This characterization of "bragging" about his guns and how he could kill people comes from the testimony of a hostile witness and was picked up on and repeated over and over by ABC News, the well known liberal propaganda organ. I would treat anything they say with some skepticism. Give the legal gun owner and CCW holder more of a break. Seems like maybe liberal anti-gun bias is creeping even onto a pro-gun forum, which surprises me some.
(TX "SYG" Case) Retired Firefighter Shoots Neighbor, Claims Self-Defense
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Maybe it's just me, but if I were in fear for my life, I'm not going to continue standing outside of the guy's house and arguing with he and his friends, I'm going to leave quickly and call the police again.
The guy said all of the right things, but his actions don't correlate with his words.
It's pretty hard to take the fight to the other guy's doorstep and then claim self defense, especially when you documented on video that you had more than enough time to leave, and then claim self defense.
The guy said all of the right things, but his actions don't correlate with his words.
It's pretty hard to take the fight to the other guy's doorstep and then claim self defense, especially when you documented on video that you had more than enough time to leave, and then claim self defense.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That, of course, is going to be one of the issues the jury must decide about. Just because someone "gets physical" does not inherently justify shooting them. The jury is going to try and determine: a) was Rodriguez engaged in any behavior that was unlawful or that clearly defines him as a mutual combatant, thus negating his self-defense claim; and b) did the deceased present a credible threat of death or grievous injury that a reasonable person would have thought necessitated lethal force to prevent.
Often, even getting shoved around, punched, or otherwise roughed-up is not felt by a jury to be an actual threat of death (though we all know a punch or kick can kill), necessitating that the victim shoot/kill to stay alive. If they don't believe that shooting/killing was realistically and believably necessary for Rodriguez to live through the encounter (a fat lip or black eye is survivable) then they will find that he committed criminal manslaughter.
And, of course, the jury is going to view all these different elements in relation to each other. How they view everything Rodriguez did that night will heavily color whether they feel his action in the moment of firing was, on the whole, justified. Remember that when things go to a jury trial there is no mathematical, black-and-white, equation that answerers guilt or innocence. The jury is going to decide based on many different factors including how they feel about him, and whether they feel he was culpable for some of the hostility that night. There's a very human, sort of "fuzzy logic", tendency in the mind of someone hearing the case to boil things down to, "You went out to try and get some noisy neighbors in trouble over their loud party ... and you ended up killing one of them." That simplistic synopsis is going to be a hurdle for the defense to get over.
I truely understand what you are saying Sam and I am in total agreement he should have called the police and stayed home.
Since I am not a jury member and neither are any of us that have been commenting on this case,we are not privvy to all of the facts.
Frankly since there were three younger(drunk) men and Rodriguez was pysically assaulted first that would weigh on my mind as a juror,especially if it is proven he was not on their property.
I am sure this thing will be decided one way or another by todays end and my gut level feeling is it's not going to go in the defendents favor.
Since I am not a jury member and neither are any of us that have been commenting on this case,we are not privvy to all of the facts.
Frankly since there were three younger(drunk) men and Rodriguez was pysically assaulted first that would weigh on my mind as a juror,especially if it is proven he was not on their property.
I am sure this thing will be decided one way or another by todays end and my gut level feeling is it's not going to go in the defendents favor.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
rod5591 said:
Why? Why does he deserve more of a break just because he was a legal gun owner and CHL? If anything, it seems to me that he has an even greater responsibility to avoid, deescalate and disengage where that is practical.
It seems interesting to me that all of Rodriguez's neighbors testified for the prosecution, including the ones that Rodriguez called and asked for assistance that night.
Yes, I think that is a questionable decision. On the one hand, some expert witnesses could testify to how fast a situation like that could deteriorate and how there was a greater level of harm present than the jury might appreciate.... on the other hand, once the prosecutor starts pointing out the way this case is different or asking what the expert recommends at point X in the video, that could get fairly ugly for the defense.
And by now I've read about 20 different accounts from people who knew Rodriguez in the press, and all of them are universally negative. Even the most generous of them portrays Rodriguez as confrontational, foul-mouthed and paranoid. It strikes me that the defense may have had a difficult time finding good witnesses.
If he brandished a gun in a situation not needing lethal force, then getting physical could be seen as legitimate self-defense.
