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

reply to post by petrus4


from the video I watched, he did not make the initial hostile action. Asking someone to keep the noise down is not hostile, that is a request. The initial hostile action was them moving towards him aggressively with what appeared to be intent to do harm.

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by SM2

 

Did anyone watch the video? The guy didn't go and confront anyone.

No, that isn't what happened. He demanded that they turn the volume down. He yelled at them to do so.

reply to post by petrus4


You are absolutely correct.

In every crisis there is a chain that can be interrupted at many points and the crisis doesn't happen.

How many times must a man call for help, though, before things get out of hand?

He did not present his weapon until the drunks moved toward him.

Was he using "victim" buzzwords? Of course.

If he was attacked, then he was justified under the law of Texas. This does not mean it was right, or moral or ethical.

This was a bad situation and certainly should not have turned out that way.

He could have:

- put up with it and continued to call the police

- gone over calmly without confrontation and asked politely but firmly if they could turn it down a bit

- waited until the next day when it was daylight and had a discussion

Carrying the gun was not intrinsically wrong and is permissible in Texas.

Contributing factors that, if mitigated, would have prevented this tragedy:

- alcohol

- ego

- adrenaline

- tunnel vision (on the phone AND having a confrontation)

- body language

- 'pack' behavior


It was wrong. No doubt.

But I strongly object to the characterization by the headline:

"Texas man kills teacher over noise complaint"

Sensationalist, yellow journalism

"Texas Man Shoots Three, Killing One, When Attacked by Neighbor"

What does 'teacher' have to do with it?

What about:

"Texas firefighter defends himself from drunken mob"

Also, every firearm and self-defense rule was broken here. From ensuring the target and what's beyond (houses, people, kids) to even BASIC concepts like escape/evasion, cover, distance and situational awareness. This is a perfect example of the old maxim that an unarmed attacker can close a 21 yard distance in under a second.

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by petrus4

 

from the video I watched, he did not make the initial hostile action. Asking someone to keep the noise down is not hostile, that is a request. The initial hostile action was them moving towards him aggressively with what appeared to be intent to do harm.

Yelling at them could be interpreted as hostile, and it was; the man in question responded by telling Rodriguez not to yell at him.

That's how I am interpreting it, and I am confident that that is how the judge will interpret it as well.

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by petrus4

 

from the video I watched, he did not make the initial hostile action. Asking someone to keep the noise down is not hostile, that is a request. The initial hostile action was them moving towards him aggressively with what appeared to be intent to do harm.

You saw what you wanted to see in the video; That is why LEOs discount eyewitness accounts as largely unreliable. Everyone has an agenda. I train recruits for the sheriffs dept in CIT classes [Crisis intervention training] btw. The cops could have handled this mess but no... Now how many families have been destroyed?

reply to post by getreadyalready


I completely agree with you. There is definitely some gray area here, but the fact that he starts rattling off the "buzz words" the SECOND the other guy takes a single step toward him, even though he is not making any aggressive gestures (other than obviously being drunk and trying to act macho), is very suspicious to me.

I think what bothers me the most is that he complained about them "escalating the situation" but he did NOTHING to make sure the situation didn't go too far knowing he was (most likely) the only one operating with full mental capacity (as in not under the influence of alcohol).

People who are GENUINELY in fear for their lives don't stick around for the action. That is...unless they are armed and their offenders aren't.

abclocal.go.com.../local&id=8691593

watch the video there he specifically says " Why don't you turn down the music please?"

the teacher says " why who are you?" the shooter then says he lives right here and asks again, the deceased tells him to not holler, he then says that he was hollering so that the man could hear him.

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by petrus4

 

Also, every firearm and self-defense rule was broken here. From ensuring the target and what's beyond (houses, people, kids) to even BASIC concepts like escape/evasion, cover, distance and situational awareness.

Emphasis mine..

