JerryC
Member
I think he sealed his own fate with the comments he was making, i.e. "I'm in fear of my life." "I'm standing my ground." Sounded too phony and rehearsed. If he was in fear, why not just go back to his house?
(TX "SYG" Case) Retired Firefighter Shoots Neighbor, Claims Self-Defense
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
The prosecutor said that Raul was parroting what he heard in CHL class. Somewhere I read that his CHL instructor was known for putting forward the ideas that SYG and those magic words would protect you.
But I can't find the link and Google's zillion links can't help me - I think we discussed it here. Anyone remember the instructor's name?
I was speculating that if an instructor did emphasize this was a magic mantra and thus encourage a shooting, the victims could add him to the lawsuits.
But I can't find the story about that or the post.
But I can't find the link and Google's zillion links can't help me - I think we discussed it here. Anyone remember the instructor's name?
I was speculating that if an instructor did emphasize this was a magic mantra and thus encourage a shooting, the victims could add him to the lawsuits.
But I can't find the story about that or the post.
Loosedhorse
member
In this country, yes.
In a more perfect world
rolleyes, Rodriguez would have the total responsibility for weighing all advice he was given, and separating the wheat from the chaff. Unless the instructor was or claimed to be a lawyer, his legal advice goes right next to my bartenders'.That was my assessment when I first saw the video portions available MachIVshooter.
I was thinking those two sides of things, even if I didn't word them all in one post.
There was definitely a disparity of force, several hostile men.
They were also the aggressors, even though Rodriguez went to the location.
Many people kept speaking of trespassing but it looked to me like he was on a public street for the whole portion that mattered on the video, which ends when the shooting starts.
Seemed to me it was a public street, where he legally had a right to be, although clearly no other purpose other than to tape and engage with the neighbors in front of their party.
The change in tone and mention of the camera by one of the party aggressors gives a strong impression they were thinking of doing something earlier, but were deterred for awhile due to the presence of the camera. Of course video evidence can cease to exist if they attacked him and kept it or destroyed it, and for some reason they regained their willingness to attack as things went on.
I get the impression people were acting more civil than normal because of the camera, certainly including Rodriguez.
This is not a lone incident and these are people already hostile from prior incidents.
However what really helps remove gray area is that the guy pulled a gun and still stayed. He was reciting things to involve a gun, not trying to actually deescalate things, and knew the camera was there and was doing the acting he thought was needed.
Then even after pulling a gun, which could still be considered potentially valid if he felt in danger from a sudden escalation, as long as he didn't shoot because he had a ranged weapon deployed and they were unarmed and not advancing.
He didn't shoot, which could make pulling that gun forgivable in the gray area of law that is deciding if he was justified or not, if he really felt in fear of his life, as long as he then did everything he could to stop the situation without anyone getting hurt.
He had opportunity right then, after deploying what counts as deadly force to end the immediate situation, a situation that was now one of life and death under the law. He was not attacked, he had a ranged advantage, and the party goers made it clear they wanted him to leave and were going to let him leave.
He has involved a gun, it is no longer a petty dispute.
One made threats they would go get a weapon, but even that shows their mindset was to leave and go get a weapon at that point, not engage him yet.
Yet Rodriguez stays. He defiantly stays. He makes it clear he is going to stay. He verbally makes it clear to the party goers he is still going to continue this conflict.
From then on Rodriguez is beyond the line. Now he has not just decided to confront a neighbor over some noise, but to keep pushing a situation he clearly thinks needs deadly force.
Any person that really felt deadly force and a gun was needed to prevent injury, but did not want to have to shoot someone at that point, would have left. He didn't leave.
He had no compelling reason to remain in that situation or at that location.
He chose to argue with people, pull a gun on them, then argue some more, when at every point in the process he was clearly given space and the option to leave. He was not backed into a corner, surrounded, or chased. He wanted to sit right there and escalate a situation he already thought needed deadly force in the form of pulling a gun.
It is not just for going over there or having a dispute with neighbors with a camera and a gun.
It is everything. He wasn't trying to not be noticed, he wasn't trying to just document things without trouble.
