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

[Mosinowner]

I say self defense. He got attacked at the end of it.

 

[Benny]

If I'm on the jury, I'm convicting him because of his video.

Without the video "evidence" I don't know.

And no, I'm not just convicting him of being a douche bag, which he is.

 

[chezuki]

I say self defense. He got attacked at the end of it.

Forget your purple?

 

[Bung]

He didn't start the fight, the 'partiers' drove to him in a truck. They could have just gotten back in the truck and left just as he could have left. But, would you turn your back on a truck full of people that don't like you? They also made threats against his life, which genuinely would put the fear of death into anyone standing alone against a truck-load of rednecks. It is hard to tell since he put the camera down, but since that guy was laughing manically and it was so loud (indicating he had to be close) I would say the guy rushed him. Maybe he had a weapon, maybe he didn't, but you can't let someone rush you since they could take your gun away and use it on you. I think a murder sentence would be harsh, both parties did wrong here. He should have tried to retreat, slowly walking backwards, but the guys shouldn't have drove down to him in the first place or made threats against his life. I would say anything more than a manslaughter conviction would be too harsh but he deserves at least that much.

 

[chezuki]

I say self defense. He got attacked at the end of it.

He didn't start the fight, the 'partiers' drove to him in a truck. They could have just gotten back in the truck and left just as he could have left. But, would you turn your back on a truck full of people that don't like you? They also made threats against his life, which genuinely would put the fear of death into anyone standing alone against a truck-load of rednecks. It is hard to tell since he put the camera down, but since that guy was laughing manically and it was so loud (indicating he had to be close) I would say the guy rushed him. Maybe he had a weapon, maybe he didn't, but you can't let someone rush you since they could take your gun away and use it on you. I think a murder sentence would be harsh, both parties did wrong here. He should have tried to retreat, slowly walking backwards, but the guys shouldn't have drove down to him in the first place or made threats against his life. I would say anything more than a manslaughter conviction would be too harsh but he deserves at least that much.

You guys must have missed the part where he was convicted and is serving 40 years for MURDER.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Bung]

I clicked the link for the story and it said nothing about an update. I wasn't so eager to learn that I bothered searching for it. But, even though he is serving 40 years, I would still have the same opinion.

I'm sure his conviction came from a balanced jury of his 'peers' if by peers you mean 12 people who don't like guns.

 

[Benny]

You guys must have missed the part where he was convicted and is serving 40 years for MURDER.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I definitely missed that part but yeah, I don't feel even slightly sorry for him.

I'm not even getting out of bed for loud music, I'm calling dispatch. A portion of my check goes to that cause every week, so why not let them take care of it?

 

[9mmfan]

It's very simple. He should have never walked over 200 ft towards the neighbors house. Period. Call the police, call the police, call the police, call the police. End of story. He would still be a free man.

 

[Classic]

If I'm on the jury, I'm convicting him because of his video.

Without the video "evidence" I don't know.

And no, I'm not just convicting him of being a douche bag, which he is.

They would never permit it but if I'm on the jury there would be no conviction. I don't care where he was standing, he was attacked by superior numbers. If carrying the camera somehow indicated premeditation then what is strapping on a weapon before leaving your home?

 

[Benny]

They would never permit it but if I'm on the jury there would be no conviction. I don't care where he was standing, he was attacked by superior numbers. If carrying the camera somehow indicated premeditation then what is strapping on a weapon before leaving your home?

I think the camera led to his conviction, but not because of premeditation. I don't think he was innocent from the video. If he didn't have the camera, I probably would have given him a pass if I'm on the jury (ie, superior numbers)...Not with that video though.

He still should have just called the police and be done with it. No one was in immediate danger, so he should have stayed away.

I know I'm doing a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking, but if I was in his position, this Monday morning quarterback would still a free man.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The was narrating his own video? "My life is in danger." "These people are going to try and kill me." "I'm standing my ground"....

Seem to me he's wanting to kill someone himself, and that by saying the right "catch phrases," he thinks he'll be justified in shooting someone. I vote that the conviction is a good one.

 

[88GT]

You guys must have missed the part where he was convicted and is serving 40 years for MURDER.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Cuz innocent people never go to jail

I wouldn't convict (based on what I saw). I'm one of the few who doesn't attach guilt to the sequence leading up to the events. Mostly because I think it's a dangerous game to start the "Well, if he hadn't _______, it wouldn't have happened." At what point are people responsible for their own behavior? That argument suggests that their responses to his behavior was a foregone conclusion and they had no volition of their own to choose a different behavior.

It boils down to this: we all have a choice in our interactions with other people. We can make the right choice (walk away, not be a douche in the first place), we can make the wrong choice (initiate violence/force), or we can make the stupid choice (exacerbate an already hostile situation but without violating anyone's rights or initiating violence/force). The first person to make the wrong choice sets the stage for evaluating all ensuing events. Not the first person to make the stupid choice, because stupid choices don't automatically mean someone is going to get hurt. Why couldn't the partiers have gone inside and left well enough alone? Why does the single individual bear the responsibility for the entire sequence of events?

Not guilty.

 

[Benny]

Sorry, but I just can't feel sorry for someone who goes to jail for shooting someone when they were the ones who escalated the situation in the first place.

Call the friggin' police if you have an obnoxious neighbor. No one's life was in danger.

I'm not even saying he should be in prison right now, I'm saying I don't feel sorry for him, because he could have avoided it.

 

[88GT]

Sorry, but I just can't feel sorry for someone who goes to jail for shooting someone when they were the ones who escalated the situation in the first place.

Call the friggin' police if you have an obnoxious neighbor. No one's life was in danger.

I'm not even saying he should be in prison right now, I'm saying I don't feel sorry for him, because he could have avoided it.