This is my main problem. No one had to die if he had just left. Just because he had a right to be there does not excuse him from not having the common sense to walk away from an escalating situation in which you are the only one with a clear head (supposedly). Especially when you are the only one with a deadly weapon.

But, therein lies the debate. The Stand Your Ground Laws say you don't have to evade. You get to stay and CHOOSE to be part of the confrontation (isn't most basic idea about self defense that you have NO CHOICE but to defend yourself?). How choosing to stay can even remotely be defined as self-defense is completely beyond me.

The guy is a murder, he brought a weapon onto someone else's drive and shot them. He baited the woman, then claimed self defense. He's a psycho not worthy of the electric, but rather more like a slow burning at the stake. Well that won't happen, but hope someone gives him aids, whilst he's in prison. Defending yourself with death, again a woman, PE teachers, music??? What an evil man.
Really there are strong arguments for not letting everyone who's mentally unhinged walk into any shop, and buy a gun.

It seemed to me that the statute allowed no retreat at home, vehicle or business, if the person has legal right to be there. Basically a person doesn't have to run around their house dodging an attacker.

On a street, doesn't the self defense law come into play. Has anyone seen where the castle doctrine applies to general public place? The part posted earlier seemed to mention to previous 3 places.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
The guy is a murder, he brought a weapon onto someone else's drive and shot them. He baited the woman, then claimed self defense. He's a psycho not worthy of the electric, but rather more like a slow burning at the stake. Well that won't happen, but hope someone gives him aids, whilst he's in prison. Defending yourself with death, again a woman, PE teachers, music??? What an evil man.
Really there are strong arguments for not letting everyone who's mentally unhinged walk into any shop, and buy a gun.

there was no woman, and he was not in the drive way or on their property. I really am sad that this amount of ignorance is on ATS these days.

OK, the castle Doctrine bill also contains SYG provisions in Texas, just as people have alluded to, that covers public places.

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by Apheon

 

yes to die over the volume of some music is stupid, so why did the drunken guys charge an armed neighbor?

Probably because they were drunk, like you said. Alcohol does funny things to the brain.

So it was ok for them to attempt to try and beat the old man senseless?

I don't think anyone said anything like that, and no one has a clue what their intent was.

[quote[ Let us put the shoe on the other foot, had the drunken morons not been a public nuisance none of this would have happened and he would still be alive.[/quote[

It works both ways, if the shooter had just turned around and left knowing he was facing a stand off with 5 drunk guys and he was (apparently) the only one with a gun and a clear head no one would be dead and he wouldn't be standing trial for taking the life of another person.

Had the police actually done their job, he would still be alive.

They did. They determined the neighbors were doing nothing wrong, but the music was really peeving the guy off and he didn't want to let it go.

Had the teacher not been a complete moron, he may still be alive.

Again, the teacher and his friends were drunk. The shooter was the only one with a head clear enough to realize the gravity of the situation.

then they (all 5 or so of them) began to act aggressively and move towards the man in a threatening manner.

This is very hyperbolic. The teacher is simply walking toward him, probably to confront him face-to-face. He is not charging him or anything. Most people talk face-to-face when they have an issue. It's seems obvious that is what the teacher was initially trying to do, not kick his a$$ but talk face-to-face and hash it out. The shooter immediately feels he is in danger for no apparent reason. No one was threatening to beat him. 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.

I watched the video he was technically from what i saw not on their drive way off of their diveway on what seemed to be the street. Considering there were people in the truck which can be used as a weapon or could house a weapon that would put me on edge... the way the guys on the drive way reacted to him and pretty much threatened to get a gun too pretty much would have put me even more on edge.

The neighbors were jackasses and did no seem like they would comply. had the guy not taken a gun chances he would have been beaten or maybe the headline would have read "Firefighter slain by drunken mob over blaring heavy metal musica!" The neighbors could have said "Hey you are right the music is loud its not worth pulling a gun out over it we will turn it down please go home..." NO they had to say stuff like "we don't have to turn down ***" "you pull a gun and we get even baby" retarded idiots drinking .. .this was the equivalent of drinking and driving.... who thinks it is a good idea to gang up on a guy with a gun.?????

