Seems like he was "standing his ground" though, if that is what the law allows.
First, he was carrying a gun because he DOES have a concealed weapons permit which allows him to do so. That's what the permit is for. Second, he was pursued out into the street by three (assumingly drunk) men from the party. The stand your ground law allows him to stand his ground "in the street" too.
He felt his life was in danger when three men came at him and so he used his gun. He stood his ground. What did he do wrong?
This will get over turned, they seem to be making a point with this case after the Trayvon incident.
He was the aggressor. He went over there, gun in hand, to start trouble, not defend himself. He had a camera in his hand, obviously with the idea in mind that he could manufacture a self-defense claim. He pulled the gun and the other people in the video put their hands up and backed away. At the moment he pulled the gun, nobody had made any threatening moves to him and nobody else had pulled a weapon.
But that's not when he shot anyone. He may have been acting like a dick waving a gun around but he never fired.
He shot when three men, in the street, went at him. That IS in fact acting in line with the "stand your ground" law.
You're ignoring the fact that he was the aggressor. He went there looking for trouble, camera in hand.
Well the neighbors went exactly the Kennedy's. They were a bunch of thug-ish people, making a lot of noise and being obnoxious. He's probably had that issue in the past with them. I believe he asked them numerous times to turn the music down. And three men did assault him (here's a good use of that word again) and take his camera, which is after that when he shot.
I'm not saying I agree with anything he did, I'm just saying the stand your ground law should protect him in this case. He was aggressive toward aggressive people.
If you go at someone gun in hand and they act in self-defense, you cannot claim self-defense unless you withdraw from the situation. He didn't.
I'm not sure he "went at someone with gun in hand" as though he was going to shoot them. He garnished the weapon when he was surrounded by a bunch of dudes at a party after he asked them to turn it down. They did get aggressive with him, which is what normally happens when you ask a bunch of drunks to turn the music down.
I'm just pointing to the fact that once attacked inthe street by three men he did stand his ground.
And still ignoring the fact that he was the initial aggressor.
When exactly was he the initial aggressor? I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not seeing exactly when he was the initial aggressor.
He went over to a house where drunk people were playing music too loud. He was confronted aggressively by the man who was eventually shot and two other men - and the others at the party too; he was way out numbered. He took out his gun to get himself away from the situation where he was out numbered and clearly out of his element. The men then followed him out into the street where he stood his ground.
I don't see where he was the sole aggressor here or even the first.
If my neighbors are some tough dudes, who are throwing a loud ass party, I would probably also arm myself if I'm going to confront them about the noise. Wouldn't you?
Yes, he stood his ground when three men went at him in the street. Those three men went at him in the street because he was not just brandishing a weapon but pointing it at them. They were entitled to claim self-defense against him.
I guess that's where I'm having the problem. DId he pull the gun out as a defense when he initially confroned them about the music, or did he walk in to the neighbors house waving a gun around pointing at people and threatening them? The way I read the story it was the former.
Have you seen the video? If not, you need to watch it, or you don't know what you are talking about.
No I didn't watch the video but I read the news story describing what took place. Does it change that much from video to printed word?
No. I'd let the police handle it. Seriously, if I genuinely think my life would be in danger if I confronted someone over loud music, I'd be an idiot to go do that.
Well some people don't have a problem confronting would be tough guys, and it is America and you so allowed to arm yourself.
Given that you do confront someone over an issue, you are then allowed to use leathal force if you feel your life is in danger. You are also within your right to stand your ground and not have to back down from aggressors. Being that the situation took place in the street, where the three mean followed Rodriguez, stand your ground should protect him.
This case doesn't end here. You'll see.
My life is worth considerably more to me, as is the life of any other random human being, including one who is loud, obnoxious, thuggish and playing music too loud. And anyone who doesn't see that the same way is an idiot.
I say if someone doesn't agree with you just shoot them.
Talking to someone, even if you raise your voice and use naughty words, is not an act of aggression.
It sure can be. I've witnessed many instances where naughty words and raising your voice is very aggressive. Where did I witness that again? Oh yeah, every morning on the subway.
Shooting someone, by contrast, is.
When it is self-defense is it also an act of aggression?
We are obviously very different people.
Clearly...
No.
A defense from what?
