Texas man gets 40 years in stand-your-ground case

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

HOUSTON (AP) — A man who claimed Texas' version of a stand-your-ground law allowed him to fatally shoot a neighbor after an argument about a noisy party was sentenced Wednesday to 40 years for murder.

Raul Rodriguez, 46, had faced up to life in prison for the 2010 killing of Kelly Danaher.

Rodriguez, a retired Houston-area firefighter, was angry about the noise coming from a birthday party at his neighbor's home. He went over and got into an argument with 36-year-old elementary school teacher Danaher and two other men at the party.

In a 22-minute video he recorded on the night of the shooting, Rodriguez can be heard telling a police dispatcher "my life is in danger now" and "these people are going to go try and kill me." He then said, "I'm standing my ground here," and fatally shot Danaher and wounded the other two men.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-man-gets-40-years-in-stand-your-ground-case-3665484.php

[LynneSin]

1. That sounds about right for George Zimmerman too

If we don't do something about these 'Stand your ground' laws then gun nuts will just use them as an excuse to go human hunting.

There was no reason for him to shoot that woman. If the party was loud he should have called the police. If his life was 'threatened' then go back to his house and lock the door.

He's lucky he got 40 years, I would have given him life.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. But the law didn't shield this man at all.

So, what exactly needs to be fixed about Texas's SYG laws?

[freshwest]

55. Wasn't aware they had one.. Always had self-defense and castle doctrine.

This guy did not meet either standard of the laws as I knew them.

He went looking for trouble, which is not self-defense.

He was not defending his home, since he was not at home.

Open and shut case.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

56. Can you honestly say SYG didn't help lead this idiot.....

.... to believe he could shoot his neighbor and get away with it?

Be honest.

I mean, it's all well and good this asshole will rot in prison. But how does that bring the victim back?

How can anyone who watched that video not know he was laying the groundwork for a legal killing?... using what he was taught in his ccw class.

He then said, "I'm standing my ground here," and fatally shot Danaher

[AtheistCrusader]

63. He may have thought he was. Does not matter.

Does not reflect upon the intent of the law, and the conviction in this case shows one is not necessarily going to get away with killing someone via this means.

If he was taught that in a CCW class, the instructor is a damn moron, and possibly doing something criminal.

It reminds me of the old 'if you shoot someone trying to break into your house, drag them inside, if they fall outside' meme. I've even heard police officers suggest that, years back. Incredibly stupid thing to do, because the cops are going to notice that you tampered with the body.

People are 'led' to do dumb things all the time, by misunderstanding things like laws. Does not mean the law is a problem. Does not mean potential victims should have a duty to retreat. The excusible homicide (justifiable if you prefer) rate in Florida is about 200 people per year. Of those, (which is a TINY number of deaths compared to the actual murders) how many do you think are questionable? 1? 10? 100? All 200?

Do you think the intrepid douchebag in the OP, who murdered his neighbor, and wounded two others, wouldn't have done it without clear statutes around justifiable homicide/excusable homicide? (I don't know Texas's language, my state has separate statutes for both) I think he might not have filmed it maybe. But I tend to assume murdering douchebag is going to be a murdering douchebag in any case.

It may have led him to go about it in a particular way maybe, with his feeble protestations, but he was off the reservation of lawful behavior several minutes prior to the shooting, captured on his own tape, when he brandished his firearm as a threat.

He's a fucking thug. So no, I don't know SYG is in any way related to this case. (I don't think it's called SYG in Texas anyway...)

[clang1]

66. FIXED: Repeal them

THEY ONLY ARE MEANT TO PROMOTE VIOLENCE.















Meanwhile....The Progression continues.......

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Strongly disagree.

In fact, some states have 'SYG laws that do nothing more than shield the victim from civil liability in any case in which they used a firearm defensively, and were not prosecuted for a criminal matter arising from that use.

(For instance, no manslaughter = no civil liability)

Not every state's SYG laws are the same. In fact, my state has no such specific law, but we have no duty to retreat either. So the effect is ultimately the same, our justifiable homicide law has similar language about 'in a place where you have a legal right to be', 'reasonable fear for your life', 'imminent death or greivous harm', etc.

There are certainly some people that will take a law like this as a license to kill wantonly or for gain, but instances like the OP illustrate complete and total failures to get away with it.

[lame54]

2. Good - that was pre-meditated

[tblue]

128. And dude should have known Hispanics

don't get the law manipulated to protect them.

Sorry to be do cynical. This guy deserves to do long, hard time. But it is not lost in me that no black or Hispanic person has successfully used the SYG defense. I could be wrong and I hope I am. But the law does not appear to be equally applied.

[slackmaster]

3. In other words, it actually was NOT a Stand Your Ground case after all

Criminal defendants make all kinds of bizarre excuses.

[Major Nikon]

17. It was a case of a vigilante who believed a "stand your ground" law gave him a license to murder

In his case, it didn't work out so well.

[MH1]

20. It didn't work out so well for the person he killed either.

Or that person's family and friends.

[mazzarro]

41. Hope the family of the deceased file a civil suit against him as well -- n/t

[marble falls]

102. Right. He obviously decided to couch a premeditated murder as a SYG case. 40 years was not enough.

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes... Absolutely.

About damned time some of these murders committed under some loophole "castle doctrine" or similar law are held to account.

[slackmaster]

7. This was just a murder. There was no loophole or castle doctrine involved.

Please try to focus on what actually happened rather than what the defendant tried to pass off as an excuse.

[hlthe2b]

8. that is the point.. these laws are being used to get by with murder in many cases.

I'm glad the judge did not "buy it" this time, but others have.

[slackmaster]

9. This case is not an example of someone getting away with murder, and SYG was not an issue.

Murder is whatever the law says it is, and anything that doesn't fit the definition is not murder.

[hlthe2b]

11. Just because he failed in his attempt to use it does NOT make it a non-issue.

[slackmaster]

12. It's not an issue in the context of this case

It was just an attempt at a diversion.