As mentioned above, a shove doesn't mandate a kill. It is a grave mistake, which now seems common, to think that any confrontation allows you to shoot. This guy seemed to think so.
As mentioned above, a shove doesn't mandate a kill. It is a grave mistake, which now seems common, to think that any confrontation allows you to shoot. This guy seemed to think so.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Again though, "tackling" may not be seen by the jury as a lethal threat requiring deadly force to resist.
If someone had pulled a knife on him, or a gun, or tried to run him over with a car maybe -- then this would be much more clearly in his favor (though he STILL may be thought of as a mutual combatant devoid of a self-defense claim).
Further, if someone saw his gun and/or he was actually brandishing it, the "tackling" becomes a perfectly lawful self-defense step by the OTHER guy. Need to hear all the testimony and deliberation to decide in an informed way.
saenzrich
Member
Thank you, when carrying the last thing you want to do is provoke someone and then brandish a weapon...recipe for problems. Sure wasnt the smartest of CHL holders and once again gives the liberals more fuel.
True Sam and I understand but once tackled you usually go down and around three guys that were drunk..
So it goes that if he did not fire they might have...
A.ruffed him up.
B.Pounded his head into concrete rendering him unable of shooting.
What we have now is the results and he's on trial.
At what point does the concealed carry holder feel his life is in serious straits easily becomes what he/she feels at the moment and then every action gets picked apart by people that were not in his shoes when all this went down.
As before,he should have stayed at home because trying to be rational with drunks can be akin to herding cats.
So it goes that if he did not fire they might have...
A.ruffed him up.
B.Pounded his head into concrete rendering him unable of shooting.
What we have now is the results and he's on trial.
At what point does the concealed carry holder feel his life is in serious straits easily becomes what he/she feels at the moment and then every action gets picked apart by people that were not in his shoes when all this went down.
As before,he should have stayed at home because trying to be rational with drunks can be akin to herding cats.
Last edited:
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
From Heeler:
In this case we have video shot by the defendant. We have no need of hypotheticals.
In this case the da could bring assault charges against whoever it was that tackled the defendant and whoever may have helped them, depending on which of those people are still alive. In fact though, the tackler did little damage to the defendant that we know of.
The fellow who did the tackling (if it was tackling) could claim they acted in self defense to disarm a dangerous and threatening man with a gun. The video does show Rodriguez as a man with a gun shouting at and threatening his neighbors. A man who had clear chances to deescalate the situation and chose not to. He initiated a confrontation and refused to leave the area, public street or driveway makes little difference in this case, when he had a chance and by his actions fed the flames. That is the first and main thing the jury has seen.
Some can blame the lawyer for bad advice regarding the defendant not taking the stand, but it is the client ultimately that makes this call. It could have been exactly the right call by the way. Think about the Rodriguez you saw on the tape, would he do well under cross examination?
The question of who threw the first punch may and likely could be raised though, as we see, the defense rested. But it is entirely a secondary issue in this case.
SYG laws do not apply in this case. Rodriguez clearly thought they would. He acts as a vigilante here taking it on himself to enforce a noise ordnance with a handgun and a video camera and ends up killing a teacher, shooting a fireman and one other person. None of whom needed shooting.
tipoc
In this case we have video shot by the defendant. We have no need of hypotheticals.
In this case the da could bring assault charges against whoever it was that tackled the defendant and whoever may have helped them, depending on which of those people are still alive. In fact though, the tackler did little damage to the defendant that we know of.
The fellow who did the tackling (if it was tackling) could claim they acted in self defense to disarm a dangerous and threatening man with a gun. The video does show Rodriguez as a man with a gun shouting at and threatening his neighbors. A man who had clear chances to deescalate the situation and chose not to. He initiated a confrontation and refused to leave the area, public street or driveway makes little difference in this case, when he had a chance and by his actions fed the flames. That is the first and main thing the jury has seen.
Some can blame the lawyer for bad advice regarding the defendant not taking the stand, but it is the client ultimately that makes this call. It could have been exactly the right call by the way. Think about the Rodriguez you saw on the tape, would he do well under cross examination?
The question of who threw the first punch may and likely could be raised though, as we see, the defense rested. But it is entirely a secondary issue in this case.