The key element here was alcohol had those jerks not have been drinking they wouldn't have had loud music and if they did have loud music they might have been more compliant since you can actually reason with sober people.


People like these drunks do whatever they want and get drunk like idiots because they think they are immune to anything.. heck the cops could not get them to turn it down.. had the cops done their job maybe just maybe the man would have not had to ask them to turn it down.

Also he seemed to be documenting the sound and did not actually come in contact with the neighbors till the truck pulled up to the dive way and they neighbors came down to greet him.

I don't think this man should get charged with anything at all, if he however does, i say manslaughter at most but really side with the drunken idiots causing trouble??

what is wrong with you people

Mr. Rodriguez should have let law enforcement handle this mess instead of taking the law into his own
hands and murdering an unarmed man. He knew there would be a confrontation with those drunks, he wanted one and that's
premeditated murder. The testimony of Mr. Rodriquez next door neighbors will clinch this case and not in his favor.

www.whatsontianjin.com...

The reason this idiot went to his neighbors house with a gun was because the police had already been out there, and determined the neighbor wasn't breaking any noise ordinances. They didn't do what he WANTED them to, so he figured he'd use his gun to FORCE his neighbor to comply with his demands.

After watching the video, it was CLEAR this gunman was more concerned about finding a way to justify using his weapon against his neighbor(s), rather then his safety. His neighbor asked him to leave, he said "I ain't going no where." He was definitely mugging it up for the camera/911 operator, as in my opinion, he went over there with full intent of using his weapon if his neighbor didn't obey his demands. He clearly says "You have weapons!" to an unarmed man who is holding his hands in the air, above his head (like most people would do if someone pointed a loaded weapon at them).

It was also VERY telling at the end of the video, right before he fires, he says "I'm not losing to them again". This was nothing but a coward and a bully trying to impose his will on those around him, and when he unsuccessfully, he tried killing the people he couldn't impose himself upon. If he didn't have his gun, and went over to his neighbor's acting like a fool, I don't doubt he would of got clocked one, but is a bloody nose and bruised ego really something to kill someone over?

This man was a cowardly bully that wanted to act like some tough guy - he figured he couldn't get the police to do what he wanted, so he figured he'd use the heavy handed approach - the camera and phone call were just props he figured he could use to deflect murderous intentions - in my opinion, it just shows his premeditation. This man is a danger to society, and should be removed from it.

"Normal" people don't go to their neighbors house brandishing a gun in order to ask them to turn down the music. Sociopaths do though.

Originally posted by Syyth007
"Normal" people don't go to their neighbors house brandishing a gun in order to ask them to turn down the music. Sociopaths do though.

Yep. Have fun, Mr Rodriguez. We'll see you in 2042 or so; assuming, of course, that you make parole.

reply to post by Praetorius


I agree with you. I think the killer orchestrated this whole scenario. I believe he planned this ahead of time. He wanted to kill someone...studied the law...and found (stand your ground).

Originally posted by hellbjorn012

reply to post by thedeadlyrhythm

 

You gun nuts are hilarious!! You are scared of your own shadow. Im sorry i dont want a bunch of wussys carrying around guns who are scared of any other average male figure or scared of a good ole boy brawl live to fight another day situation... Ask your father if he is over 60 how many fights he got in growing up and how many ended up with him needing to shoot the guy. Go ask him about those days of fighting and taking your bruises and bumps and living to see another day. But no no not this day is age with you softies, candy azz chumps.

www.rawstory.com...

Lets break it down shall we:

Time frame 1:40-1:50

Guy has arms totally up palms facing forward, no signs of weapons. Guy is not in any type of known fighting stance mma or boxing stance, guy doesn't have guard up with clenched fists at all . This was not a sign of aggression in the slightest. Guy was not charging or moving in a aggressive manner. If this guy scares you CHECK YOUR MAN CARD BOYS.

