(TX "SYG" Case) Retired Firefighter Shoots Neighbor, Claims Self-Defense

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In 2010, retired firefighter Raul Rodriguez killed P.E. teacher Kelly Danaher and shot two other men in a dispute over a loud party. According to Rodriguez's account, he went outside with a video camera, flashlight and gun to document the noise. As a result, the first shot of this confrontation and some of the events leading up to it are shown on tape.

http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html (has link to edited video of shooting)
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...-night-of-fatal-shooting-shown-to-3611376.php (Houston Chronicle coverage - better details)

Rodriguez is currently on trial for murder. The original video is 22 minutes long and jurors were shown the last 7 minutes in which several partygoers ask Rodriguez why he is standing in Danaher's driveway filming. According to some reports, Rodriguez filmed for approximately 10 minutes before he was even noticed by partygoers. The edited version in the link above appears to be a 2 minute edited version of the 7 minute tape. Obviously, the situation could have been handled better.

I thought it would make for good discussion because apparently Rodriguez thought he was handling it well and is now facing murder charges. The presence of the video offers us a chance to see a bit of what Rodriguez saw right up to the first shot.

Additionally, here is Texas law regarding use of deadly force in self-defense:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor 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:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(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:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

[qwert65]

Wow, that could have been handled better

 

[Snag]

Interesting. Walk two houses down and across the street with a gun, a camera, and a bad attitude. Not really a surprise someone got hurt or killed, and in this instance...both.

 

[qwert65]

I will bring up, the second article it sounded like the prosecuter was intimating that "CHL" speak Shows intent?

 

[Loosedhorse]

"They're going to kill me," he says as the group is apparently moving away and calling police.

Why did he go there?

If he was "documenting" the noise, why was he there for over 10 minutes?

Why, when a party-goer approached him, did he say, "Get back or I'll shoot you?"

If he felt the situation was worsening, or he felt threatented, why didn't he leave?


It seems to me that he marched onto someone else's property, drew his gun (and did not retreat) when approached by one guy, and then stayed right there as the situation escalated. I'm inclined to agree with the DA:

"There was one person in control of the nightmare out there that night," said Assistant Harris County District Attorney Donna Logan

That was Rodriguez. Some folks think that if you go armed, you have a special obligation to avoid and de-escalate conflict, so that you don't end up killing anyone.

And apparently others think that if you go armed, you can go over to the neighbor's, pick a fight, and then shoot them.

 

[Texan Scott]

Stupid, stupid case. The shooter is this case should have called the police and stayed inside to file a noise complaint. If he had beef with the way previous complaints were handled, he should have written a letter.

From a legal POV (i'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that) if he was challenged about filming while on another's property, and didn't stop filming and leave, he was committing CRIMINAL TRESPASS. He shot the man who (having a presumed legal right to be there, as homeowner or guest thereof) challenged him WHILE COMMITTING A CRIME other than a class C misdemeanor traffic violation. On the face of it, he was CLEARLY NOT justified under the statute in his use of deadly force.

Just for the sake of argument, EVEN IF the 'attacker' had pointed a gun and threatened him with it, the 'attacker' in this case WAS THE PERSON WITH LEGAL JUSTIFICATION. If YOU pulled a gun on a man after telling him to get off YOUR property, he wouldn't be justified in shooting you, would he?

I think the prosecution has a strong case for anything up to 2nd degree murder, here.

 

[Godsgunman]

I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure its an open and shut case with Rodriguez going to jail. I've even had to deal with noisy party neighbors myself, you know how its handled? By calling the cops! Plain and simple! It doesn't matter how you want to paint the picture, he's guilty of murder. Just because you have a liscence to carry DOES NOT give you the power to act like a cop. Join the force and learn the law and abide by it if thats what you want to do. He could have easily proven his point by just turning on the camera and staying in his yard to prove it was a public disturbance. By purposefully leaving his property with the loaded weapon and placing himself in harms way he forfeits his right for the "self defense" plea. Its fools like this guy that endanger the rights of us who adhere to the "rules of engagement" to lawfully carry our firearms so we can lawfully defend ourselves in real life or death situations.
Sorry I know that sounds kind of harsh but according to common sense, which this guy obviously lacks, he's at fault for the injuries and death, no one else.

 

[Cosmoline]

he is standing in Danaher's driveway

... with a firearm. He's an ARMED TRESPASSER. That's not good.

 

[comus3]

This is the biggest threat to concealed carry out there right now. Guys like this. Agree with the comments above. Call the police, write to the police, approach your neighbors politely, whatever. But CHL is not a license to trespass and take law into your own hands. Particularly over something like loud music.

This mindset is depressing.

