• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man claims self-defense in fatal shooting of a neighbor

This certainly doesn't seem like self defense to me. The guy essentially made himself an armed intruder on someone else's property, then killed a person and wounded two others. I'm guessing he'll go to prison for quite awhile.
 
It is also quite disturbing that this guy was once a firefighter. A firefighter is supposed to be a person who put himself in a risky and life threatening situation to save a life of another human being. Not create a volatile situation to take a life.

He is also a father of six children. You'd think he would be mature enough to deal with this situation without ending in bloodshed.

Anyway, I'm surprise not one here come to his defense given there were some at the link who blamed the police for this man's action.
 
Man Claims Self Defense in Fatal Shooting of Neighbor | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo!



Sounds like this guy is setting up a case of self-defense based on fearing for his life and "stand your ground". He took a gun to his neigbor's driveway with his camera while telling the police dispatcher on his cell phone that he is fearing for his life and standing his ground before the shooting.

Did he shoot and kill his neighbor, an elementary school teacher, and wounded two others in self-defense? What do you think?

I have issues with him going to the neighbors property. I think this case deserves a grand jury's most intense scrutiny
 
Here is part of the report of the court case and legal opinion:

One of the wounded men, a Houston firefighter named Ricky Johnson, told jurors Friday that he and his friends were not at fault, saying Rodriguez “started the process by coming with a gun.”

Prosecutor Kelli Johnson has portrayed Rodriguez, who fought fires in the Houston suburb of Baytown, as the one who was looking for a fight.

Kenneth Ellis, who lived across the street from Rodriguez, testified Friday that on the night of the shooting, he saw that Rodriguez was “agitated and angry.” As he left his home, he was saying “Shut up. Shut up.”

[...]One of Rodriguez’s attorneys, William Stradley, tried to demonstrate that his client was in fear for his life when one of the men lunged at him, and he had less than a second to respond.

The defense sought to put the burden on the three other men, saying they caused the confrontation to escalate.

“Do you take any responsibility for what happened,” Stradley asked Johnson.

“Of course I do,” replied Johnson, who on the video can be seen being restrained by the two other men before the shooting.


Texas’ version of a stand-your-ground law, known as the Castle Doctrine, was revised in 2007 to expand the right to use deadly force. The new version allows people to defend themselves not only in their homes but also in workplaces or vehicles. It also says a person using force cannot provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity at the time.

While Rodriguez was not in his own home or vehicle or business when the shooting happened, Houston criminal defense attorney Grant Scheiner said he believes the law still applies because the 2007 revision gave people wider latitude on when they can use deadly force. Rodriguez had a concealed handgun permit.

This is what the writer think: "Personally, I think Rodriguez was in fact justified in using deadly force to defend himself." And he asked: "So again I ask: did Rodriguez still have the right to defend himself by using deadly force?"

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Here is the video of the news with the video of the night of the shooting:

 
Last edited:
The man is on trial since June 7 or sometime around that time. Here's another link with a better video of the event from News video:

Raul Rodriguez: When "Stand Your Ground" isn't "Stand Your Ground"

It isn't stand your ground here in Houston because Texas does not have a "Stand Your Ground" law. Instead, Texas has what is called "The Castle Doctrine", which states that if an intruder comes onto your property, and you are reasonably afraid for your life or property, then you are authorized to use deadly force.

1) The defendant went onto someone else's property, and started the fight, so the Castle Doctrine does not apply.

2) However, had this been in Florida, Stand Your Ground would not apply either, since it was the defendant, not the victim, who started the altercation. In Florida, if you are the one starting the altercation, then Stand Your Ground is no longer a viable defense.

OK, back to Texas - This dumbass will be spending a very long time in prison, and rightfully so. And when he gets out, you can bet that he will never be allowed to own a gun for the rest of his life, since he already proved that he failed his responsibility as a gun owner. Yes, the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right, but what some assholes like this jerk don't realize is that, with rights, come responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities go together, and as far as I am concerned, if you are not responsible with a particular right, then you lose whatever right is associated with that responsibility.
 