[Hoyt]

31. I think he believed -- "Get a gun and you too can stand your ground." That's the problem with SYG.

There are lots of people that never get beyond the "stand your ground" part. I'm sure someone will post the entire law and say it is clear it doesn't apply in this case. Well, tell that to some folks mean/callous/stupid enough to approach a neighbor with a gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. That's exactly what a conviction in this case signals to people.

SYG is about DEFENSE, not OFFENSE. It will not shield you from murdering your neighbor/etc.

[Hoyt]

67. Apparently our gun carrying murderer missed the message, as did Zimmerman.

I don't have a lot of faith that people who carry a gun in public understand such laws. I doubt gun store owners -- trying to sell a "tactical" weapon to some young hot shot -- explains it plainly, if at all, while pointing out the "finer" points of a new lethal weapon.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Not the gun store's problem. It's the state's problem.

And that problem is addressed at the issuance of the license to carry. (notwithstanding a couple states that don't have licenses at all. The state in question above DOES)

Though, in a small way, I possibly agree with you: some people seeking this permit do not understand the gravity of the situation, and would be better off NOT seeking the permit.

[Hoyt]

82. Exon, bankers, coal industry, gun promoters-- they perpetuate problems.

[PavePusher]

119. Not a problem with SYG....

it's a problem with stupid people.

Unfortunately, all the legislation in the world can do nothing to cure stupid.

[Hoyt]

121. Yep, and the gun promoters are fine with more and more guns for "stupid people."

[Major Nikon]

18. It was involved to the extent that this murderer tried to invoke that defense

and almost got away with it.

There's also the issue of this nut being trained by other nuts on exactly how to invoke that defense after murdering someone.

These issues are relevant to some. YMMV.

[slackmaster]

22. "almost got away with it" makes about as much sense as "almost pregnant"

It was a smoke screen by the defense. People who are accused of an unlawful killing have often attempted to justify their actions as legitimate self-defense, regardless of the details of what is codified as being presumed reasonable or where burden of proof falls.

At the end of the day, the attempt failed and rightly so.

There's also the issue of this nut being trained by other nuts on exactly how to invoke that defense after murdering someone.

That is malarkey. Self-defense classes have ALWAYS taught people how to act, what to say, and what not to say after they have used force in self-defense. Good self-defense classes also put heavy emphasis on teaching what is actually justified, what is not justified, and the importance of avoiding conflicts in the first place.

[Major Nikon]

27. Except when people actually do get away with it

I'm not going to go ad nauseum with you as much as you wish I would. If you want to defend gun nuts, be my guest. But I'm no longer going to be a springboard for your ridiculous assertions. I suggest you go find someone else as I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word as I'm sure such things are significant to you.

Chow.

[PavePusher]

120. Provide specific cases.

You can do nothing with this nebulous "when people actually do".

Who? When? Where?

[magical thyme]

44. no, it was a smoke screen that he tried to set up

His defense didn't say, "gee, lets just try stand your ground."

He videotaped the entire episode, and narrated his video. He set out to commit murder under the pretext of stand your ground.

And at the end of the day, although his pretext failed, his murder did not.

Nobody said that "Self Defense Classes taught him to do this."

Some NUT taught him to do that.

[slackmaster]

49. Fair enough. The whole thing was premeditated including the attempt to use SYG as a defense.

Some NUT taught him to do that.

I believe this idiot was self-taught.

[nobodyspecial]

51. Yep, this was the case

[Hassin Bin Sober]

59. Correction: He was invoking that defense before he pulled the trigger.

[hack89]

85. Every defendent thinks he is innocent.

He tried to evoke SYG and failed. The guy is found guilty of murder and yet something is wrong with SYG? Ok.

[Major Nikon]

90. The guy is found guilty and that proves nothing is wrong with SYG?

You do realize your tactic works both ways, yes?

[hack89]

91. It proves that SYG did not apply.

are you arguing that because an idiotic criminal with an idiotic interpretation of SYG killed someone that somehow SYG was at fault? I think that this case has made it very clear to even our dimmest citizens that SYG does not allow you to do what this guy did.

[Major Nikon]

97. If it didn't apply, then why was he able to use that defense in the first place?

Without SYG it would have been an open and shut case. So my tax dollars go to prosecute a case that otherwise would and should have been plea bargained over a year ago? You also conveniently forget that had this fucked up law never existed, said idiot would have never tried to invoke it in the first place (by name) and Kelly Danaher would still be alive today. Kinda hard to explain that one away, no?

[ag_dude]

101. Good point, defendants never use bogus defenses

Ever.

[hack89]

103. Defendants can try any defense they want.

doesn't mean it applies or that it will work. At no point did the legal system take his claim of SYG seriously.

So do you think there is any doubt in anyone's mind now that SYG doesn't allow what he thought it did? Problem solved.

[Major Nikon]

105. No they can't

Set your google to "defense disallowed" and you'll find thousands of examples where a trial judge has disallowed a particular defense. Not only that, we are referring to a defense that is enumerated in the law. If it weren't contained in the law it would be rather hard to invent on one's own, no?

Now you're just throwing shit against the wall. You can continue if you want, but you're going to have to do it without me. I don't have the desire to entertain such silliness.

[hack89]

109. You are not making much sense here.

the guy is convicted of murder and this is proof that SYG is bad. And if he was non- convicted it would be proof that SYG is bad. Why not simply say SYG is bad instead of twisting yourself in logical knots trying to justify you pov?

[Gormy Cuss]

19. Don't minimize it that way just because the court found him guilty.

Sure, if there were no Castle doctrine in his state he may have tried some other excuses but his knowledge of it played a clear role in his comments and actions at the time of the shooting. He thought that the law would allow him to get away with murder, according to at least one witness:

One neighbor testified that Rodriguez, who had a concealed handgun license, bragged about his guns and told her a person could avoid prosecution in a shooting by telling authorities you were in fear of your life and were standing your ground and defending yourself.

so the Castle Doctrine has EVERYTHING to do with this case.

