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

reply to post by Hessling


The law is full of holes. Hopefully, this case will bring to light the difficulties with the law.

Texas S.B. 378 modifies Texas Penal Code Section 9.31 to read, in part:

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] 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.
(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.

Subsection (a)(1)(A) specifies the particular areas that fall under the purview of subsection (e) - i.e. right of presence at the location - to limit them to the actor's 1) occupied habitation, 2) vehicle, or 3) place of business or employment. The street in front of the victim's house is not one of those places. Subsection (f) is where this specific linkage is made that limits the protected areas to those listed in subsection (a)(1)(A) for purposes of Standing Your Ground.

This means, in plain English, that Rodriguez had a duty to retreat, and cannot invoke SYG protections. It was not his ground to stand under Texas law. When he stated "I'm now going to Stand My Ground", he specified his intent NOT to retreat, in contravention to his specific duty to do so.

By combining that statement with his possession of the firearm (legally at that point or not makes no difference) and the fact that HE went to the victim's location, rather than the other way around, AND he took a camera for legal documentation of his defense, AND his calm use of the specific "magic words" in that documentation during the commission of the act, a strong case can be made for premeditation.

reply to post by Hessling


And the world gets more crazier and silly every day. And it seems like there are more laws out there that can be used to cause harm, death and even circumvent common sense for evil purposes, both implemented deliberately for exactly those certain purposes, and the others are just full of good intentions, which in the end turn out to be anything but good. But I suppose its just another day on planet earth.

Originally posted by SM2

What does him being home have to do with anything? The stand your ground laws do not specify that you must be home,

They specify that as one of only 3 places that immunity can be invoked. See post above,

it specifies anywhere you have a right to be, and he had a legal right to be in the public street.

Not so. Subsection (f) links the subsection you are talking about (e) to the one that specifies the places covered (a)(1)(A) and limits the coverage of the protected areas for purposes of the SYG law. See post above.

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.

The law cited in my post just above is specific to Texas, straight from the Texas government.

maybe he didnt want too shout,,,

ohh ya,, we seen what happened when he tried too shout over the noise,,,

ya ,,
200yrds??,

talking in a " inside voice ",, dont think he would have heard him,,

or wait he did hear him,,

i think he was wondering why he was shouting,,

too noisey i guess.

CAN U TURN DOWN YOUR MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what im sorry i didnt hear, u.

Originally posted by nunya13
They just told him to go home after they already had a confrontation and found the guy video taping there house in the street. The shooter refused to leave and he even says why he did not do so...

"Look, I'm not losing to these people anymore."

That, to me, says it all.

It says a lot. It indicates an ongoing level of conflict which I'm sure the prosecution is looking into - a "history" between the two, which is another indicator that this was a premeditated attempt to provoke conflict.

I would love to see how tough you gun carryers are without a gun. I wonder how many people would still be alive if a gun didn't give you punks the feeling you could do anything. I know plenty of people who own guns and none of them carry it on them just because. Theres really something wrong with you people. Grow some balls and have a fight for a change. The gun caused a man to lose his life and there is no coming back from that! What if it was a member of your family who was drunk playing loud music? would you say OH WELL? If there was no gun this situation would be handled legally with all parties alive. PERIOD. You guys are sick and have such little value for human life. Little punks who are so scared of a fight that you have to hide behind a gun. Imagine all the bad choices you made in your life and people saying you deserved to die over them because the person you were in a confrontation with had a gun and you invaded his space. Thats ridiculous. You may deserve to get beaten up or arrested but not death. You devils. NO GUN = NO DEATHS you simple minded sheep! we ALL deserve to see another day over a situation like this.

Originally posted by Trueminatti
I would love to see how tough you gun carryers are without a gun.

I'm pretty rough with or without, but of course I don't expect you to believe that.

Grow some balls and have a fight for a change.

Why? I don't like fighting - it's just not as much fun as it used to be. I tend to only fight when I really, really, REALLY have to, and not for sport. I dunno. Maybe I just don't have a pair. Give me a chance to walk away, and I'm going to take that chance. Otherwise, someone is going to get hurt. Badly. Like I said, I don't do it for sport. If I have to fight, I aim to see that it's over with as soon as possible, because it's unpleasant, and you get all marked up.

The gun caused a man to lose his life and there is no coming back from that!

