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

reply to post by The Sword


I am going to say this for the last time. I attacked your argument declaring the "Stand Your Ground" legislation as being vague. I have not made any arguments one way or the other regarding the incident and frankly this thread is not about the incident as much as it is using this incident to attack legislation that protects self defense and prevents overzealous prosecutors from prosecuting people who legitimately defended themselves against imminent harm, which has been a serious problem in this country, hence the "Stand Your Ground" laws.

I will not get into any arguments on the incident, but I will not tolerate ignorance regarding valid acts of legislation that protect the right to self defense. I do not appreciate you insisting that your laziness trumps all and I must explain things to you that you could have discovered on your own through diligence and critical thought.

Rodriguez is facing murder charges:

But Channel 11’s legal analyst questioned the suspect’s rationale for the shooting, which took place in front of the victim’s house, two doors down from where Rodriguez lives.

“Nobody’s hold your own ground, or stand your own ground laws are ever on the side of the person who started the fight,” said attorney Gerald Treece.

www.kmov.com...

I think the bit posted upthread about the cops having been there and finding the people in compliance BEFORE this gunslinger saddled up is quite telling....

I am pro gun and pro SYG. That being said the problem is people not using the law as intended. SYG does not give you the right to tresspass o other peoples property. As stated you have to prove you were there legally. Such as your work place, home, are public space. Tresspassing is a instant nullifier here.

What everyone needs to realize is just because someone claims a defense does not mean they are right. There will be screams in the MSM over SYG but it does not apply here. Just like everyone who pleads insanity is no insane. The courts need to stand up and public show that this law will not be a catch all for murderes. It is a good law. It was ment to protect people so you did not have to run to every room in your house are job from a mad man before you could defend yourself. Once you enter someone elses property though you lose that right.

I have to admit, I went back and watched the video, and he doesn't appear to be on their property at any time. They come out aggressively and confront him in the street. They outnumber him, and they are acting hostile and aggressive, and he is being pretty polite. He also does not mention the gun until they get very aggressive. He also seems to be retreating when the camera gets knocked down, which indicates he may have been attacked.

Maybe it is a valid defense? I dunno.

Glad there is a judge and a jury to make these decisions in a court of law.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by The Sword

 

I have not made any arguments one way or the other regarding the incident and frankly this thread is not about the incident as much as it is using this incident to attack legislation that protects self defense and prevents overzealous prosecutors from prosecuting people who legitimately defended themselves against imminent harm, which has been a serious problem in this country, hence the "Stand Your Ground" laws.

As the OP, I have to state that the thread was indeed intended to be a discussion about the incident. I just wanted to hear the back-and-forth that ATS is so well known for.

Like I said in my original post I am a fan of the 2nd Amendment. However, I do feel this is a case of DYG gone awry.

I just looked forward to members' interpretation to the situation.

And for that I thank you for your input.

Simply wanted to clarify my intention.

Still, I understand where you are coming from. After all, that's what happens in an ATS thread.

I think this was a good shoot, from the video it was clear that they were going to assault him and he was on the street not on the guys property. What you have here is the Cops giving their buddy a pass on loud music and the deceased felt empowered to bump that up to assault but was too drunk to understand that people have had enough of thuggery and will fight back, I would acquit this guy in a heart beat.

reply to post by Hessling


This is your very first sentence in the O.P.

While I do believe in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, the legalese behind the "Stand Your Ground" laws have potential abuse written all over them. What happened in Texas might be just such a case:

I just want that clarified. The "Stand Your Ground" legislation was borne of overzealous prosecutors screwing over innocent people who had the audacity to defend themselves against attack and eminent harm. For clarity sake, what happened in Texas with this incident did not happen because of valid legislation, and for clarity sake, it certainly does appear as if this was the crux of your opening argument.

reply to post by Hessling


I don't think so, the deceased was clearly aggressive, made threats to go get a gun and charged the shooter a couple of times, he is dead because he was drunk and thought he could beat an old man up.


If he would have been civil there would have been no shooting but he decided to be a scumbag and got what was coming to him.


I really feel the world will be a better place without this loudmouth violent jerk running around disturbing the Peace.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


SYG is a good thing.