Who said anything about feeling sorry for him?

But your first sentence is exactly why I have a problem with the whole "Who escalated" argument. Somebody always has the opportunity to de-escalate. Why aren't the party-goers responsible for the shootings because they didn't go in and call the police on the crazy man out in the road? You're holding Raul to that standard. Why aren't you holding them to that standard? Raul hadn't used forced against them, so where was their "right" to get up in his face and do the stupid **** they do that undeniably added its own escalation to the incident. Why aren't you saying they are the ones that escalated since it's absolutely clear that they took it to the next level by upping the ante and responding in kind?

Regarding your last sentence, did he violate anybody's rights by walking in the public thoroughfare and filming the visible-from-the-street activities going on at the house? Were his actions prior to the confrontation with the party-goers illegal? Why aren't you saying the party-goers initiated escalation by confronting him?

Let's say I'm at the gas station filling up the truck. Some douche is behaving stupidly and questionably but isn't bothering me in any manner. Now let's say I pipe up and throw a "Dude, really. You're stupid. STFU and GTFO. You're bothering people and me specifically." or something like that his direction. It sets him off and he comes at me. I have to defend myself now. Who escalated in that situation?

Risky behavior is just that, and it shouldn't really be a surprise to the person doing it (or anybody else) if the adverse consequences happen. But that in no way makes the person responsible for the actions of another. Who initiated force first? Nothing else matters because both parties still have the opportunity to walk away.

 

[EyesDownfield]

I'm always hesitant to voice my opinion on something like this because we undeniably know far less than the jury trying the case, so our opinions will be based on what little evidence we have. We also have to contend with media bias, which can be tricky too in cases like this.

Based on the video alone, I personally would have handled it a lot differently because my goal during any altercation is to avoid using a firearm at all costs. I certainly wouldn't approach my neighbors house and stand outside his driveway with a firearm because of a noise disturbance. He may be legally allowed to stand his ground as long as he is on a public road and not on his property, but that still doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea to stand outside your drunk neighbor's house with a gun in an angry state right after reporting him for a noise violation.

That said, we can only wonder why they decided to attack the guy after he said he was armed and ready to fire. And when the guy hinted that he would come back with a gun, that should have been the ex firefighter's immediate signal to get out of there and deescalate the situation. Instead, he chose to stand his ground and escalate it. Is he within his legal rights? I believe he is, but that doesn't mean that this couldn't have been resolved another way.

Either way, nobody wins when someone has to die over a disagreement like this. It's really a tragic story.

 

[Benny]

Who said anything about feeling sorry for him?

But your first sentence is exactly why I have a problem with the whole "Who escalated" argument. Somebody always has the opportunity to de-escalate. Why aren't the party-goers responsible for the shootings because they didn't go in and call the police on the crazy man out in the road? You're holding Raul to that standard. Why aren't you holding them to that standard? Raul hadn't used forced against them, so where was their "right" to get up in his face and do the stupid **** they do that undeniably added its own escalation to the incident. Why aren't you saying they are the ones that escalated since it's absolutely clear that they took it to the next level by upping the ante and responding in kind?

Regarding your last sentence, did he violate anybody's rights by walking in the public thoroughfare and filming the visible-from-the-street activities going on at the house? Were his actions prior to the confrontation with the party-goers illegal? Why aren't you saying the party-goers initiated escalation by confronting him?

Both are at fault and should be charged accordingly. The drunks get charged with disorderly conduct and Raul gets charged with murder...Hence, why you don't go looking for a confrontation when you are carrying a firearm (or at all for that matter).

Let's say I'm at the gas station filling up the truck. Some douche is behaving stupidly and questionably but isn't bothering me in any manner. Now let's say I pipe up and throw a "Dude, really. You're stupid. STFU and GTFO. You're bothering people and me specifically." or something like that his direction. It sets him off and he comes at me. I have to defend myself now. Who escalated in that situation?

Risky behavior is just that, and it shouldn't really be a surprise to the person doing it (or anybody else) if the adverse consequences happen. But that in no way makes the person responsible for the actions of another. Who initiated force first? Nothing else matters because both parties still have the opportunity to walk away.

That would depend on witnesses and the jury. You did provoke the douche.

How many people do you (figurative "you") think you could get away with killing if you walked around with a pistol and started with random people. Nothing physical, just yelling at them and calling them names and when they confronted you, you shot them?

I have a number in my head, what's yours?

 

[ZX-14R]

I think trying to judge this in the court of public opinion without the evidence, without the video and based on a single article is foolish. There is no way to support any theory, and we can guess all we want, but in the end its just that.....guessing.

 

[Bung]

Some of you keep saying he should have called the police. In the article and the video, he did call the police and it wasn't the first time. He wasn't on their property and was filming the noise to prove later that they were too loud. Those people decided to load up in a truck and go stir up trouble with the guy, this guy didn't walk up to them and start yelling so he isn't at fault. Another crooked DA looking for easy numbers in an anti-gun society. I bet there wasn't a single gun owner on that jury.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Some of you keep saying he should have called the police. In the article and the video, he did call the police and it wasn't the first time. He wasn't on their property and was filming the noise to prove later that they were too loud. Those people decided to load up in a truck and go stir up trouble with the guy, this guy didn't walk up to them and start yelling so he isn't at fault. Another crooked DA looking for easy numbers in an anti-gun society. I bet there wasn't a single gun owner on that jury.

Crooked DA? Since when do DA's and not juries decide guilt?

 

[Bung]

The DA helps pick the jury. I know they can challenge jury members and likely would boot out anyone that has any positive attitude about guns. One great case-in-point, the story told on the Legal Defense Network site about the guy that shot at 3 attackers near his front yard. The jury didn't have a single gun owner on it because that DA used all his challenges to boot out gun owners.