He recites terms to legally justify his firearm use while taking no effort to deescalate, involves a firearm and choose to continue the escalation.
His lack of a real argument, given his well known prior personality and prior known hostile history with the neighbor, shows he is pandering to the camera. If he was being real he would have been less PC. His choice of the few words he does speak shows a thought process that is clear and more interested in deploying his gun than anything else.
He has no ties to the location, he doesn't work there, he is not a customer there, he has no friends or family there, he needs no transport. There is nothing that could even make him think leaving is a bad idea or even inconvenient. He just has to walk away from the property.
One may even be able to give a partial reasonable doubt if they attacked him before he pulled his gun. Maybe he didn't realize the situation was that bad you could say. But he had already pulled a gun quite some time prior, for that to be justified under the law to him it was a bad situation, and he still stayed.
So the question is why did he want to stay in a situation that his own actions minutes earlier said he felt posed an immediate threat?
It clearly does not add up.
I was thinking those two sides of things, even if I didn't word them all in one post.
There was definitely a disparity of force, several hostile men.
They were also the aggressors, even though Rodriguez went to the location.
Many people kept speaking of trespassing but it looked to me like he was on a public street for the whole portion that mattered on the video, which ends when the shooting starts.
Seemed to me it was a public street, where he legally had a right to be, although clearly no other purpose other than to tape and engage with the neighbors in front of their party.
The change in tone and mention of the camera by one of the party aggressors gives a strong impression they were thinking of doing something earlier, but were deterred for awhile due to the presence of the camera. Of course video evidence can cease to exist if they attacked him and kept it or destroyed it, and for some reason they regained their willingness to attack as things went on.
I get the impression people were acting more civil than normal because of the camera, certainly including Rodriguez.
This is not a lone incident and these are people already hostile from prior incidents.
However what really helps remove gray area is that the guy pulled a gun and still stayed. He was reciting things to involve a gun, not trying to actually deescalate things, and knew the camera was there and was doing the acting he thought was needed.
Then even after pulling a gun, which could still be considered potentially valid if he felt in danger from a sudden escalation, as long as he didn't shoot because he had a ranged weapon deployed and they were unarmed and not advancing.
He didn't shoot, which could make pulling that gun forgivable in the gray area of law that is deciding if he was justified or not, if he really felt in fear of his life, as long as he then did everything he could to stop the situation without anyone getting hurt.
He had opportunity right then, after deploying what counts as deadly force to end the immediate situation, a situation that was now one of life and death under the law. He was not attacked, he had a ranged advantage, and the party goers made it clear they wanted him to leave and were going to let him leave.
He has involved a gun, it is no longer a petty dispute.
One made threats they would go get a weapon, but even that shows their mindset was to leave and go get a weapon at that point, not engage him yet.
Yet Rodriguez stays. He defiantly stays. He makes it clear he is going to stay. He verbally makes it clear to the party goers he is still going to continue this conflict.
From then on Rodriguez is beyond the line. Now he has not just decided to confront a neighbor over some noise, but to keep pushing a situation he clearly thinks needs deadly force.
Any person that really felt deadly force and a gun was needed to prevent injury, but did not want to have to shoot someone at that point, would have left. He didn't leave.
He had no compelling reason to remain in that situation or at that location.
He chose to argue with people, pull a gun on them, then argue some more, when at every point in the process he was clearly given space and the option to leave. He was not backed into a corner, surrounded, or chased. He wanted to sit right there and escalate a situation he already thought needed deadly force in the form of pulling a gun.
It is not just for going over there or having a dispute with neighbors with a camera and a gun.
It is everything. He wasn't trying to not be noticed, he wasn't trying to just document things without trouble.
He recites terms to legally justify his firearm use while taking no effort to deescalate, involves a firearm and choose to continue the escalation.
His lack of a real argument, given his well known prior personality and prior known hostile history with the neighbor, shows he is pandering to the camera. If he was being real he would have been less PC. His choice of the few words he does speak shows a thought process that is clear and more interested in deploying his gun than anything else.
He has no ties to the location, he doesn't work there, he is not a customer there, he has no friends or family there, he needs no transport. There is nothing that could even make him think leaving is a bad idea or even inconvenient. He just has to walk away from the property.
