Raul Rodriguez: "As long as you tell authorities you fear for your life, you can shoot (any) SOB."

[pnwmom]

The jury's deliberating in the Raul Rodriguez, "I'm standing my ground" case. This is the neighbor with the concealed weapons training that made him think it was okay to wave his gun at a bunch of noisy party-goers. Unfortunately, he ended up shooting three people and killing one of them -- and though none of them were armed, he claims self-defense.


http://www.click2houston.com/news/Jury-deliberates-in-trial-of-man-accused-in-party-shooting/-/1735978/14806792/-/t3dowc/-/index.html

During trial, prosecutors called a neighbor to the stand who poked holes in those self defense claims, and portrayed Rodriguez as trigger-happy.

Terri Hackathorn testified how Rodriguez often bragged about his arsenal of weapons and she recalled an “unusual conversation” she and Rodriguez had a couple of months before the shooting.

Hackathorn testified Rodriguez came to her home excited about a new gun he bought, and coaching her about Texas’ “stand your ground” laws.

“As long as you tell authorities you fear for your life, than you can shoot (any) son of a bi**h,” Hackathorn said Rodriguez told her.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Prosecutor-in-stand-your-ground-trial-said-Rodriguez-was-neighborhood-bully--158947685.html

[Scootaloo]

1. Just call these laws what they are - "Right To Kill"

So long as you can conjure up some halfassed story about self-defense, you have a right to kill anyone you want.

hell, it works for cops. "I thought that naked man in his own home was going to kill me!"

[pnwmom]

2. That's how some people have been interpreting them. Hope this jury won't. n/t

[hack89]

5. So why was he arrested and charged if he had the right to kill?

looks like he doesn't understand the law to me.

[rhett o rick]

51. That is an excellent question. But why are you asking us? Seems like an important

item to make your point.

[hack89]

68. People keep saying SYG is a license to murder.

that is impossible if the state of Texas thinks he commited murder and actually charged him with murder.

[rhett o rick]

76. He committed the murder because of the f'ing law. The law is a right-wing law.

ALEC wrote these laws. They need to be repealed.

[hack89]

83. So he even though he had a history of threats and guns

it is impossible to imagine him killing anyone before this law was passed? Really?

[rhett o rick]

100. The law is a right-wing gift to bullies. Kill, kill, kill. Use those guns. Rid us of the

infidels. Use those 44 mags with bullets that destroy as much tissue as possible. Kill for God.

[Scootaloo]

53. As if no one ever faces charges when actually acting within the law?

That's why there exists the verdict of "not guilty," Hack. You see a verdict of "not guilty" is an admission by the court that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual was acting outside the boundaries of law.

Being charged with a crime is pretty far-removed from actually being found guilty of a crime. You may want to continue reading the bill of rights beyond Amendment 2; most of the first ten amendments of the US constitution pertain to how the courts will function, and what citizen's rights and expectations are when charged with a criminal act.

[hack89]

71. People are not charged unless they commit a crime.

so the state of Texas thinks he commited murder. So SYG does not apply in this vase - because SYG says the killing was justified and no crime was committed.

[bongbong]

78. Deal

> People are not charged unless they commit a crime.

You know, I own a bridge that I don't need any more. You can buy it from me and make lotsa money by charging tolls! PM me for the details.

[hack89]

87. So he did not commit a crime?

and the state indicted him for shits and giggles? OK.

[Scootaloo]

80. You have no idea how the US legal system works.

And that makes me a sad pony.

[hack89]

86. So if the prosecutor does not think I broke the law

he will still indict me?

SYG is not a get out of jail card - do you at least agree with that.

[Scootaloo]

89. Being charged and being guilty are different things

And do bear in mind that a similar law in Florida yielded similar results, and the authorities declines to press charges on that one; the vicissitudes of what a district attorney decides to prosecute or not don't seem to have any actual meaning with regard to whether something is legal or illegal.

THAT is decided by the courts.

[hack89]

90. So do you think that SYG applies in this particular case? nt

[Scootaloo]

103. Apparently the jury didn't

[hack89]

107. Neither did most everyone except the defendant. nt

[jeff47]

81. LOL (nt)

[hack89]

88. So why was he indicted if SYG gave him the legal right to commit murder?

did the prosecutor fuck up?

