shouldnt matter what they do. its the same either way



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
"Man there they go playin that loud music again! Ima shoot them im sick of this. Forget waiting for cops, wheres my gun? Ill take this video of it all cuz i know they drunk and theyll feel offended once i show em my gun n thats how ill get them. I love Texas! Let me get my shoes on tho its a couple houses down... What did they teach me to say before killin a man? ok i remember, cmon camera lets go!!!"



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by SM2



My argument was just that, given the set of facts and evidence we currently have, the shooter was legal in the action. That does not mean I would have handled it in the same manner, just that in my opinion, the law is on his side in this particular set of circumstances.


No, actually the law is on the side of the victim in this case. Because of the premeditation.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

He got his gear together, loaded a pistol, went out looking for a confrontation, baited the victim and killed him.
His video will be his undoing and send him to the joint for a long long time where he will find out what it really means to be "the victim" ...... can't fix stupid. He asked for it and he's going to get it.

And now his family will suffer because of the cost of him having to lawyer up and the civil law suits that are going to be filed against him over and above what will be filed by the DA. Can't fix stupid...
edit on 8-6-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


he is a concealed carry permit holder, he carries his pistols like you carry your wallet that does not mean it was premeditation. He took the camera to prove that the noise level was too high. How did he bait the deceased?


Whether he had a CCP or not...it was his intent; as evidenced by his call to 911, the camera etc. It was a planned event and that my friend is premeditation. He was looking for an excuse to use his piece, he did and killed an unarmed man. Tragic situation caused by the over reaction of a fool.

Here's another couple of links for your elucidation....

en.wikipedia.org...
criminal.findlaw.com...
dictionary.reference.com...

Mr. Rodriguez will probably plea bargain down to 2nd degree, spend a few years in the joint, come out a broken old man.

Was it worth it for "loud music" ? Ask his family....





edit on 8-6-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Nobody threatened that mans life when he was home. You don't kill people over loud music. You don't take a gun with you unless you're looking for a fight, PERIOD. You think that man grabs his gun before going to the gas station? This was premeditated no matter how you look at it. You don't walk towards somebody or his house if you're in fear. He went TOWARDS THAT MANS HOUSE. The same way Zimmerman went TOWARD TRAYVON.

have any of you ever been in an altercation in your life? When your scared you walk away, when you WANT TO FIGHT you STAY. PERIOD!



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hessling
 


So another rentacop or a wannabe killed a human being while Stand Your Ground is being voted on around the country. Seems they would like this to blow up again, like the Trayvon Martin case, for simple exposure.

I wanted to comment on this and go into it, but then I just sat back and lost all energy -- it's in Texas, what do you expect?


Khar


SM2

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
would it be possible that he decided he was going to go and ask them to turn down the music and it would be prudent to carry his flash light (since it was dark) and his camera to document the noise level. He apparently called 911 again to make a complaint, while he was recording it, so that there would be evidence of the actual noise level.

Nowhere is there evidence that he planned to go over to his neighbors house and commence to shooting anyone, I carry a gun everywhere I go, that does not mean I intend on shooting anyone, just the opposite actually, I hope I am never in that situation. Why must people always jump to conclusions in these cases? The mere presence of a gun does not mean it was premeditated. The state will have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was indeed premeditated. I just do not see that happening. The fact that he was a CCW holder would indicate that he most likely carried his firearm with him the majority of the time, and this situation was no different.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by olaru12
He got his gear together, loaded a pistol, went out looking for a confrontation, baited the unarmed victim and killed him.


Agreed. I just watched the video.

Rodriguez was paranoid. Yes, the man who answered him was an arrogant, posturing jerk, but none of Rodriguez' behaviour contributed in any way to disarming the situation.

Rodriguez also displays what to me is an entitlement complex; i.e., that he can walk up to someone, make demands of them, and then expect to be able to shoot them when his antagonism of them provokes a response.

This is a typical attitude among Americans, where engaging in violent or armed confrontation is falsely associated with masculinity, and is considered preferable to avoidance. If I had been in Rodriguez' situation, and a party like that was going on, then even if it was near the house where I was living, I would have sought to leave the house for the night and go somewhere else. If said parties were a routine occurrence in that neighbourhood, I would move.

The simple reason why, is because my main priority would be to avoid both entanglement with the legal system, and a situation in which myself and other people could end up being killed, as has now happened.

Your main priority should always be to save lives.