[slackmaster]

23. Castle Doctrine isn't wrong. The defendant in this case is an IDIOT. That is the real problem.

[Gormy Cuss]

38. I agree that the real problem is that the defendant is an idiot.

His use of specific phrases and documenting his actions that way after bragging to at least one person that he thought this would indemnify him is what troubles me the most. I doubt that he's the only fool out there like this. I just hope that his conviction is useful in dissuading other idiots from doing the same thing.

[maddezmom]

39. yeah, a murdering idiot

and agree, hope some people learn from this.

[NutmegYankee]

35. PSA - Castle Doctrine is not the same as Stand your Ground.

[Gormy Cuss]

36. The article used the term "Castle Doctrine" while defining it as SYG.

I'm using the terminology in the article.

[NutmegYankee]

89. The article is wrong.

Castle doctrine is the right to defend yourself in your own home without a duty to retreat from your home, a concept recognized in law for nearly 400 years.

Stand your Ground is the recent change in law, wherein you no longer have duty to retreat in public and no longer limited to only use deadly force if you were unable to retreat.

There is a political effort by some to make the two interchangeable to confuse people. It's fairly easy to see why. Anyone who opposes Castle Doctrine is basically supporting rapists and murders, while opposition to Stand Your Ground is rational and based on the potential for abuse.

[octothorpe]

37. It seems more like the guy's ignorance had everything to do with it...

At the most this illustrates a possible need to improve education gun owners on what exactly stand your ground laws means. Perhaps even better mental health screenings. Based on what I've heard, this guy sounds like he is unstable (as does Zimmerman)

So really, tweak and improve aspects where needed, but it seems nonsensical to throw it all out. I also don't think it's 100% fair to equate the castle doctrine with stand your ground laws. Where I can understand many of the issues with stand-your-ground laws, I can't see how anyone can fault someone for killing someone who broke into their house. No one should be forced by law to flee the nearest exit if someone decides to break into their home. There might very well be cases where that's the best option, but it shouldn't be a law.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. I can't remember if he's the one who claimed he was "trained" at a concealed carry class

or if that was some other person but yes, educating people appropriately is a step in the right direction.

I think few have a problem with the reasoning being having a legal basis for using force in certain circumstances but the argument is in the details of how and when the situation necessitates using such force.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. Yes. Let's focus on what actually happened.

He then said, "I'm standing my ground here," and fatally shot Danaher

This isn't some case of a made up after the fact excuse concocted by an attorney for his client. This guy shot his neighbor with the belief he would get away with it.

Let's deal in the reality of the case.

[hack89]

86. Then the legal system has shown him how wrong his belief was.

are we to get rid of laws based on the idiotic interpretations of criminals?

[progressoid]

99. He then said, "I'm standing my ground here,"

Golly, I wonder what he meant when he said those words.

[slackmaster]

100. I can claim to be the King of France

That doesn't make it so.

[progressoid]

107. False equivalence

Is there a law that says you can use the claim to be the King of France as a defense?

[slackmaster]

111. I'm not aware of any law that says I CAN'T claim immunity for being the King of France

Everything is ALLOWED under our system of law except things that have been explicitly DISALLOWED.

Claiming self-defense as a justification for a homicide has always been allowed, and it should be. The state should always have to prove its case before putting someone in prison.

[progressoid]

114. Nice try.

I'm not aware of any law that says I CAN'T claim immunity for being the King of France

-That's irrelevant since there is no such law. In this case Rodriguez was using an actual Texas law as his defense.

Claiming self-defense as a justification for a homicide has always been allowed, and it should be. The state should always have to prove its case before putting someone in prison.

-From the article: "I think it sends a clear message that this was not a case of stand-your-ground," said prosecutor Kelli Johnson. "And I think from his behavior, his intent, the provocation ... shows that this had ... nothing to do with self-defense."

[slackmaster]

117. Rodriguez ATTEMPTED to claim immunity under a Texas law, but his defense FAILED.

-From the article: "I think it sends a clear message that this was not a case of stand-your-ground," said prosecutor Kelli Johnson. "And I think from his behavior, his intent, the provocation ... shows that this had ... nothing to do with self-defense."

I agree with her. She proved the state's case well.

[KansDem]

5. Good. When you show up with a video camera and a script...

It's premeditated.

I've heard better lines given in a 6th-grade play...

[Blue_Tires]

10. Even after seeing the video and hearing the scripted words

a couple clowns in the earlier threads STILL tried to defend him as if the victim was the actual aggressor...

[Swede Atlanta]

6. Loonies will always find a reason to believe they get to have it "their way".....

but unfortunately that is not always the case. The fact that a jury in Texas made this determination should give those that advocate these "castle" laws pause. The public that make up the juries in these cases are not buying this crap. It is one thing to defend your property and home (in my view never justified to hurt or kill in defense of "things" but if you get near my dogs watch out) but these contrived "I feared for my life" arguments are not going over.

Glad to see it. Hopefully George Zimmerman hears this news and sees what he may potentially face. I hear the prisons in Florida and Texas are pretty rough. I don't wish that on anyone but unfortunately it is what the state(s) in which they live have created.

[99th_Monkey]

13. That's awesome.. and sends the right "message"

to all the gun-nuts out there who were starting to fantasize and salivate
over the possibility of having "stand your ground" legal (<--but not really)
"cover" for murder. It's easy as hell to be packing and pick a fight with
someone who has no idea what your plans are, and then pull a gun and
blow them away claiming "I was fearful for my life", which is exactly what
this one sounds like, esp. since he went to trouble to videotape the whole
thing.

Hopefully this will help with the Zimmerman trial as well.

woot!

[Swede Atlanta]

15. I struggle to understand the whole "gun" mentality.....

Is it

(a) A fear the government is going to do something horrible to you and the only possible remedy is to shoot your way out? I suggest Ruby Ridge and Waco are informative on who will win

(b) My penis/clitoris is undersized. If I buy a gun and run around talking about it my penis/clitoris are bigger are more important

(c) I have always felt put upon by society so my way of sticking it to everyone else is to shoot-em-up whenever I can?