[jeff47]

111. There's a couple of massively naive things here.

First, people get indicted for all sorts of things that are actually legal. That's kinda the point of having trials - to prove that the person actually committed a crime.

Second, SYG is a defense at trial. It's something the defense has to prove. A prosecutor may decide to not bring charges if they think they'll lose because of SYG, but they are still free to bring charges and see if the defense can pull off a SYG defense.

[hack89]

114. So what is the solution?

we still have self defense laws and states without SYG laws routinely decide to not press charges in justifiable shootings so exactly how have SYG changed anything? Police, prosecutors and juries still decide whether a shooting is justified.

[jeff47]

115. SYG is not a self-defense law. SYG is a perversion of a self-defense law

A justifiable shooting is one where you feel you are in imminent danger and there's no other option but to kill.

SYG takes away that "no other option" part. It means killing is your first option instead of your last.

The way to fix it is to return to our old justifiable homicide laws.

[4th law of robotics]

10. What other "right" get's you put on trial for exercising it?

Do cops line up outside of polling stations to arrest everyone who votes?

[rhett o rick]

54. Not sure I understand your point. This is a law that allows you to kill. One should have a great

deal of justification to kill. SYG laws are written to protect bullies.

[4th law of robotics]

120. The person I was responding to called it a "right to kill"

the person in this article who exercised this "right" is now on trial for murder.

That doesn't sound like any other right that I know of. If you can be sent to jail for exercising it then it really isn't a right.

And the law allows you to kill *under a very specific set of conditions*. That's a key point. This guy was not actually at risk, he misunderstood the law, and now he's probably going to be punished for it.

That is not a license to murder.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. You are as crazy as he is if you think that is the intent or effect of those laws

[Scootaloo]

38. We'll see when the Jury reaches a decision, won't we?

Do you think he would have felt secure to do this without those laws on the books, though? He pretty obviously planned to fall back on 'em as his defense.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

117. Jury has spoken...he is guilty

The shooter was crackers...though it did not rise to the legal definition of insanity.

[Scootaloo]

126. Good.

Hopefully the verdict will be noted by other lunatics.

[fascisthunter]

40. no... just an obvious consequence

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

that you can't spin away.

[pnwmom]

56. You're saying the poster is as crazy as the admitted killer, Rodriguez? Nice one.

Your ignorance is showing, "Professor." That might not be the intent of those laws, but it is the effect of those laws.

Here's an article about the effect of similar laws in Florida, for your edification.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

Those laws make people like Rodriguez feel justified in shooting anyone, as long as they say the "magic words."

Florida's "stand your ground'' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.

SNIP

[rhett o rick]

59. Then put me down in the crazy category also. These laws will benefit the nitwits that have

a chip on their shoulder and carry guns. Zimmerman is a great example. He had to follow Martin and who knows what else before he could claim self defense.

[pnwmom]

64. The Zimmerman case was similar. Another gun fanatic taking the law into his own hands. n/t

[rhett o rick]

66. Someone here said this is not the intention of the law.

First, it is important what the crazies with guns think the intention is.

Second, the laws are drafted by ALEC. I would really like to know the "intention".

If you cut someone off on the hiway, is that a significant threat to justify shooting? More important, would a crazy with a gun think it is enough to satisfy the law?

[pnwmom]

77. I agree -- it IS important what the crazies think -- the law shouldn't support their craziness. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

110. And don't forget that poor girl in Alabama

who was gunned down by SYG types who had criminal records

[quinnox]

3. sounds like a license to kill

and you don't even have to be James Bond.

[hack89]

6. And yet he was charged with murder - how is that possible?

if the law says what he did was ok?

[4th law of robotics]

8. Via the magic of hysteria

Idiot misreads law. Idiot acts on his misconception. Idiot goes to jail (likely).

Clearly this is proof that his initial understanding of the law was in fact accurate and we should all panic and make comparisons to the old west.

