General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Texan who claims SYG after killing someone because of noise had a history
of aggressive behavior.
This is the guy who objected to the volume at his neighbor's party, so walked over there with a gun and a flashlight, ordered them to turn the music down, whined how fearful he was while he was on the phone to 911, and then shot three people, killing a teacher. Now he's on trial claiming "stand your ground" as a defense.
http://www.khou.com/news/Former-neighbors-union-Rodriguez-always-paranoid-157943785.html
He was a nuisance that thought he pretty much ran the street in a way, said Jamie Johnson, one of Rodriguezs former neighbors. He had us paranoid because he was paranoid. We didnt know when he was going to go off.
SNIP
The president of the Baytown Firefighters Union, who was asked not to go on camera by Harris County prosecutors because of the trial, told KHOU 11 News that Rodriguez was the first and only firefighter voted out of their union. The union felt he was divisive, prejudiced and always felt people were out to get him.
He was paranoid to the point he thought somebody was going to do something to him, Johnson said.
Johnson said Rodriguez often showed off his gun, argued with adults and children and had confrontations in his old neighborhood similar to what was caught on tape and showed in court Wednesday.
SNIP
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)It means you don't have to run away if you're assaulted.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)That loud music was hurting his ears!
onehandle
(51,122 posts)metalbot
(1,058 posts)The article does not contain the words "stand your ground". You are making up your own headline here. Since we are talking about a murder trial, it means that a grand jury rejected any claims he might have had based on the Texas "Castle Doctrine" (which has some elements of "stand your ground" .
He may try to argue "self defense" in this case, but it's going to be the same "self defense" argument that he would have attempted to argue 100 years ago long before the phrase "stand your ground" came into use from a legal perspective.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)If you'd have listened to the tape, he uses those very words.
The fact that the jury indicted him does not preclude any defense he may wish to make, including a stand your ground defense; it just means his claim wasn't automatically accepted, as the police first tried to do with Zimmerman. It will be up to the trial jury to decide if they accept that defense or any other defense -- the indictment just means the Grand Jury found probable cause to think that he MIGHT be found guilty by a jury.
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/man-claims-self-defense-fatal-shooting-neighbor-115652180--abc-news-topstories.html
"It's about to get out of hand sir, please help me. Please help me, my life is in danger now
," Rodriguez told police over the phone. "Now, I'm standing my ground here. Now, these people are going to try and kill me."
Seconds later, a fight about loud music ends with the crack of gunfire.
"Look, I'm not losing to these people anymore," Rodriguez said. "I'm just totally going to stay back, because they're drunk, they're
"
Rodriguez is interrupted by wild laughter, and then the sound of gunfire, before the tape stops as Rodriguez is tackled to the ground. In addition to the shot that killed Danaher, Houston Fire Capt. Ricky Johnson and Marshall Stetson received multiple gunshot wounds after the camera stopped
metalbot
(1,058 posts)He can say what he wants to 911. That's not the legal defense that he is invoking, nor is it the one that his lawyer is invoking. His lawyer is trying to argue that this is self defense. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Texas law that does not require you to retreat (aka "stand your ground" .
If anything, this case is an example of why "stand your ground" laws are NOT a problem, since in this case the grand jury felt it didn't apply. Had Texas not passed the Castle Doctrine, there would have been absolutely no changes to the criminal process involved in charging this guy with murder.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)why he was pulling the gun. Whether or not he is now using or can win on that defense doesn't really matter. A huge problem with "stand your ground" laws is that they are so easily interpreted by paranoid types to mean they have a right to shoot under almost any circumstances.
I'm not talking about the Castle Doctrine, by the way. The Texas Legislature wrote new law in 2007, which added to the old Castle Doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_your_ground
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."[34]
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)his is an all-too-common misunderstanding, as can be seen from a perusal of the comments sections of the local news coverage.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)some people think driving when they've "only had a few" is just fine.
That doesn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of anti-drunk driving laws.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)like this one are justified.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)In 2005 Texas passed House Bill 94[32] which created an exception for unlawful entry of place of residence to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack unless a "reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated".[33]
In 2007 Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 which extends a persons right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:
Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.[13]
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."[34]
There will always be people who assume the law means one thing when it fact it means another.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Just read the comments sections on the many local media stories and you will see. It's pretty scary.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Who?
Comments on the internet don't really count.
Look at the average comment on youtube or any other social media site and you'll find that 99% of the population fervently believes everyone else is "teh gey fagz". That isn't really representative of society in general. Or even that persons own views, they're just seeking attention by being intentionally stupid.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I guess that this is your form of justice.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)I haven't convicted him. But there's no doubt that he did the shooting and there's no doubt this all happened because he grabbed his gun to make a noise complaint.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)implies, perhaps, a deeper motive?
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)What was the relationship with the firemen there, the union and R?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and one of them gets shot.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)His taping the confrontation mentioned in the other thread was also very "WTF." Who does something like that past the age of 16?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And now he thinks it documents that he said all the "right words." Instead, he comes across as a paranoid sicko.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)K & R for those following the story.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Mairead
(9,557 posts)he would long since have received treatment for his delusions, personality deficits, and lack of insight.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This is another case in a wanna be charging into a situation who does not have proper training and just because he held a gun gives him a right to go out and kill someone. This needs to be punished to the fullest. He had plenty of opportunity to allow proper handling of this situation, he chose not to do so. He had time during the time he was video taping to take flight but apparently wanted to "use his gun" though not a wise decision. He needs to go down.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)fast enough to suit him.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He probably felt he was getting shit on by the whole world until he started packing everywhere he went...THEN he felt empowered -- Nobody was going to fuck with him...
Listen to the way he talks to those guys when they pull up in the truck...Just a very disrepsectful, authoritative, you're-gonna-do-what-i-tell-you-to-or-else tone...Men don't talk to men that way unless there is something to back it up:
1. Authority, office, rank, etc
2. Superior numbers
3. Superior weaponry
4. Superior physical strength
I guess my point is he'd never have the stones to confront anyone if he wasn't carrying...
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He was standing on the street and it was 85 dB, so it was what, maybe 70 dB in his own house??
That's not something you call the cops for, repeatedly -- So it's no wonder they stopped giving a shit after the thousandth time he called...(and no wonder his neighbor was pissed off)