One may even be able to give a partial reasonable doubt if they attacked him before he pulled his gun. Maybe he didn't realize the situation was that bad you could say. But he had already pulled a gun quite some time prior, for that to be justified under the law to him it was a bad situation, and he still stayed.
So the question is why did he want to stay in a situation that his own actions minutes earlier said he felt posed an immediate threat?
It clearly does not add up.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
So I guess Rodriguez isn't the poster child for Shoot, Move, Communicate, huh? It seems like his communicating is what sealed his fate regard events leading up to the shooting.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/12/27/peggy-railey-dead-nearly-25-years-after-attack/
Oh, sure they do. They are no different than juries elsewhere...
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/12/27/peggy-railey-dead-nearly-25-years-after-attack/
I know either the guys that got shot or others at the party wrestled the gun away from him.
With all the alcohohl it's a wonder he did not then get shot with his own pistol.
But whether the police arrived right after or possibly the crowd held him is something I cant answer.
But he was disarmed.
With all the alcohohl it's a wonder he did not then get shot with his own pistol.
But whether the police arrived right after or possibly the crowd held him is something I cant answer.
But he was disarmed.
There are several lessons to be learned from this, and Rodriguez will have a very long time to mull them over.
Actually, he has already had quite a bit of time. The shooting took place more than two years ago.
The trial is complete and the verdict is in. We've had five pages of discussion here. Lessons learned have been covered. That should about do it.
Actually, he has already had quite a bit of time. The shooting took place more than two years ago.
The trial is complete and the verdict is in. We've had five pages of discussion here. Lessons learned have been covered. That should about do it.
alsaqr
Member
Texas "Standing My Ground" Shooter Gets 40 Years
The shooter who confronted a neighbor over loud music and then killed the man was sentenced to 40 years in prison.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shooter-headed-prison-210731482.html
The shooter who confronted a neighbor over loud music and then killed the man was sentenced to 40 years in prison.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shooter-headed-prison-210731482.html
Nico Testosteros
Member
Ok.
Rob G
Member
It's been all over the news here in Houston. Haven't really met anyone yet who felt he was innocent.
I think this was a good case for establishing the boundaries of the law. "Stand your ground" was meant to protect people who were attacked while out in public and chose to defend themselves. It was not intended to allow your neighbor to pick a fight with you in the middle of the street and then kill you when it looked like you might win.
I think this was a good case for establishing the boundaries of the law. "Stand your ground" was meant to protect people who were attacked while out in public and chose to defend themselves. It was not intended to allow your neighbor to pick a fight with you in the middle of the street and then kill you when it looked like you might win.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
[Merged.]
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
And updated...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shooter-headed-prison-210731482.html
Texas ‘stand your ground’ shooter headed to prison
By Jason Sickles | The Lookout – 4 hrs ago
A Texas man convicted of shooting and killing his unarmed neighbor during a dispute over loud music received a 40-year prison sentence on Wednesday.
Raul Rodriguez, 47, faced a minimum of five years and a maximum of life in prison. He claimed he shot schoolteacher Kelly Danaher in self-defense under Texas' version of the "stand your ground" law.
But prosecutors argued Rodriguez provoked the incident by confronting Danaher, 36, and his friends with a handgun and demanding they quiet down at a late-night birthday party in May 2010.
The Houston case captured more attention in the wake of Trayvon Martin's death in Florida. There, George Zimmerman says he was being attacked and cited the state's "stand your ground" law after shooting the unarmed teen. But prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder.
Two dozen states reportedly now allow citizens to stand their ground even outside their home. The specifics vary by state, but generally justify a person not retreating and using deadly force when a threat is perceived.
As in Florida, Texas law includes public areas, "if a person has a right to be present at a location where force is used."
But veteran attorney Andy Drumheller told Yahoo News that the Houston jury appeared to draw a line with Rodriguez leaving his home and going down the street.
"The law is not designed to create this bubble that you can carry with you everywhere you go," said Drumheller, a former prosecutor now practicing criminal defense in Houston. "The jury's verdict is a cautionary statement on the limits of this defense."