Is there another explanation? I asked a FB friend of mine whose son has an exotic animal "killing" business what was so satisfying on killing a lion. He de-friended me. I have my answer...they have no answer other than they are seriously deranged.

[99th_Monkey]

16. (d) All of the above

This mentality really baffles me too.

[Major Nikon]

21. I own several guns myself

However, I have never once in my life felt the urge to carry a loaded weapon anywhere other than while hunting or shooting targets. This includes times when I lived and/or worked in some very bad and extremely remote areas.

This entire society that is built on the worship of guns is a far bigger threat to society than anything they could ever hope to thwart. It's very much like organized religion. No matter how big of a blight this is on society, you still have people who have abandoned all reason in favor of gun worship.

[Hoyt]

32. Exactly. It's one thing to have a few guns at home, but carrying them in public crosses the line.

[99th_Monkey]

33. Hope you aren't feeling judged or demonized

by my comments. I grew up as a hunter of deer and flying foul, but just
kinda lost interest when I was swept up in the peace and civil rights
movements in the 60s.

The random psycho "shoot 'em up" scenario certainly does seem to be
on the rise; so I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning on that..

[Major Nikon]

34. I know exactly what you mean

I don't understand the gun worshiping mentality any better than you do. Once the fringe nuts took over the NRA, it's been all downhill.

[spin]

62. The chance that I will ever have a reason to use my legally concealed handgun ...

is very slim as the violent crime rate in our nation has dropped to the levels of the late 60s.

However I am 66 years old and suffer from degenerative disc disease and am a candidate for a hip replacement. I walk with a bad limp and have a tag to park in a disabled parking space (when they are available). To a street predator I am an easy target.

When I was younger I had some martial arts training but while it might be still useful, I am out of practice and physically unable to preform as well as I did back then. I do carry less lethal alternatives to my firearm such as pepper spray.

I have enjoyed target shooting handguns for over forty years and while I have never been a competitive shooter most people that watch me shoot feel I should be (or should have been).

I carry a five shot .38 caliber S&W snub nosed airweight revolver for self defense. Even when loaded it is extremely light and on my way out the door, I drop it and its pocket holster into my right side pants pocket. I don't have any fantasies about being a hero and shooting the bad guy or a bunch of them. If some mugger walks up to me with a weapon and asks for me to turn over my wallet, I will do so. I can always replace my money, my credit cards and my driver's license but I can't replace my health or my life as easily. If I am certain that my attacker intends to put me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under, I have nothing to lose and I will attempt to defend myself by using lethal force.

I don't worship guns as you suggest. I enjoy shooting and view my firearm collection the same as a golfer views the clubs in his bag or a fisherman enjoys his collection of rods and reels. Firearms to me are simply inanimate tools not gods.

I also lived in a bad area for many years. I didn't fear being attacked as I used situational awareness but it was a possibility. I differ from you in that I made a decision to carry a firearm. Fortunately I never had a reason to use it.

[Major Nikon]

72. For me, part of being a Democrat means I consider public policy from it's impact to society

...rather than just my own individual desires. It's kind of like I may have a strong desire to pay less taxes, but I understand paying less taxes has a societal impact.

The negative cost of having millions of armed vigilantes far outweighs any assumed benefit, especially in the absence of any hard evidence that shows that assumed benefit is an actual benefit at all.

Furthermore concealed carry and shoot first laws are only part of the problem our gun worshiping culture has created. The lack of any meaningful legislation laws means 2,000 guns go across the border every day to be used to kill everyone from drug gang rivals to innocent civilians, and there's no way to hold anyone accountable.

[spin]

75. Please explain how having millions of gun owners have caused the violent crime rate to increase ...

when in fact the crime rate has dropped significantly since "shall issue" concealed carry passed in many states. Let's look at some data from the Dept of Justice:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

Compare this data to this map.



Now I am not trying to explain the drop in the violent crime rate involving firearms is due to "shall issue" concealed carry, but I am asking you that if concealed carry was such a terrible idea why hasn't the crime rate skyrocketed?

I also feel that your view that gun owners who legally carry are vigilantes is faulty. If you are right then why don't we read of a case a day similar to the Trayvon Martin shooting? Surely if millions of people who legally carry concealed were indeed vigilantes who are walking around flashing a wad of cash hoping to attract a street predator or driving through their neighborhood looking for criminals to kill we would have far more shootings.

I do agree that we need to improve our laws to stop the straw purchase and smuggling of firearms to our city streets and to Mexico. I personally feel that anyone convicted of straw purchasing firearms should be tried as an accessory to any crime committed with the weapons he/she bought and sold to a criminal.


Please take a deep breath and relax. You sound like there is a vigilante apocalypse happening!

[Major Nikon]

83. I've only seen this posted on DU about a million times

It doesn't become any less BS the millionth time it's been posted from the first time. Whether you realize it or not, you're pushing an onus probandi fallacy which means you're trying to push the burden of proof against laws that were never proved to have any benefit in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, one innocent person dying as a result of this public policy is one too many. I don't need to wait for a zombie apocalypse or crime rates to reflect those failures. These laws were pushed through state legislatures by wingnut lobbying groups like the NRA and ALEC with zero evidence to support passing them in the first place. I don't feel the need to disprove something that was never proved to begin with. YMMV.

Furthermore there HAVE been quite a few stories of how those laws have failed. There have been numerous stories about bar fights, road rage, mistaken identities, and neighborhood disputes turning violent where someone who concealed a weapon killed or shot someone else after their alligator mouth overloaded their canary ass and they shot their way out of the situation, then used 'stand your ground laws' to support a ridiculous claim of self defense. Trayvon Martin is not the only victim by a long shot.

[GreenStormCloud]

93. You refuse to consider the innocent lives saved.

Every year there are more innocent lives saved by concealed carry than are killed by concealed carry.