SYG laws do not apply in this case. Rodriguez clearly thought they would. He acts as a vigilante here taking it on himself to enforce a noise ordnance with a handgun and a video camera and ends up killing a teacher, shooting a fireman and one other person. None of whom needed shooting.
tipoc
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
put a nut on the stand and there is no off switch. a guy like that on the stand? the prosecutor would be giggling
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
done http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...hot-neighbor/2012/06/13/gJQAp5AEZV_story.html
Edit by yr. humble mod:
C'mon, folks - NO NAKED LINKS. Post your own summary, or a snip from the story, but NO NAKED LINKS... PLEASE!
Texas man who said he was standing his ground guilty of murder in shooting at neighbor’s party
By Associated Press
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
HOUSTON — A Houston jury convicted a man Wednesday of murdering his neighbor during a confrontation outside the neighbor’s home two years ago, rejecting his claim that he was within his rights to fatally shoot the man under Texas’ version of a stand-your-ground law.
(photo)
Raul Rodriguez, 47, faces up to life in prison for the 2010 killing of Kelly Danaher.
Rodriguez, a retired Houston-area firefighter, was angry about the noise coming from his neighbor’s home, where a birthday party was taking place. He went to the home and got into an argument with Danaher, a 36-year-old elementary school teacher, and two other men who were at the party.
In a 22-minute video he recorded the night of the shooting, Rodriguez can be heard telling a police dispatcher “my life is in danger now” and “these people are going to go try and kill me.” He then said “I’m standing my ground here,” and shot Danaher. The two other men were wounded.
///snip
Edit by yr. humble mod:
C'mon, folks - NO NAKED LINKS. Post your own summary, or a snip from the story, but NO NAKED LINKS... PLEASE!
Texas man who said he was standing his ground guilty of murder in shooting at neighbor’s party
By Associated Press
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
HOUSTON — A Houston jury convicted a man Wednesday of murdering his neighbor during a confrontation outside the neighbor’s home two years ago, rejecting his claim that he was within his rights to fatally shoot the man under Texas’ version of a stand-your-ground law.
(photo)
Raul Rodriguez, 47, faces up to life in prison for the 2010 killing of Kelly Danaher.
Rodriguez, a retired Houston-area firefighter, was angry about the noise coming from his neighbor’s home, where a birthday party was taking place. He went to the home and got into an argument with Danaher, a 36-year-old elementary school teacher, and two other men who were at the party.
In a 22-minute video he recorded the night of the shooting, Rodriguez can be heard telling a police dispatcher “my life is in danger now” and “these people are going to go try and kill me.” He then said “I’m standing my ground here,” and shot Danaher. The two other men were wounded.
///snip
Not a total surprise.
Texas has very tough and hard prisons for what is known as 3G offenders,which is exactly what this conviction means.
Really a tough life is ahead for those convicted under this sort of crime.
He will,if sentenced to time,he will serve hard time.
Texas has very tough and hard prisons for what is known as 3G offenders,which is exactly what this conviction means.
Really a tough life is ahead for those convicted under this sort of crime.
He will,if sentenced to time,he will serve hard time.
MachIVshooter
Member
Well, I can't say I'm surprised about the verdict.
My take, for those who care to read, and this will be of the incident itself, discounting Rodriguez' character and past, which we don't seem privy to much of.
-It seems Rodriguez had called the police at least once before regarding the nuisance that night.
-It appears from the video that rodriguez was on a public street, doing nothing criminal or agressive.
-From the video, there is no evidence that Rodriguez initiated the confrontation
-Rodriguez was confronted by at least 3 drunk, beligerant, hostile and violent-acting individuals.
-Rodriguez did (more than once) issue the command to "back off"
-Rodriguez states that they have weapons; This is unclear from the video, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is very possible.
-The man does, in fact, make threats toward Rodriguez and does charge him and apparently attack him
-There is clearly a disparity of force. It's at least three on one.
These are the things in favor of a self-defense claim. However, there are many things that do not favor a SD claim
-Rodriguez made no real attempts to deescalate or escape what is obviously a dangerous situation. In fact, he makes it verbally clear that he is not going to.
-It is clear that his presence, his requests (orders) to turn down the music and his videotaping the situation are not having the desired effect, and that remaining in the situation is only going to make things worse for everyone.
-The text-book lines about being in fear for his life. That doesn't sit well with me, seems way too rehearsed.
