The title is a little misleading due to the truncated nature, but it is hard to get all of this one in on one line. The article shows the video. You don't see anyone shot, as he lowers the camera before he starts shooting.
A Houston man on trial for fatally shooting his neighbor says he was acting in self defense and his home video can prove it.
Raul Rodriguez, a former firefighter, was recording his argument with neighbors, when he shot and killed Kelly Danaher, an elementary school teacher, and wounded two other people in May 2010. The 22-minute homemade video is the key to the trial, but what's on the video might be in the eye of the beholder.
"This is a difficult defense to mount," says Dana Cole, legal analyst and defense attorney. "He had no injury, he brought a gun to a noise complaint, and it appeared he was escalating it, by baiting the party-goers."
It was after midnight when Rodriguez, complaining to police over the phone that the music was too loud, walked up to Danaher's driveway with a flashlight and gun.
On the video, Rodriguez can be heard talking to a 911 operator, saying, "I'm running the video camera right now and I'm talking to you and I mean, I'm scared to death here."
In the unfolding confrontation between Rodriguez and several unidentified men, one yells, "Tell you what, pal, you just pulled a gun on the wrong [expletive], OK?"
When one of the party-goers saw Rodriguez's gun, he suggested he is getting his own. "When I go in that house and come back," he warned, "don't think I won't be equal to you, baby."
"It's about to get out of hand sir, please help me. Please help me, my life is in danger now…," Rodriguez told police over the phone. "Now, I'm standing my ground here. Now, these people are going to try and kill me."
Seconds later, a fight about loud music ends with the crack of gunfire.
"Look, I'm not losing to these people anymore," Rodriguez said. "I'm just totally going to stay back, because they're drunk, they're…"
Rodriguez is interrupted by wild laughter, and then the sound of gunfire, before the tape stops as Rodriguez is tackled to the ground. In addition to the shot that killed Danaher, Houston Fire Capt. Ricky Johnson and Marshall Stetson received multiple gunshot wounds after the camera stopped recording. Rodriguez, a father of six, walked away from the incident unharmed.
I find it curious that a former firefighter was antagonizing a party that a Fire Captain happened to be at.
I find it more curious that rather than just call the cops, he felt the need to be an ass in person.
I find it MOST curious that he did so armed, though this is Texas, so for all I know, it's common practice to take your six-shooters out to get the mail.
This is definitely murder, and a terrible attempt to fabricate grounds of self-defence. If anything the video will condemn him rather than help his case.
Yea, Im sorry but this guy was as wrong as one can get. Worse part is, this is the kind of gak that makes anti gun types use as ammo for their cause. Thanks jerk off that didnt like his neighbor and wanted to be confrontational with a firearm. I feel sorry for the victims and their families, what a stupid reason to die
KingCracker wrote:Yea, Im sorry but this guy was as wrong as one can get. Worse part is, this is the kind of gak that makes anti gun types use as ammo for their cause. Thanks jerk off that didnt like his neighbor and wanted to be confrontational with a firearm. I feel sorry for the victims and their families, what a stupid reason to die
Guns would be so safe if we could remove the human element.
"I'm running the video camera right now and I'm talking to you and I mean, I'm scared to death here."
If you have to tell us you're scared, then you aren't.
That was a grossly illogical comment. You can be scared and open about it To some its a way of gaining courage by seeking affirmation that others are scared too..
Ask a combat veteran if they were scared, they will almost always say yes. Ask if they could see fear in their comrades or hear they confessed fear and a lot of the time you will also have this confirmed. Yes, some people think it best to refuse to admit fear, amongst most soldiers and armed police that is considered stupidity not bravery.
As for the individual case, who knows. He had a gun and option to retreat. No real reason to be scared, but who knows what was in his head. In any event it wasn't healthy or he wouldn't have escalated the situation and ended up shooting some people. He called the police for help, that was a cue to himself to back away and let them handle it. He didnt and someone died so in his case what he was saying was not really indicative of whether he was working under fear or another.
Orlanth wrote:
That was a grossly illogical comment. You can be scared and open about it To some its a way of gaining courage by seeking affirmation that others are scared too.
