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

Originally posted by ATSGrunt
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?!!

The way the law is written, "Stand Your Ground" applies to 3 very specific places, and someone else's own property isn't one of them, nor is the public street in front of their house, nor is the park. No where but 3 specific places, none of which was the location of this incident.

There is a certain class of people who fancy themselves "badasses" who will never mature. There used to be a saying in the Appalachians - "I ain't bad, but them that are know better than to screw with me". "Badasses" try to stack the odds in their favor, and if they can't, they slink away. In this case we had two opposing factions of "badasses", each thinking they had the deck stacked, and both finding out different.

reply to post by nenothtu


Thank-you for your tireless efforts at bringing reason to this histrionic thread. The Stand Your Ground Law - a necessary act of legislation to protect innocent people who have been criminally and unlawfully prosecuted by thugs acting under color of law - is not applicable in this particular incident and it does not matter if the shooter is hoping to use the Stand Your Ground law as defense, desperate people will do all sorts of foolish things to justify their bad behavior. That's not just the shooter in this incident, but also the numerous posters, who are shamefully using a single incident to vilify a valid act of legislation designed to protect innocent people from overzealous prosecutors.

The incident is just another incident and has nothing at all to do with Stand Your Ground legislation, and this incident would have happened with or without the legislation. People do bad things, and people cling to bad arguments. I know it can be frustrating dealing with those who cling to bad arguments, and for your patience and effort in that regard, I am most grateful.

Because he was disturbed by the noise of the party, Rodriguez walked to the home and stood on the road in front of the Danahers' driveway after midnight. He carried a video camera, a phone and a pistol. To get the attention of people in the house, which is in a rural neighborhood in northeast Harris County, Rodriguez shined a flashlight toward partygoers.

On the video, which jurors have seen, Kelly Danaher approached Rodriguez, who told him to "stay back" and then drew his pistol.

A crowd of partygoers gathered as Rodriguez holstered his pistol and called the police.

He can be heard telling a police dispatcher that he is in fear for his life and believes someone in the group has left to get a gun.

After a few minutes, three of the men "charged" Rodriguez, according to his lawyers. On the video, a maniacal laugh can be heard, the camera drops and the image goes to black.

www.chron.com...

This seems to be testimony from the trial.

A bit scarey that the man goes down, shines a light to get the attention of people at the house, and when someone responses he draws a gun on the person.

I wonder if he or the defense stated he was trying to get their attention with the light. No mention of denial of that fact.

He has been found guilty of murder by the jury. Sentencing pending.

Jurors Wednesday evening ruled Raul Rodriguez is guilty in the shooting death of Kelly Danaher at a 2010 party in northeast Harris County.

The jury deliberated about five hours in state District Judge David Mendoza's court. They will return Thursday to consider his punishment.

Jurors decided that Rodriguez provoked Danaher and others by going to their party to demand they quiet down just after midnight on May 2, 2010.

www.chron.com...

reply to post by roadgravel


After only 5 hours of deliberation, too. It appears to have shaken out about the way I expected it would.

reply to post by RealSpoke


There it is.
Real plain.

I had a feeling that the jury was going to think he orchestrated the encounter and that moved it outside the laws he was attempting to use to his favor.

Guess that about ends that.

Guilty of murder - wept in court - 40 years in jail. Jurors (in the article I read) stated that they considered the fact he was not in danger and could safely have left the driveway.

Could be that the case was publicised because America government will attempt, in the near future, to take the right to own guns off citizens OR it was part of a publicity campaign to make American citizens fearful of using their guns. Either way the American government is trying to position themselves into a legal position of 'checkmate.'

Just my thoughts.

Much Peace...to all people killed by guns of any type anywhere...