Now, I completely understand neighbor beefs, especially over noise issues. I also understand the frustration when it is a constant problem and/or when complaints to LEO accomplish nothing. I, myself, might even be inclined to do something like audio or videotaping the nuisance to prove to LEO when they arrive, or later at the station if they never show, that my complaints are valid. And I would probably be armed while filming because, well, I carry pretty much all the time. HOWEVER, to me, the reasonable action when the truck pulled up would have been to get the bleep out of there. He had his video of the offense, and he also now had video of the partiers becoming hostile at his mere presence. I'm positive that combination, on film, would get some LAWFUL results. But Rodriguez chose to stay and escalate the situation with people who were obiously not reasonable or in a reasonable state.
Now, if there is any truth to the history of Rodriguez' interactions with other neighbors and some of the things he said about being able to claim SD just by saying you fear for your life, well, that paints a very different picture. It would seem that his being involved in hostile altercations, making threats and generally behaving in a hostile manner are not isolated incidents. It truly does seem that he may have gone looking for a fight that night; If he just wanted to prove that there was a nuisance, he would have made every effort to avoid detection and would have evaded when confronted.
If I were on the jury, knowing only what I know, I don't think I could agree with a murder charge, but definitely manslaughter. However, I'm sure the jury knows things that we don't that helped them decide he was guilty of murder.
A lot of things, and if Rodriguez hadn't shot them, I expect they would have hurt him. He may not have been in danger of grave bodily injury or death, but I'm sure he'd have been walloped on pretty good.
I'm sure alcohol impaired their judgement, but it would seem the guys who ended up being shot are not exactly model citizens. I firmly believe that alcohol doesn't alter a person's character, but simply limits/eliminates inhibitions and emboldens them. Underneath the intoxication, you still have people in this case with aggressive personalities and poor judgement. That's not to say I feel they deserved to be shot, but it is beyond idiotic to attack a hostile man with a gun, drunk or not. I personally would have passed out before getting drunk enough to believe that doing so would end favorably for me.
My take, for those who care to read, and this will be of the incident itself, discounting Rodriguez' character and past, which we don't seem privy to much of.
-It seems Rodriguez had called the police at least once before regarding the nuisance that night.
-It appears from the video that rodriguez was on a public street, doing nothing criminal or agressive.
-From the video, there is no evidence that Rodriguez initiated the confrontation
-Rodriguez was confronted by at least 3 drunk, beligerant, hostile and violent-acting individuals.
-Rodriguez did (more than once) issue the command to "back off"
-Rodriguez states that they have weapons; This is unclear from the video, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is very possible.
-The man does, in fact, make threats toward Rodriguez and does charge him and apparently attack him
-There is clearly a disparity of force. It's at least three on one.
These are the things in favor of a self-defense claim. However, there are many things that do not favor a SD claim
-Rodriguez made no real attempts to deescalate or escape what is obviously a dangerous situation. In fact, he makes it verbally clear that he is not going to.
-It is clear that his presence, his requests (orders) to turn down the music and his videotaping the situation are not having the desired effect, and that remaining in the situation is only going to make things worse for everyone.
-The text-book lines about being in fear for his life. That doesn't sit well with me, seems way too rehearsed.
Now, I completely understand neighbor beefs, especially over noise issues. I also understand the frustration when it is a constant problem and/or when complaints to LEO accomplish nothing. I, myself, might even be inclined to do something like audio or videotaping the nuisance to prove to LEO when they arrive, or later at the station if they never show, that my complaints are valid. And I would probably be armed while filming because, well, I carry pretty much all the time. HOWEVER, to me, the reasonable action when the truck pulled up would have been to get the bleep out of there. He had his video of the offense, and he also now had video of the partiers becoming hostile at his mere presence. I'm positive that combination, on film, would get some LAWFUL results. But Rodriguez chose to stay and escalate the situation with people who were obiously not reasonable or in a reasonable state.
Now, if there is any truth to the history of Rodriguez' interactions with other neighbors and some of the things he said about being able to claim SD just by saying you fear for your life, well, that paints a very different picture. It would seem that his being involved in hostile altercations, making threats and generally behaving in a hostile manner are not isolated incidents. It truly does seem that he may have gone looking for a fight that night; If he just wanted to prove that there was a nuisance, he would have made every effort to avoid detection and would have evaded when confronted.