My own wife is among those who has saved her life by having her gun on her person. Fortunately she didn't have to shoot as the would-be attacker fled when he discover that the little old lady he was about to attack was armed. I have posted the details numerous times. It happened twice, the second attack within a few weeks of the first. Then it never happened again to her. Would you be happier if she had been unarmed and another fatal crime statistic?

[Major Nikon]

96. I really don't care much for anecdotal data, especially that which can't be verified

If you want to hear a sad story(which can be verified), I can tell you one about a guy who shot his neighbor over a dispute regarding a trash can, stood over him and laughed as he lay bleeding, then went back inside his house and never called 911. Then thanks to SYG, he escapes justice. In fact, I can tell several stories just like that one.

Until I see a criminology study by someone who isn't on the NRA's payroll that shows a proven benefit to justify dozens of people getting by with murder, I'm going to assume there isn't any. YMMV.

[spin]

106. If as you say, "one innocent person dying as a result of this public policy is one too many" ...

do you ever consider that lives have also been saved?

Man uses concealed weapon to stop stabbing spree, police say he likely saved lives
Updated: 5/09 10:47 pm | Published: 4/27 7:20 pm

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - Kiet Thanh Ly is accused of a stabbing spree at a downtown Salt Lake City supermarket.

The stabbing happened at the 400 South 600 East Smith's location April 26 at about 5:30 p.m. where the stabbings sent customers running for safety.

Police say Ly, who is 33-years-old, bought the knife at the store then stabbed two men in the parking lot and tried to stab others. Police say Ly did not know his victims.

The hero of the hour is a man with a concealed weapons permit. He held Ly at gunpoint until police arrived.
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Man-uses-concealed-weapon-to-stop-stabbing-spree/zdZzsT6hNk2Q9tJtkKq3VA.cspx

POLICE: Pizza delivery man fights back after being ambushed, kills robber
Posted: 02/21/2011

DETROIT (WXYZ) - A Detroit pizza delivery man turned the tables on three would be crooks Sunday night.

The driver for Papa’s Pizza shot and killed one of the men who attempted to ambush and rob him around 10 o’clock. The address provided was a vacant home on the 20000 block of McCormick on Detroit’s east side, one block from the border of Harper Woods.

A neighbor, who did not wish to be identified, said she heard “4, 5, 6 shots.” Once she mustered up the courage to look out her window, she said she saw a man holding a gun and talking on his cell phone. She also noticed what she described as a “lump” on the ground. She learned later that was the body of the one of the suspects and the man with the gun was the pizza delivery man.

The manager at the pizza shop told Action News his employee has a concealed weapons permit along with many of his other drivers. He was not hurt but was shaken up over the incident, according to the manager.
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/police:-pizza-delivery-man-fights-back-after-being-ambushed,-kills-robber

Terrorism threats, mass shootings force churches to enlist more strict security
Published: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - When a black-clad gunman walked into New Life Church on Sunday and started shooting, he was met with the church's first line of defense: a congregant with a concealed-weapons permit and a law enforcement background.

The armed volunteer, Jeanne Assam, shot the gunman, who police said may have committed suicide. New Life's pastor credited her with saving dozens more lives.
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/121107/nat_121107039.shtml

I personally know of three instances where a legally concealed weapon was used by a co-worker or a friend to stop an attack. The attackers were armed, two with knives and one with a tire iron. No shots were fired as the attackers stopped when they were aware that their victim was armed.

When a person successfully uses a concealed weapon to thwart an attack the item rarely makes the news unless shots were fired and then usually only the local news. Incidents which involve the questionable use of a concealed weapon often get far more attention.

The Tampa Bay Times published a report on "Stand Your Ground". It supports an argument for both sides of the issue as indeed people have been convicted of a crime when they misused their concealed weapon but the majority were not charged or a jury felt they were not guilty.

Florida's "stand your ground" law has been extremely successful for people who kill and claim self-defense. Nearly 70 percent of those accused went free (36 cases are pending).



Source of data

The Tampa Bay Times used published newspaper reports, court records and documents obtained from prosecutors and defense attorneys to compile a partial list of self-defense cases in Florida since 2005. Although this list likely contains most fatalities in which "stand your ground" was invoked, it does not include scores of less serious cases from around the state.
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

Despite the national attention the Trayvon Martin shooting caused, most Floridians still support "Stand Your Ground."

Poll: Floridians support 'stand your ground' law
By WILLIAM MARCH | The Tampa Tribune
Published: May 25, 2012

TAMPA --

Florida voters are happy with the state's "stand your ground" self-defense law, don't want stricter gun control laws and — by a narrow margin — don't want to ban guns in downtown Tampa during the Republican National Convention, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

On the 'stand your ground' law, 56 percent of poll respondents said they support the law, 35 percent oppose it and 8 percent said they don't know.

***snip***

For example, 78 percent of Republicans supported the 'stand your ground' law while 59 percent of Democrats opposed it; and 54 percent of women and 63 percent of blacks supported stricter gun control laws, while 62 percent of men and 56 percent of whites opposed them.

There was one exception to that race, gender and party breakdown: By a 48-39 percent plurality, women backed the 'stand your ground' law.
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2012/may/25/memeto1-poll-floridians-support-stand-your-ground--ar-407710/

Perhaps the reason the "Stand Your Ground" law, "Shall Issue" concealed carry and other victim friendly laws are popular in Florida is that the crime rate in the state is at a 40 year low (note: click on Watch on YouTube)

Of course there are many factors in the crime equation but still if victim friendly gun laws were such a terrible idea we should see far more tragic shootings than we do.

In a previous post in this thread which I responded to, you stated:

The negative cost of having millions of armed vigilantes far outweighs any assumed benefit, especially in the absence of any hard evidence that shows that assumed benefit is an actual benefit at all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=153861

I will ask if you have any hard evidence to support your assertion that there are "millions of armed vigilantes" on our streets. If there were indeed millions of vigilantes we should see thousands or tens of thousands of cases similar to the Trayvon Martin shooting. In Florida since 2005 there have only been roughly 200 cases of a homicide that involved a stand your ground defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

81. Self-defense is NOT vigilantism.

I am also a senior citizen, and have a handicap. To a street criminal I may appear to be an easy victim. I refuse to be an easy victim, but that does not mean I am fishing for muggers like Charles Bronson is Death Wish.