No it didn't. No gun caused a man to lose his life here. Stupidity and some guy thinking he'd finally "grown some balls" (I have to wonder if they were steel or lead) caused a life to be taken, He didn't lose his life. IT WAS TAKEN AWAY.

Because some dumbass thought he'd grown a pair.

If there was no gun this situation would be handled legally with all parties alive. PERIOD.

Not necessarily. There are stupid people without guns, too. The drunks, for example, didn't have guns. They weren't exactly paragons of intellect, in spite of that lack. Simply not having a gun doesn't make people suddenly wise and able to think a situation through.

NO GUN = NO DEATHS you simple minded sheep!

People are killed every day without guns. Guns are not the problem, stupidity is. Ignorance plays a part, and in situations like this one, ignorant just feeds into stupid. There are, apparently, people on this planet that believe that because a law is titled a "A Stand Your Ground law", they can just zap any old body that pisses 'em off because they are "standing their ground".

Did you read the law? it doesn't mention guns at all. Bricks, sticks, ink pens and ball peen hammers are equally permissible. So is the simple expedient of breaking a neck or crushing an adam's apple, or any other number of imaginative ways to kill.

It seems that if one just wants to Stand His Ground, and isn't overly concerned about the fine points of the legality of it, or the potential for an unpleasant stay where one is sharing a room with a large hairy man with loads of tattoos and the nickname "Big Bubba" who fancies himself a great lover - because he's got balls, too - anything goes after that.

reply to post by nenothtu


i guess you conveniently did not read this part....

(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.

So. The shooter was in the street, a public location that he had a right to be on. He was not engaged in criminal activity, as carrying a pistol is not illegal, asking to turn down the music is not illegal and video tapping it was also not illegal. So therefore he had no duty to retreat.

reply to post by SM2


You need to read that post again. I SPECIFICALLY addressed that part. Look for the places I mentioned "subsection (e)" and how subsection (f) applies it to subsection (a)(1)(A).

Public roads are not covered under "Stand Your Ground" in Texas.

"No duty to retreat" applies specifically to 1)your occupied home, 2)your vehicle, or 3) your business or place of employment.

The duty to retreat still applies to public places and common areas.

ETA: I'll bring it on down here and explain it again, for purposes of convenience.

(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.

Notice that it says "for purposes of subsection (a)". That is where the "no duty of retreat" areas are specified. Subsection (e) is where it says "a person who has a right to be at that location". THEN it goes on to say that "a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat". FOR PURPOSES OF SUBSECTION (a). For all other places, the duty to retreat is still in full effect, even though the actor may be legally there, as specified in subsection (e). That is why they specified FOR PURPOSES OF SUBSECTION (a) ..., assuming the actor is there legally ( subsection (e)), ... then the duty to retreat is not to be considered in determining a finding of fact.

For all other areas covered solely under subsection (e), the duty to retreat is still in effect. That is because you cannot "stand your ground" on ground that is not exclusively yours. The "other guy" has just as much right to stand that ground, because it is a public area. It's highly unlikely that any competent lawmaker would write or pass legislation giving both belligerents the right to STAND THE SAME GROUND.

Is that clearer?

Originally posted by nenothtu

The gun caused a man to lose his life and there is no coming back from that!

No it didn't. No gun caused a man to lose his life here. Stupidity and some guy thinking he'd finally "grown some balls" (I have to wonder if they were steel or lead) caused a life to be taken, He didn't lose his life. IT WAS TAKEN AWAY.

Because some dumbass thought he'd grown a pair.

You just proved my point on how little value is put on human life. Its a cold world. I just have to accept it and shut up.

reply to post by Trueminatti


Why blame it on the gun then? A gun is an inanimate object. It neither fires itself, nor considers anything at all, not even a human life. It has no brain to think with, and therefore cannot consider anything.

The trigger-twitcher is the one who needs to be considering things, because the gun can't. It does what he tells it to. The operator is responsible for the action, not the gun.

reply to post by nenothtu


A gun gives power to kill. It's not that hard to understand. Pulling a trigger and trying to strangle somebody to death with your bare hands are two different worlds. Saying a gun doesn't play a factor in the end result is pure denial. If a 6 year old shoots a gun at a grown man's head and kills him, you really don't think the gun played a factor in that death? A 6 year old has no other way to kill a grown man. The same way a coward with a gun who shoots a person without a gun is abuse plain and simple. Rubber bullets should be used more often. I believe in self defense, just not killing.