That's not what "logic" means.
That said, you can be scared and open, but if you grab a camera, and tell us you're scared, you probably aren't. After all, you grabbed a camera.
Orlanth wrote:
Ask a combat veteran if they were scared, they will almost always say yes.
Sure, past tense. Tenses are important, you see (present tense).
Unless there's some information that wasn't included in the article, I really can't see how his self defence can hold up.
I mean, he's on some other guy's property, if you're scared for your life you don't stay there filming it, you leave. And it makes little to no sense that his noise complaint would have so outraged these people that he had genuine fear for his life, and yet when he drew a gun on them and then shot one of them, so when they suffered actual, real provocation, all they did was tackle him to the ground and wait for police to arrive.
Orlanth wrote:
That was a grossly illogical comment. You can be scared and open about it To some its a way of gaining courage by seeking affirmation that others are scared too.
That's not what "logic" means.
That said, you can be scared and open, but if you grab a camera, and tell us you're scared, you probably aren't. After all, you grabbed a camera.
Under the circumstances I wonder how scared this clown was. Possibly he was scared and took the camera as 'evidence' that he meant no harm. I don't think it proves he was or was not scared, it does I think prove he wasn't thinking things through clearly.
However your comment could only be read as an attempt at a universal truism. Which should be debunked as there is a weight of testimonial evidence against it.
While I shouldn't really use fictional examples, but I can remember several on site admissions of fear by military or paramilitary leaders from the media. Including some in Medieval total War 2 and Three Kings. As admitted these are not a real examples, only ones easily found in the media. But could someone lead troops like that, or face danger like that? I think so, in fact I know so having closely known people who have faced combat. Its not fatal for morale for an officer to show fear in front of his men, its only bad if he lets the fear take hold of him, not doing so is what courage is. In fact admitting one is scared is being honest, feigning fearlessness may not be as effective as saying, yes I am frightened, but I will fight anway'. Can one of the veterans confirm or critique this please.
Anyway leaving military situations aside, as this isnt, it's definitely not possible to say that an admission of fear cannot be said by someone who is actually scared at the time.
Orlanth wrote:
Ask a combat veteran if they were scared, they will almost always say yes.
Sure, past tense. Tenses are important, you see (present tense).
If you quoted the whole passage you would see I understood that:
Ask a combat veteran if they were scared, they will almost always say yes. Ask if they could see fear in their comrades or hear they confessed fear and a lot of the time you will also have this confirmed. Yes, some people think it best to refuse to admit fear, amongst most soldiers and armed police that is considered stupidity not bravery.
Past tense refering to the then-present tense. English is a versatile language, and it can get quite complicated, I hope thats wasn't too confusing
Orlanth wrote:
However your comment could only be read as an attempt at a universal truism.
No, you're trying to catch me out, I get that, but I'm really good at this game.
One might infer that I was commenting on the subject, which related to law, and that "us" is "the law".
Orlanth wrote:
Past tense refering to the then-present tense. English is a versatile language, and it can get quite complicated, I hope thats wasn't too confusing
Still past tense. Ask a dude on the internet if he would kill such and such...
Thank God this brave retired fire fighter has decided to fall on his sword to prove that SYG isn't a license to kill. Maybe that will comfort him and quiet the left while he's serving his time for murder. In the meantime enjoy bathing in the blood of the innocent to prove some sort of ideological point.
AustonT wrote:Thank God this brave retired fire fighter has decided to fall on his sword to prove that SYG isn't a license to kill. Maybe that will comfort him and quiet the left while he's serving his time for murder. In the meantime enjoy bathing in the blood of the innocent to prove some sort of ideological point.
What in the world are you going on about? Stories about crimes and trials get posted on this site, because talking about crimes and trials is something human beings do.
Sometimes one or more people use the trial to make a political point, but not in this case. In fact, until you mentioned SYG it wasn't mentioned at all.
So unless you're going to stand there hand on your heart and tell us all that you think any commentary on any court case is bathing in the blood of the innocent, then I reckon you might need to have a serious think about how you interpreted this thread.
