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

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth


Both sides were looking for a fight and that is exactly what they got.... The end result of all this stupidity, was death...

...

It could have been easily avoided had just one of them used some common sense....But they didn't and now we have a dead person and a man on trial facing murder charges....

...

This could have and should have been avoided. A little bit of common sense goes a long way, folks...And these people, used none.

Both sides have fault in this case.

The bulk of the onus goes to the man who did the shooting. He was trespassing while going armed, which is a felony. Drunks are nit well known for being burdened by an overabundance of common sense, he was, presumably, sober, and should have known better.

Originally posted by JustJoe

Originally posted by Danbones
This may be a false flag set up too
Imagine now all the teachers will be screaming disarm disarm disarm to all the kids now
You know how teachers are
It really does play into the hands of the opponents to guns and the stand your ground law
and it is their common tactic to do murder to advance their agenda

edit on 7-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

WOW. Decided to just go for it? What happened here? Seriously, did you get diarrhea of the fingers or what?...
If someone(like myself) was flying through the thread and wasn't totally paying attention...well...anyway definitely got my attention...

you're kidding right?

aside from pointing out the obvious
(like this is a conspiracy forum..4 stars, I guess Im not alone in the desire to examine all angles)
Its safe to say you don't read the news much do you?

To echo Nen above
its the shooter in the dock..charged....

reply to post by Hessling


The video of the incident shows the following sequence of events:

1. The neighbor is playing loud music late at night.
2. The shooter approaches the house after requesting that police resolve the matter.
3. The neighbor smarts off when the shooter tells him to lower the noise level.
4. The shooter warns the neighbor not to approach, or he will be shot.
5. The neighbor decides to rush the shooter anyway.
6. The neighbor gets shot and dies.

I'm sorry, but if there's a stupidity award to be handed out here, it goes to the neighbor, not the shooter.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
For anyone having doubts, that it was self defense, watch the video on this page as well.
The video is a little more telling than the one the OP has linked to.

Yes it's very telling. Funny how he is able to hold the camera throughout the incident but when he pulls the trigger he points the camera to the ground. Thereby blocking anyway of seeing how his life was in danger. The video you chose also left out the first few minutes that showed where he started the argument by ordering them to turn the music down. This video was edited to leave out that part. This guy belongs behind bars.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Thank you. That video solidified it for me. There was no element of self defense present whatsoever. I've been witness to some cold blooded things in my day, especially given my line of work, but that may be the most cold blooded murder I've ever witnessed. If not, it's running a really close second.

he should not have been there to begin with, nor should he have been trespassing with intent to go armed. He had every opportunity to de-escalate, and chose to escalate instead. Instead,the chilling calm and his insistence that he used certain key words (which are NEVER used in the real deal, when you get caught in the grease as opposed to PLANNING to be in the grease) - AND make sure they are on his "evidentiary" tape - in an attempt to set up a defense has convinced me of his pre-meditation of the act.

that video will hang him.

Originally posted by SlowlyLonely
reply to post by Hessling

 

The video of the incident shows the following sequence of events:

1. The neighbor is playing loud music late at night.
2. The shooter approaches the house after requesting that police resolve the matter.
3. The neighbor smarts off when the shooter tells him to lower the noise level.
4. The shooter warns the neighbor not to approach, or he will be shot.
5. The neighbor decides to rush the shooter anyway.
6. The neighbor gets shot and dies.

I'm sorry, but if there's a stupidity award to be handed out here, it goes to the neighbor, not the shooter.

Tell me how you think the shooter has the rights of a police officer.

3. He has no right in ordering anything from anybody. Which he did in the video when he said I am telling you to turn it down.
4. The victim was a good thirty feet from him in no way was his life in danger from a unarmed man.
5. The video does not show the victim rushing him because he pointed the camera at the ground.

Here's something you overlooked before saying his life was in danger he already had his gun out because you can hear the victim say that he was waving his gun around.

reply to post by buster2010


The shots are not heard until after you hear what sounds like him being tackled - at which point the camera is dropped.

Telling someone to turn down their music is not against the law. He could have actually went on to their property and made a citizen's arrest because he had evidence they were breaking the law. I think this is why he had the video recorder - to have evidence of the noise level.