If I were on the jury, knowing only what I know, I don't think I could agree with a murder charge, but definitely manslaughter. However, I'm sure the jury knows things that we don't that helped them decide he was guilty of murder.
A lot of things, and if Rodriguez hadn't shot them, I expect they would have hurt him. He may not have been in danger of grave bodily injury or death, but I'm sure he'd have been walloped on pretty good.
I'm sure alcohol impaired their judgement, but it would seem the guys who ended up being shot are not exactly model citizens. I firmly believe that alcohol doesn't alter a person's character, but simply limits/eliminates inhibitions and emboldens them. Underneath the intoxication, you still have people in this case with aggressive personalities and poor judgement. That's not to say I feel they deserved to be shot, but it is beyond idiotic to attack a hostile man with a gun, drunk or not. I personally would have passed out before getting drunk enough to believe that doing so would end favorably for me.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
What could the homeowner have done to defuse the situation?
They could have had the equivalent of a couple of designated drivers for the party. Folks who were prepared to not get inebriated and take care that things ran smoothly. Such folk look out that if someone gets ill they are helped, if someone is too drunk to drive home they get taken care of and get home safely, and if trouble begins they deescalate it, etc.
If you watched the video you note that at least one party going person tried to defuse the confrontation, others did not.
Such folk would have kept folks from interacting with Rodriguez and called 911 on the nut in the front of the house with a gun and a video camera threatening guests at a party.
The usual routine is to call the cops. While waiting for them some encourage partiers to ignore the nut job and gently keep them away from the aggressor. While this is done one or two people calmly speak to Rodriguez and draw his attention off others and act to calm him if at all possible. If not they just keep an eye on him from a bit of a distance.
In cases like the Rodriguez thing this course of action usually works.
tipoc
They could have had the equivalent of a couple of designated drivers for the party. Folks who were prepared to not get inebriated and take care that things ran smoothly. Such folk look out that if someone gets ill they are helped, if someone is too drunk to drive home they get taken care of and get home safely, and if trouble begins they deescalate it, etc.
If you watched the video you note that at least one party going person tried to defuse the confrontation, others did not.
Such folk would have kept folks from interacting with Rodriguez and called 911 on the nut in the front of the house with a gun and a video camera threatening guests at a party.
The usual routine is to call the cops. While waiting for them some encourage partiers to ignore the nut job and gently keep them away from the aggressor. While this is done one or two people calmly speak to Rodriguez and draw his attention off others and act to calm him if at all possible. If not they just keep an eye on him from a bit of a distance.
In cases like the Rodriguez thing this course of action usually works.
tipoc
Texan Scott
Member
Ouch. Not surprised, not at convinced justice hasn't been served, either... but Huntsville is a bad, BAD place.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
Take away lesson for S&T, Dont confront, dont react.
Dont confront like Rodriquez or act like the party goers. This is CLASSIC CASE OF WHAT NOT TO DO OR Say. On both sides of the story.
The brain is stll the best weapon, and knowing the law is a tool better utilized than defaulting to weapon..
Take heed and integrate this into your personal philososophy.
Dont confront like Rodriquez or act like the party goers. This is CLASSIC CASE OF WHAT NOT TO DO OR Say. On both sides of the story.
The brain is stll the best weapon, and knowing the law is a tool better utilized than defaulting to weapon..
Take heed and integrate this into your personal philososophy.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Rodriguez did not handle it well. Even so, I can't see that the lesson here is not to confront. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going over to your neighbor's house and discussing a problem with them and asking them to resolve it. You certainly don't need to be calling the cops every time your neighbor does something you don't like.
I agree DNS.
Having had the same issue in the past with partying neighbors I had not much choice but to go over and ask them to knock it off because as I mentioned earlier in this thread lots of times,at least here,the police are too busy to answer a noise complaint call even at 12:30 a.m. on a work night so to get some sleep someone had to speak up.
This does not have to be confrontational.
If they are rude or obnoxious go home and try the phone again.
Having had the same issue in the past with partying neighbors I had not much choice but to go over and ask them to knock it off because as I mentioned earlier in this thread lots of times,at least here,the police are too busy to answer a noise complaint call even at 12:30 a.m. on a work night so to get some sleep someone had to speak up.
This does not have to be confrontational.
If they are rude or obnoxious go home and try the phone again.
- Status
