Retired Firefighter Shoots Neighbor, Claims Self Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc, I don't believe anything can be done to prevent whackjobs from being whackjobs.

If it hadn't been stand your ground, he'd have found another way.
 
Imust say my last reply was wrong..

I just herd today that this guy was convicted of murder...I wonder if they took in account of his fellow fire fighters testimony was a factor in his conviction???do to they thought he would eventually shoot someone do to his paranoia....I did not see that until later on and boy was I wrong......
 
For one thing, while the video helped the prosecution, there were direct witnesses to the shooting and its lead-up, and there were indirect witnesses (with regard to the incident) who testified to statements the defendant had made prior to the incident which showed state of mind (and possibly premeditation).

So, I doubt the results would have been different without the video.

As to whether an ideal law would make it harder for the state to decide to prosecute - that would be fantastic, but until somebody comes up with a workable way to do that, I'll keep SYG in the states that have it, thank you much. I would not mind at all, though, if they changed the name of that set of laws from "Stand Your Ground" to "No Duty to Retreat." Different connotation, and sometimes connotation is important.

And, Jammer Six, Florida law does actually prevent prosecution if the facts in evidence support a self-defense claim. The case-that-shall-not-be-discussed notwithstanding, the law is supposed to prevent charges from being filed, and lawsuits from being brought.
 
My point. It doesn't work, because it can't work.

Preventing charges from being filed isn't an attainable goal. Or, for that matter, a goal I would want.
 
It may not be a goal you want. However, since prosecutors have (and realistically must have) qualified immunity for their prosecutions, there really is no other practical way to prevent bogus prosecutions.

And if you don't think bogus prosecutions occur, look up Janet Reno's history as a prosecutor in S Florida. She is not the only example of a prosecutor who would charge anybody who used a gun, but she is a glaring one.

Anything that makes prosecutors decide that charging for political gain, advancement of a political agenda, or publicity is likely to ultimately embarrass them is just fine in my book.

As I see it, SYG and related laws simply force a prosecutor to be conservative about which cases to charge, and discourage the charging of questionable cases.
 
Bartholmew Roberts: 1. In a place where you have a legal right to be;
2. Have not provoked the fight; and
3. Are not engaged in a crime

then you do not have to retreat in order to claim self-defense... however you still have to show all the elements required for self defense (Something a hypotehtical reasonable person would see as an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury).
Click to expand...

I agree with the jury's verdict. And I do not see any problem with the SYG law in Texas. I am disabled myself, and I would never have approached the homeowners regarding the noise. That was a job for the police.

But I oppose any change in the Texas SYG law. A person like me that is disabled, if assaulted even by someone unarmed with their fists is life threatening. I don't think this law will be changed in Texas and I oppose any change in that Texas Law.

I recently heard the NRA president defedning the SYG law on TV, and while I am not a member of the NRA I agree with what I heard him say about it.:)
 
I have no problem with the guy taking a gun to another person's house to complain. That actually would be the prudent thing to do. Turning the situation around quite a bit, had Rodriguez been killed by a bunch of drunk guys when he went to a party and complained about the noise and it was noted that he had a CHL but did not bring his gun, no doubt we would have thought him stupid for not letting the cops handle it and stupid for leaving the gun at home as he should have known that complaining to the neighbors likely would not be taken very well by the neighbors.
Click to expand...

He was stupid to go at all. Thinking that you can reason with a bunch of drunks that are already causing problems is very poor judgment. Thinking that you can brandish a weapon to impose your will upon a bunch of drunks is beyond the pale. He was stupid for not letting the cops handle it, even if he did not like the way they were handling it or making the problem go away fast enough to suit him.
 
I agree with those that said that they didn't have a problem with people bringing a gun when they go to talk to their neighbors. I have a gun pretty much every time I leave the house. Bringing the gun wasn't the problem.
The problem was that he went looking for a fight. If he'd found the people that owned the house, politely asked them if they could try to keep the volume down and then left nobody would have even known that he had a gun.
 
younggunz4life, the "politics" part goes along these lines:

Imagine yourself defending SYG type laws to your theoretical sister, who is an associate VP at a theoretical liberal university. Would you rather defend "No duty to retreat" or "Make my day!" if you had to debate the merits of those laws?