Last edited:
The Castle Doctrine was revised in 2007 to expand it not only to their "castle" but to SYG version:

Texas’ version of a stand-your-ground law, known as the Castle Doctrine, was revised in 2007 to expand the right to use deadly force. The new version allows people to defend themselves not only in their homes but also in workplaces or vehicles. It also says a person using force cannot provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity at the time.

Raul Rodriguez: When "Stand Your Ground" isn't "Stand Your Ground"
 
Last edited:
But we all know that you OPPOSE calling the cops. You are adament that Martin was correct to not dial 911 if he feared Zimmerman and instead should have gone and punched Zimmerman. In your opinion, a person should aggressively approach someone annoying them and under no circumstances call the police.

Exactly! Being followed = being annoyed by noise!
 
The Castle Doctrine was revised in 2007 to expand it not only to their "castle" but to SYG version:

It still does NOT apply to entering someone else's car, workplace, or property in order to shoot someone, so in essence, it is pretty much the same. People don't have the right to TRESPASS and claim some kind of ersatz Stand Your Ground in Texas, and the Castle Doctrine still has absolutely nothing in common with Stand Your Ground. In essence, there is NO Stand Your Ground defense in Texas, either as part of the Castle Doctrine, or anything else. In Texas, if you are in a fist fight, no matter who started it, and you are getting your ass kicked, you will most definitely go to prison if you pull a gun and shoot the other guy.
 
Last edited:
There's at least one, big HUGE problem here... he went onto his neighbor's property.


Now I am expert in SC law on self-defense, not so much Texas....but I know how the general principles work in most jurisdictions.

What you do at home or in your own yard is one thing.

What you do in public is slightly different....

What you do when you are on Someone ELSE'S property is VERY VERY different, especially if they've made it clear they don't want you there.

In SC for instance, it is a misdemeanor to carry a gun into someone else's home without their permission. If you're in someone else's home or yard or "curtilage" (area near any buildings or established sites on the property) then you're almost automatically in the wrong in any confrontation with the OWNER, UNLESS you attempt to retreat and are prevented from doing so.



Again, I am not expert in the details of Texas' law on self-defense, but I do know that in most jurisdictions you are NOT allowed to "stand your ground" when the ground you are standing on is someone else's house or yard.

My 0.02


G.


Hes going to get convicted me thinks...I dont see how he can claim syg when he went looking for trouble...all he had to do was what he did call 911 make a complaint and stay in his house...he created the physical confrontation.
 
LOL - I had **** neighbors . . . eventually tehy were brought up on enough code violations that they were driven out . . . but the idea of shooting one of them over their many noise-issues and domestic dramas never occured to me.

Ever.

And I even had a rifle at that time.
 
OK, back to Texas - This dumbass will be spending a very long time in prison, and rightfully so. And when he gets out, you can bet that he will never be allowed to own a gun for the rest of his life, since he already proved that he failed his responsibility as a gun owner. Yes, the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right, but what some assholes like this jerk don't realize is that, with rights, come responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities go together, and as far as I am concerned, if you are not responsible with a particular right, then you lose whatever right is associated with that responsibility.

I wonder what else we can apply this sort of backwards reasoning to.... hmmmm - oh I know, if somebody is convicted of libel, they should lose their right to free speech once they get out of jail. Better yet, if somebody is convicted of perjury, they should lose all rights to privacy once they leave jail. Why do "conservatives" insist of demonizing and isolating people even after they've supposedly repaid their debts to society?
 
I wonder what else we can apply this sort of backwards reasoning to.... hmmmm - oh I know, if somebody is convicted of libel, they should lose their right to free speech once they get out of jail. Better yet, if somebody is convicted of perjury, they should lose all rights to privacy once they leave jail. Why do "conservatives" insist of demonizing and isolating people even after they've supposedly repaid their debts to society?

Resorting to backwards reasoning isn't really necessary. He will be convicted of a felony charge and won't be able to own a gun legally ever again.

I don't like that law personally, but that's how the chips fall.
 