The Rodriguez case is also unique because the former firefighter was recording video during much of the ordeal.
Rodriguez, who had been calling police about the loud party, dialed 911 again as both sides shouted at each other near Danaher's dark driveway.
"Tell you what, pal, you just pulled a gun on the wrong [expletive], OK?" one of the partygoers is heard telling Rodriguez on the home video.
Seconds later the partygoer warns, "When I go in that house and I come back, don't think I won't be equal to you, baby."
Rodriguez, who told police he suspected the men were drunk, tells the 911 operator that he's scared and will defend himself, if needed.
"I don't want to do this, and it all started over them playing their music real loud … it's about to get out of hand, Sir. Please help me. "
Seconds later, he says, "I'm standing my ground here, now these people are going to try and kill me."
The video is dark when Danaher and two other men apparently lunged toward him, laughing loudly. Rodriguez fired his gun, killing Danaher and injuring two others.
In lobbying jurors for a lenient sentence, defense attorney Bill Stradley blamed the tragedy on his client's misunderstanding of the state's "stand your ground" law. Something he predicts will happen with other Texas gun owners in the future.
"And they will find themselves, like Raul Rodriguez, charged with murder," said Stradley, according to the Houston Chronicle.
"Raul believed he had a right to be where he was. But he had two seconds to make that call, to pull that trigger."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shooter-headed-prison-210731482.html
Texas ‘stand your ground’ shooter headed to prison
By Jason Sickles | The Lookout – 4 hrs ago
A Texas man convicted of shooting and killing his unarmed neighbor during a dispute over loud music received a 40-year prison sentence on Wednesday.
Raul Rodriguez, 47, faced a minimum of five years and a maximum of life in prison. He claimed he shot schoolteacher Kelly Danaher in self-defense under Texas' version of the "stand your ground" law.
But prosecutors argued Rodriguez provoked the incident by confronting Danaher, 36, and his friends with a handgun and demanding they quiet down at a late-night birthday party in May 2010.
The Houston case captured more attention in the wake of Trayvon Martin's death in Florida. There, George Zimmerman says he was being attacked and cited the state's "stand your ground" law after shooting the unarmed teen. But prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder.
Two dozen states reportedly now allow citizens to stand their ground even outside their home. The specifics vary by state, but generally justify a person not retreating and using deadly force when a threat is perceived.
As in Florida, Texas law includes public areas, "if a person has a right to be present at a location where force is used."
But veteran attorney Andy Drumheller told Yahoo News that the Houston jury appeared to draw a line with Rodriguez leaving his home and going down the street.
"The law is not designed to create this bubble that you can carry with you everywhere you go," said Drumheller, a former prosecutor now practicing criminal defense in Houston. "The jury's verdict is a cautionary statement on the limits of this defense."
The Rodriguez case is also unique because the former firefighter was recording video during much of the ordeal.
Rodriguez, who had been calling police about the loud party, dialed 911 again as both sides shouted at each other near Danaher's dark driveway.
"Tell you what, pal, you just pulled a gun on the wrong [expletive], OK?" one of the partygoers is heard telling Rodriguez on the home video.
Seconds later the partygoer warns, "When I go in that house and I come back, don't think I won't be equal to you, baby."
Rodriguez, who told police he suspected the men were drunk, tells the 911 operator that he's scared and will defend himself, if needed.
"I don't want to do this, and it all started over them playing their music real loud … it's about to get out of hand, Sir. Please help me. "
Seconds later, he says, "I'm standing my ground here, now these people are going to try and kill me."
The video is dark when Danaher and two other men apparently lunged toward him, laughing loudly. Rodriguez fired his gun, killing Danaher and injuring two others.
In lobbying jurors for a lenient sentence, defense attorney Bill Stradley blamed the tragedy on his client's misunderstanding of the state's "stand your ground" law. Something he predicts will happen with other Texas gun owners in the future.
"And they will find themselves, like Raul Rodriguez, charged with murder," said Stradley, according to the Houston Chronicle.
"Raul believed he had a right to be where he was. But he had two seconds to make that call, to pull that trigger."
- Status
