Interesting stand-your-ground case out of Texas..with video

[Indy317]

Self defense or murder? Retired firefighter on trial for teacher's death | khou.com Houston

I would be inclined to give the guy a pass on the murder charge, based solely on the video. If there is other evidence that he had made threats to the victims, I might think differently. He has plenty of right to go into the public right-of-way and film whatever is in the public realm. Those guys flanked him, then they did approach him. He was there first and they could have just drove or walked away. He should have fled though after they initially backed off, however, he didn't have too legally, as it seems he was still in a public right-of-way. Then there appears to be more distance between him and the others, but it is the others that again go towards the shooter. I do think that the fact we have three current government employees on the payroll as "victims" has something to do with carrying this case forward, but it could have also been a grand jury thing (if Texas has that).

With all that being said, I think a more proper charge would be something like reckless homicide, or criminal recklessness causing death. While the shooter had a legal right to be where he was, doing what he was doing, when he factors into account it is a dispute, not just out for a nightly jog, and that the others are likely drunk, he should have known better. He definitely should have went home after the first time they rushed towards him.

This reminds me of what Kirk has posted, the phrase that every bullet comes with a lawyer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Just to be clear, that is Kirk quoting someone else (Heidi Smith of Thunder Ranch).

Yet another example of what happens when ordinances that protect property rights are not enforced. People get shot dead. I've seen it before, we'll see it again.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Just to be clear, that is Kirk quoting someone else (Heidi Smith of Thunder Ranch).

Yet another example of what happens when ordinances that protect property rights are not enforced. People get shot dead. I've seen it before, we'll see it again.

Seems like self defense to me. They were obviously using their stereo as a weapon to attack his property values. Hopefully, he'll be able to show that his neighbor's grass was taller than the HOA's requirement. He'll probably get a medal for removing these scum from society then.

 

[daddymikey1975]

I don't believe the shooting was justified. He instigated things by even talking to them in the truck..

The fact that he had a camcorder while on the phone w/ the police tells me that he was hoping for this outcome.

Seems as if he pulled the weapon out first (brandishing ?).. in hopes of scaring them ..

I dunno.. I wasn't there so it's hard to say.. I still think he was looking for the fight.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They were obviously using their stereo as a weapon to attack his property values.

That they were but you cannot shoot someone because of that. Only INGO Court allows deadly force over violation of a property right.

He'll probably get a medal for removing these scum from society then.

One does not get medals for shooting people, merely varying degrees of Problem #2.

 

[Notavictim646]

IMO, It appears that by repeating over and over things like "I am in fear for my life" and "I am going to have to defend myself" while using a video camera, he was trying to set up a justified shooting. He may have thought the camera would help him, but it's gonna put him behind bars. The Court will probably determine that a reasonable person would have retreated if they were concerned for their safety. He may not have been legally required to retreat, but just watch, he's gonna get smoked by a jury of his peers.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Dupe.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The tone of this article definitly seems to be Rodriguez was intent on going armed and starting the fight. I'm inclined to believe his intent was to record the noisy party as evidence and was simply arming himself as any regular LTCHer does when they leave the house...just in case. What is unclear by the article is why Rodriguez didn't simply call the police and complain and let them handle it.

In any event this demonstrates the legal jeopardy and public scrutiny any one of us might find ourselves in should we get caught up in a similar situation.

 

[Desdinova]

It's one thing for something to happen and you must draw a weapon to defend yourself. It's another to take a gun and a camcorder after some people partying and then claim self-defense. To me, the very fact that he felt the need to have the camera says that he had a good idea of what he was going to do and wanted to create evidence to support his actions. Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Indy317]

It's one thing for something to happen and you must draw a weapon to defend yourself. It's another to take a gun and a camcorder after some people partying and then claim self-defense. To me, the very fact that he felt the need to have the camera says that he had a good idea of what he was going to do and wanted to create evidence to support his actions. Just my thoughts on the matter.

We were having issues with a neighbor and loud music, mostly bass that could be felt in the house. Not an issue anymore, and a complaint to the property owner took care of it. However, I actually found two or three Indiana appeals court cases that upheld the jury or judge findings of damages against homeowners that constantly had the music way too loud. A camcorder would be great evidence in a civil trial. Sometimes the police just won't do anything, and people get frustrated. Their only avenue is the civil route, and that requires evidence.

The thing is, they came to him. He may have wanted it, but they were stupid enough to bring it. At the end, it appears even more distance is between the individuals. I don't recall if the guy with the camera backed away or not, but one of those likely intoxicated individuals thought he was just bluffing with the gun I guess...otherwise why wouldn't they leave??

Also, we are dealing with a teacher and two active duty firefighters. While the shooter is a retired firefighter, I'm sure the idea that the news media would get a hold of them cursing, threatening may have crossed their minds. Makes me wonder if they even discussed getting the camera and breaking it to try to prevent such an incident from happening.