KingCracker wrote:Yea, Im sorry but this guy was as wrong as one can get. Worse part is, this is the kind of gak that makes anti gun types use as ammo for their cause. Thanks jerk off that didnt like his neighbor and wanted to be confrontational with a firearm. I feel sorry for the victims and their families, what a stupid reason to die
Guns would be so safe if we could remove the human element.
That was funny, infact I misread that the first time. Nice work
Yeah, while I was, and am, pretty solidly on Zimmerman's side in that debacle and while I'm a huge supporter of the right to respond with deadly force if you feel you or yours are in deadly danger this is ridiculous.
There is self defense and then there is escalating a confrontation to require self defense.
Man if only everyone had guns we'd all be safer and more polite... yeah
Do people actually take the Young Turks seriously? I mean, the dude who shot the teacher was a complete moron, but the Young Turks claiming that people are starting to use Stand Your Ground as a license to kill is more than a little bit ridiculous.
The guy has no excuse, he went in to provoke the people and tried to create grounds for self defence in the process seems a bit on the sociopathic side.
I mean the guy who gets shot has his arms raised as a sign of doing nothing when the ex-firefighter is saying "His life is in danger" when he clearly provokes the entire situation
There's a similarity to the zimmerman case in that they both feel like victims and have this sorta "they're not gonna get away with it this time" attitude which only makes it worse. What's really sad though is if all we had was the 911 call of the incident, every gun nut would be supporting this a***ole.
Hulksmash wrote:Yeah, while I was, and am, pretty solidly on Zimmerman's side in that debacle and while I'm a huge supporter of the right to respond with deadly force if you feel you or yours are in deadly danger this is ridiculous.
There is self defense and then there is escalating a confrontation to require self defense.
Hulksmash wrote:Yeah, while I was, and am, pretty solidly on Zimmerman's side in that debacle and while I'm a huge supporter of the right to respond with deadly force if you feel you or yours are in deadly danger this is ridiculous.
There is self defense and then there is escalating a confrontation to require self defense.
It doesn't actually matter which side you are on in this case. An innocent guy died for no friggin reason; IMO this guy is a murderer who planned to kill someone before he walked out his front door. If Law and Order taught me anything: that's Murder 1.
Hulksmash wrote:Yeah, while I was, and am, pretty solidly on Zimmerman's side in that debacle and while I'm a huge supporter of the right to respond with deadly force if you feel you or yours are in deadly danger this is ridiculous.
There is self defense and then there is escalating a confrontation to require self defense.
It doesn't actually matter which side you are on in this case. An innocent guy died for no friggin reason; IMO this guy is a murderer who planned to kill someone before he walked out his front door. If Law and Order taught me anything: that's Murder 1.
If you hear that sound often enough you officially become a lawyer.
If one were going to have a CHL one would know you don't do what he done. Everything after "I'm going to go over there" is the result of what we call being a dumbass.
Frazzled wrote:If one were going to have a CHL one would know you don't do what he done. Everything after "I'm going to go over there" is the result of what we call being a dumbass.
Slarg232 wrote:Murder. You don't go walking around with a gun and expect something to not happen.....
Don't be daft. Of course you can. The majority of states have CHLs now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:And people wonder why i dont like alot of gun owners. They are way too itchy to use their weapon.
Don't worry, we probably don't like you either. Watch out though because a majority of the adult population has them. Gun owners. In your face, touching your minis!
Its funny. I was at a movie theater Staurday, doing the Charlize Theron Appreciation Week I (next week Prometheus) and my chair was getting banged and people were talking. But I know better than to even say anything (one could get a manager) because the situation could get out of hand quickly. Then this guy does that. No epic face palm big enough.
I have three guns and the only reason I have no CHL is that most places I go into daily don't allow guns, and I'm not arguing with that suited man with a metal detector.
dogma wrote:I have three guns and the only reason I have no CHL is that most places I go into daily don't allow guns, and I'm not arguing with that suited man with a metal detector.