[pnwmom]

20. What if he doesn't go to jail? How many other violent idiots will feel empowered? n/t

[TheWraith]

24. So what? We should rewrite every law that a moron might misinterpret?

Should we strike down medical marijuana laws because somebody uses them to justify smuggling 1500 pounds of pot across the border from Mexico?

Hysteria is exactly the right word.

[pnwmom]

25. No, only the vague laws that make gun owners think it's okay to kill noisy neighbors. n/t

[TheWraith]

28. The law isn't at all vague.

Except in the minds of people who want to use it to portray the hundred million gun owners in America as all being homicidal socioopaths because a number of guys you can count on one hand tried to get away with murder. Out of curiosity, are you willing to apply the same standard to the gay porn star in Canada who murdered his boyfriend, and say all gay people are psychotic cannibal rapists? No? Didn't think so.

[pnwmom]

29. Here's a gun shop owner and teacher of a CWP class who says Rodriguez followed the law.

So Rodriguez isn't the only one. Anyone who took this guy's classes might agree with him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=805429

[Scootaloo]

49. I'd heard that a lot of these classes

mostly involve learning ways to avoid prosecution if you use your weapon in some way you shouldn't. Having never taken one myself (CWP wouldn't do me any damn good; awfully hard to conceal a rifle, and a deer doesn't know what a gun looks like anyway) I've never been able to affirm this as more than a rumor.

Now I wonder.

[Scootaloo]

45. Golly, but you're defensive

"Except in the minds of people who want to use it to portray the hundred million gun owners in America as all being homicidal socioopaths"

I believe the criticism is on a vaguely-worded Texas law that apparently makes at least some motherfuckers believe they have the right to kill whoever they want under the guise of "self-defense."

You choose to extrapolate this into an indictment of all gun owners, when that's not what is being said.

[pnwmom]

46. You're correct. I'm not indicting all gun owners -- I have relatives who own them.

I am criticizing poorly written laws that encourage gun owners to think they can shoot noisy neighbors and get away with it. And, of course, I am criticizing Raul Rodriguez and any other gun owner who takes a life for no good reason.

[secondvariety]

37. Here in Florida,

not only is the law vague, it's enforced so unevenly it's laughable. Drug dealers shooting it out get a pass, a guy who chases down a speeding motorist and confronts and shoots the motorist in his OWN driveway isn't even charged, a guy tailgates a pick up for miles, the pick up driver stops and walks up to the tailgaters window and... you know what happened.

[pnwmom]

47. Yes -- here's a link about the problems in Florida with this kind of law.

I imagine you've already read this, but just in case . . .

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

Florida's "stand your ground'' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.

SNIP

[secondvariety]

73. Here's a link to the whole series.

Pretty good unbiased write up.



http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

I especially like the guy who claimed SYG in killing a bear that was near his chicken coop. What a dope.

[pnwmom]

74. Thanks, secondvariety!

[4th law of robotics]

121. Many murderers have gotten off on a technicality

or an incompetent jury.

That doesn't mean that murder is allowed.

The fact that he is being put on trial for this proves that the law does not explicitly give permission to commit murder just for the fun of it.

/how many people were emboldened by OJ's acquittal to murder their wives? I don't really want to get in to a debate on his guilt or innocence but it is a fact that many people *believed* he was guilty and got off. Ergo the state told those people that it is legal to murder your wife. Right?

[quinnox]

13. well, if he walks, which wouldn't surprise me

in America, gun nut capital of the world, his words will then certainly ring true.

[hack89]

15. Yet the police and the prosecuter think he is a murderer

so how can you argue that the law actually gives him the "right" to do what he did? The people who administer the law appear to disagree with you.

Juries come to inexplicable decisions all the time - they say nothing of the law that the defendant was charged with.

[pnwmom]

18. This jury will be determining what the law means -- and the decision could be critical. n/t

[hack89]

35. No they don't

juries deliver inexplicable decisions every day. Prosecutors and grand juries along with appellate courts determine what the law means.

[meanit]

79. Apparently he thought the law gave him the right to do what he did,

otherwise he wouldn't be trying to use it as a defense. But even if he is convicted of of being a murderer, people still got shot and killed. Even if you put away every loon who thinks they can start blasting away at people because SYG will absolve them, that means little to their innocent victims.