Furthermore, legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2009 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2009 there were 402,914 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there was exactly one (1) murder conviction and no manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 600+ convictions for murder in its various forms and manslaughter.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/09/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:
Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2009, there were 106 justifiable homicides, of
which, 52 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 54 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 52 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shooting are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus one innocent killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives

[Major Nikon]

84. How exactly did you provide any proof of your assertion that CCW "saves innocent lives"?

The data on page 15 you provided says exactly zip on the subject of CCW.

Furthermore Texas has passed two "stand your ground" additions since 2005. How many of those "52 justified private citizen homicides" would not have been justified under previous law?

[GreenStormCloud]

92. It is very simple arithmatic.

In 2009 there was one (1) conviction of a CHLer for murder, none for manslaughter out of 600+ convictions for the general public for various forms of murder/manslaughter.

There were far more than one defensive gun uses, so more than one innocent lives were saved against one innocent life taken in 2009.

I refered to legal concealed carry, not to SYG. You are trying to conflate different issues.

SYG does not change the definition of self-defense, it merely removes the legal requirement to retreat.

[Major Nikon]

94. I merely asked you to support your assertion which you still have failed to do

Your assertion was, and I quote:

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives

Nothing you posted proves that assertion so the math still adds up to zero. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you're the one trying to conflate concealed carry with justifiable homicide, which was was listed on page 15. Not only that, you apparently have a very limited understanding of SYG laws. There's still a legal requirement to retreat, even in states with NRA/ALEC authored SYG laws. Those laws simply provide another avenue of defense for those who use deadly force whether they acted criminally or not. There's still zero evidence there was ever any benefit to them in the first place. The NRA couldn't even come up with decent anecdotal evidence, much less peer reviewed criminology studies. Now perhaps you can succeed where they have failed, but somehow I doubt it.

[PavePusher]

123. So, we should give up the right to defend ourselves, and tools for it...

because this would be good for society?

The fuck you say?

[MH1]

26. I'm no gun nut defender, BUT

part of the "gun" mentality, which you did not list, is the notion that you can defend yourself in a situation where the police might not arrive quickly enough to save you. The classic example would be, pick any "psycho enters school/restaurant/bar/church/etc and starts shooting", but there are other scenarios that apply.

How reasonable it is statistically might be a matter for discussion, but at least it sounds more reasonable than the reasons you suggested.

As someone who supports rational gun control (with my idea of "rational" probably on the side of pissing off the "gun nuts&quot , I don't think it helps to minimize or ignore real concerns that drive people to feel they need to own guns. Sure, there are plenty of nutty people out there who have ideas like you suggest, but I bet there are more that just feel safer if they have a gun. There are reasons for that and we should pay attention, if we want to succeed in having rational gun control.

[spin]

45. So roughly 53 million Americans are "seriously deranged?"

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

I am a gun owner and also have a concealed weapons permit.

While a few gun owners do fear the government, most do not fear that a tyrant is going to assume control in the near future and oppress our citizens. If that actually happened and we lost the ability to vote to change our government an armed rebellion would be absolutely the last choice. Non violent protests and work shutdowns would probably be far more effective.

Of course I wouldn't predict that an armed rebellion would fall as easily as you suggest. Remember that we have the best trained military in the world and many civilians have received excellent training from their service in actual combat. While such a conflict would be extremely bloody and would disrupt our ecomony, if the majority of citizens supported it, it could succeed. It is also debatable if the military in our nation would support a dictatorship and kill fellow Americans who were fighting to preserve our freedoms. You mention Ruby Ridge and Waco and indeed the end result was predictable. I would suggest that if 50% or more of our population were to actively support a revolution the result might be different. Of course I hope we never never have to life though such a situation.

The penis size argument is commonly used as an insult by those who dislike gun owners. I don't believe that a study has ever been conducted that checked the penis size of gun owners, but if one did it would probably find that the majority of male gun owners have an average size penis and a few are slightly longer and a few slightly smaller. In my case the majority of my collection of handguns have a barrel length that is equal to or less than my penis length. I do own two handguns with 8" barrels. I didn't purchase these handguns because I felt my penis size was inadequate. Both are target pistols and the longer sight radius allows me to shoot with more accuracy at long range targets. My home defense and carry weapon is a S&W snub nosed revolver with a barrel length of only 1.875".

Your assertion also doesn't explain why many females own firearms. While you might argue that they must suffer from penis envy, I have also known a number of lesbians who enjoyed shooting and who were not overly impressed with penises regardless of the length. Since I have never discussed clitoris size with a woman I have no idea what their opinion is on this issue. Most women that I have known were far more concerned with their breast size. Oddly most who felt they were under endowed wished to have breast the same size as women who felt they were over endowed. I have never been able to figure this phenomenon out.

I have often heard that males that own high powered cars or large four wheel drive trucks also suffer from a concern about their penis size. I have to wonder if people who make such insults harbor some feeling of inferiority about their own size.

I'm sure that there are a few gun owners out of the 52 million who do indeed would agree with your suggestion that, "I have always felt put upon by society so my way of sticking it to everyone else is to shoot-em-up whenever I can?" Such people are insane and not be allowed to own firearms. They do indeed sometimes cause tragedy and are the cause of mass murders. They, however, are hardly representative of the overwhelming majority of gun owners.

You asked for an explanation of the gun mentality in our nation. I will try to answer it.

I have taken a number of people to the range who had never handled a firearm before. The majority found the experience far more enjoyable than they ever suspected it would be and proudly took their targets home to show their relatives and friends. Many decided to purchase a firearm and enjoy target shooting. It is indeed a very challenging sport.