Crablezworth wrote:There's a similarity to the zimmerman case in that they both feel like victims and have this sorta "they're not gonna get away with it this time" attitude which only makes it worse. What's really sad though is if all we had was the 911 call of the incident, every gun nut would be supporting this a***ole.
Yeah. Guns don't kill people, paranoia and general silliness about declining societies and other myths leads idiots to want to make a stand, and that gets people killed.
HOUSTON (AP) — A retired Houston-area firefighter was convicted of murder Wednesday for gunning down his unarmed neighbor during a dispute over a noisy house party, with jurors rejecting his argument that he was within his rights under Texas' version of a stand-your-ground law.
Raul Rodriguez, 47, faces up to life in prison for the 2010 killing of Kelly Danaher. The trial's punishment phase, which will include further testimony, was scheduled to begin Thursday.
Rodriguez was angry about the noise coming from Danaher's home, where the family was having a birthday party for Danaher's wife and young daughter. Rodriguez went to the home and got into an argument with Danaher, a 36-year-old elementary school teacher, and two other men who were at the party.
In a 22-minute video he recorded 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 shot Danaher after somebody appeared to grab his camera. The two other men were wounded.
Rodriguez's reference to standing his ground is similar to the claim made by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who is citing Florida's stand-your-ground law in his defense in the fatal February shooting of an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin. Rodriguez's case, however, was decided under a different kind of self-defense doctrine.
Danaher's wife, Mindy, said she cried tears of joy and sadness after the verdict was read.
"I'm just glad that he can't hurt anybody else. That's my main thing," she said outside the courtroom. "I love my husband and I miss him so much."
Rodriguez's attorneys left the courtroom without speaking to reporters. His family, who sobbed after hearing the verdict, declined to comment. His attorneys did not present any witnesses in his defense.
Jurors deliberated for about five hours after having received the case following closing arguments earlier Wednesday.
During closing arguments, prosecutor Kelli Johnson said Rodriguez started the confrontation when instead of calmly asking Danaher to turn down the music he armed himself with a handgun and a camera and proceeded to harass people at the party.
Johnson said Rodriguez lured and provoked Danaher and two other men to come out onto the street and threatened them by brandishing his gun. Rodriguez did have a concealed handgun license. She said Danaher and the two other men were unarmed and that Rodriguez's life was never in any danger. Danaher's widow had told jurors her husband was not a confrontational person.
"This is not what stand your ground is," Johnson said. "Stand your ground is something the law takes very seriously. The law makes it very clear" when the law can be used.
Texas' version of the law, which is known as the Castle Doctrine, was revised in 2007 to expand the right to use deadly force. It allows people to defend themselves not only in their homes but also in their workplaces or vehicles. Legal experts say the expansion also gave people wider latitude on the use of deadly force.
The law also says a person using force can't provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity at the time.
Johnson said Rodriguez can't hide behind the stand-your-ground law because he provoked the confrontation and then brandished his weapon against an unarmed individual, which is a crime.
But defense attorney Neal Davis said he doesn't believe Rodriguez did anything illegal. He said Rodriguez went to complain and was confronted by Danaher and the two other partygoers, and that he didn't pull out his gun until he was standing in the street and Danaher approached him in a threatening manner.
"He had a right to be (in) the street. He was not provoking anybody. He was not engaged in any criminal activity. The (stand-your-ground) law is not only for home invasions. That's why the law was changed," Davis said.
An acquittal of Rodriguez would not "say everyone in the city of Houston is going to turn into the wild, wild west," Davis said.
Johnson told jurors prosecutors don't have any problems with guns in Texas.
"But with that comes a lot of responsibility. It has to be used as a last resort," she said.
Grant Scheiner, a Houston criminal defense attorney who was not involved in the case but who followed it, said a conviction in a case like Rodriguez's might prompt some clarification of Texas' stand-your-ground law that would more clearly define what it means to provoke someone. But he said the outcome of the case, conviction or acquittal, would not lead to major changes in the law.
Help me out, why would you want a self cocking revolver? IU thought the last pistol that had that was a.455 British pistol at the turn of the (last) century. Whats the appeal bro?