Now Mr R. is saying his life is in danger during this time frame. Mr R. also says you've got weapons on you!!!

THE GUY CLEARLY HAD NO WEAPONS! (Arms up, palms facing forward, guy is not in any known fighting stance)

Listen to Mr R. voice he was not truly scared to death.. ANYONE who is scared to death and has a chance to retreat will do so in most cases. Mr R had PLENTY OF TIME to stop running his mouth back and forth with the guys and start back walking home and recalling the cops who had already said the noise level was fine!!

If he had did this no one would have been killed. Those drunks were not that bad nor aggressive and I personally hate drunks usually.


The guys supporting this behavior if they posted their pics I guarantee they would look weak, be fat and out of shape. They love the thought of them starting fights with someone in better shape and being able to win the situation. Any idiot can buy a gun not everyone can be in shape and able to handle themselves because it requires dedication.

These guys are cowards. Hide behind your guns boys. They just dont make em like my father and grandfather anymore.

edit on 8-6-2012 by hellbjorn012 because: (no reason given)

right. everyone who doesnt want to get beat down in a 4 on 1 beatdown is a wuss, and nobody has ever been beat to death in the history of the world, only evil guns can kill people, not human beings who make rational decisions. . 250 pound bodybuilders should be able to dominate those physically smaller and do whatever they want and kick whoever's ass who disagrees, and who ever has the nerve to be born physically small, f*** them, they deserve what they get and have no right to defend themselves.

you essentially confirmed my point. you believe he should have taken a beatdown and lived to see another day, when you're making a big assumption that they would not have gone too far. people get beat to death every day. if im walking down the street in camden and 5 people jump out of a car and start threatening me, you're saying i should just man up and fight and "live to see another day" guess what, jacka*s, it only takes once for that not to be the case. and ill be damned if i'm going to die to live up to your expectation of the manliness of getting in physical fights. quit being such a neandrathal. people have the right to not get the sh*t beat out of them and possibly killed.

Originally posted by votan
I watched the video he was technically from what i saw not on their drive way off of their diveway on what seemed to be the street. Considering there were people in the truck which can be used as a weapon or could house a weapon that would put me on edge... the way the guys on the drive way reacted to him and pretty much threatened to get a gun too pretty much would have put me even more on edge.

The neighbors were jackasses and did no seem like they would comply. had the guy not taken a gun chances he would have been beaten or maybe the headline would have read "Firefighter slain by drunken mob over blaring heavy metal musica!" The neighbors could have said "Hey you are right the music is loud its not worth pulling a gun out over it we will turn it down please go home..." NO they had to say stuff like "we don't have to turn down ***" "you pull a gun and we get even baby" retarded idiots drinking .. .this was the equivalent of drinking and driving.... who thinks it is a good idea to gang up on a guy with a gun.?????

The key element here was alcohol had those jerks not have been drinking they wouldn't have had loud music and if they did have loud music they might have been more compliant since you can actually reason with sober people.


People like these drunks do whatever they want and get drunk like idiots because they think they are immune to anything.. heck the cops could not get them to turn it down.. had the cops done their job maybe just maybe the man would have not had to ask them to turn it down.

Also he seemed to be documenting the sound and did not actually come in contact with the neighbors till the truck pulled up to the dive way and they neighbors came down to greet him.

I don't think this man should get charged with anything at all, if he however does, i say manslaughter at most but really side with the drunken idiots causing trouble??

what is wrong with you people

edit on 8-6-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

THIS! exactly this! thank you for being a voice of reason in this thread. it's very clear that 99 percent of the people running their mouths have not seen the video, and are speaking from absolute ignorance. many don't realize that he didnt go over there with a gun looking to fight, he was videotaping from the public street and likely always carries his ccw as many texans do. that is his legal right.