[hack89]

85. Criminals are stupid - that is why they are criminals

they will always find a reason to justify their crimes.

[pnwmom]

16. The law is being interpreted differently by different people and different courts.

This verdict will be very important.

[hack89]

33. The verdict is irrelevant

if the law said he had the right to kill that man he would not have been charged in the first place. The police and the prosecutor think he is a murderer.

[MagickMuffin]

4. "Are you talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?" BANG BANG SHOOT SHOOT

"Then who the hell else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?"

"Seriously I had to shoot him, he was talking to me!"

[4th law of robotics]

7. Perhaps he should have consulted with a lawyer first

his interpretation of this law a little off.

[Blue_Tires]

19. Before that perhaps he should have done a little self-evaluation

on even if he was emotionally fit to interact with people socially, and then wonder if he was responsible enough to own a gun...

[patrice]

9. The assumption that there's no one out there who actually WANTS to shoot someone/any one is a

statistical absurdity.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. Rodriguez is incorrect.

There must be REASONABLE belief of imminent death or grievous injury. Meaning the police and DA must be convinced that reasonable person in the same situation would have a similar fear. Generally, for this to be true the assailant(s) must have means, opportunity, and a perceived motive.

[badtoworse]

12. The law applies a reasonableness standard to SYG

IOW, the test is whether a reasonable person would believe their life was threatened. Based on what is known about this case, that seems unlikely

[rhett o rick]

62. In the Zimmerman case the police on the scene made the decision not to proceed

as if Zimm had committed a crime. They assumed the law exonerated him.

[badtoworse]

84. What difference does that make? The law is still the law regardless of how the LEO's reacted.

[rhett o rick]

99. The difference is that they thought that the law exonerated him. They didnt process him.

Didnt check for alcohol or drugs, etc.

[badtoworse]

106. The solution is to train better police officers. There's nothing wrong with the law.

[rhett o rick]

112. Well we know that's not going to happen. The police like the law.

And besides training the police we will need to train the nitwits* that carry guns that think this law allows them to kill. Their definition of standing their ground is different than ours. This law is a solution for a problem that doesnt exist. As far as helping those that have to spend their life savings proving their innocence, no one should have to do that, regardless of the crime. It is not unique to victims of assault.

*I am not calling all gun owners or all those that carry guns, nitwits. I am referring to those that carry guns that are nitwits. I know a number myself. In fact no one that I know that has a permit to carry, should have a gun let alone carry one.

[badtoworse]

124. We'll have to disagree about the need for the law

A person legitimately defending themselves should not have to worry about being sued by the person that assaulted him (or the family that survived him).

I also know people with CCW permits and I'm quite comfortable with their having them.

[rhett o rick]

125. Yes we disagree. Thank you for the reasonable discussion which is becoming

rare around here.

[sendero]

91. That is incorrect..

... the police were going to arrest him, some DA come over and convinced them not to. The DA was probably influenced by Z's father.

[rhett o rick]

98. Why didnt they drug test him or take evidence from him? nm

[freshwest]

14. Got another thread on Indiana's changes in their castle laws. Can shoot a cop, now.

If they get into your castle, it's a freebie.

Just following the new 'Do It Yourself,' in the tradition of 'American know-how.'

*Bang! Blows smoke away from gun...*

'See, I did it myself! We don't need these no-good cops to come around and interfere with our liberties.'

This segues nicely with the view that all cops are abusive. Coming together from both sides, see how it all works there?

Those cops were oppressing him. And paying for police officers, stations and patrol cars, and these sissy court trials cost a lot of tax payer money.

Let the private sector resolve all issues!

[pnwmom]

17. Isn't that crazy? I'm amazed that got through. nt

[freshwest]

22. Every piece of ALEC legislation has that Libertarian Paradise in mind.

Remember the video mocking Somalia as a Libertarian Paradise?

RW sites now claim Somalia is a big success. No hospitals, Sharia law with overlords running everything, but just so nice and pastoral, really.

Just like they want America to be. It's a vision of a return to nature. Controlled by a few top dogs. Idyllic, isn't it?