Of course many people own firearms for self defense. While the violent crime rated in our nation has dropped to the level it was in the late 60s, the news media, the NRA and the firearm manufacturers would have you believe that life in our nation is fraught with danger. While this is untrue it is a fact that a firearm can save your life in a life and death situation if you know how to handle it.

It is also a fact that the availability of a firearm in your home can lead to a tragedy. I actually try to discourage most people who ask me about firearms from buying one. If you suffer from anger management problems, live in a volatile relationship with a significant other, abuse alcohol or drugs, have serious mental issues or have young children in your house and are unwilling to store your firearms safely -- then firearms are not for you. They are indeed very dangerous items are not everybody should own one.

I have never engaged in the sport of hunting and have little interest in doing so. I do know a number of hunters in the area of North Florida where I live but they mainly hunt to put food on their table. To be honest I can't really explain why hunting and shooting a lion on a game farm would be all that satisfying. Perhaps I might change my mind if a participated in such a hunt. Somehow I doubt it.

There are many good arguments available to use against the ownership of firearms. While I own firearms and most people would describe me as extremely pro-gun, I can easily present a better and more rational argument against gun ownership and the gun mentality in our nation than you have. Of course it is always wise to be able to effectively argue both sides of any issue. This enables you to see the weakness in your own position.

If you have never shot a firearm and truly desire to learn something about the gun mentality, I would suggest you find someone to take you to a range. Be more open minded and test your preconceptions. While such an experience may not change your view, it will enable you to gain some experience.

This was not meant in any way to insult you or your opinions. You have every right to your views just as I have to mine. I do find stereotyping any large group of people as foolish but if it makes you feel better, feel free to continue.

edited for typo

[AtheistCrusader]

48. AS far as I know, the people that worry about tyranny don't carry a pistol for that purpose.

If the government actually became tyrannical, and showed up looking to kill you, a pistol isn't really going to save you.

[spin]

64. Very true. (n/t)

[AtheistCrusader]

47. 'mentality'?

Same 'mentality' that might lead you to have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. 'in case'.

A firearm is simply a tool. It is an extension of the intentions of the person holding it. For many of us that carry on a daily basis, it is a tool for preserving human life. Nothing more.

That might sound strange for a tool which appears to be engineered to take human life, but the proper, lawful operation of a firearm within the context of concealed carry, is to protect human life.

The criminal in the story for the OP, did not share that mindset. In fact, he broke a law early on when he brandished (showed) the firearm to people present at the confrontation, to intimidate them. That act told me everything I needed to know about his motives, and the liklihood of who was at fault that day. He used that firearm as a tool to project his anger, to get his way, to get what he wanted.

I carry to protect human life. Not even necessarily my own life.

Here on this site, we discuss firearm policy, so I discuss the fact that I carry here. I do not outside this forum. Most people never know I am carrying (though I ask permission, prior to entering anyone's home). So I disagree with option A. Option B seems offensive to me. I never point my penis at anything I am willing to destroy. I ONLY point my firearm at things I am willing to destroy. (More often than not; paper) There is no sexualzed nature to a firearm, for me. For others, unknown. I can safely state that option B does not apply to me. Option C doesn't seem terribly applicable to me, since I have been carrying for over 9 years, and have never shot any human being. So if option C applied to me, I must be doing it very wrong.


I can't speak for every person out there that carries a firearm for any purpose, that they do so with entirely pure and honorable intentions. People like the murderer in the OP tend to prove that not all do. But for some of us at least, it is just a tool, just for protecting human life. Just like the CPR mask and first aid kit I carry. Just like all the life saving training I spend time, effort, and money on every year to maintain.

Human life is precious to me. I will always do what I can to protect it. THAT is why I carry a gun.

[hack89]

87. How about the fact that shooting guns is fun?

and can be enjoyed without once entertaining the notion of shooting a human being? I shoot paper targets with my kids all the time - just good family fun.

[PavePusher]

124. I care not at all about the size of your genitalia.

Please keep your head out of my pants. Or kilt, as the case may be.

You were not invited.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Raul should have read the fine print, however

He'll have 40 years to study the SYG laws.

[blackspade]

24. Good.

This SYG shit is beyond stupid.
Thanks NRA and ALEC.

[hobbit709]

25. SYG is not the same as Looking For Trouble.

He went looking for trouble and got what he deserved.

[maddezmom]

28. agreed and so did Zimmerman n/t

[hobbit709]

29. Exactly

I learned a long time ago that if you go out looking for trouble that most times you end up with a lot more trouble than you had intended on finding in the first place.

[clang1]

50. Another FOOL and another VICTIM

Meanwhile.....The Progression continues....

[maddezmom]

53. could you give a hint about what you believe the Progression is

you seem to post it quite a bit and I'm really unclear what the heck you are trying to say.

[onehandle]

30. Excellent. Fuck that unjust law and its supporters. nt

[clang1]

46. Tyranny

'stand-your-ground '


There is no NEED for this....MORE violence is ALL it is.



FUEL THE VIOLENCE, ADD MORE GUNS TO IT... THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.




NOW A MAN IS IN JAIL BECAUSE OF IT. AGAIN WAKE UP...... NOW A MAN WHO OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT HAVE, HELPS FUEL THEIR PRISON INDUSTRY. UNDERSTAND THIS. SUCH A DOCTRINE AS THIS ONLY CREATES VICTIMS.

PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THAT ALL THEY DO IS CORRODE SOCIETY. EVERYTHING THAT THIS DO IS THIS WAY. AND IT IS EVIL. ANOTHER MAN IS IN PRISON NOW.




Meanwhile....The Progression continues....

[maddezmom]

52. he is in jail and now sentenced to 40 yrs because he murdered someone

there is no prison industry conspiracy here.

[clang1]

54. READ what I said. You have NOT

Meanwhile....The progression continues....

[maddezmom]

57. I have read it and like I said

I'm not clear about what the heck you are trying to get at here or on some of the other threads where we have crossed paths.

