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

I love that a lot of people on this site will immediately defend WHOEVER was holding the gun.



People here are so gun-crazy that if you've got a gun there's no way you can be wrong by shooting someone! It's the second amendment! Why not go on someone else's property and shoot them!



Why call the police when we you can just go over there, use some buzzwords on the phone and then straight up kill him?

reply to post by samhouston1886


Seems like nothing more than an excuse for people to kill others when they feel "threatened" by nothing of importance.

Let's see:

Hillbilly gets into an argument with *insert slander/racist term for minority group here* and feeling all self-righteous and such, pulls out a gun and shoots *insert racist term here*.

reply to post by Hawking


(As i type this i have a Glock 26, 38 special and Ar-15 in my closet safe.)


I agree. I have no ccw but It is to the point now im gonna get one to defend myself from the gun nuts. Yes im starting to fear the legally carrying ccw populace as much as criminals.

I love the 2nd amendment, but like anything else people can be nutty over certain things and their is in fact quite a few gun nuts on ATS (two in this thread) who seem to justify anyone with a gun killing a unarmed person for any reason just as long as they claim they fear for their life. Same way a hot headed crooked cop gets away with violence by using the (they were resisting arrest line.)



This is ignorance people, the guy had a gun those other guys were drunk. The way some of you people see things their would be gun fights across bars and clubs numbering in the thousands every weekend.


This guy totally dealt with drunks (or anyone for that matter) the wrong way. He came up their with a video and brandishing his firearm playing John Wayne. He also said they had weapons how does he know?


Im just sick of cowards who cant whip their way out of a wet paper bag defending the shooting of unarmed people over minor disagreements.

I could have handled this situation a dozen different ways without needing the gun.

Firstly I dont blame the guy for carrying the gun, it is his right and its a good idea to have it in case he really needed it. But he should not have been walking down the street brandishing it right off the bat. The gun should have been concealed and only used if it was really needed with 100% certainty and without antagonizing the situation.


He should have told the fellas, hey how are you guys doing tonight? Im your neighbor down the street and the music is a tad loud do you mind cutting it down?

And if they said no and # off and were unreasonable as a lot of drunks are he should have immediately went back to his house and recalled 911 and let the police deal with it. Those guys weren't that aggressive, I bet if he had done what I said no one would have gotten killed.

Raul Rodriguez appears to have rehearsed his buzzword ccw class lines on 911 before pulling the trigger, we just have people itching to use their guns on live human targets and using SYG law to get away with it, or try to. And I have no doubt some people here on ATS would love the chance to shoot someone. They may deny it but im not buying it!!

Also if the police found the neighbors where in compliance pop in some ear plugs and deal with it. Then one night when its quiet at the partiers house blast your own music loud and return the favor. Blast some crappy music that most people dislike like maybe opera or something.

The way some gun nuts see it, and going by there logic of when its ok to shoot someone I could have legally killed a dozen or so people while working security and gotten away with it....

I mean seriously people this killing unarmed people if they piss in your direction is not gonna help gun right advocates its gonna hurt them. And of course the firearms profiteer is gonna agree with the shooting. :/

This isnt the 1800s, and you aren't Wyatt Earp. Grow some balls and learn how to deal with situations without having to automatically resort to using a firearm.

Originally posted by ker2010
reply to post by Hawking

 

This isnt the 1800s, and you aren't Wyatt Earp. Grow some balls and learn how to deal with situations without having to automatically resort to using a firearm.

edit on 8-6-2012 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)

Well said. It's a coward who brandishes a deadly weapon in a minor dispute.


There is nothing wrong with owning a firearm. There is, however, something very wrong with going on to someone else's property and using a loophole in the law to shoot and kill your neighbor.



This man should be made an example of...throw away the key

reply to post by Hessling


Unless there is some very strong mitigating evidence that wasn't presented there, it seems a clear cut case of premeditated murder. Let's review:

He actively invaded the OTHER guy's turf

with a gun and

a pre-set patter designed specifically to justify shooting and

a recorder to record the whole thing for posterity and provide backup for his justification patter.

All over a lousy noise complaint.

Sure as hell looks like a planned out murder to me.

I honestly can't think of anything that would mitigate that interlocked series of pre-planned events enough to even possibly justify this shooting.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by samhouston1886

 

Let's see:

Hillbilly gets into an argument with *insert slander/racist term for minority group here* and feeling all self-righteous and such, pulls out a gun and shoots *insert racist term here*.

That's unfair, biased, prejudicial, and chauvenistic. Have you ever even met a real live hillbilly? It doesn't sound like it, because that comment is WAY out of line, and applies to none of the hillbillies I've ever known. That's a whole lot of hillbillies, since I grew up right in the midst of them.

Stories like this and the responses tell me we don't have very much hope as a society anymore. I never thought I'd live in a day and age where killing people on their own property would be justified in any way shape or form.

There BETTER ?

Originally posted by mytheroy

Well he did say don't come near me or I'll defend myself...So he was warned, If the guy was acting with violence, and the shooter felt he was in danger, then the stand you ground law is legal.

