Retired Firefighter Shoots Neighbor, Claims Self Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't care much about the legality of his initial actions. Legal doesn't imply smart.

I believe he intended it to go exactly like it did and he thought SYG would protect him. If SYG laws will be used to justify the behavior we see in that video, I would actively oppose them.
 
I think in a sense, he may have wanted a confrontation, but it's hard to say that he wanted to shoot someone. If taking a gun when you go outside means you want to shoot someone, then aren't we all going to be guilty if something happens?
 
Yeah, this guy is going to get murder 1 if the news reports are correct.

One of his past neighbors is going to testify that Rodriguez did the same thing with their family (Come over to complain, create a scene, pull a gun and claim he was in fear for his life). He also apparently was the only person the local firefighters union ever kicked out . They gave him the axe for being "divisive and paranoid.". According to this article, Rodriguez had engaged in similar behavior in his old neighborhood.
Source: http://www.khou.com/home/Former-neighbors-union-Rodriguez-always-paranoid-157943785.html

Additionally ABC 13 in Houston reports that the jury will not hear the testimony of a neighbor who claims that Rodriguez bragged to her that you could basically shoot anyone you wanted as long as you said you were in fear for your life.
 
I don't care much about the legality of his initial actions. Legal doesn't imply smart.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone here has said that what Rodriguez did was smart. As for the legality of his actions, that is the crux of trial being discussed, isn't it?

I believe he intended it to go exactly like it did and he thought SYG would protect him. If SYG laws will be used to justify the behavior we see in that video, I would actively oppose them.
Click to expand...

So you think SYG laws are a good idea so long as people behave the way you think they should behave, but don't like SYG when they behave counter to how you think they should behave, though (possibly) in a legal manner?

The issues of not being smart and not behaving in accord with your standards are problems rampant in the legal system. I can't begin to tell you the number of people I know who do perfectly legal things that I don't approve of them doing. There would be a lot of laws taken off the books if that was the case and several new ones added. After all, boys are going to date my daughters and no doubt try to exploit the legality of doing so to their advantage. It is terrible, but just because I don't approve of it doesn't mean it needs to be codified by law...at least that is what my Texas House Representative indicated to me.

It is a tough call. Given that he looks to be using SYG in a manner you don't approve, basically for the purposes of a legal advantage for a lethal force incident, then I take it that you would actively oppose concealed carry for the same reason. After all, no doubt the justification for him showing up armed was because he had the legal ability to do so and he used it to his advantage.

It is a very slippery slope when we start deciding that we don't like laws because some people can use them in manners we don't approve. With a paradigm like that, I can see guns rights disappearing very quickly.
 
It is a tough call.
Click to expand...

Nope.

he was in a place he did not have any right to be.

Virginia has no SYG statute, but it is deeply bedded in our common law.

It does not apply if you are in a place you are not legally entitled to be.
 
DNS said:
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone here has said that what Rodriguez did was smart. As for the legality of his actions, that is the crux of trial being discussed, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not in the context of that quote, we're not. We're talking about his initial actions. Legal but stupid. Later actions even more stupid and either are or should be illegal.


And yes, if SYG allows someone to arm themselves, provoke confrontation and then shoot someone, I would oppose them. That is not responsible behavior.

You can spin my approval of SYG any way you see fit. The law should protect the guy who is walking back to his car from a movie and gets mugged, not the guy who arms himself with the intent to create a confrontation, who does not disengage when given multiple opportunities, continues to antagonize, threatens (or suggests) violence where there is none and then kills someone when the incident gets out of control.

That's my opinion. I'm not going have a discussion based on semantics, absurd extrapolations and intentional spin.
 
The video only shows an edited version of the last seven minutes of a 22 minute tape. Apparently, he went onto the driveway and was confronted.
 
I don't believe he was on the deceased or party goer's property. It is possible he was on some sort of easeway. Personally every little bit is gonna help for this guy: the police being there, the not on property part, being in TX instead of NJ, etc and the main reason why is that stuff seems to be pennies and nickels compared to the 100 dollar bills and checkbook the prosecutor has. the guy seems like an idiot. I don' think he went out there trying to kill someone, but no a retired citizen absolutely does not strap on a gun over a noise disturbance at a neighbor's house. The cop probably got an ass-chewing after-the-fact but he was probably beside himself...a noise disturbance isn't even a misdemeanor crime it is a ticket. It is his house and he has every right to blare music until if and when the cops ticket him and he keeps ignoring police warnings. None of which so far mentions the fact that the guy is emotional and letting his frustration and emotions run his actions. There is no place for that while holding a gun. These guys are drunk and obviously stupid for pushing the issue with a man with a gun. Also, the guy seems stubborn as an ox and a mule put together: "I am in fear of my life, i am standing my ground"....basially i am on the phone and since I am in this situation I am going to shoot someone instead of retreating because I am an(fill in the blanks). I might be right and justified with my wife, but that doesn't give me the right to argue and fight with her all of the time too. Either way this guy is gonna have to take major accountability in a plea deal or roll the dice and hope to get lucky...the camera might save him but I don't think so...who knows. Also, i see no evidence in the video of him trying to leave....he is emotional and wants a phone operating officer to hear people in the backround upset over a man threatening with a firearm. i would be upset too
 
Since when does "stand your ground" mean going armed on someone else's property where you have no right to be, pulling a gun, and shooting people who are in no way threaten you with death or grievous bodily harm.