If you all want to claim he was trespassing that's fine as long as their were clear signs stating no trespassing or they told him he was trespassing and must leave and he refused.

However, when the event took place it is almost certainly clear that he is not on Danaher's property any longer.

Originally posted by The Sword

Did they need to complicate things with a gun?

It's not an indictment of guns, it's an indictment of your society which insists on allowing homicidal maniacs to walk amongst the rest of us unchecked. Guns are irrelevant - if a psychopath is going to kill, he will find a way.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by buster2010

 

The shots are not heard until after you hear what sounds like him being tackled - at which point the camera is dropped.

here's the part you seem to be missing there - if he had stayed home, watching TV and drinking a beer, rather than going forth onto private property and instigating a fight, he would not have been there to BE "tackled".

Telling someone to turn down their music is not against the law.

You're right, it's not. Trespassing with intent to go armed, however, IS against the law.

He could have actually went on to their property and made a citizen's arrest because he had evidence they were breaking the law.

No, he could not. There are specific elements required to effect a citizen's arrest. Trespassing with intent to go armed in the absence of a life-threatening situation already in progress is not one of them.

I think this is why he had the video recorder - to have evidence of the noise level.

It's pretty clear from the deadpan delivery and his hitting of all the key words to cover his bases (i.e. "I am now going to stand my ground", "I am in fear for my life" "you are armed" - although the victim was NOT armed, and that was for the benefit of the dispatcher) what the intent of the video was.

If you all want to claim he was trespassing that's fine as long as their were clear signs stating no trespassing or they told him he was trespassing and must leave and he refused.

Wrong again. A sign is not required. Once you are told to leave private property by a person authorized to do so, like the owner or even renter or resident of that property, any failure to do so constitutes "trespass". The actual word "tresspass" is not required. All that is required is that you be told to leave, and fail to do so. the only defense to that is if another resident speaks up and says "no, I invited him here."

However, when the event took place it is almost certainly clear that he is not on Danaher's property any longer.

That doesn't matter. he instigated the confrontation, and thereby lost all claims to self defense.

reply to post by nenothtu


Lets say you're right, that he could possible be arrested for carrying a firearm onto someone's property without permission. It still does not change the fact that someone rushed him and he shot them - because he was not on their land when that happen.

If there is a law that says you cannot carry a firearm onto someone else's property in order to defend yourself, then that law needs to be changed, because there may come a time when you have no choice but to be on someone's property and defend yourself.

Besides, all of that is irrelevant. What happened was someone rushed him while he was in the middle of the road, and he then dropped the camera, and shot the person. The op says he is using stand your ground law to justify the shooting - not to justify carrying a weapon on to someone else's property.

You all who think the man committed murder are wrong. It's as simply as that.

And when I said for it to be considered trespassing I meant it had to be posted on a sign or be verbally communicated, I meant one or the other - not both.

eta: and you say he instigated it but he did not. He said turn down the music. He didn't say I'm going to shoot you if you don't turn down the music. If I said go brush your teeth does that mean I instigated a fight and have no legal grounds to defend myself?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


It amazes me how people just so easily disregard shooting a UNARMED man, even in the wild west days it wasnt considered proper etiquette to shoot a man who was unarmed.

Just goes to show how lack of honor and sissified our male population is getting.. OMG OH NOES Im getting in a fist fight here let me grab my gun!!!!

This is just more proof that guns are for wimps and only used to hurt and/or kill.

Americans don't deserve guns. Get rid of them.

reply to post by DaTroof


you forgot the defence against tyranny part
and the tyranny that always follows disarming a population

It wasn't his ground to make a stand on. He was the invader.

He went to complain about the noise. Why does someone take a gun to a noise complaint? If I felt the situation even remotely was one where I needed a gun to talk to my neighbor, I would not be talking to my neighbor! the police would!

Many of these SYG cases show a serious lack of judgement on the part of the shooter. They smack of overzealousness, vengeance etc. and while I am sure there are plenty of examples of people using self defence correctly, SYG is just ripe for abuse.

reply to post by ker2010


Using the sissy card is like crying foul for getting beat by a better strategist.

Let's call David from the story of David and Goliath a sissy for using a sling.