IMO, "Make my day!" sounds like gun owners looking for an excuse to play vigilante - and I'm a life NRA member, CCW holding, martial arts practicing, retired Navy, current defense contractor type. If I think "Make my day!" sounds belligerent, how do you think it sounds to my sister, or to others who might be not only in the other camp, but even on the fence?

It's bad politics, in that "Make my day!" only appeals to people who are already on the pro-side - and it doesn't even appeal to all of them.
 
I can understand where you are coming from. I do not think there is an exclamation point in the name, but point taken. My thing is this political correctness and trying to please everyone syndrome...I just don't believe in it. In all honesty I am not buying into the stand your ground arguments going on now either. I hope as well as don't see them being repealed, but it is obvious certain cases(or one case) at the moment have the law in the spotlight. The law makes sense to me. period. judge judy said something one time and it made sense int he 90's just like it does now...if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, that means it is a duck. I personally don't see anything wrong with the 'make my day' law and books shouldn't be judged by their covers anyways. the law made sense in 1985 and seemingly was more acceptable(at least in certain states like CO), and the law still makes total sense just as stand your ground does...it is just under the microscope so to speak. months before the "case" in recent news it was gaining traction. again, I just don't see it stopping as stand your ground isn't really the issue in that case.

I guess it doesn't hurt to have the law on your side in that "Case" being probed in FL, but I just don't see how it helps in this particular matter. I think some people seem to think it is bad because it is a free pass? huh? I think much of the anti gun sentiment comes from colliding and differing state laws on CCW which pretty much just leads to confusion even by law enforcement. I believe these confusions such as the stand your ground law which is being heavily misinterpreted would be better understand with national CCW. CCW anywhere in america...sortof like LEOSA allows for law enforcement...would still have all these state laws that differ but People would understand whether for CCW, against CCW, scared of CCW, etc, etc that it is allowed and it makes sense. I mean its getting ridiculous when people think a neighborhood association booklet might start determining if stand your ground is allowed. there is too much confusion. I appreciate where you are coming from, but why should 'make my day' or "fill in the blanks" have to apologize or change names for something that makes sense. it just makes things sugarcoated and can make things worse in some instances
 
To you, the name doesn't matter because you like the law.

To Joe Public, who may very well be opposed to the law, or on the fence about the law, a name can make a great deal of difference.

We live in a world of sound bites. We live in a world where people skim headlines, instead of reading articles. Most readers will gloss over what the law actually says, but take note of what it is called.

I am not worried about "political correctness," as you put it. I am worried about alienating voters whose votes we need, because somebody decided to use a snappy name for a serious law.

That isn't political correctness, it's pragmatism.
 
I would like to comment about strapping on your gun.

It's a touch complex. Many of us carry a gun whenever we go out and the location we are going to is legal. It is just a part of everyday equipment, like your wallet.

The nuance is when you strap on your gun to go to a potential confrontation with a specific human. Why a human, because I go hike where there may be critters and thus I have gun. It's a generic risk, like a generic mugger.

But if I think I'm going to a place where I have a higher than normal everyday risk of confronting a particular person and need a gun - maybe I shouldn't go to that particular place to engage that particular person.

Does this make a difference? In a case report in the American Rifleman, an individual went over to a place to argue about owed money. He OC'ed over there as was his right. He also competed with firearms. He ended up shooting the person and claimed SD.

The prosecution claimed that OC'ing over to the person was premeditation.
That he competed was premeditation.
He fired a string of shots, paused and fired another. The prosecution claimed that last shot was a 'kill' shot and premeditated.

Currently being appealed. First lawyer seemed not so competent.

So being seen as strapping on your gun, which is your right - could look bad.

All this clearly indicates, the 'if it is a good shoot cliche' isn't worth spit.
 
I have no problem with the guy taking a gun to another person's house to complain. That actually would be the prudent thing to do.
Click to expand...