[clang1]

61. Don't ask me another question until you understand what I wrote

even then, I may not feel like answering you. You have your own eyes and your own mind. Use these.
I am the Teacher here, not you. And you are not worthy of any further response, you are not honest.












Meanwhile....The Progression continues....

[maddezmom]

65. LOL

Sorry, but I'll ask questions when I need clarification but if you don't want to answer that is fine, too.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. I take it, not a Language Arts teacher?

Since your post upthread doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, I think your response to that poster is pretty rude. You may have crafted it in a way that doesn't fall afoul of any of the alert options, but everyone can see it for what it is.

[clang1]

76. WOULD THE MAN BE IN PRISON WERE IT NOT FOR THIS LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!

MAYBE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THINK OF THAT MAN ZIMMERMAN....... OPEN YOUR EYES AND READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ONE MAN DEAD THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE KILLED.... ANOTHER MAN GOING TO PRISON OVER IT...


PEOPLE CAN CHOOOSE TO BE AS STUPID AS THEY WANT.... PERIOD. WAKE UP.

MY POST MAKES PERFECT SENSE FOR ANYONE THAT CHOOSES TO READ IT.













Meanwhile.....The Progression continues.....

[maddezmom]

77. I know you probably won't be reading this but do you think the law

made him shoot his gun and murder someone? Or are you saying he felt he could murder someone because of the law?

And as far as Zimmerman, I still say the same thing....don't go looking for trouble even if you have a gun. Zimmerman should have had the good sense to stay in his car not shoot someone while hiding behind the SYG law.

[clang1]

78. IT IS PART OF THE CLIMATE THAT ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN

ANYONE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE IS NOT HONEST.




WHAT IS ZIMMERMAN'S EXCUSE FOR SHOOTING AN INNOCENT MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY WAS HE EVEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE SUCH AN EXCUSE??? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


IT IS ABSURD.... ALL OF IT IS. AT THE END OF THE DAY...ALL SUCH LAWS DO IS PROMOTE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE VIOLENCE. PERIOD.

THIS IS THE REALITY.... AN INNOCENT MAN IS DEAD BECAUSE OF THESE LAWS, ANOTHER MAN IN PRISON OVER THEM. PERIOD.











Meanwhile....The Progression continues.....

[maddezmom]

79. why are you shouting?

I'm trying to have a civil discussion with you and understand where you are coming from. You still haven't answered you tag line...what is the Progression?

[intheflow]

98. I love that this person is trying to "school" you!

And why are they yelling?

[slackmaster]

112. George Zimmerman's defense is NOT going to be based on Stand Your Ground. His lawyer MAY make...

...a pre-trial motion to have the case dismissed on that basis, but I don't believe that will happen.

Zimmerman's defense will be plain old common law self-defense - He'll claim that Trayvon Martin attacked him unprovoked and was beating him with a deadly weapon (i.e. the sidewalk.)

[AtheistCrusader]

110. The victim in this case was a woman, actually.

You're not making any sense.

[mysuzuki2]

60. I believe people have a right to defend themselves.

but that does not give anyone free rein to kill anyone who is annoying you. This moron got what he deserved.

[clang1]

68. WHO says the LAW DOES NOT allow this do this? YOU?

No, NOT you....THEY SAY IT.... THERE IS NO NEED FOR A LAW SUCH AS THIS ONE. PERIOD. THE LAW ALREADY ALLOWED YOU TO DEFEND YOURSELF. PERIOD.










Meanwhile....The Progression continues.....

[mysuzuki2]

95. Hey, quit with the caps already!

[BiggJawn]

69. Yeah, well, I can claim I'm next in line to the British throne.

Doesn't make THAT true, either...

And if he had claimed he was Spiderman would THAT cause a furor to ban Marvel Comix?

[valerief]

70. 40 years? For cold blooded murder? That's insanity!!!! nt

[slackmaster]

80. Just A Data Point - Raul Rodriguez is 47 years old

He's not likely to get out until he's at least 80, and will probably serve the full sentence if he lives that long (which is unlikely.)

[valerief]

125. Parole. nt

[slackmaster]

130. He won't ever be eligible for early release with supervision - See page 31...

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/publications/PIT_eng.pdf

Key phrase "Any Offense with an Affirmative Finding of a Deadly Weapon"

He could be pardoned, but that would be the only way out early.

[progressivebydesign]

115. You should move to Washington State.. he's have gotten 6 years, tops.

A man in Tacoma murdered his wife, chopped her up, put in her the fireplace to burn, and got less than 20 years... more like 10.

[valerief]

126. Holy shit! That's insane!!!! nt

[baldguy]

88. Justice is served ... for once.

[Turbineguy]

104. To me he seems a victim of this law as well

or at least it's interpretation.

[spin]

108. You should revise your post to clarify ...

that it was HIS interpretation.

I listened to the tapes of the incident and I wondered where this fool got his his view that the "Stand Your Ground" law allowed him to start an altercation, refuse to back off when it threatened to turn violent and then to shoot without actually being attacked.

Is it possible the he actually believed all the propaganda in the news about how "Stand Your Ground" laws are a license to kill?

[ManiacJoe]

113. That is certainly one possibility.

"Is it possible the he actually believed all the propaganda in the news about how "Stand Your Ground" laws are a license to kill?"

One thing that is painfully obvious is that he did not read and understand the actual law.

[Turbineguy]

116. Sorry, I was indeed suggesting that he

believed the propaganda. Now he gets punished for being a useful idiot.

[bitchkitty]

118. GOOD. n/t

[caroll31]

122. He deserves more

I think he should have gotten more.

[Swede Atlanta]

127. It would not surprise me to see Governor Perry give him a full pardon....

he may not spend much time in prison.

[permatex]

129. This idiot

so staged this, he instigated the confrontation so SYG does not apply. He should of got life w/o parole. Just listening to the video, it was so obviously staged he might as well been reading from a script.
And a retired firefighter to boot, makes me ashamed to say that he was at one time a brother firefighter.