Yeah, I'm not a gun nut, but I thought one of the advantages to using a revolver was that you could just keep pulling the trigger if it misfired rather than needed to clear the breech.
Seems like a revolver requiring the recoil of a shot would somewhat defeat that purpose.
Hum. I don't know if this is so OT that it should warrant it's own thread, but as a prospective handgun owner, what would be a good first buy? If I want something good to learn with and not too expensive?
Kovnik Obama wrote:Hum. I don't know if this is so OT that it should warrant it's own thread, but as a prospective handgun owner, what would be a good first buy? If I want something good to learn with and not too expensive?
Smith & Wesson Police Special, 6" barrel, .38 super. Easy to shoot, ammo is cheap, and there are a lot available on the used market for cheap.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Hum. I don't know if this is so OT that it should warrant it's own thread, but as a prospective handgun owner, what would be a good first buy? If I want something good to learn with and not too expensive?
I would definitely start a new thread for this. There's quite a few people on the forum that are into guns and would be willing to give input.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Hum. I don't know if this is so OT that it should warrant it's own thread, but as a prospective handgun owner, what would be a good first buy? If I want something good to learn with and not too expensive?
Smith & Wesson Police Special, 6" barrel, .38 super. Easy to shoot, ammo is cheap, and there are a lot available on the used market for cheap.
Did you mean 38 special. 38 supers are neither cheap nor plentiful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:Hum. I don't know if this is so OT that it should warrant it's own thread, but as a prospective handgun owner, what would be a good first buy? If I want something good to learn with and not too expensive?
A Glock is normally a no brainer, but learning to shoot on a DAO vastly steepens the learning curve. Look for a single action or DA/SA The aforementioned SW model 12 is a good choice. My personal preferance is the Sig 226, its a solid shooter for learning and a good carry gun.
d-usa wrote:My usual carry gun is a Ruger LCP, .380 is not too pricy when it comes to ammo and it is easily hidden. Kicks a it though.
Im not a huge supporter of 38 ACP, it takes the anemic 38SPc and cuts its power by something like 20% IIRC (off the top of my head) and your return on investment is a hellacious kick and less than impressive terminal effect. You can stuff anywhere from a 9mm to a 45ACP in a similar package for a small size increase like say a LC9 or a Kahr.
Gritty triggers and unfinished frames. Lack of a slide catch on the P3AT. Kel Te delivers an acceptable machine at an affordable price. Ruger has ripped them off in the blatant fashion only SW had dared to before but I can't blame you for not liking Kel Tec. In the long run they need to have done to them what happened to magpul and get bought up by a large manufacturer who will protect their patents and up their quality assurance. The Forward ejecting bullpup they have is a stroke of genius.
AustonT wrote:
They were expensive. I remember dogma saying he got that one on the cheap.
Really cheap, I paid 100 USD, they go for something like 2000 now. Basically bought it because it was cheap, looked cool, and I knew they were rare-ish so I figured I could turn a profit eventually.
Frazzled wrote:
Oh wow, someone actually bought one of those. How does it shoot?
Hordini wrote:
My interest is piqued. Are they expensive? And yeah, how does it shoot?
The grip feels great to me, might be the most comfortable I've ever shot. Really heavy trigger in double action, still pretty heavy in single action. Also there's an issue where you can burn yourself with the discharge from the cylinder. Good recoil though, surprising from my .44.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Hum. I don't know if this is so OT that it should warrant it's own thread, but as a prospective handgun owner, what would be a good first buy? If I want something good to learn with and not too expensive?
Well if you didn't live in Canada you'd have a variety of options. Your options are generally rifles and shotguns. Thats not hostile - I have a bunch of Canadians here and a few were shooters.
Otherwise there are a plethora of inexpensive pistols, as I think thats what you were asking. Avoiding the 9mm vs. .40 vs. .45ACP brush wars and Glock uber alles/Glock sucks threads I'd look at a nice 9mm from S&W, Glock, Walther, Springfield, HK, Ruger, Beretta, and Sig Sauer (thats pronounced SIG SAWYAH! SIG SAWYAH!). Playtesting is required as grip angle and personal preference matter over all.
