Stand Your Ground? Texas man kills teacher over noise

[dbackjon]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/07/s ... complaint/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Texas man says he was justified in killing an elementary school teacher over a noise complaint because he was “standing my ground.”

Retired firefighter Raul Rodriguez is hoping that a video that he taped himself will prove that he was acting in self-defense when he gunned down P.E. teacher Kelly Danaher outside the victim’s home near Houston in May 2010.

On the video that was presented as evidence in court on Wednesday, loud music can be heard as Rodriguez tells Danaher to “turn it down.”


“You need to stop right there,” Rodriguez says. “Don’t come any closer please. I’m telling you, I’m telling you, stop, I said stop right now or I will shoot you! … I fear for my life. I told you to stop, my life’s in danger, you got weapons on you, stay away from me.”

While standing in Danaher’s driveway with a flashlight and a gun, Rodriguez is also on the phone with a 911 dispatcher using the buzzwords he learned in concealed weapons class, according to the prosecutor.

[grizzaholic]

meh.

[BlueHen86]

The stand your ground law sucks. I don't think it will save this guy though.

[Bronco]

Despite liberal protesters’ claims that Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” gun law demonstrates that Republican policymakers are responsible for the February death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an analysis of its legislative history shows that it was a bipartisan effort — and that no Florida Democratic state senator voted against it.

One Democrat, Fort Lauderdale state Sen. Mandy Dawson, missed the vote. But the rest of the Senate chamber supported it, 39-0.


And of the 15 states that have passed variations of the law since 2005, the year Florida’s model legislation became law, eight — a majority — had Democratic governors when the laws were enacted. None issued a veto.

The bills in Louisiana and West Virginia passed with Democratic control of both houses in the states’ legislatures, in 2006 and 2008, respectively.


And it doesn’t stop in Florida, the 15 other states who passed similar laws were all done on a bipartisan basis as well.
Via Daily Caller:

[dbackjon]

Despite liberal protesters’ claims that Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” gun law demonstrates that Republican policymakers are responsible for the February death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an analysis of its legislative history shows that it was a bipartisan effort — and that no Florida Democratic state senator voted against it.

One Democrat, Fort Lauderdale state Sen. Mandy Dawson, missed the vote. But the rest of the Senate chamber supported it, 39-0.


And of the 15 states that have passed variations of the law since 2005, the year Florida’s model legislation became law, eight — a majority — had Democratic governors when the laws were enacted. None issued a veto.

The bills in Louisiana and West Virginia passed with Democratic control of both houses in the states’ legislatures, in 2006 and 2008, respectively.


And it doesn’t stop in Florida, the 15 other states who passed similar laws were all done on a bipartisan basis as well.
Via Daily Caller:

Just means both sides are stupid, or scared of the NRA, or both

[∞∞∞]

After watchin' that video, he definitely needs to go to jail for a long time. What an idiot.

[SuperHornet]

Seems to me that either his gun safety class failed to cover the spectrum of force, or he chose to ignore it.

What an ignoramus....

[Col Hogan]

This is a hot topic on a weapon forum I check out...everyone feels this idiot went out of his way to pick a fight and is 100% wrong...

That doesn't mean the law is wrong...but the shooter is!!!

[CID1990]

The Castle Doctrine always trumps any stand your ground law. This guy set this all up and should be charged with premeditated murder, although it would likely be tough to prove. The victim was in his own driveway for chrissakes.


Also Sodomy

[HI54UNI]

Shooter was in the other guy's driveway. Stand your ground doesn't seem like a plausible defense to me.

[AZGrizFan]

Shooter was in the other guy's driveway. Stand your ground doesn't seem like a plausible defense to me.

Same applies to Zimmerman. He was nowhere near his own domicile...

[Chizzang]

Isn't it a crime to enter somebody else's property with a weapon with intent..?

1) Defending yourself would start by getting off the other guys property first

This guy is just your classic NUT BALL

[Vidav]

[youngterrier]

I'm all for gun rights and free speech......

but dumb people sometimes make me almost second guess myself on those 2 points.

[CID1990]

Shooter was in the other guy's driveway. Stand your ground doesn't seem like a plausible defense to me.

Same applies to Zimmerman. He was nowhere near his own domicile...

Stand your ground doesnt mean you have to be at your domicile necessarily, but I havent read Florida's law. However, the castle doctrine applies in many States, and this guy was an aggressor at the victim's house. If anything, the victim would have been justified in shooting HIM. Boy the anti concealed carry people would have loved THAT headline!


Also Sodomy

[SuperHornet]

Sometimes I have questions about YT's views. Here, YT is 100% spot on.

I'm not really sure about this "Stand Your Ground" stuff, but you can't use it as an excuse for being STUPID.

We have a problem in this country when a guy who slips and falls on your wet walk absconding with your big screen can sue you for negligence, but this is something completely different. This guy should be put away in the looney bin for a LONG time. Spewing half-learned catch phrases isn't enough for ANY law, much less THIS one.

[BlueHen86]

This is a hot topic on a weapon forum I check out...everyone feels this idiot went out of his way to pick a fight and is 100% wrong...