[pnwmom]

26. Seriously? RW sites claim Somalia is a success?

They're sicker than I even imagined.

[freshwest]

36. I was reading it the other night... Thought I was going to barf. They had stats for personal and

Business success. I guess it would be, just tuck all those nasty civil liberties out of the way. I was following some links here that led to it. Got there and read it, they seemed to think it meant their model was a good thing. I think the comment was a reply to someone asking them to move there and leave us alone! Guess I should have saved it, but I don't think the feeling really is any different.

Consider home schooling - keep the government away from your kids. Then charter schools - make sure they get that religion mindset right. Keep voting down those school levies - those public schools teach your kids how to be gay.

Which is one I've argued with 'em for years. They claim children from the age of six are being forced to perform sex acts in class. Yes, they really believe this.
My explaining I lived in a gay-friendly, liberal area and it wasn't happening here, so why was it happening in their red area, got no answers.

Another one: Stop national healthcare - the government is promoting abortion! Listen to Alex Jones cheer his Tea Party, followers for passing anti-choice and transvaginal ultrasounds on those ignorant women who are being used to push the librul depopulation agenda. And they want to kill grandma and the disabled like Hitler. Rush has pushed that for literally 20 years - it's gotta be true! Obamacare + FEMA = Extermination!

Don't pay your taxes - that just gives the libruls more money to build their NWO and take away your Gawd-given rights. Oh, I could go on and on, but it's all out there and it's an alternate reality we ignore at our peril.

[pnwmom]

48. I loved your retort:

"They claim children from the age of six are being forced to perform sex acts in class. Yes, they really believe this.

"My explaining I lived in a gay-friendly, liberal area and it wasn't happening here, so why was it happening in their red area, got no answers."

[freshwest]

61. But they heard it on the radio! Must be true! Which is why they never have links..

It's just the voices of hate, reverberating inside their skulls... Ping, pong... Ding, dong... No wonder Beck is being paid millions every year.

Frightening thing is that they always vote. And I'm very scared of that!

Yeah, I spent years arguing with 'em. They live in a fact-free universe. When they really got frustrated, they'd just call for libruls to all be shot...

DU is a breath of fresh air most days...

[hack89]

93. No - it says that if a cop breaks the law and enters your house illegally

he loses his LEO immunity to self defense laws.

Why should cops have absolute immunity to break the law?

[freshwest]

97. Who says that? Who says what law is above the other?

What if the home owner doesn't agree with the law and feels that he is in within his rights to keep anyone out?

We have cases of police acting in ways what we consider illegal and they have been let go; they even go into people's houses and shoot and kill them when they've got the wrong address!

Where do we draw the line, is what I guess you're asking. If the front door is the line, then no one can come in. When the police raid a house, they are by law given authority to do so...

If you are discussing completely rogue cops are terrorizing someone, it appears this says they can shoot them. But cops can manufacture a case in court that they were there legally, that their actions were legal, so who decides? And at what moment does one decide?

You may not understand what I'm saying, and I'm not trying to start a fight. All I made the case for is that's where ALEC is leading us.

pnwmom and I have been talking about these things on several threads, so I don't expect you to understand the nuances of what my language there was, with no disrespect for you. But I don't do Gungeon threads and this is not one.

But I think many in our country, coming from different angles, may want the same thing in the end, just getting there in different ways. CT's say all the police are tools of the coming youknowwhat, and the rest of us want to be left alone.

There are as many reasons for opposing the laws and organizations that are doing things on the taxpayer dime as there are people in this country. EOM.

[slackmaster]

21. His statement sounds like black propaganda.

That's certainly not something he was taught in a legitimate self-defense class.

Is he sacrifing himself in an effort to undermine the law?

[pnwmom]

23. Here's a teacher of a concealed weapons class who supports his interpretation:

http://www.khou.com/home/Retired-firefighter-accused-of-killing-teacher-Video-proves-it-was-self-defense-157620465.html

After watching the video that was shown to jurors, a man who spent a decade teaching gun owners how to obtain concealed handgun permits defended the actions of Rodriguez.