 

[Texan Scott]

Very true. I wouldn't be surprised if all it took was one case like this to give liberal antis the public ammunition they need to hysterically demand revocation of shall-issue and castle laws all over the country. You wait, see if it doesn't happen some day... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[JustinJ]

I'm certainly not defending the guy's actions but "stand your ground laws" sort of murky the situation from a legal standpoint. While yes, there is no question his handling was beyond foolish he had no real legal obligation to leave. The argument then becomes if he was in fear for his life why did he not leave but again he legally does not have to before using lethal force.

What i can't tell though is was he physically attacked right at the end of the video and did he fire a warning shot because it sounded like he did a little while before the video ended?

 

[Zoogster]

While going and filming while having a gun on him may have been understandable if done from a public street to document the problem, he is the one that chose to escalate things.



Starting conflicts and escalating them while relying on a gun to prevail takes this to a level that goes beyond self-defense in that moment.
It was not a one sided escalation.
He was angry about the noise, and they didn't want him there. Once there was confrontation he certainly should have left.
Had they attacked him right away, then perhaps it would be self-defense. But they didn't they told him to leave, they made it clear they were not going to turn down the music.
When he announced he had a gun or pulled one out he did so before it was a situation that needed force used.
If he believed it was necessary, he then had the opportunity to leave after pulling a gun and no attack happened.


Then after pulling a gun he still says he is not going anywhere? He had an opportunity to leave the situation before it got worse, but his pride kept him there filming and tension built resulting in more escalation.
They even stated they would go in and get a gun and the situation would escalate! Yet he remained there.


Foolish pride by someone planning to resort to their firearm. He is at least guilty of manslaughter even if the shooting ultimately resulted in defense from a physical attack at the end.
The final details are not clear from that video so it is not as easy to say he is clearly and definitively to blame, as some missing detail could be missed. If the final problem is of a mutual nature then he is guilty of murder.
Either way I don't see self-defense.


Foolish pride on both sides, macho egos.
That in itself is a recipe for problems, but if you are going to go around being macho, you don't jump straight to a gun as soon as someone else chooses to give it right back. Acting like a tough guy but planning to revert to a gun as the first solution to conflict that results shows he shouldn't be acting like a tough guy because he can't really handle what inevitably results.
The difference between self-defense and a mutual combatant is a gray area.
Because he chose to stay even after display of his own gun, and threats they would get a gun, even when he was unharmed and free to go, puts this closer to the mutual combatant category for me.

Guilty.

 

[GEM]

He was on their property and had no reason to refuse their request to leave. SYG doesn't cover a law-breaker and instigator. Not murky from my point of view.

Yep, the drunks should have let the cops come for a madman with a gun. But they were drunks. The shooter was an idiot. Without other info - guilty.

Will it negate TX CHL laws - no. However, the CHL classes should add a section:

Attention Idiots - this what SYG laws really mean.

 

[Zoogster]

Yes it could even be claimed he was a threat and the owner was justified in defense, or that an attack on a guy waiving a gun around refusing to leave for several minutes was an attempt to disarm or stop that threat.
Perhaps the drunk thought he could tackle the guy with a gun, or a few of them did. Three got shot and one is dead, in fact even more than who were shot could be involved.
But their actions could have been legally justified to stop the threat posed by a hostile man with a gun that wouldn't leave.

After he pulled a gun, even if he thought it was needed, he then chooses to remain a hostile person who is armed right outside the party.
From the perspective of people at the party you got a dangerous guy clearly upset, refusing to leave, who is now waiving a gun around and shows no intention of leaving a hostile situation.
It is clear lives are in danger.
The drunks encouraging problems though mean I wouldn't want to jump to the defense of one of the drunks either in that situation.
You know its going to be a mess whatever happens.


A good host in that situation would tell everyone to go inside, and he would be ready to use force against the guy outside with a gun if he started shooting at the house, without ever making that obvious to the guy outside with a gun.
They would call the police and not escalate or interact with the guy who has already pulled out a gun and been arguing.
However even a good host cannot control a guest who won't listen and chooses to engage in macho provocation or an attack on the guy with a gun who they feel insulted by. So that is not a solution that will always work, and will work less with certain types of guests.

 

[GunnerShotz]

"So the retired firefighter, who has his CHL, grabbed his gun, flashlight and his video camera and went outside of Danaher’s home to document the noise."


"......to document the noise." ??? What did he hear? Was it someone screaming as if in fear for their life or something like that?

Based on the details provided, he shouldn't have been there, plain and simple.

If I found the noise disruptive enough, I would have called 911 (which I understand he did?). Then if I actually perceived the noise to be disruptive enough that I felt I should record it, I would have done so from my own property.

