New video from Raul Rodriguez, the Texas "I'm standing my ground" killer.

[pnwmom]

In court, jurors heard a longer version of the video they saw during opening arguments. The second link below shows a part of it, including some familiar moments, and some that haven't been released before. At one point, he claims that a police officer must be drunk.


http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Subject-in-Huffman-shootings-always-judging-1698753.php

"Rodriguez, 44, called authorities with a noise complaint Saturday night about his neighbor two houses away. A Harris County constable informed Danaher of the complaint and left his home after deeming the homeowner in compliance, according to the incident report.

"Rodriguez then gathered his gun, flashlight and a video camera and went to Danaher's home around midnight, according to authorities.



http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Lawyer-says-rest-of-video-proves-self-defense-in-3625123.php

In this part of the video, you can see a truck parked at some distance on the right side of the picture, while he's saying:

"There’s somebody else talking to a cop over there, there’s a cop over here right now, they’re talking cop talk, they’re calling 10 codes and all this other stuff so one of them must be a drunk police officer . . . "


A DRUNK POLICE OFFICER????

Uh-huh.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Raul Rodriguez is another NRA creation similar to George Zimmerman

"Stand your ground" is essentially confront, shoot and kill unarmed people.

[spin]

9. "Stand Your Ground" merely means that you are not required to retreat ...

when attacked by someone who has the intention and the ability to put you in the hospital or six feet under.

The media will try to convince you that it is a license to kill but when law enforcement does its job you will still face prosecution if the evidence shows that you had no reason to use lethal force.

To hear the other side of the argument take a few minutes to watch this video. The most interesting and relevant part begins at five minutes in but the entire video is worth watching if you wish to have an informed opinion on the issue. The speaker may not change your mind but at least you will have a far better knowledge of the subject.

[pnwmom]

11. The problem is that people like Zimmerman and Rodriguez, and even some of the

gun "safety experts" who were interviewed in connection with the cases, interpret the various stand-your-ground laws to support these aggressive shootings.

Rodriguez will probably get convicted -- I hope. But the law made him (and could make make other people) think he could get away with it.

[spin]

16. What really scares me is ...

that the media is doing an excellent job of convincing possibly dangerous people like Zimmerman that if they live in a state like Florida with a "Stand Your Ground" law, they really do have a license to kill. This could lead to more tragedies and the shooter will be very surprised when he claims he was just standing his ground and finds himself in prison.

I will congratulate the media for exposing the facts of the Trayvon Martin shooting which has led to Zimmerman's arrest. Of course a judge could let Zimmerman walk in a pretrial hearing if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he didn't act appropriately, or he might have his day in court and the jury might rule in his favor. But the attention that the media generated has caused a much more through investigation to be conducted and he has been charged.

The problem in the Zimmerman case as I see it is that there doesn't appear to be any witnesses to the events which led to the shooting. It is quite possible that Zimmerman confronted Martin in an aggressive manner and possibly flashed or brandished his weapon. If so, Martin would have every reason to fear for his life and could have used a stand your ground defense had he survived and Zimmerman ended up dead.

The media will argue that the "Stand Your Ground" law has drastically changed the situation and allowed more people to murder another individual. I would point out that in a self defense incident before "Stand Your Ground" passed, the shooter could claim that he did try to retreat and if there were no witnesses or evidence to disprove his statement he would not be convicted.

Yes it is true that a person who actually murdered another individual will claim that he was simply standing his ground, however if a proper investigation is conducted and there is evidence that disproves his story he can still be prosecuted. The legal system has to act in a professional and unbiased manner. It doesn't appear that this happened in the early stages of the investigation of the Trayvon Martin shooting. The actual problem in the Sanford incident might be a failure of law enforcement and not the "Stand Your Ground" law.

I do expect that the law will be rewritten in Florida to remove any existing ambiguities or confusion caused by the wording.

[pnwmom]

20. I doubt that there is a simple way to fix the law -- and there are huge inconsistencies

in how the law is applied, especially with regard to different races. A white person, for example, is much more likely to get away with shooting a black person than the reverse.

Here's an excellent piece showing the problems with the law in Florida:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

Florida's "stand your ground'' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.

SNIP

In the most comprehensive effort of its kind, the Tampa Bay Times has identified nearly 200 "stand your ground'' cases and their outcomes. The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state.

Among the findings: . . . .

SNIP

[dpibel]

22. Considering the source

The Cato Institute is pretty much where I go for progressive, unbiased analysis.

"The other man gets you down and he's pounding your head on a rock..."

No agenda here. Just pure, dispassioned analysis.

But, basically, what all the Zimmerman defenders have been saying: If you're losing the fight, fire.

[spin]

23. Technically you are only to use reasonable force in a fight ...

Suppose you are attacked by an opponent who is unarmed and has no real significant advantage in size or physical conditioning. You find yourself in a fist fight and you knock your opponent off his feet with a good combination of hard punches. While he is on the ground you proceed to kick the hell out of him with your heavy construction boots or jump on top of him at start punching him repeatedly although he is no longer resisting, you have exceeded the limits of reasonable force.

In such a situation he may be able to claim that he was fearing for his life and had reason to use a knife or a gun to defend himself.