Last edited:
It still does NOT apply to entering someone else's car, workplace, or property in order to shoot someone, so in essence, it is pretty much the same. People don't have the right to TRESPASS and claim some kind of ersatz Stand Your Ground in Texas, and the Castle Doctrine still has absolutely nothing in common with Stand Your Ground. In essence, there is NO Stand Your Ground defense in Texas, either as part of the Castle Doctrine, or anything else. In Texas, if you are in a fist fight, no matter who started it, and you are getting your ass kicked, you will most definitely go to prison if you pull a gun and shoot the other guy.
I am not arguing against you on whether it applies or not on the right to trespass and then shoot someone to claim self-defense. I'm with you on that one.

What I'm saying is that the original "Castle Doctrine" was modified to include version of SYGL. That's the reason that guy repeatedly say he was "standing his ground" before the shooting.

He's not alone on this belief, there are Texas lawyers who will use the modified version to argue likewise:

"While Rodriguez was not in his own home or vehicle or business when the shooting happened, Houston criminal defense attorney Grant Scheiner said he believes the law still applies because the 2007 revision gave people wider latitude on when they can use deadly force.

Raul Rodriguez: When "Stand Your Ground" isn't "Stand Your Ground"

I think the modified "Castle Doctrine" is a bad law.
 
Why do you have to make this into Martin/Zimmerman debate while nobody else before you did? Stay on course and on topic, will ya?

I admit that I thought of it. If videotape existed of Zimmerman acting like this guy did, that whole thing would be blown open.

No such evidence exists, and while my reservations over Zimmerman's self-defense claims are similar to what I see here, it's impossible to convict Z without that evidence.

Maybe we should see if his neighbor was a "no limit honkey," or had ever smoked pot so we can make a judgement.
 
I am not arguing against you on whether it applies or not on the right to trespass and then shoot someone to claim self-defense. I'm with you on that one.

What I'm saying is that the original "Castle Doctrine" was modified to include version of SYGL. That's the reason that guy repeatedly say he was "standing his ground" before the shooting.

He's not alone on this belief, there are Texas lawyers who will use the modified version to argue likewise:



I think the modified "Castle Doctrine" is a bad law.



There's absolutely nothing wrong with Castle Doctrine or "Stand your ground". The problem is that in this case it does not apply, because the idiot went on someone else's property, initiated the confrontation, and then fired on people when he was not even necessarily in imminent danger... all of which are big red flag NO NO's in claiming SD.


He was enough of a dumbass that he thought he could get CD/SYG to cover his OBVIOUS decision to go murder his neighbor... and he's finding out now that it ain't gonna fly.
 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Castle Doctrine or "Stand your ground". The problem is that in this case it does not apply, because the idiot went on someone else's property, initiated the confrontation, and then fired on people when he was not even necessarily in imminent danger... all of which are big red flag NO NO's in claiming SD.


He was enough of a dumbass that he thought he could get CD/SYG to cover his OBVIOUS decision to go murder his neighbor... and he's finding out now that it ain't gonna fly.
There are cases where SYGL was misapplied by the police dept, or the DA or the judges that I still feel it's a bad law. You may see that this law doesn't even apply to situation like this, but when it comes to situation like this, aggressors like this guy still think they can get away with murder.

Meanwhile, prosecutors attempted to bring in other testimony Friday that Rodriguez was a neighborhood bully who was known for flashing his gun.

"I’ll tell you basically how you can kill someone and be above the law," assistant district attorney Kelli Johnson told the judge Rodriguez allegedly said to someone as she attempted to get him to allow the evidence into trial. "You need to say that you are in fear of your life, pull the trigger and you can justify it."

The judge denied her request.

Neighbor: Ex-firefighter accused in teacher's death seemed agitated before shooting | khou.com Houston

Whether these people are right or wrong in their belief, the end result would be a moot point for you if you ended up dead at the encounter.
 
There are cases where SYGL was misapplied by the police dept, or the DA or the judges that I still feel it's a bad law. You may see that this law doesn't even apply to situation like this, but when it comes to situation like this, aggressors like this guy still think they can get away with murder.

I can't think of a single law or rule that cannot be and has not been abused once in a while. This doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad law, just that you'll run into the occasional idiot which is always true.



Whether these people are right or wrong in their belief, the end result would be a moot point for you if you ended up dead at the encounter.


