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

reply to post by Hessling


Doesn't the teacher have every right to advance on his own property.

That guy shouldn't be over there.


That is like somebody walking into your house and you walking over to them and telling them to leave, and then they warn you and shoot you.

This guy should be in prison.

The guy didnt break the law. Just like zimmerman didnt. Both were protected by SYG.

However, they both in my opinion were wrong in what they did. The law protects them.

Its like if a person slaps someone. Then the someone starts beating on that person.... Well he now has a right to stand his/her ground. Even if the person started it.

Its not about right or wrong. Its about whether the law is for or against you actions.

Sad. But true.

In 2007 Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 which extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces...

Senate Bill 378, made effective September 1, 2007, also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."

This was in Wiki, haven't checked the actual wording in the statutes.

reply to post by PLASIFISK


Sorry but a Judge and jury will decide. No way does he got off. You saw the video. He brought the gun and started this. He provoked the teacher.

reply to post by PLASIFISK

The law protects them.

I disagree. In this case, the shooter was the attacker. This is murder. If a man comes onto my property and threatens me with a gun, and I grab my own gun, and he shoots me, it is still murder on his part. If I shoot him, then it is SYG.

Now, if he moved into the street, then the people in the house should have just went back inside, but at the very least it is still manslaughter, because he went over there with a weapon, and with intent to get into an altercation.

I think this is 1st Degree Murder, but even if they make it something less, it still was not Self-Defense by any means.

Zimmerman was on public property, and he claims to only have been observing, not harassing or instigating, and he was already under an onslaught of violence before he fired.

The guy in this case fired even before he was under attack. There is no comparison between the two cases in my opinion. If Zimmerman is in jail, then this guy should be under the jail.

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
The guy didnt break the law. Just like zimmerman didnt. Both were protected by SYG.

However, they both in my opinion were wrong in what they did. The law protects them.

Its like if a person slaps someone. Then the someone starts beating on that person.... Well he now has a right to stand his/her ground. Even if the person started it.

Its not about right or wrong. Its about whether the law is for or against you actions.

Sad. But true.

This guy did break the law. He went on to private property while armed to start a conflict. It is premeditated murder. Zimmerman didn't set out that morning with the intention of hunting down Martin. Martin was noticed by Zimmerman as the neighborhood watch and was out of his element, at an odd hour and was similar in appearance to people who had been commiting crimes in the area. Although Zimmerman did not handle the situation well, he was much more within the guidelines of SYG then this other guy was.
For the guy who shot the teacher, he is completely in the wrong and SYG does not apply to him. In order for him to be standing his ground, he would not have the gun drawn when no weapon was presented by the other party. The other party made it clear that he was not armed even though the shooter kept claiming he was on the 911 call. You cannot go to someone's home, pick a fight, then shoot an unarmed person and claim that you were standing your ground. The noise level issue was not endangering his life or safety and he should not have gone to the home to address them. That was the job of the police. He was not part of a neighborhood noise ordinance group, he was just angry about the noise level with no authority to do anything about it. He chose to take a gun and flashlight to the home and confront the owner as well as videotape it, knowing it would be a confrontation and talk on the line to 911 while misrepresenting the actions taking place. If he hadn't made the video, he would have had a better chance at claiming he was standing his ground, but the video that he's hoping will save him is what will most likely sink him.

Originally posted by roadgravel

In 2007 Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 which extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces...

Senate Bill 378, made effective September 1, 2007, also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."

This was in Wiki, haven't checked the actual wording in the statutes.

using those conditions, he is clearly not covered by SYG. He didn't have a right to be there, he did provoke the person and he was engaged in criminal activity (tresspassing and terroristic threatening)... looks like he failed on every single one of them!

A drunken gang of friends show up in a pickup to bully an old man because he's complaining about loud music? I've watched the video. If I'm on that jury, this guy goes home. Legally carried firearm used in legal self-defense. None of the rest matters to me. They were warned. This is a textbook example of how self defense works people.


ETA the alternative is the guy goes over there unarmed and gets beaten up by a drunk cockstrong moron and his 4 or 5 buddies. Is that fair? No. And conceiled carry laws are written to prevent that from happening. And they work. Turn the music down next time junior.



ETA the real victims here are the kids who will have to somehow learn to run and play all by themselves because their PE teacher failed to heed the warning of a legally armed individual who had decided to not allow himself to be assaulted.

reply to post by arpgme
A bit off topic, but I'm sorry I didn't catch you to star this earlier as it's a valid point. I would extend the same to stand-your-ground laws. Any valid and proper tool can be misused.

Hold those misusing tools and laws accountable, not the tools and laws themselves - unless they are definitely flawed, as some are. I don't think these are, though.

The guy in question is mentally ill, who is attempting to falsely use an otherwise legitimate legal defense, in order to prevent himself from going to jail, which is what needs to happen.

Case closed. No need to rescind the Second Amendment, or the Stand Your Ground doctrine. Just be aware that this guy, as a specific individual, is a nut, who is claiming to have acted in self-defense, when that is clearly not the case.

reply to post by Hessling


The reason is irrelevant.

In Miami 2 men got into a verbal argument over a parking spot.
However one of the guys took out a tire iron and came at an older gentleman who had a gun.
He then killed the guy with the tire iron after he tried to hit him with it.

I'm not sure what the exact situation was here. But we'll find out during trial.