Not to preserve your ego. Not to, "be a man," (which is actually the opposite of such anyway) but to save lives. Your own, and other people's. That also means refraining from doing anything which is going to get the police involved. The police should ideally never be contacted at all.

If you are in a situation where you need police assistance, then you are already in a situation where you have lost control.

The police are not your friends. They do not care about you. They are there to do a job, and they will perform that job in a manner which both minimises their own risk, and the amount of work they have to do, as much as possible. It is more convenient for a police officer for you to die, than it is for him to risk his own life to save yours.


Rodriguez should have understood that he was walking into a no-win situation. Even assuming hypothetically, that he had managed to get the police to force the neighbours to turn the volume of the music down, that still would have had the negative consequence of making an enemy of the neighbour, who then likely would have looked for ways to retaliate.

Instead, he felt entitled. The neighbour was doing the wrong thing, so he was going to force the neighbour to modify his behaviour. When the situation began to escalate, as a result of his own behaviour, Rodriguez then made the additional assumption that the law would allow him to shoot his neighbour.

Let me explain this very clearly.

Self-defense does not constitute you taking the initial hostile action.

Self-defense constitutes you taking a responsive, secondary defensive action, after someone else has committed an initial, hostile act. If someone walks up to you, and either threatens or strikes you, a response to that with force on your part, is an act of self defense.

If you, on the other hand, walk up to someone else, make demands or otherwise provoke them, and then expect to be able to legally shoot them after they make verbal threats in response, that is not self-defense on your part. Rodriguez was not in a defensive position, in this case. He was the aggressor, and as such, he deserves to be legally punished for his actions. He behaved in a threatening manner initially; he was responded to with threats, and he then apparently received violence from those he had threatened, who in their own perception, were probably defending themselves.

Intelligent, humble threat assessment is vital to an individual's survival, and a key part of that is being able to identify situations in which no matter what, you are not going to obtain a favourable outcome, in which case, the only smart thing to do is walk away.

You are not a Survivalist, primarily if or because you have guns, and know how to fire them. You are a Survivalist if you can identify, realistically and with detachment and sobriety, which situations call for violence, and which situations you can deal with, and which situations you can't.

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
edit on 8-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueminatti
 


The guy came to his house with a gun. Did the teacher have children? Why did the police not tell the guy with the gun to go home. Sorry but the shooter was in the wrong. To what degree will be determined by a judge and jury.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


Did anyone watch the video? The guy didn't go and confront anyone.

He was standing in public on the phone with the police and the other idiots rolled up and started threatening him.

Then they attack him.

SYG means the ground you are on. You don't have a duty to retreat. How many times does a person have to say I WILL SHOOT, BACK OFF, I AM AFRAID, I AM GOING TO DEFEND MYSELF?

He wasn't a vigilante.

He wasn't an instigator.

These drunk idiots rolled up and offered to whoop his ass and then they attacked him.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KoolerKing
reply to post by Trueminatti
 


The guy came to his house with a gun. Did the teacher have children? Why did the police not tell the guy with the gun to go home. Sorry but the shooter was in the wrong. To what degree will be determined by a judge and jury.


HE DID NOT.

Watch the video. The shooter is on the phone with police on a public thoroughfare. The TEACHER drove up and started the conflict.


SM2

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trueminatti
Nobody threatened that mans life when he was home. You don't kill people over loud music. You don't take a gun with you unless you're looking for a fight, PERIOD. You think that man grabs his gun before going to the gas station? This was premeditated no matter how you look at it. You don't walk towards somebody or his house if you're in fear. He went TOWARDS THAT MANS HOUSE. The same way Zimmerman went TOWARD TRAYVON.

have any of you ever been in an altercation in your life? When your scared you walk away, when you WANT TO FIGHT you STAY. PERIOD!


What does him being home have to do with anything? The stand your ground laws do not specify that you must be home, it specifies anywhere you have a right to be, and he had a legal right to be in the public street. Yes, he may very well grab his firearm before he goes to the gas station. I do, I generally do not leave home with out it. That does not mean I am looking for a fight. I never go out looking for a fight. He did back away once the began to act aggressively.

People also need to stop comparing this to the Zimmerman/martin incident and claiming Zimmerman did this or that, the trial has not even happened yet, and so far the actual evidence seems to lean towards Zimmerman. Two different states, so that means two different set of laws, two totally different set of circumstances surrounding the incidents. This is apples to oranges.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join