When someone who gets shot because they swung on an armed man gets killed it doesn't make the shooter a sissy - it makes them smarter.

I'm stronger than you so you are a sissy if you beat me with a weapon.... that's nonsense.

reply to post by buster2010


I didn't say the shooter had the rights of a police officer. I said that a person is stupid when they blare music late at night, become a smart ass when a neighbor tells them to turn it down, and then rush the neighbor even after he shows a gun and says he'll shoot anyone who approaches. But ol' boy has all eternity to think about that now.

If you observe the video closely, you can hear someone rush the shooter at the end. That's when the camera gets contorted and the shot fires.

Also, he was brandishing the gun and using "buzz words" because that's what people are trained to do in gun glasses for self defense. You let the person know you have a gun that you don't mind firing. No surprises.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Good, then using your logic you have no problem letting kids carry guns to school and shoot someone when a school yard scuffle gets started.

Hey teacher Johnny pushed me real hard and made me fall down and scrape my knee so I pulled by gun from my backpack and shot him dead. Well son Johnny was a sophmore and your a freshman so way to even the odds son!!

Nice reasoning.

Stand Your Ground doesn't apply to useless, psychopath morons.

Clearly this wasn't "Stand Your Ground". This was a piece of # that wanted to murder someone.

reply to post by ker2010


Kids don't know better yet and so they shouldn't be allowed to use firearms. Also, the threat of a kid killing someone barehanded isn't as great as an adult who uses his bare hands.

I think 18 years of age is a reasonable limit to the age of innocents.

If a kid grows into an adult and still doesn't know better than its his fault not the shooters.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Lets say you're right, that he could possible be arrested for carrying a firearm onto someone's property without permission. It still does not change the fact that someone rushed him and he shot them - because he was not on their land when that happen.

neither does that change the fact that he went there and started a fight. Once he instigated that fight, he no longer holds claim to any "self defense" defense arising from that instigation.

If there is a law that says you cannot carry a firearm onto someone else's property in order to defend yourself, then that law needs to be changed, because there may come a time when you have no choice but to be on someone's property and defend yourself.

The only time you would not have a choice is in the case of an abduction. if you are armed already, no abduction should take place to begin with. Otherwise, there is ALWAYS a choice - you just don't go there.

Besides, all of that is irrelevant. What happened was someone rushed him while he was in the middle of the road, and he then dropped the camera, and shot the person. The op says he is using stand your ground law to justify the shooting - not to justify carrying a weapon on to someone else's property.

I've already addressed the legalities of the shooting. By the time it had escalated to that point, he was already in deep, and the location no longer matters. I cannot come to your house, throw rocks through your window, villify your mother, and then stand in the street and say "Nyah nyah, you can't get me 'cause I'm on public property!"

You all who think the man committed murder are wrong. It's as simply as that.

How much legal training have you had? I'm certified for Law Enforcement. granted it's in the state of Virginia and not Texas, but the basics are all in the Common Law, from which the rest springs.

And when I said for it to be considered trespassing I meant it had to be posted on a sign or be verbally communicated, I meant one or the other - not both.

I understand that, but may have misunderstood whether you meant the actual word "trespass" had to be used. It doesn't. if I misunderstood that, I apologize.

eta: and you say he instigated it but he did not. He said turn down the music. He didn't say I'm going to shoot you if you don't turn down the music. If I said go brush your teeth does that mean I instigated a fight and have no legal grounds to defend myself?

He did instigate it. He approached a bunch of rowdy drunks intending to force them to do something. That is not the action of a prudent man - unless he intends to hurt or kill someone. Situations like that is why we PAY Law Enforcement. Furthermore, he drew his weapon and brandished it when no weapons or danger were yet in evidence. that much can be drawn from the drunk who says "You've done pulled yer gun on the wrong one!" before they were even close enough to strike. The drunk then states that he'll go in the house and come back "equal", indicating that he was not yet armed. the shooter had every opportunity to de-escalate and leave, but instead state his intent to "stand his ground" in contravention to what Texas law states is allowable. He was not in his own house, his own car, or his own workplace.

By all appearances, the prosecutor will have an easy time making a case for Murder One, premeditated murder.