Without it many people would be railroaded for defending their own lives.

Well according to the law. As soon as you believe your life is being threatend you have the right to stand your ground.

Does not say if the situation started this or that-a way you may stand your ground, But primarily the formentioned.

SYG is just asking to be abused.

Oh and it doesnt apply when dealing with police. Only citizens.

To my knowledge if a police if doing wrong against you. Wellll your gonna die either way.

But.......... Against your neighbors....... Its upheld.

having actually watched the video before reading any of the posts after the OP, I believe alot of people kinda jumped the gun a little (pun intended). Their general dislike of guns, the second amendment and liberty has clouded the facts. The shooter was NOT on the deceased's property, he was in the street (public property, a place he had a legal right to be) he had already made calls to report the noise violation, which had no effect. He called 911, and went, and given the circumstances was actually relatively, all things considered very cordial and non agressive. he stated his case, began to move away. now is when it gets tricky....

The shooter had begun to move away from the residence, therefore formally withdrawing from the confrontation from a legal standpoint. Then the drunk guy pulls up in his truck (which people have been ignoring that crime). The drunk guy then confronts the shooter, which from a legal standpoint begins a brand new fresh confrontation, started by the drunk the guy. At this point the shooter states that he doesnt want to talk to him, again this legally is him attempting to remove himself from the confrontation. Then all these drunk guys go about antagonizing a clearly agitated man with a gun (well, you can't fix stupid). He is clearly feeling threatened and states such to the police dispatcher, then pulls his weapon , they then begin to egg him on even more. He warns them numerous times, they egg him on even more. Then they appear to attack him.

So you have an old(ish) man surrounded by several (was it 4 people in the video?) drunken guys that appear to bum rush him, at that point he can defend himself.

so you have to look at the video.
he was on public property, he did attempt to remove himself from the confrontation, he did warn, they attacked he shot. Now, if he was on their property, that is different set of circumstances. The mere fact that he took a gun with him doesnt mean squat legally or otherwise. You can dislike guns all day long, does not change the fact that he had a legally right to carry that gun wherever the law permits him to without your prior consent or approval.

ah stupidity in both cases for petes sake...stupid to bring the gun, stupid to sonfront a crowd, stupid for the woman to move tewards an intruder with a gun, no mtter if it was her neighbour....
When facing a gun, it probably prudent not to antagonise the holder....stupid guy stupid woman stupid people.

i didnt see or hear any woman in the video, just so you know, there are men named kelly as well.



Him taking a gun was not stupid, it was prudent. He was 100% legal in carrying his gun

reply to post by PLASIFISK


I find it interesting that all the people in this thread insisting the language of the Stand Your Ground legislation is "ripe for abuse" can't be bothered to actually post the language they are talking about. I have all ready posted a link to the Texas legislation once in this thread, and now here I am linking it again for people who will in all likelihood still not read the legislation and just keep making their arguments against legislation they have not read:

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 knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Now, let's take a look at Subsection (b):

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment of the actor; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

Contrary to what you are claiming, the legislation is quite clear in what it considers to be reasonable self defense means. It is arguable that if you genuinely knew of any part of this Texas Stand Your Ground legislation that supported your contentions you would have quoted that part instead of just making the claim and leaving it at that.

The argument you and others are making - including the O.P. - are akin to arguing that the First Amendment is ripe for abuse and then pointing to cases of slander to support your argument.

The victim was a man. I saw reports that said he shot him on his driveway. Guess it is not clear who was on the victim's driveway.

Originally posted by roadgravel
The victim was a man. I saw reports that said he shot him on his driveway. Guess it is not clear who was on the victim's driveway.

the report states "near his driveway that is 2 houses down from the shooter's residence" that seems pretty clear.

He will be charged with unnecessary deadly force...you cant just shoot anyone based on "standing your ground"

And just because he made the disclaimer " I am in fear for my life, im in danger..." does not prove that his life actually was in danger. have fun defending that case.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Hessling
While I do believe in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, the legalese behind the "Stand Your Ground" laws have potential abuse written all over them. What happened in Texas might be just such a case:

A Texas man says he was justified in killing an elementary school teacher over a noise complaint because he was “standing my ground.”

