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

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by nenothtu

 

He may have confronted them but that definition of confront does not mean to start a physical fight. Addressing a problem you have with someone should not be viewed as physical confrontation.

Nor should it require a gun in that case.

I pray you never become a leo.

I won't. I have better things to do than keep a bunch of thankless, gun-totin' cowboys all safe and comfy. It appears they can handle that all on their own, by the simple expedient of going out and shooting unarmed folks.

You would probably think it is okay to physically harm someone who has a dispute with you.

Of course I would. that's the reason I'm the one cheering this miscreant on. Oh, wait.... maybe I ought to rethink that last comment... it seems I'M not the one doing that at all. There are times to go Rambo on someone's ass, and times to leave it alone. Age will allow you to tell which is which - assuming you don't piss one of your cowboys off and get yourself truncated.

Abduction and being chased onto the property of another is most certainly irrelevant to this issue,

You're right, they are. You said there was some legitimate reason for trespass, and I said there wasn't, citing abduction beyond your power as the only exception. YOU were the one who added "being chased onto the property". Let me ask you this: if you have a gun, and you are going to stand your ground, who in the world is going to chase you into a trespass? If they do, you made a miscalculation somewhere in the whole "stand your ground" thing.

and the fact that he carried a firearm onto Danaher's property is irrelevant to the stand your ground law, because he did not shoot Danaher on Danaher's property.

The report I got was that Danaher's body was in his own driveway. If that's not his property, whose is it? The fact that he went armed there most certainly IS relevant to the Texas SYG law. It's been posted ad infinitum in this very thread, at least twice by Jean-Paul Zoudeax. Do I need to post it again in the hopes that you might catch it this time around?

If a prosecutor tries to say its relevant on the grounds of it being premeditated murder, then the defense attorney can object with the fact that Rodriguez always carried a firearm with him – which would effectively explain the gun at the time of the confrontation.

Yes, he can make that objection. I hope he does. Let's just see how that plays out. It's pretty weak as defenses go. The prosecutor probably prays at night for gifts like that.

He did not have his gun drawn when he told them to turn down their music in the video that I saw. And again, confront does not mean start a physical fight.

You've not been in many "confrontations", I see. ANY confrontation has the potential to turn deadly if mishandled, as this one was. It seems you may not be very familiar with rowdy drunks, either. I'm happy for you if you've somehow missed out on that joy of life. He started a fight. Who turned it physical is irrelevant after he initiated the confrontation.

You are trying to distort what happen in order to make your view seem correct. Instead you should correctly view what happen so you can have a correct view.

I'm assesing it on the basis of the information I have, including the video evidence. If there is a "distortion", it's in the evidence presented.

A neighbor asking another neighbor to turn down their music's volume is not a physical confrontation and should not become one regardless of how drunk anyone is.

Asking is one thing, toting a gun in and demanding - especially from drunks, whose self-control is already depressed, is quite another.

All we can tell from the video is that he drew his gun when they were aggressively pursuing him.

Which they would not have been doing at all if he had stayerd at home and handled it through proper channels, as I've said a gozillion times already. By going there armed and forcing a confrontation, he closed that defense behind him.

At no other time are we lead to believe that he had a gun in hand except for when he said “back up”, and when he fired upon them.

And that matters in this case... why? They were clearly unarmed, as well as drunk. He, being sober, couldn't out think them?

As I see it, you obviously do not understand the situation – that is why I am debating you. Now that you understand that - did you honestly think that I would grant your judgments more faith of being accurate just because you said you are certified to be leo? Really?

You're right - I DON'T understand this situation. I've been in similar situation, and didn't understand the lunacy behind them, either. I never found it necessary to shoot my way through a bunch of unarmed drunks, however, so You may want to re-think who is in a better positon to handle these insane situations. You can John Wayne them all you want - don't expect me to visit you in prison, however.

I'm not sure why I should care whether you give my experience any credence or not. I presented it, but it's up to you to do what you will with it.

Someone who is found to be guilty of damaging someone's property can be defined as trespassing on the sole grounds of damage to another person's property. That is where the twig comes in to play. If you are not made aware that you trespassing either verbally, or by way of a sign, then you can still be ruled as trespassing if you damage someone's property.

maybe in some jurisdictions, but I've never lived in one of those, or heard of one. In most places, "trespass" is defined by location and authorization, and property damage is defined by damage to property. In most places, you can potentially damage property during a trespass, but you can also do so without trespassing at all. keying a car in a public parking lot, for example.

You are making false accusations just as the other guy did. You are leading and badgering. The man is said to have carried a firearm with him a lot. Therefore, he most likely carried it for self defense and not to confront someone with a gun.

I'm not accusing at all. That is the job of the arrsting officer and the prosecutor. I'm just assessing information presented. I don't care why he CARRIED a gun, I'm assesing his USE of that gun. Why he carried it, or why he CLAIMED to carry it, is not my concern, because as I said before I'm not a mind reader. Reading dead bodies on the ground is a lot easier.