This is the kind of thing that will get those SYG laws repealed and a return to prosecutorial abuse of legitimate self defense. And it is the kind of thing that allows the anti-gun gangsters to demand more gun "control" (ban) laws to "protect good citizens from rabid, insane, right wing, fascist NRA killers."

Jim
 
This guy is toast. Down in Texas he is going to fry for this. It sounded to me as if he was looking for an excuse to shoot somebody. I may be wrong but that's what it sounded and looked like to me.
 
Right or wrong, I believe Mr. Rodriguez is toast.

MLeake said:
I have to wonder if there were other causes for bad blood in this case than just the parties.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect this is the case. None of my neighbors would confront me with a video camera, and then a drawn handgun, for making too much noise. Nor would I them. 'Course, I'm not wont to host loud parties! :p

As Doc Maker points out, the public is only seeing edited versions of the video. The jurors will, no doubt, see all twenty-two minutes.

As I understand it, Stand-Your-Ground won't really be relevant in these proceedings if the prosecution can demonstrate that the initial confrontation was on the neighbor's driveway/lawn, and/or Mr. Rodriguez initiated the confrontation.
 
I strongly suspect this is the case. None of my neighbors would confront me with a video camera, and then a drawn handgun, for making too much noise. Nor would I them. 'Course, I'm not wont to host loud parties!
Click to expand...

I thought it might be an ongoing thing as well; especially given his "I am not losing to these people again!" comment to the 911 dispatcher; but according to the article I linked, he pulled this same stuff in his previous neighborhood and had not lived in this one all that long. Apparently next week's testimony includes former coworkers and neighbors who are going to testify that way.

I think the guy just may have a screw loose when it comes to interacting with society.
 
This was not a good shoot, and it was not a poster child case for any stand-your-ground law. The so-called "expert" in the first video is an idiot. The prosecutor summed it up very succinctly -- the shooter mouthed all the words he learned in his CHL class, but his actions did not match his words. If someone is standing in the middle of a public street and one has a gun, if that person is "in fear for his life" he would not continue to stand there and roll video while continuing to escalate the argument. He had already called the police. All he had to do was leave, and nobody would have been shot.
 
Most of us who have carried a concealed weapon for a long while (30+ years for me), have been in various potentially volatile situations.

It is smart to consider the possibilities. Go to face people down when you are angry and armed? Not smart. Criminal? I do not know. It is just not smart.

When I am angered, I have learned to sit back and cool off.

I have been in arguments and confrontations while armed. The gun never came out or was even disclosed to the other side.

Regardless of the possible explanations, we will have to wait for the trial. My vote so far is that this guy will be in prison and will also be sued for anything that can be found.

My dirtbag neighbors have loud drunk parties from time to time. I just toss the beer cans back onto their lawn while they sleep off their hangovers.
 
I don' think he went out there trying to kill someone
Click to expand...

That just means it is not first degree (premeditated) murder.

It is still second degree murder.

He fired with the intent to kill.

There was no reason to even have a firearm for a 'noisy party' problem.

It is not like the police respond with a SWAT team.


When all you own is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8694721

If you read through some of the stories - he may have a history of bragging about it being ok to shoot someone if you announce some mantra and brandishing to intimidate his neighbors.

Kind of answers the question that your past utterances will be researched. They seem not be allowed in the trial but if you trust jurors not to hear of such - that might be naive.

I've mentioned before that if something is excluded by the Judge in front of the jury - some studies indicate it has more impact. If it was excluded without them knowing about it - he dodged that. Of course, the jurors might see it anyway (- don't look at the paper or TV - :rolleyes:).
 
Without being there, I've got no way of knowing; but it sounds like the excluded testimony would be a good candidate for objection on the grounds of being hearsay.

However, he is going to have a harder time with former neighbors that are going to testify to past behavior as opposed to a statement he supposedly made. Lucky for him, he never made such a stupid declaration on a gun forum (or the prosecutor doesn't know about it if he did) or the prosecutor might have managed to get it into evidence anyway.
 
Any way you slice it, when you pick up a firearm to use on a human, you had better know what you are doing.

This guy is about to find out the hard way.

Geetarman:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top