Interesting case.

I am no so sure "stand your ground" applies here. The reason why it would not apply here is because the shooter was not on his own property nor was he on public property. The shooter had no legal right to be on the victims property. Therefor, stand your ground does not apply. If anything, the shooter actually shot 3 people and killed one while in the act of committing another crime.. in this case it would be trespassing.

Secondly, this was a noise complaint. It is one thing to go to your neighbors home and ask them to turn it down. It is another thing entirely to go over there armed, stand on their property pointing a firearm at them and demanding they turn it down. Personally I think the shooter was being a bit of a baby. I really do not hear much of anything in the video, at least I do not hear anything loud.

Third.. there is a difference between fearing for your life and fearing getting beat up. The issue here is that the whole situation could have been defused had the shooter simply went back to his own property.

All that being said, there is also a difference between stand your ground and self defense and the shooter may be able to make a self defense case. What we do not see on the video is what caused him to shoot. However it appears that he may have been attacked, as it looks like the camera is knocked to the ground and then we hear the shots fired... but of course one would have to ask if he was attacked, doesn't the home owner, who has a legal right to be on the property, have the right to attack an armed person who is on your own property?

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
The guy didnt break the law. Just like zimmerman didnt. Both were protected by SYG.

However, they both in my opinion were wrong in what they did. The law protects them.

Its like if a person slaps someone. Then the someone starts beating on that person.... Well he now has a right to stand his/her ground. Even if the person started it.

Its not about right or wrong. Its about whether the law is for or against you actions.

Sad. But true.

If you slap someone all they have to say is your under arrest and if you resist you have no SYG rights because you are the aggressor that has committed a criminal act(assault and battery)

You have no "stand your ground" rights on someone else's property. The property owner had every right to walk toward this guy and forcibly remove him from their driveway.

If someone enters my property i will give them three clear warning to leave my property or be arrested, Then arrest them.
And likely will be armed (with at least bear repellent pepper spray)or have backup that they don't see.

While I said there was a possibility that this was premeditated, its also possible that he is innocent. That he went there with a gun is suspicious but then if he was confronting a psycho he might do so and that person could have been armed with something too, in which case, he may have said the "key words" knowing he had to make it clear, and didn't want it to go down wrong, in case he had to pull the trigger. This is a long shot, but everything is a probability, as there are no known facts, and even then its only logical guesses. Some teachers are really upstanding citizens, some belong to cults and are not.

Look, it is really simple, the law means that in order to use it, it has to meet a set of requirements. If not all of the requirements are met, he cant claim it.

And if found in the wrong, he should be given a mandatory maximum sentence period. If he doesn't meet the criteria, he's in the wrong and gets to fry for capitol murder for being a D-bag.

Wonder if the PE teacher was white.....if he was......he may get off. Gawd I love the a** backwards sense of justice in this country...makes me want to start a cult and claim it on my taxes as a religion.

We may now worship the all mighty Fudruckers.....

reply to post by Hessling


This clown in texas will be proscuted. From the description that he was standing in his neighbors driveway trespassing while pulling a gun in his own defense... the guy is trespassing on the teachers property and I think that will make all the difference....

Clearly this guy came off his property and onto the other driveway......

Yes, this guy in trying to manufacture his defense but it fails since he approached someone else on their own property.

the man is a fool and should be jailed. he is clearly unstable. and evidently dangerous.

Just another example of little men trying to be big boys and bully others. This twit was on someone else's property. Had it been mine, there would have been NO discussion. My property is posted, meaning that anyone who enters it does it at their own risk. Any fool to goes onto someone else's property with a gun should be shot dead on sight unless he is a uniformed officer. Makes me sad to be from texas, state of little penises, big guns, and overweight inbred rednecks.

Originally posted by volafoxAny fool to goes onto someone else's property with a gun should be shot dead on sight unless he is a uniformed officer. Makes me sad to be from texas, state of little penises, big guns, and overweight inbred rednecks.

My initial reaction was to think that shooting someone on sight is perhaps a little extreme, but then I thought for a moment, and realised that maybe you're right. If the other person has a gun, if you don't take the first shot, you're probably not going to get the second one.

Originally posted by Urantia1111
A drunken gang of friends show up in a pickup to bully an old man because he's complaining about loud music? I've watched the video. If I'm on that jury, this guy goes home. Legally carried firearm used in legal self-defense. None of the rest matters to me. They were warned. This is a textbook example of how self defense works people.

Thank the stars you are not on that Jury because you clearly have no idea how self defense works in the context of using deadly force.

ETA the alternative is the guy goes over there unarmed and gets beaten up by a drunk cockstrong moron and his 4 or 5 buddies. Is that fair? No.

Actually no. The alternative is that you stay on your own property and let the police do their job. What purpose does it serve to go on another person's property, armed, and demand they turn down the music? It serves no purpose, unless you intend to scare them into turning the music down. Like it or not, the drunks are under no obligation to retreat when they are on their own property.

And conceiled carry laws are written to prevent that from happening. And they work. Turn the music down next time junior.

So people should die over music being turned up too loud?


ETA the real victims here are the kids who will have to somehow learn to run and play all by themselves because their PE teacher failed to heed the warning of a legally armed individual who had decided to not allow himself to be assaulted.

You mean a legally armed individual who was trespassing on the property of another?