If you look at all the evidence on the internet you will see your arguments are very weak. Also, it does not matter how it is ruled in court. That has no barring on this debate since we aren't in court and there have been plenty of unjust rulings – especially so when leo is involved with the prosecutors side of the case.

You're right - we're not deciding the case here, we're just discussing it. I recommend that you follow the court proceedings closely, and see how it goes to deternmine which argument was "weak". I've had experience, you have not, yet I am supposed to simply accept your uninformed argument as the stronger one? Yeah, that's just not going to happen today.

This last paragraph of yours shouts loudly your stance on the issue - it's born of fear and loathing of authority rather than reasoned logic, experience, or education. Good luck with that.

reply to post by thedeadlyrhythm



Even if he pleads for a deal and gets off. His life will never be the same. No matter what the court decides he will be a pariah in the community and viewed as a murderer and loose canon all because he wanted to take the law into his own hands over loud music. I'll bet the LEOs take away his permit to carry and he is driven out of that neighborhood. He is trying to put up a brave front now but inside he is crying and wondering what came over him to kill someone over such a trivial incident.

I would hate to be in the position of shooting an unarmed person who had not actually touched me. But I can see that if a person has a gun and a hostile group is approaching, there is the chance of them using my gun against me.

What a choice to have to make.

This thread is very interesting. I want to point out that when a person calls for the Police - they should wait for them to arrive - preferably in the safety of their own home - not outside/two doors away/with a lethal weapon.

One clear point that I discern is - the retired firefighter walked outside his home and onto another persons property with a lethal weapon - why? He was taking matters into his own hands and appeared to be looking for a fight.

The retired firefighter called the Police and then tried to manage the situation on his own- he failed. He failed on several accounts - he tried to talk to drunk people - with a lethal weapon in his hands - and did not wait for Police to do what they had been summoned to do - manage the situation.

If a court allows the retired firefighter to stand his ground - on someone elses ground then America has a court system devoted to not protecting anyone.

In a court it could be argued that the retired firefighter - should have not left his own premises - should not have confronted the other party knowing Police were on their way - should not have shot anyone given that he was not standing his ground. To stand your ground you need to be on your own ground. To be in fear of your life you need to be unarmed and threatened/intimidated in your own home.

If this turns out to be a group of actors being paid to perform - as an adjunct to changing the American law then God help us all. I have seen evidence that suggests this could be a setup. Are there any crime scene photographs? Any photographs of the scene after the deceased was moved? In the video clip you only hear the gunshot - nothing is seen in relation to a person having been shot.

Much Peace...

Originally posted by roadgravel
I would hate to be in the position of shooting an unarmed person who had not actually touched me. But I can see that if a person has a gun and a hostile group is approaching, there is the chance of them using my gun against me.

What a choice to have to make.

His mistake was making preparation to instigate a confrontation and trying to cover it up with the lame 911 call and video. He knew and wanted the incident to spin out of control so he could use his piece and look all badass. I have a feeling that soon he will be introduced to some real badasses in lockup that have swastikas tattooed all over their bodies.

reply to post by roadgravel


Don't leave your home - with a lethal weapon in your hands - simple solution is call the Police and stay inside and leave your gun locked up where it won't hurt anyone. When you think clearly and sanely you can make proper decisions.

Much Peace...

Except sometimes the police won't do anything or won't respond for several hours.

What then?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Except sometimes the police won't do anything or won't respond for several hours.

What then?

So you think going down to someones house and shooting 3 people and killing an unarmed man over loud music is a logical plan?

whoops

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Police are required to attend every call. If however the Police currently on duty have a call for a noise complaint and get a call for a serious road accident - then which call is going to get to the head of the line?

Police can be genuinely busy and will not attend a noise complaint if they are trying to save lives elsewhere. The retired firefighter should have waited inside his own home. The retired firefighter should have called the Police several times and he probably would have been informed that the next available officer would attend his complaint.

People need to think before they act. The scenario here is straightforward - unless of course they are actors been paid to hoodwink the public.

Much Peace...

Originally posted by nunya13
It used to be that killing an unarmed man was considered cowardly. Now we find every excuse in the book to justify it. Sad...

This is why I believe Stand Your Ground Laws are harmful...it encourages a person to continue to be part of a situation they EASILY have an escape from.

Self defense is defending yourself from a clear and immediate danger from which you have no alternative other than to harm your offender. This man clearly had alternatives. He chose to be part of the escalation he clearly saw coming (he even says so in the video, "they are trying to escalating" and "I will not leave". He shouldn't have stood his ground, he should have left. Prinicple has nothing to do with it when you are talking about a person's life. I don't see how it can be self defense if you CHOSE to stay in a situation that is clearly getting out of hand. Your NOT defending yourself if you are opting in to the confrontation. This is a clear problem with stand your ground laws, imo.

It's not a problem with the SYG laws, because they don't allow for this sort of behavior. he was not in any of the "stand your ground" situations specified in the Texas law that would have justified him standing his ground.