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by nenothtu

 

i guess you conveniently did not read this part....

(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.

So. The shooter was in the street, a public location that he had a right to be on. He was not engaged in criminal activity, as carrying a pistol is not illegal, asking to turn down the music is not illegal and video tapping it was also not illegal. So therefore he had no duty to retreat.

Likewise, the guys in the truck had every right to be in the street.
They just had the police called on them, to which the police cleared the situation.
They had every right to ask Mr. Rodriguez what he was doing just as Mr. Rodriguez had every right to film what he wanted to film.

However, what we do have is typical Problem Reaction Solution employed and orchestrated by Mr. Rodriguez.

He was the first to be loud, to which they asked him to quiet down.
He was the only one to pull out a weapon, despite his buzzword that they had weapons.
He lied about their intent when he used another buzzword saying he "feared for his life" even though the man in the video had both hands raised in a submissive posture.
Lastly, he provoked the men into attacking him by making it a fight or flight situation, for them, where one did not exist.

It was a scene totally manufactured by him and I hope he faces serious jail time for leaving a child fatherless, a wife husbandless, and 2 other men in critical condition because "he wasn't losing to these guys again."

Originally posted by nunya13

Originally posted by thedeadlyrhythm
reply to post by Apheon

 

if 5 people were about to beat the # out of you for "being a busybody", would you have the right to defend yourself by your own standards? are you saying it is your duty to take a beatdown and possibly being beat to death in that situation?

No, I would say it is your duty to turn around a leave if you have the chance rather than wait and see if someone DOES come at you so you can shoot them. If 5 guys are threatening you--leave! If they come after you anyway, THEN you have the right to defend yourself because it is obvious you have no way out.

great job, you perfectly described the exact opposite of what is law in texas. the law in texas is that there is no duty to retreat. i'm talking about facts and law here, not what nunya13 from ats or anyone else personally feels should have been done.

Seems to me that a person's REASONABLE action would have not draw a gun and just gone home.

I have to wonder how well these neighbors knew each other. Some serious mental issues at play.

Originally posted by Trueminatti
reply to post by nenothtu

 

A gun gives power to kill. It's not that hard to understand.

So does a claw hammer, or any number of a wide variety of implements. Like the gun, the hammer cannot jump up and kill on it's own.

Pulling a trigger and trying to strangle somebody to death with your bare hands are two different worlds.

When you have actually done both, THEN you can attempt that comparison. There's really not much difference, and a human actor is involved in both.

Saying a gun doesn't play a factor in the end result is pure denial.

I didn't say they didn't have a role, I said, and will say AGAIN, that they are neither the root cause nor the sole means. You are picking the wrong target, and if you aim for the wrong target, you are doomed to failure. Just ask someone who shoots guns, or throws rocks,

If a 6 year old shoots a gun at a grown man's head and kills him, you really don't think the gun played a factor in that death? A 6 year old has no other way to kill a grown man.

There are some really violent and precocious 6 year olds where you live.

And some really stupid adults, if they're being killed off by 6 year olds.

The same way a coward with a gun who shoots a person without a gun is abuse plain and simple. Rubber bullets should be used more often. I believe in self defense, just not killing.

The key there is the coward, not the gun. If you take his gun, he'll just get sneakier, and use a different implement.

I invite you to shoot me with a rubber bullet at your earliest convenience. I'm willing to bet you won't be writing any treatises on self defense for a long time afterwards.

Originally posted by thedeadlyrhythm

great job, you perfectly described the exact opposite of what is law in texas. the law in texas is that there is no duty to retreat. i'm talking about facts and law here, not what nunya13 from ats or anyone else personally feels should have been done.

You speak of "facts" in Texas law, yet give no citation to back your "facts" up.

Here's mine

Where's yours?

reply to post by nenothtu


Although, I don't think "Stand your ground" can count on someone else's property when they clearly are not displaying any weapons. This shouldn't be able to stick, but then again, it is Texas...You know we lost JFK in Texas, you'd of thought they'd of matured more since then?!!

www.abovetopsecret.com... to be fair this case in question is the perfect example of why stand your ground laws work,and the one the OP of this thread showed is the example of why it can be a BAD idea sorry for breif post figured this would be relevent