Now the details get rather fuzzy. First from the defendants perspective:

Retired firefighter Raul Rodriguez is hoping that a video that he taped himself will prove that he was acting in self-defense when he gunned down P.E. teacher Kelly Danaher outside the victim’s home near Houston in May 2010.

On the video that was presented as evidence in court on Wednesday, loud music can be heard as Rodriguez tells Danaher to “turn it down.”

“You need to stop right there,” Rodriguez says. “Don’t come any closer please. I’m telling you, I’m telling you, stop, I said stop right now or I will shoot you! … I fear for my life. I told you to stop, my life’s in danger, you got weapons on you, stay away from me.”

While standing in Danaher’s driveway with a flashlight and a gun, Rodriguez is also on the phone with a 911 dispatcher using the buzzwords he learned in concealed weapons class, according to the prosecutor.

Okay, now he was on with the 911 dispatcher and he did warn the victim not to come any closer or else he would take action.

However, this is over a "noise complaint". That seems a bit overly dramatic. However it gets fuzzier. From the other perspective:

“This is a difficult defense to mount,” legal analyst Dana Cole told ABC News. “He had no injury, he brought a gun to a noise complaint, and it appeared he was escalating it by baiting the party-goers.”

KHOU legal expert Gerald Treece also questioned the suspect’s motive.

“Nobody’s hold your own ground, or stand your own ground laws are ever on the side of the person who started the fight,” Treece said.

Stand Your Ground? Texas man kills teacher over noise complaint

This is a seriously messed up situation that left a person dead.

What gets my goat about this is how Mr. Rodgriguez almost seemed to take aggressive action knowing he could fall back on the "Stand Your Ground" law.

I realize this is just my opinion, but please note the following (I'm going to use a comment left at the link above as the user summed it up so well to me)...

How can this guy have a case? He goes over to the neighbor's house with a gun, a camera, and a phone while talking to police dispatcher. He INSTIGATES a confrontation with unarmed people instead of leaving this nonemergency, nonthreatening case to the police all because he can't stand the noise and he's too impatient to let trained professionals handle it.

Seriously. I cannot see how this could possibly be justified. Mr. Rodgriguez from the information I can get seemed to be clearly egging on a confrontation. And he went head-first into the situation with dire results.

So what do you folks think?

One last note, is the eerie prediction made by a Texas lawmaker after the Trayvon Martin shooting:

In the wake of the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin earlier this year, state Rep. Garnet Coleman (D) warned that the same type of situation was possible in Texas.

“It can happen here,” Coleman pointed out. “The law is the same – the law that protects the guy that shot Trayvon.”

ETA: Video found at the end of the source.

edit on 7-6-2012 by Hessling because: Mention video at source

I would need to know more information. I say he as it stands he was justified. He gave him all the warning in the world and the guy kept coming at him.

Now of course it would depend where he was at, if he is on the other guys property, the other guy would be justified to place him under citizen's arrest and shoot him if he fails to comply and pulls his gun on him.

Trespassing used to be (justifiably so in many cases) a deadly offence. When people are coming onto your property uninvited and you tell them to leave and they fail to, they can only be seen as a threat to your safety, especially if they are armed.

If someone came onto my property armed and told me to not come any closer, I wouldn't. I would then ask him to leave my property and if he failed or if he started to approach me in a threatening manner, I would do exactly what this guy did, tell him to stop coming at me with a weapon, tell him that I feel threatened and I am armed, and if he still kept coming I would shoot his ass dead.

Jaden

Prosecutors said Rodriguez fatally shot Kelly Danaher, a physical education teacher at Sorters Mill Elementary in New Caney ISD, in his own driveway at his wife's birthday party in northeast Harris County.

The last seven minutes show Rodriguez in Danaher's driveway shining a flashlight at the party guests and demanding that they turn down the music. Although he shouts several times that the music is too loud, it is not heard on the recording. As a party goer approached Rodriguez to find out why he was in the driveway, Rodriguez's voice turns low.

www.chron.com...

Man shot in his drive way. Shooter on victim's driveway at some point.