“He told them to get back,” said Jim Pruett, the owner of Jim Pruett Guns and Ammo. “One of the first things you’re taught to say is I’m armed and my life is in danger. I promise you I will use my firearm to defend myself. He did all of those things.”

[slackmaster]

27. There is nothing wrong with Mr. Pruett's advice, and he's NOT saying you can shoot anyone...

...that you feel like shooting regardless of the circumstances as long you say those magic words first.

[pnwmom]

30. He appears to be saying that Rodriguez said all the right things, and that made it okay.

At least, that's how the reporter interpreted it.

[slackmaster]

34. I suspect it's a combination of a poorly thought out statement and sloppy reporting

Anyone who is a real instructor knows what the law means, and it certainly doesn't mean what Rodriguez said.

[pnwmom]

52. In Florida no one seems to know exactly what their law means.

Do you think the law is really that much clearer in Texas?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

Florida's "stand your ground'' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.

SNIP

[Scootaloo]

55. And let's ask ourselves; who's asking for these laws?

THey don't just get conjured up out of thin air, after all.

[pnwmom]

65. Maybe they're just a diversion?

They'd like to keep basically powerless people fighting each other so they don't notice who the real enemy is.

[LanternWaste]

118. Nor will The One True Instructor speak in a Scottish accent.

"Anyone who is a real instructor..."

Nor will The One True Instructor speak in a Scottish accent.

[slackmaster]

119. Did Pruett say he believed the shooting was justified?

No, he did not.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Good link to the video. Did he "wave his gun at a bunch of noisy party-goers"? Why doesn't the

video show that?

Do you have another video, one showing that he was waving "his gun at a bunch of noisy party-goers"?

[pnwmom]

42. You're right if you mean that no one was partying at the time he was pointing his gun at them.

They were too busy holding their hands above their heads.

But the video doesn't show him pointing his gun because he was the one holding the video, as you know.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. No, I mean what I said. I'm simply a curious person who relies upon facts and objective evidence.

When a claim goes beyond the objective fact that Rodriguez pointed a gun by saying,

This is the neighbor with the concealed weapons training that made him think it was okay to wave his gun at a bunch of noisy party-goers.,

and when I have no knowledge of my own that he "waived" a gun, I would just like the person that has made that claim to share their evidence with me.

When I have not been exposed to any evidence that he "waived" a gun around, is it unfair for me to ask for any evidence?

Why isn't the fact that he pointed a gun enough?

[pnwmom]

58. What difference does it make whether he waved a gun at people or pointed a gun at people?

Neither one of them is an acceptable response to unarmed people whose only "crime" is making too much noise at a party. (Except, of course, that the police had already investigated the complaint and decided that they weren't making too much noise!)

I do, however, wish that he "waived" his "right" to use a gun at all.

Edit to add:

I just watched the video again. He says: "they say I'm waving my weapon, and I'm not."

So the witnesses and victims at the time said he was waving the gun. He disagreed. I know who I believe -- the non-crazy people.

http://www.khou.com/video/featured-videos/Caught-on-video-Fight-leading-to-teachers-shooting-death-157623505.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. What difference? One is factually true. The other is not. An exaggeration undermines credibility.

[pnwmom]

63. No, I believe the witnesses who said that he was waving his weapon.

You believe him that he wasn't. Your statement can't be proven to be any more "factually true" than mine.

On the video, HE says: "they say I'm waving my weapon, and I'm not."

So the witnesses and victims at the time said he was waving the gun. He disagreed. I know who I believe -- the non-crazy people.

http://www.khou.com/video/featured-videos/Caught-on-video-Fight-leading-to-teachers-shooting-death-157623505.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. You misrepresent my position. It is objectively true that he pointed his gun. I don't have to have

any belief one way or another as to whether he was "waiving his gun around."

[pnwmom]

70. It is impossible for him to have been "waiving his gun around."

Absolutely impossible.

However, he himself said that others were claiming that he was "waving his gun around." That's why I used the phrase. If you want to split hairs about "waving" vs. "pointing," fine. I'll concede.

But I'll fight to the death my point that I never said he was "waiving" anything.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. You'll be happy to know that the jury just convicted him.