Face is, the guy would have likely be able to cause a media firestorm with a couple of cursing, threatening, and drunk firefighters. They may not have appeared within 15 mins. like they would if it were cops, but the media has no problem with firefighter and teacher misbehavior.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's one thing for something to happen and you must draw a weapon to defend yourself. It's another to take a gun and a camcorder after some people partying and then claim self-defense. To me, the very fact that he felt the need to have the camera says that he had a good idea of what he was going to do and wanted to create evidence to support his actions. Just my thoughts on the matter

Exactly right.

The threshold question for the jury is going to be if Rodriguez started the fight. If so, he is toast. If not, then it is a clean shoot.

The case is disconcerting for the defense for a number of reasons that were reported and on the tape. We shall see what happens.

 

[Citizen711]

Come on, folks. The mature thing to do is talk to your neighbors about it when this sort of problem arises. He did that to no avail. He called the police - repeatedly - to no avail. He was armed, as is his right. Just because you can see the possibility of trouble (and therefore think that a camera may prove helpful) doesn't mean you were looking for a fight.

Again, he was perfectly reasonable to try to address the noise issue with him. It looks like he may have been really lucky he *was* armed.

 

[Excalibur]

He wasn't able to handle it. It was best for him to stay home and keep calling the cops. He didn't mention about his "attackers" being armed or not. All they did was at worse, approach him to calm him down. He had weapon in hand and shot unarmed people from a distant.

Yeah, he was in the right if he thinks they were being too noise, but sometimes, confronting people like that might not be the best idea, especially if you are alone. Also is camera had ****ty quality, so we don't know what happened

 

[ehoward]

This is an interesting post!

I am a paralegal and have had a couple self defense with firearms jury trials. My first impression is that it's a legal shooting. Yes he was closer to the neighbors home but it was to tell them to turn the music down while he was on the phone with dispatch. When he was surrounded he gave ample warning that he felt threatened and would shoot. The man that got shot went into his home and grabbed his own gun, coming out firing a shot and coming towards the defendant. The victim no longer can claim self defense, he came back to the scene.

They made a comment saying that the defendant brought a gun to the fight...don't we all have a right to carry a gun for self protection if we have a license to do so? Isn't that why we get the license?!

Final thoughts, 1. This is Texas, you can almost do anything in Texas! and 2. Juries all come down to emotion and there's no way to tell how they'll decide...if I were on the jury there would be no way I'd convict.

 

[EdC]

. . . The man that got shot went into his home and grabbed his own gun, coming out firing a shot and coming towards the defendant. . .

Source? I didn't get that from the video or other news stories I read about this incident. I thought the only shots fired were by the guy now on trial. That would certainly make a big difference if it happened that way.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The man that got shot went into his home and grabbed his own gun, coming out firing a shot and coming towards the defendant. The victim no longer can claim self defense, he came back to the scene.

Are you citing another trial or something? Perhaps there was a Motion to Change the Facts that was granted that I am unaware of?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is Texas, you can almost do anything in Texas!

Who is telling you this?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yes he was closer to the neighbors home but it was to tell them to turn the music down while he was on the phone with dispatch. When he was surrounded he gave ample warning that he felt threatened and would shoot. The man that got shot went into his home and grabbed his own gun, coming out firing a shot and coming towards the defendant. The victim no longer can claim self defense, he came back to the scene.

Final thoughts, 1. This is Texas, you can almost do anything in Texas! and 2. Juries all come down to emotion and there's no way to tell how they'll decide...if I were on the jury there would be no way I'd convict.

For your final thoughts,1) No you can't. For instance see OC

2)I agree but not entirely.

There are at least 2 things that can kill his self defense claim.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS. (a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient.

PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY

Source? I didn't get that from the video or other news stories I read about this incident. I thought the only shots fired were by the guy now on trial. That would certainly make a big difference if it happened that way.

I'd like to see it also, the only thing that I have read or heard about the other guy being armed, is that one of the guys said something along the lines of "when I go in the house and come out, don't think I won't be equal to you" Nothing I've read states he actually went into the house, and from the timeline I don't think he would of had time.

 

[slowG]

Hate to bump this if been discussed but I could not find any other info here regarding the outcome.

http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57462584&feed_id=999&videofeed=999

 

[IndyGal65]

Very interesting case. Seems as though he went looking for trouble IMHO. I had a neighbor come to my house once regarding loud music (it was the night before the Indy 500 and I live in Speedway, but oh well). I can't imagine what I would have done if that neighbor was armed simply over a loud music complaint. Drunk people sometimes think they are invincible and this guy had no business brandishing his weapon as a means to end some partying neighbors. He should have stayed home and continued calling the police. I simply don't see why he felt the need to do what he did. His life was not "in danger" by some loud music. Seems to me he instigated the whole thing. A serious black eye to legitimate gun owners.