Stand Your Ground ... Again

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 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. 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. 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.- Oni

read the edit what i wrote after i watched the video

After watching the video, I'm just surprised that any of the people at that party could have been teachers.Texas: You need some help with your education system.

A capital idea. I didn't see an assault. There's a cut at 2:44 he tells the dispatch that he is going to tell them stay back that he wasn't 'losing to these people anymore' then there is laughter the camera points downwards and there is what sounds like it might be a gunshot.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.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).

Also after watching the video, I have to wonder why the hell this guy was ever convicted of anything.Did he do something wrong?Or was his last name just Rodriguez?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

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. 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.- Oni

Two things to consider.One, that video was likely not the only evidence against him. I'd bet there was also testimony from eye witnesses who fleshed out the incident considerably.Two, on appeal, all the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict. Any reasonable inferences from the evidence that support the verdict will be accepted and any inferences counter to the verdict will be disregarded. All eyewitness testimony supporting the verdict is accepted as accurate and contrary testimony will be disregarded. If there is evidence or reasonable inferences arising from the evidence sufficient to support the verdict then it will be upheld.It is extraordinarily for a guilty verdict to be overturned on appeal based on insufficiency of the evidence.

After watching the video and reviewing the texas castle doctrine there are a few things that I would consider that he did wrong.
1. He was not in his "habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment". He was in the middle of the street. Which does not qualify as any of these areas.
2. A case could be made that he provoked the person against whom the force was used. By initiating the confrontation with his neighbors and then returning to the street inorder to continue the confrontation.
3. The victims were not involved in aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.I believe that these three qualifiers for the use of deadly force taken in conjunction with each other, would mean that Mr. Rodriquez was in the wrong and did in fact commit manslaughter.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

According to the bill, there are other 'qualifiers' for the use of deadly force. It doesn't appear as though one must actually be in one's "habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment":

quote:

---

80(R) SB 378:

​

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.

---

I think it could easily be argued that a person has the right to be present in any public space, such as the road/street where the incident took place. I cannot find where it is in the video that Rodriguez provokes the party goers. He was in the street. They drove to where he was. They got out of the vehicle. They began to harass him. They then moved to assault him. He warned them he had a fire arm. They backed away. Dicking around ensued. The party goers were too drunk to realize the severity of what was going on and someone decided to charge at him anyway, even after initially backing off. He shot to defend himself from the assault.Is there something I'm missing? But that's only one piece of the bill. There's more to it than that; see my quote above. But those three things you listed aren't all the qualifiers, as you'll see when you check my link to the text of the bill.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

Whether R was within the scope of the law is almost beside the point once it goes before a jury. A different jury may have set him free.As I said in Message 4, I think he made a few bad decisions. After watching the video I feel he should have known better than to confront drunken people with a camera and a gun, he was a fireman and am sure he probably dealt with a few drunken people before.I say make the law earn their money. I will defend myself, but in a situation like that calling the police for help would have maybe saved a life and kept him from having to go through this and pull 20+ years maybe.abe... In a perfect world you may be right, but once a add a jury and lawyers, personalities..... ???? Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

Absolutely. Given a system of trial-by-jury, one almost wonders why laws even exist at all. Juries rarely take them into consideration when handing out verdicts. His decisions weren't the best. The morality of what he did might definitely be something to question. That's just the thing though: where is it that he confronts the drunken people with a camera and a gun? As far as I can tell, he was standing on the street recording the house where the party was atapparently to collect evidence of his neighbor's disruptive behaviorwhen a truck full of men with weapons pulls up to him. The men, who are with the party, get out and he asks them to turn the music downsomething that is well within his right to do and not confrontational at all. They then try to assault him, and so the story goes from there.I just don't see the part where he did any confronting. It seems as though he had already called the police multiple times.

Any actual evidence to support this claim?

In modern times, last 20 years?Or can we include the Jim crow years?

Sure, include the Jim Crow years.The claim is that juries rarely take the law into consideration in rendering verdicts. Now, I'm not saying juries are never racially prejudiced. I'm not saying the system as a whole isn't biased against minorities. But even considering those things, juries still largely base their decisions on the facts as they find them and the law as it is given to them.Could the system be improved? Absolutely. But that's not nearly the same as saying juries rarely take the law into consideration.

Your right, I guess what I wanted to say was when you add in people, innocent and guilty by the letter of the law can be beside the point. LOL, it is funny what will set me into RANT mode.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.