If looking for a shotgun or rifle thats a completley different and cool ball of wax and can be discussed separately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
d-usa wrote:I got it before the LC9 came out, or I would have gotten that.
kel tec had theirs out before ruger copied the P3at.
Yep. In fact I read an article comparing the two side by side. Its almost like Ruger's engineers just phoned it in...
AustonT wrote:
They were expensive. I remember dogma saying he got that one on the cheap.
Really cheap, I paid 100 USD, they go for something like 2000 now. Basically bought it because it was cheap, looked cool, and I knew they were rare-ish so I figured I could turn a profit eventually.
Frazzled wrote:
Oh wow, someone actually bought one of those. How does it shoot?
Hordini wrote:
My interest is piqued. Are they expensive? And yeah, how does it shoot?
The grip feels great to me, might be the most comfortable I've ever shot. Really heavy trigger in double action, still pretty heavy in single action. Also there's an issue where you can burn yourself with the discharge from the cylinder. Good recoil though, surprising from my .44.
I guess I'll have to keep my eyes open for a deal if I want to get one. The burning issue sounds unfortunate. How do you keep from burning yourself? Just wear gloves or something?
The burning issue sounds unfortunate. How do you keep from burning yourself? Just wear gloves or something?
Quit picking up people in bars?
Thats weird actually. I've never had that from my .44mag or even the old blackpowder .44.
On the positive, my new S&W pops the cases into the air and right onto the bill of my hat about every second time I fire. It was very disconcerting at first (plus I got splattered with a lot of oil as I was lubing it like a 1911 originally) but after awhile I have to force myself to keep from laughing.
Hordini wrote:
I guess I'll have to keep my eyes open for a deal if I want to get one. The burning issue sounds unfortunate. How do you keep from burning yourself? Just wear gloves or something?
Gloves, and don't put your finger near the cylinder. Basically you need to adjust your left index finger downward about 3/4 of an inch, then your fingertip and the ball of your hand are out reach.
I didn't say this first, but its a collector gun, not something for actual carry, so these issues aren't huge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats weird actually. I've never had that from my .44mag or even the old blackpowder .44.
It is weird, but I'm not the only person to have this complaint. Might be a technique thing?
Kovnik Obama wrote:Hum. I don't know if this is so OT that it should warrant it's own thread, but as a prospective handgun owner, what would be a good first buy?
Spoiler:
Seriously though, a Ruger .22 Charger is a lot of fun, and you can buy loads of ammo for it pretty cheaply so you can shoot all day with it without breaking the bank. Plus, it looks cool.
Spoiler:
Also, I'm glad that guy was found guilty. Waving a gun around in someone's driveway doesn't entitle you to then "stand your ground" when people get pissed off about it.
Hordini wrote:
I guess I'll have to keep my eyes open for a deal if I want to get one. The burning issue sounds unfortunate. How do you keep from burning yourself? Just wear gloves or something?
Gloves, and don't put your finger near the cylinder. Basically you need to adjust your left index finger downward about 3/4 of an inch, then your fingertip and the ball of your hand are out reach.
I didn't say this first, but its a collector gun, not something for actual carry, so these issues aren't huge.
Cool, glad to hear it's not that big of a deal. And yeah, that's definitely not a gun I'd want to carry, but it does look like it'd be fun to shoot.
And yeah, on the original topic, I'm glad the idiot was convicted too, first because it's what he deserved, and second because now maybe the Young Turks (and anyone else who's doing it) will stop spouting moronic crap about people using Stand Your Ground laws as a license to kill.
Hordini wrote:
I guess I'll have to keep my eyes open for a deal if I want to get one. The burning issue sounds unfortunate. How do you keep from burning yourself? Just wear gloves or something?
Gloves, and don't put your finger near the cylinder. Basically you need to adjust your left index finger downward about 3/4 of an inch, then your fingertip and the ball of your hand are out reach.