That doesn't mean the law is wrong...but the shooter is!!!

I don't like the law. Often the best form of self defense is to avoid trouble, sometimes avoiding trouble means waking away. While most smart people know this there are too many idiots that will "stand their ground" just because some law says that they can.

I'm not questioning the right to own or carry firearms, I just don't think using them should be the first option.

[Col Hogan]

This is a hot topic on a weapon forum I check out...everyone feels this idiot went out of his way to pick a fight and is 100% wrong...

That doesn't mean the law is wrong...but the shooter is!!!

I don't like the law. Often the best form of self defense is to avoid trouble, sometimes avoiding trouble means waking away. While most smart people know this there are too many idiots that will "stand their ground" just because some law says that they can.

I'm not questioning the right to own or carry firearms, I just don't think using them should be the first option.

Some people are idiots and will try to abuse any law...they are usually found out...

Such an idiot does not invalidate the law or the need for it...avoiding trouble is the #1 successful method of self-defense...

Remember, the true weapon is the grey matter between your ears...the tool (for example, a baseball bat, a knife, or a gun) should not be the issue...

[BlueHen86]

I don't like the law. Often the best form of self defense is to avoid trouble, sometimes avoiding trouble means waking away. While most smart people know this there are too many idiots that will "stand their ground" just because some law says that they can.

I'm not questioning the right to own or carry firearms, I just don't think using them should be the first option.

Some people are idiots and will try to abuse any law...they are usually found out...

Such an idiot does not invalidate the law or the need for it...avoiding trouble is the #1 successful method of self-defense...

Remember, the true weapon is the grey matter between your ears...the tool (for example, a baseball bat, a knife, or a gun) should not be the issue...

The problem with this law is that the idiots can be found out and still walk. The law legailizes their idiocy.
There is no need for this law, lots of places don't have it, and they are doing fine.

[Col Hogan]

Some people are idiots and will try to abuse any law...they are usually found out...

Such an idiot does not invalidate the law or the need for it...avoiding trouble is the #1 successful method of self-defense...

Remember, the true weapon is the grey matter between your ears...the tool (for example, a baseball bat, a knife, or a gun) should not be the issue...

The problem with this law is that the idiots can be found out and still walk. The law legailizes their idiocy.
There is no need for this law, lots of places don't have it, and they are doing fine.

I disagree that "they are doing fine"...as long as there are people like Martha Coakley in power, laws like this are needed...she wanted to charge a security guard who killed a maniac as he tried to stab a doctor to death...the madman ignored orders to stop stabbing the psychologist so the guard shot him...Coakley ruined the guard's life by launching a six month investigation, saying she could not condone the guard's action...

Coakley is the Attorney General of Massachusetts...

[93henfan]

So we're all in agreement that this tard should hang, no?

[BlueHen86]

The problem with this law is that the idiots can be found out and still walk. The law legailizes their idiocy.
There is no need for this law, lots of places don't have it, and they are doing fine.

I disagree that "they are doing fine"...as long as there are people like Martha Coakley in power, laws like this are needed...she wanted to charge a security guard who killed a maniac as he tried to stab a doctor to death...the madman ignored orders to stop stabbing the psychologist so the guard shot him...Coakley ruined the guard's life by launching a six month investigation, saying she could not condone the guard's action...

Coakley is the Attorney General of Massachusetts...

I'm not familiar with that case, but in general I think correcting one mistake (Coakley) with another (stand your ground) is an overreaction. Security guards and police shouldn't need a "stand your ground law" to enable them to do their job.

[BlueHen86]

So we're all in agreement that this tard should hang, no?

I think so. This doesn't seem like a "stand your ground" case to me.

[Col Hogan]

I disagree that "they are doing fine"...as long as there are people like Martha Coakley in power, laws like this are needed...she wanted to charge a security guard who killed a maniac as he tried to stab a doctor to death...the madman ignored orders to stop stabbing the psychologist so the guard shot him...Coakley ruined the guard's life by launching a six month investigation, saying she could not condone the guard's action...

Coakley is the Attorney General of Massachusetts...

I'm not familiar with that case, but in general I think correcting one mistake (Coakley) with another (stand your ground) is an overreaction. Security guards and police shouldn't need a "stand your ground law" to enable them to do their job.

I used one example...how many would you like me to post...I can have a dozen in ten minutes...

As I said, as long as we have people like (insert Coakley or any of the dozens of anti-2a politicians) in office, we need these laws...and like idiots in the opening post, we need to convict people who try to abuse these laws...

[BlueHen86]

I'm not familiar with that case, but in general I think correcting one mistake (Coakley) with another (stand your ground) is an overreaction. Security guards and police shouldn't need a "stand your ground law" to enable them to do their job.

I used one example...how many would you like me to post...I can have a dozen in ten minutes...

As I said, as long as we have people like (insert Coakley or any of the dozens of anti-2a politicians) in office, we need these laws...and like idiots in the opening post, we need to convict people who try to abuse these laws...

I don't care how many examples you can find, correcting one mistake with another isn't a good solution.