[pnwmom]

72. Yes, I am glad. Thanks for telling me. How do you feel about the conviction?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

75. Respectfully, I believe that the jury should have and did convict him on the evidence.

Different people respond differently. Because of your question, I'll just answer by saying that I am an INTJ and you will run into more like me.

This explains how to handle INTJs.
http://thomaslauer.com/start/How_to_handle_an_INTJ

[pnwmom]

82. Well, we agree on the outcome then. I guess I had less faith in the Texas jury than you did.

Now I'm going to read about INTJ's.

[brentspeak]

92. I would feel unsafe around any gun owner who actually believes

that Rodgriguez committed a murder -- and long preceded that murder with deliberately bizarre statements -- in an attempt to undermine the Stand Your Ground laws.

[slackmaster]

105. I'm confident that you will let us know if you discover any gun owners who believe that

I believe that Rodriguez is a dumbass who says stupid things as most dumbasses do.

[Warren Stupidity]

108. That is a pathetic theory.

[slackmaster]

113. I'm not advancing it as a theory. I simply said "sounds like."

It was just a lame attempt at a criminal defense.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. No you advanced "Is he sacrifing himself in an effort to undermine the law?"

as a theory and that is pathetic.

[fascisthunter]

39. exactly... now why exactly are people here defending SYG?

are they tapped in the head? Or just plain stupid?!

[McCamy Taylor]

43. It sells guns. The gun lobby supports anything that sells guns.

[fascisthunter]

96. yup...and the lives it takes to profit, are only statistics in the end

reminds me of something Stalin said, long ago.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

50. They think this law will give them a convenient excuse

to live out their violent revenge fantasies.

These laws protect and enable passive-aggressive cowards.

[fascisthunter]

95. Thank You!

although, they really are not passive, just aggressive cowards.

[hack89]

94. This is not SYG.

we are not defending his actions - just like the state of Texas, we believe he committed murder.

[obamanut2012]

101. +1

[Warren Stupidity]

109. Note their new defense is that "this is not the true SYG".

Also there is no 2nd to hide behind here, so defending SYG is right out in the open as rightwing nuttery, Hollywood Cowboy Culture Gun Infatuation.

[fascisthunter]

127. I now think DU is a place for right wing whacks with guns

and DLC stooges who are allowed to mold opinion on Du with impunity.

[McCamy Taylor]

41. In video we see an armed guy tell three men with their hands in the air to get off their own

driveway or he will shoot them. I thought trespass was a crime in Texas. So, how can he trespass and expect to get away with telling the property owners to get off their own land? Plus, their hands are clearly in the air, until he drops the camera just moments before shooting. To me, this means he did not want us to see him shooting guys with their hands in the air. Because if he brought the camera to record them attacking him, he would have kept it rolling while they were attacking him, right?

[pnwmom]

44. Yeah, and we hear an armed guy tell a bunch of men with their hands in the air

how afraid he is of them.



I also love the part where the says someone's talking to the police, so there must be a drunk cop, too.

[obamanut2012]

102. Notice what he says

That he is standing his ground and feels threatened. He did it on purpose.

[HooptieWagon]

104. Yes, he was attempting to justify his future actions.

He brought the camera to get it on tape, along with his gun. He went there intending to shoot someone. Premeditated. First degree murder.

[4th law of robotics]

122. He thought he was being clever

saying the right things while recording it because he thought that's all the law demanded.

He wasn't nearly as clever as he thought he was though.

[makokun]

123. Thank you for pointing out the shooter was TRESPASSING!

Thank you for pointing out the fact that this shooter was trespassing. My wife knew the guy who was killed from high school as well as others at the party. The idiot neighbor had a history of run-in's with people in the neighborhood. The party was being held on the teacher's property. Rodriguez trespassed and confronted the teacher on the teacher's property and shot him...again, ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. This moron thought he had some magic words to get away with it. It being Texas, Rodriguez should get the needle for this. Fuck him.

[pnwmom]

130. Thanks for speaking up, makokun. And welcome to DU! n/t

[fascisthunter]

128. but the whackos here will say this is defensible

[Cerridwen]

129. And Raul Rodriguez learned that only applies to

those with Caucasian names and skin "color".

Surprise!