The problem is with people who don't read or understand the laws, and attempt to abuse them, and think they will defend them from indefensible actions. Everyone thinks they are a lawyer simply by reading the title of a law. It looks a little different when you get right down into the nuts and bolts of the laws.

"Stand your ground" sounds great to a cowboy - unless he bothers to dig into it and find out just which ground he is allowed to stand. SYG laws have been passed to obviate you of the duty to flee from your own house in the case of a home invasion or the like, and some have been extended to include your car (against carjackings) and your workplace. They do NOT allow you to John Wayne it by going to the OTHER guy's house, or even a public area, and inciting trouble. At the other guy's house, HE has the SYG rights, not YOU. In public areas, the same self defense laws as were in effect before SYG apply - i.e. a duty to retreat.

In this specific case, by saying "I am now going to Stand My Ground", he protected exactly nothing, because that ground was not his to stand under the law, and he declared his intent to ignore his duty to retreat.

Originally posted by nenothtu
"Stand your ground" sounds great to a cowboy - unless he bothers to dig into it and find out just which ground he is allowed to stand. SYG laws have been passed to obviate you of the duty to flee from your own house in the case of a home invasion or the like, and some have been extended to include your car (against carjackings) and your workplace. They do NOT allow you to John Wayne it by going to the OTHER guy's house, or even a public area, and inciting trouble. At the other guy's house, HE has the SYG rights, not YOU. In public areas, the same self defense laws as were in effect before SYG apply - i.e. a duty to retreat.

In this specific case, by saying "I am now going to Stand My Ground", he protected exactly nothing, because that ground was not his to stand under the law, and he declared his intent to ignore his duty to retreat.

You could have just put a link here, to my earlier post. Would have saved you the trouble.

And to think he could have solved the problem with a pair of ear plugs.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by Hessling

 

I think this is where I think our system fails. What needs to happen is some serious education. I am all for stand your ground, I think overall the idea is a positive one with great benefit to the populace. But we must take into account the hot heads out there. When laws such as these are in effect, the people must be educated about it and what it really means.

Proper education fixes the majority of problems, not money or more laws.

In this country your free to be as ignorant or dumb as you want. If you believe in a talking snake and someone talking to you from heaven and your not crazy but if the same person said the dog talked to him and he's now crazy who is crazy, the person or the society who allowed individuals to go down a road of psychosis. This guy was looking for a confrontation and he got it. You can't educate pre-meditated action of someone who wanted to do something to someone. He had a camera, on the phone and had a gun and was throwing out buzz words to make it seem like he was in danger when in fact the camera is going to be his undoing. because the guy who was shot dead had his hands up and he was saying your armed (which he wasn't). And then what about the other people he shot, why did they get shot. He thought they might rush him and he shot.

We have a society that is emotional and mentally unstable on purpose by our leaders in politics, religion because it's easier to control the ignorant and crazy in many ways by jingoistic sayings and actions.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by mytheroy

 

Was it determined that the lady did indeed have a weapon? If not, I do not see how the man could be threatened by an unarmed lady. Surely, being a decent sized guy, that if the unarmed woman approached him aggressively he could have simply just bitch slapped her to stop her at the least, no need to end her life.

But to me, in this case he went looking for trouble and should have consequences.

uhhhhhhhhh, what woman ? haha

i was thinking ok cops gonna roll on up,, etc,,yadadada,

where was he ? middle of nowhere?

Why didn't the 911 operator instruct him too go back into his house and wait for Police too arive??

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by mytheroy

 

Was it determined that the lady did indeed have a weapon? If not, I do not see how the man could be threatened by an unarmed lady. Surely, being a decent sized guy, that if the unarmed woman approached him aggressively he could have simply just bitch slapped her to stop her at the least, no need to end her life.

But to me, in this case he went looking for trouble and should have consequences.

uhhhhhhhhh, what woman ? haha

reply to post by wewillnotcomply666


dont worry man, no one watched the video they are rushing to judgement based on the previous posts by others that did not watch the video, they still think a retired firefighter shot a woman teacher on her own property, which is 100% false. he s hot a drunken large man in the street after said drunken man charged him after being warned not to .

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by wewillnotcomply666

 

dont worry man, no one watched the video they are rushing to judgement based on the previous posts by others that did not watch the video, they still think a retired firefighter shot a woman teacher on her own property, which is 100% false. he s hot a drunken large man in the street after said drunken man charged him after being warned not to .

exactly,firstly it wasnt on this MANS own property that he was shot. he was 200feet away rom the house the music was comin from when the men arrived in a pickup. rodriguez told them several times , like he was taught to do by law, no to come any closer he WILL shoot them. rodriguez was retreatin towards the end of the video realising he was outnumbered and also possible that he would be shot himsel, when a man chaRged him cackling with laughter and was subsequently shot. as warned. sorry for any spellin mistakes i CBF fixing

I think that we all should ha e the same rights that a police officer has to defend themselves.

If a police officer can use deadly force to stop a perceived threat then why cant an ordinary citizen do the same?

They, like a legal gun owner have the right to defend themselves.

Dont want none...dont start none...