No. Actually that would be a stupid thing to do on many levels.

1. You are going into a situation that is on someone else s property, this puts you instantly at odds with the law concerning self defense, you have no right to be there, carrying or not.

2. While you could simply phone the neighbor and ask him to tone it down, or call LE and complain, you have taken it upon yourself to become an "uninvited guest" This puts you at a disadvantage, and you have put yourself at unnecessary risk.

had Rodriguez been killed by a bunch of drunk guys when he went to a party and complained about the noise and it was noted that he had a CHL but did not bring his gun, no doubt we would have thought him stupid for not letting the cops handle it
Click to expand...

I submit that had he: A. "let the cops handle it" or B. "not brought his gun" we would likely not be discussing this at all.

I see no problem with phoning a neighbor, or even knocking on his door and politely asking he crank it down a notch, and that failing, calling LE to complain, but if you feel the need to arm yourself to do so, common sense should tell you that you probably should not go.


he should have known that complaining to the neighbors likely would not be taken very well by the neighbors.
Click to expand...

Again, simple common sense dictates that if ya think it's not gonna go well, maybe you should not be there, carrying or not.

But if I think I'm going to a place where I have a higher than normal everyday risk of confronting a particular person and need a gun - maybe I shouldn't go to that particular place to engage that particular person.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree Glenn.

Just my .2
 
1. You are going into a situation that is on someone else s property, this puts you instantly at odds with the law concerning self defense, you have no right to be there, carrying or not.
Click to expand...

That is not even true. Although I agree with most of the rest of your post.
 
No. Actually that would be a stupid thing to do on many levels.

1. You are going into a situation that is on someone else s property, this puts you instantly at odds with the law concerning self defense, you have no right to be there, carrying or not.
Click to expand...

Not true. Just because I am not on my own property does not mean that I don't have rights to self defense. However, if you know of a particular Texas law that states this, please share it as it would seem to be a rather key law lacking from CHL instruction courses.

2. While you could simply phone the neighbor and ask him to tone it down, or call LE and complain, you have taken it upon yourself to become an "uninvited guest" This puts you at a disadvantage, and you have put yourself at unnecessary risk.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, I don't consider any of my neighbors to be a risk to me and I have no more concern about confronting them than they would confronting me. I am not going to disarm just because I want to ask my neighbor to turn down his stereo.

Uninvited guest? I don't recall seeing that stipulated in the trespass laws, but going up and knocking on the front door to address the homeowner is not considered being an uninvited guest anymore than a cop or door-to-door salesman would be an uninvited guests. It is the point of contact, a standard point of contact commonly used. If I have not previously been told not to enter the property and the property is not posted against trespass, then there is no problem with being there so long as not being told to leave.

But if I think I'm going to a place where I have a higher than normal everyday risk of confronting a particular person and need a gun - maybe I shouldn't go to that particular place to engage that particular person.
Click to expand...

I also have no problem with this statement, but I won't disarm just because I am going to knock on the neighbor's door and ask him to crank it down. Just because I don't think there will be a problem doesn't mean a problem won't occur...and it may not even be with the neighbor having the party.

I submit that had he: A. "let the cops handle it" or B. "not brought his gun" we would likely not be discussing this at all.
Click to expand...
Based on my own experience, big parties don't quiet down even after a visit from the neighbor. The party in question was a big party, so the cops should have handled it but Rodriguez was impatient and had issues apparently. And had he not brought his gun (as if the gun is the problem???), you are right, we likely would not be discussing the indicent here, but not because something didn't happen. Instead, it would be discussed on one of the unarmed combat or non-firearm combat forums discussing how it was that Rodriguez got beat to a pulp.
 
Except that for many minutes of recording, without the gun having been shown, Rodriguez was not beaten to a pulp. So, there's "theoretical" could, and then there's what actually happened - which is at odds with the theoretical.

Rodriguez was not threatened until he produced the weapon. Jeered, yes; told to leave, yes. No physical move, nor reasonable threat was conveyed until he showed that he was carrying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top