From aggressors. Are you not following? You confront some drunk thugs at a party and instantly you're surrounded by them telling you to fuck off. You pull out a gun as a defense to get yourself out of the situation. You get followed out into the street by three drunk mean who have now attacked you and taken your camera. Stand your ground law says you can shoot and you don't have to back down.
I'm not saying I agree with the law, but it is the law nonetheless.
Well I once yelled assault when shoved in the mall fighting over a lilac cardigan. So yes, quite delicate indeed.
But whether or not we class it as aggression
No, whether or not it is aggression is the very point you were trying to establish. Naughty words and rasing your voice at someone can be seen as an act of aggression. But you know that, you're just playing dumb.
it is not the sort of aggression that warrants an armed response.
That has nothing to do with the point you brought up.
But that is not what happened.
Here's the video so we can avoid what did and didn't happen.
As you can see, the three men drove up to him, threatened him, told him they'd go grab a gun too, then assaulted him...so he fired at that point. He never walked into their home making any threats or waving a gun. He pulled out the gun when the three men, who were drunk, came at him.
He called the police and stood in the street waiting for them when HE was confronted by three aggressive and drunk men.
Btw, they were not thugs, they are clearly rednecks.
OK, maybe I'm stereotyping, but I assume that you're a "Na'Yahker!"
Yessir...
OK, defense or aggression?
Desmond Morris' second book was "The Human Zoo." What happens when we artificially crowd animals together? All kinds of aberrant behavior and all kinds of problems from overcrowding. The premise of Morris' book was that we don't have an "urban jungle", but rather a "human zoo".
Solutions to situations in a small town must necessarily be different than in a big city. In a small town, everybody knows everybody else (I served in a state, North Dakota, where not only did everybody know everybody else, but most of them were cousins to whatever degree), but in the big city everybody is anonymous to everybody else.
I still say defense. Although, yes, a quite aggressive defense. But hey, it is America!
From what i gather sand your ground law manes basically if your life is in danger you can kill the agressor.
It means you don't have to back down from your aggressor. In other words, if you come at me, even though I may have a means of walking away and avoiding you I don't have to. I can stand my ground even if that means shooting you.
he had the chance to call the cops he could have returned home after thelling the naighbors to be quiet and then call the cops.
He did call the cops. Many many times. He was on the phone with the cops so they could hear how loud the noise was. He was standing in the street not in the neighbors home.
The three men, as you can see from the video, drove up to him in a truck and approached him aggressively telling him to fuck off that they weren't going to turn the music down at all. Cops still on the phone. He pulled the gun our to scare the three drunk guys so they would back off. They then threatened to go in their home and bring a gun as well. Then they assaulted him, in the middle of the street, so he fired.
To me, I still think he stood his ground and acted within the law. As shitty as the law may be.
What he did murder, dosent even matter if the guys actually attacked him he was the guy with the gun they had no gun
That doesn't matter here in the US. He had a concealed weapons permit so he has a right to carry his gun, the law allows it. Also, if people are attacking you, even if they don't have a weapon, as long as you feel your life is in danger, you can shoot to kill.
They should heave called the cops that thers a lunatic waving a gun outside their house.
I'm starting to doubt if anyone has even watched the video. You sound like you didn't and are just jumping on the bandwagon and agreeing with the popular opinion here.
It's certainly consistent with him being assaulted, but I don't see it as certain. They could just be mocking him or winding him up (a stupid thing to do, granted). I'd like to know how long the gap was in the cut, I could certainly believe if one of the men left the scene long enough to have in theory brought a gun back as he threatened, that he might reasonably be in fear for his life.
Yeah I was focused on that time laps too, because I agree that they could have had enough time to at the very least give Rodirguez the impression that they went to arm themselves.
That said, the Stand your Ground law seems to have claimed another victim whose crime seems only to have been an asshole when he's drunk. A much better solution I think would have been for the shooter to return home and stand his ground there. That way, if they're just drunken assholes mouthing off nobody gets hurt in a moment of fear. If they really did intend him harm, they'd have to break in to his house and he'd have a more defensible position (both physically and legally).
I agree that there was a way better way to handle that situation. But, that being said, it seems to me from the video that Rodriguez acted within the limits of the stand your ground law. I suspect he was being used to make a point, to deter from more and more people using stand your ground as a defence in court maybe. I don't know. But I personally don't think he should be convicted, and I feel it will eventually be over turned.
™ Version 4.2