If you were to come at me with violence and rage, you better bet I'll do what I deem necessary to end the conflict

He lost his affirmative defense when he instigated the confrontation. He was not merely "standing his ground", he was actively pursuing a beef. Everything he planned out as "evidence" IS evidence - that he pre-planned a murder.

In the classic example of picking a bar room fight, you cannot pick a fight, then "defend" yourself and claim self-defense. By instigating the fight to begin with, you gave up all claims to a self-defense justification. Even if your opponent pulls a knife, you cannot shoot him and claim self-defense, because had you not instigated the fight, there would have been no need to defend yourself.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


We have to pass a road test to get a drivers license. Gun ownership should require a psychological profile under stress. The founders didn't envision mass insanity.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

I'd still like to see the point when the trigger is pulled. Kelly could have made some movement. Cops always say it only takes an instant to close 20 feet.

It takes less than 3 seconds to close a 20 foot gap. The gap would have been a lot larger and harder to close if he'd kept himself, his gun, his documentation camera, and his catch phrases at home while the police handled the call.

reply to post by Hessling


Another article I read says Rodriguez usually open carried, so him having a gun on him wasn't an act of premeditated anything, besides self defense.

In the video, it appears Rodriguez was already off of Danaher's property when he was approached by the small group of men. That is to say, I think he may have been crossing the street, or in the middle of the street that leads to Danaher's property - not actually in Danaher's driveway. I think he was probably waiting at the edge of Danaher's property for the police to arrive when the men came upon him. Then he backed up to the other side of the street and that is where he later shot Danaher from. Furthermore, it seems like he may have been rushed by someone and this is why he shot them. In another article is reads that Rodriguez was being held down when the police arrived. I assume a lot of people rushed him - not just the three whom were shot.

I'm not entirely sure how the stand your ground law works, but from the evidence I've seen, I think rights to defend yourself should justify Rodriguez's actions as self defense.

Originally posted by ker2010
reply to post by skepticconwatcher

 

We have to pass a road test to get a drivers license. Gun ownership should require a psychological profile under stress. The founders didn't envision mass insanity.

Gun ownership should not require a subjective test any more than holding political office should require a religious test. Both are prohibited by the Constitution.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


He left his home, armed, intending to confront his neighbor, while documenting it on video. He brandished a gun in the process. He used all of the code words that he was taught to use in his ccw class, and when all that # went south, he shot several people.

He is a #ing idiot.

He deliberately attempted to put himself into a position where he believed he would be justified in shooting someone, and he hopefully hasnt succeeded.

However, his video actually shows a situation that would have justified the other person to have drawn his own weapon and shot him in self defense, since he was the one actually being threatened.

He should stick his so-called self defense "magic words" up his ass. He was the one waving the gun around in the middle of the street.

I still stand by the fact that people should not carry guns in America. I understand your constitutional rights, but when people who simply are not mentally fit to carry a gun is as good as constitutional, then the problem is simply going to remain and never go away, and you gain nothing but needless deaths.

Originally posted by mytheroy

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.

Well he did say don't come near me or I'll defend myself...So he was warned, If the guy was acting with violence, and the shooter felt he was in danger, then the stand you ground law is legal.

If you were to come at me with violence and rage, you better bet I'll do what I deem necessary to end the conflict

But on the other hand...Why can't people just duke it out and at the end of the day go home bruised but still alive. Some people are just to quick to pick up a gun vs just taking a butt kicking. Must be a pride thing

It doesn't matter what the killer said. He is the one that started the incident if he had a problem with the noise then he should have called the police it is their job to deal with situations like this not his. In no way should this killer be allowed to claim any type of self defense. Chalk another kill up to the give a coward a gun law.

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.

That's a negative. You cannot instigate a fight, then claim self-defense after killing your opponent. You give up the right to self defense by going on the offense.

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.

He violated all three of those elements. Violating one would be sufficient to cook him.

He's done.

reply to post by ker2010

Originally posted by ker2010
He left his home, armed, intending to confront his neighbor, while documenting it on video. He brandished a gun in the process. He used all of the code words that he was taught to use in his ccw class, and when all that # went south, he shot several people.

In the video that I saw he only "brandished" his weapon when several men were coming towards him. If they did not intend to harm him, they would have stayed back.

Originally posted by ker2010
He deliberately attempted to put himself into a position where he believed he would be justified in shooting someone, and he apparently succeeded.

You are making false accusations. You do not know if that is what he intended to do. I think he only intended to have his neighbors turn down the volume of the music.

Originally posted by ker2010
However, his video actually shows a situation that would have justified the other person to have drawn his own weapon and shot him in self defense, since he was the one actually being threatened.

He should stick his so-called self defense "magic words" up his ass. He was the one waving the gun around in the middle of the street.

The video shows several men coming towards him in an aggravated manner. The only reason they would do such a thing is if they meant to harm him. This should not equate to them having a right to pursue him or shoot him. However, it does give him the right to say he is armed, show his weapon, and tell them he will use it to defend himself.

I think he used those "magic words" because that is what he was taught to say in order to stop people from pursuing him and to give legal rights to self defense. Something a clear-minded person should do.

Shame they both didn't have guns at the same time, then they could've both stood their grounds and had an old fashion Wild West fast draw.

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.