It is always possible to run into a homicidal moron, whether he's carrying legally or illegally, SYG or no SYG. That's why I carry a gun and keep a wary eye out for my fellow man.
 
I can't think of a single law or rule that cannot be and has not been abused once in a while. This doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad law, just that you'll run into the occasional idiot which is always true.






It is always possible to run into a homicidal moron, whether he's carrying legally or illegally, SYG or no SYG. That's why I carry a gun and keep a wary eye out for my fellow man.

There was an article in the Miami Herald about a month ago written by chief's of police across the country.. They HATE SYG as bad, "squishy" law.
 
There was an article in the Miami Herald about a month ago written by chief's of police across the country.. They HATE SYG as bad, "squishy" law.


Oddly enough my sheriff likes it and has expressed his support of citizens defending themselves when attacked.

Let's be clear: there is no one "Stand Your Ground" law. Every state that has one has it worded a bit differently.

The primary concept in most cases is removing the "duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense" that many states had on the books previously.

Removing the duty to retreat is good. The majority of times where you are under an imminent threat of deadly force, attempting to retreat just means you give the BG a good opportunity to shoot you in the back, or stab you in the back.

That's not to say that, if in any given confrontation in a public place you have a GOOD OPPORTUNITY to end the matter by withdrawing, that doing so is by far the smart thing to do. The problem with making it mandatory is that it is sometimes not feasible, and adding any further hoops to jump through for SD is bad IMO.

"Stand Your Ground" is really a poor name for the concept. It is fundamentally simply ending the legal mandatory requirement to retreat before shooting in a public venue. I don't know who coined the term SYG but they should be beaten with a wet noodle until they recant. The TERM (more than the actual law) may make an occasional idiot think he can do stupid crap like this story in the OP.

But then again, you can always run into an idiot, and that's been true long before there was any such thing as SYG.
 
Oddly enough my sheriff likes it and has expressed his support of citizens defending themselves when attacked.

Let's be clear: there is no one "Stand Your Ground" law. Every state that has one has it worded a bit differently.

The primary concept in most cases is removing the "duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense" that many states had on the books previously.

Removing the duty to retreat is good. The majority of times where you are under an imminent threat of deadly force, attempting to retreat just means you give the BG a good opportunity to shoot you in the back, or stab you in the back.

That's not to say that, if in any given confrontation in a public place you have a GOOD OPPORTUNITY to end the matter by withdrawing, that doing so is by far the smart thing to do. The problem with making it mandatory is that it is sometimes not feasible, and adding any further hoops to jump through for SD is bad IMO.

"Stand Your Ground" is really a poor name for the concept. It is fundamentally simply ending the legal mandatory requirement to retreat before shooting in a public venue. I don't know who coined the term SYG but they should be beaten with a wet noodle until they recant. The TERM (more than the actual law) may make an occasional idiot think he can do stupid crap like this story in the OP.

But then again, you can always run into an idiot, and that's been true long before there was any such thing as SYG.

Well, I don't like SYG... I think that sort of situation is covered by "self defense".. and Castle Doctrine which IMO is good law covers the rest.

I think SYG gives lay people the wrong idea.
 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Castle Doctrine or "Stand your ground". The problem is that in this case it does not apply, because the idiot went on someone else's property, initiated the confrontation, and then fired on people when he was not even necessarily in imminent danger... all of which are big red flag NO NO's in claiming SD.


He was enough of a dumbass that he thought he could get CD/SYG to cover his OBVIOUS decision to go murder his neighbor... and he's finding out now that it ain't gonna fly.

Yes - in this particular case the man shot in the OP was the one needing to use the SYG law.

What's with some of these idiots out there who really think it means they can do whatever they want?
 
This is sad. He probably is a good guy but stupid. I carry all the time and dread the day if I ever have to pull it out much less take a life. I never want to kill anyone from a moral stance but some, if not most people that I have spoke with don't realize what can happen from a legal point of view if you kill someone legally. Some joke about it and that is scary. The greatest fear I had in the military is carryng the memories of war for the rest of my life.
 
Back
Top Bottom