The worst part is that someone was killed. Adding to that worst scenario is the "he shouldn't have had a gun" publicity

 

[Texan Scott]

SYG doesn't muddy this at all. He was trespassing on provate property with a gun AFTER being told to leave. He DID have a legal obligation to leave; not to 'retreat', but to LEAVE when told to do so. He was committing armed criminal trespass. Further, his pulling a gun FIRST when told to leave wasbrandishing, if not assault. Had he been on his own lawn, or even in a public right-of-way, his case would be different. His macho arrogance and irritable pride led him to kill a man on his own front lawn. Reckless homicide.

"*tch* Stupid, people behaving like that with guns!" -Heiman Roth, Godfather II

 

[Zoogster]

Many posters here keep citing trespassing.
Was he actually trespassing, because from the video I cannot tell. It looks almost like he is on a street at the edge of the driveway, but not on the driveway during the shooting.


I see lines like on a public street that the vehicles illuminates when turning down what looks like the actual driveway. It sure looks a lot like the entrance to the driveway from the street, which would put the guy operating the camera on a presumably public street.

I know the article says 'driveway' but you know how the media is. To the media in someones' driveway and at the edge of their driveway on a public street may seem close enough that they use language that makes a better headline, while there is clearly a legal distinction.



If they asked him to leave and he went back to the public street, or if it was on a public street from the start at the edge of the driveway, then he would not have been trespassing. He would have instead just been an idiot escalating a situation, and still ultimately responsible for what happened, but not actually trespassing.

 

[Texan Scott]

That's one of those details that will have to be hashed out in court, i'm afraid... where reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence rules apply, and forum speculation means bupkis... unfortunately for him, he's in an 'affirmative defense' situation- by claiming self-defense, he's assuming the burden of proof. the prosecutor no longer has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed someone; he's admitted that, creating a 'rebuttable presumption' of guilt. HE now has to persuade the jury that the preponderance of the evidence indicates he was justified in doing what was, by anyone's standard, a foolish and terrible thing. it doesn't bode well for him.

 

[bikerdoc]

Very bad decision making and actions on his part that show a total lack of understanding
of the law, common sense, and alternative solutions. Not everything defaults to gun.

 

[heeler]

I have been keeping up with this case daily.
It honestly would have been much better had he called the police and stayed out of any confrontation with these drunk party goers.
However it has been my past experiences living here in Houston that the police dont always respond to a call of loud music etc. as I have myself twice had to go across the street in the past to tell the teenage neighbors to cut it out as I had to get up at 4:30 a.m.
And I did this after waiting over an hour for the police to respond to my called complaint,which they never did!!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You notice in the call to 911 he tells the dispatcher "I'm not losing to these people again!" at one point. I wonder if this was an ongoing dispute? It also says a bit about his psychological state - not the kind of calm, icy, cool you need to deal with that situation.

 

[heeler]

Another thing that really bothered me was the other day the prosecutor told the jury that Rodriguez was the kind of person that "even when he went outside he had a concealed gun on him with an extra clip".
Basically trying to convince the jury that even though he was legally licensed to carry the firearm he must be some kind of a wingnut for doing so.
Scary.
But all that being said I think they will convict him.

 

[JustinJ]

SYG doesn't muddy this at all. He was trespassing on provate property with a gun AFTER being told to leave. He DID have a legal obligation to leave; not to 'retreat', but to LEAVE when told to do so. He was committing armed criminal trespass. Further, his pulling a gun FIRST when told to leave wasbrandishing, if not assault. Had he been on his own lawn, or even in a public right-of-way, his case would be different. His macho arrogance and irritable pride led him to kill a man on his own front lawn. Reckless homicide.

Did i miss something in the article? Where do you get he was on their property?

 

[heeler]

It was my understanding from everything I have read that Rodriguez stayed in the street.
He was shining his flash light on them and the three guys,who had been drinking,came towards him and the arguments started.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The more I see and read about this case, the more I have a feeling that the firefighter is going to become the CHL poster child for how not to handle oneself in such a situation, even if he is found not guilty, he did not handle himself well at all.

I can't imagine that he will be not guilty, but in going through the articles and seeing the vids, he seems to be pandering to the system so that he can draw his gun and so that he can shoot it. Based on what I have seen, I don't believe that his behavior actually reflects that he is in fear for his life, despite his rather calm announcements that he is.

Did i miss something in the article? Where do you get he was on their property?

Yes, I believe you did. From this article http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...-night-of-fatal-shooting-shown-to-3611376.php it would seem that Rodriguez was on the property that had the party and he is told to leave, though when he was told to leave I don't know if he was actually on the property or not. That part was in one of the vids.

Aggressor debated

Jurors sat captivated Tuesday by the video. 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.

Of course, it was Danaher that was killed.