EXCESSIVE FORCE: The use of continued use of retaliatory strikes when the threat is no longer immediate. For martial artists, an act may be considered retaliatory even if it followed the underlying assault by seconds. Reasonable force under assault circumstances is a difficult matter to judge with any accuracy. If you use excessively force, you can be charged with a crime. If law enforcement has probable cause to believe you used excessive force, you will probably be placed under arrests even if you were lawfully defending yourself.
http://rpdojo.com/student-info/martial-arts-and-the-law/

Basically, if a 'victim' uses excessive force they become the aggressor. Force becomes excessive when it exceeds that which is needed to assure one's own safety. In other words, when he says, "I give up!", you have to stop hitting him. Immediately!
http://www.alljujitsu.com/self-defense-law.html

[teddy51]

2. I see this as premeditated murder. He had no business going to that house with a loaded

gun in the first place. "Please help me" Yeah ok.

[freshwest]

4. Agree, except I think his plans didn't include murder. Just bullying them with a weapon.

Definitely not civilized behavior. That he badmouthed police for their decision, shows he didn't respect the law enabling him to carry that gun. He was going to have his way or else.

I'd like to think that if the police went to his front door about the call he made on the noise, this could have been avoided. But with his attitude, I doubt it.

A previous story pwnmom posted showed the neigbhors considered him a problem. He had threatened unarmed people with his gun before over petty matters that didn't require a gun for his safety as he alleges here.

He was a ticking timebomb waiting to go off, like Zimmerman, going off on others not on his own turf. It's not SYG or even self-defense when you leave your own home or property looking for trouble.

Provocation is what I'd call it, but don't know the legal term. I'd say stalking but I'm not sure it fits.

[pnwmom]

5. I wonder what the police are supposed to do when someone like Rodriguez

is shouting about feeling afraid and saying, "I'm standing my ground."

Are they supposed to just stand there and watch?

Does Texas law mean a permitted user gets to wave his gun around, and the police can do nothing?

[freshwest]

7. They would have disarmed him or maybe shot him if he was out of control. He did this when they left.

They don't do preventative actions in order to protect a person's right to do as they please within the law a variety of 'innocent until proven guilty.' Some states are more pro-active with bigger budgets and are called nanny staters, I guess. If sufficient people had complained to the police in previous incidents, he might have had his CCW pulled.

In certain cases, I found their hands were tied. I remember a case of woman who was being battered by her husband and kept running to my house for help in the middle of the night and to call the sheriff from there. But when her husband came to the gate of my place, she went back with him because the children were there. Investigators from the sheriff's office came one day after several of these incidents over a period of a few months had occurred.

I was indignant, and asked why they had not arrested the man for assaulting his wife, as some states allow officers to do, no matter what the spouses have to say. And then child protective services get involved and they are not let go of until they deem the situation resolved through counseling, and a period of supervision.

In this case, when I asked the LEOs why they had not 'done something!' they let me know that the law at that time, and I doubt it's changed, was that the wife would have to file charges against him. When they asked her, she refused and they could do nothing legally.

Later I asked her why she did not file charges on him for assault, and she had a laundry list of reasons that I won't go into because it doesn't matter here.

My assessment was that the real reason, as usual in such cases, was the family upbringing (she related the practice was common in both families for generations) and economic. She was the 'housewife' who did not work outside the home. He was the bread winner and controlled the finances. This was a rural area, anyway I couldn't do anything about it, despite my feelings about the situation.

So different states have different laws, and I'd suspect we can just call Texas one of those 'after the fact' states. n/t

[pnwmom]

10. Of course, I can't tell how this video was cut, but this version made it appear to me

that the police were already there (the truck on the right side of the picture) when the shooting took place.

But, yeah, "after the fact" seems to be how they want to enforce the law. Great.

[hack89]

12. They arrest him for breaking the law.

this is not a SYG case despite his best efforts to make it one.

[pnwmom]

14. But they didn't -- which makes me wonder what the official interpretation

is, of the relevant Texas law.

(That is, they didn't arrest him just for waving the gun around. They waited till someone was dead.)

[hack89]

15. Because we all know that police are all competent and can be trusted to

exercise good judgement all the time.

As for Texas code, this may apply:

Texas Statutes - Section 42.01: DISORDERLY CONDUCT

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/42/42.01

or

Texas Statutes - Section 22.07: TERRORISTIC THREAT

(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/5/22/22.07


Here is the Texas self-defense law - I see nothing that would justify the shooter's actions:

§ 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 he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.31.00.html

[Blue_Tires]

6. The sad part is Rodriguez is the type who wouldn't have the sack to confront anyone unless

he was carrying...

[freshwest]

8. Agreed. He didn't look to be the type would win in a physical confrontation.

And he had too much time on his hands, to be running around the neighborhood and starting arguments as a previous thread showed that he had. I'll be very surprised if he is allowed to walk away from this thing, though, and really hate that a man lost his life to this foolishness.

[JI7]

17. yup, Video shows to me it's premeditated murder also

[Kalidurga]

3. The video proves murder...

there was a police officer nearby. Kind of proves the officer should have been more proactive since he was there, but whatever. The guy could have at least gone over and talked to the officer. But, instead milled around talking about having a gun and being afraid of unarmed people. Also the noise, didn't seem at all excessive to me.

[pnwmom]

13. The police had already determined that the party was in compliance with noise laws.

He was mad because they disagreed with him.

[Kalidurga]

19. Thanks I must have skipped over reading that portion...

So, they did their job and I agree with the police on this matter. It didn't seem like excessive noise to me at all and I am very sensitive to that kind of thing, apparently not as sensitive as this shooter... anyway maybe they should have offered to take the shooter to the station prior to the shooting to talk to him and put him in a cooler until he understands that this isn't the kind of thing to get all worked up over.

[obamanut2012]

18. Thanks for posting

Unless he is mentally ill, he is a stone-cold murderer.

[pnwmom]

21. I think he's probably unbalanced. And this law, unfortunately, gives unbalanced people

all the justification they think they need to take matters into their own hands.