I didn't say this first, but its a collector gun, not something for actual carry, so these issues aren't huge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats weird actually. I've never had that from my .44mag or even the old blackpowder .44.
It is weird, but I'm not the only person to have this complaint. Might be a technique thing?
Doesn't sound like technique. Sounds like the firing cyclinder is too close to your fingers, plus maybe it should be a tighter space.
Automatically Appended Next Post: wow just wow. My neighbors are weird, but cool. This guy was a wack job:
Raul Rodriguez was "the neighbor from hell" who walked his children to the bus stop with a gun on his hip, aimed a rifle at his next-door neighbor and finally fatally shot an elementary school teacher after a birthday party in 2010, jurors heard Thursday.
"He hit me with the barrel," Gregory Ruth testified in the punishment phase of Rodriguez's trial. The 47-year-old was convicted Wednesday of murder in the May 2, 2010, slaying of Kelly Danaher, which he videotaped with a camera in one hand and a gun in the other.
Ruth told jurors he was on his knees building a fence when Rodriguez approached him and pointed a rifle at his face. He said Rodriguez then hit him between the eyes with the barrel.
"I felt he had some psychological issues," Ruth said. "He was violent."
Ruth said he took the gun away from Rodriguez and hit him with it. Although police intervened, no charges were filed.
Called a bully
Ruth was one of a parade of neighbors who testified that Rodriguez complained, harangued and harassed them in their rural neighborhood in northeast Harris County.
Asked how long they were neighbors, Ruth said, "Eternity."
He and others said Rodriguez continually called the police for the smallest infractions or noise complaints.
Several neighbors also testified they feared the "bully" and even watched Rodriguez kill a Rottweiler dog after shooting it repeatedly, either with a high-powered pellet gun or a .22 caliber rifle.
Neal Davis, an attorney for Rodriguez asked each witness if they also saw the dog attack Rodriguez. They did not.
Finally, the jury heard from the victim's mother, who testified her granddaughter still mourns.
"Grief in a 3-year-old is the most heart wrenching thing you can see," Connie Danaher said.
Family to testify
The prosecution rested late Thursday and the defense is expected to call several members of Rodriguez's family, including children who have been in the courtroom to support their father.
Rodriguez was convicted of going to the Danaher residence, a few lots away from his home, just after midnight because he was upset by the noise from a birthday party that included karaoke.
Rodriguez stood on the road next to Danaher's driveway and shined a flashlight at the house until Danaher and others came out.
Rodriguez, who was videotaping the confrontation, drew his gun and threatened to shoot as Danaher, a physical education teacher, approached in a T-shirt and shorts.
A group from the party, several of whom were drunk, joined Danaher as Rodriguez called the police and said he was in fear for his life.
For the last seven minutes of the 22-minute video, Rodriguez and the crowd shout at each other, then, three of the men apparently rushed Rodriguez who fired a shot that can be heard before the video goes black.
Rodriguez faces a maximum of life in prison when the jury returns to state District Judge David Mendoza's court. Because of scheduling conflicts, the trial is expected to resume June 25
Kovnik Obama wrote:Hum. I don't know if this is so OT that it should warrant it's own thread, but as a prospective handgun owner, what would be a good first buy? If I want something good to learn with and not too expensive?
Smith & Wesson Police Special, 6" barrel, .38 super. Easy to shoot, ammo is cheap, and there are a lot available on the used market for cheap.
Hordini wrote:
I guess I'll have to keep my eyes open for a deal if I want to get one. The burning issue sounds unfortunate. How do you keep from burning yourself? Just wear gloves or something?
Gloves, and don't put your finger near the cylinder. Basically you need to adjust your left index finger downward about 3/4 of an inch, then your fingertip and the ball of your hand are out reach.
I didn't say this first, but its a collector gun, not something for actual carry, so these issues aren't huge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats weird actually. I've never had that from my .44mag or even the old blackpowder .44.
It is weird, but I'm not the only person to have this complaint. Might be a technique thing?
To a greater or lesser extend ALL revolvers do it. The looser the clearance the worse it is. You see the residue from it happening on the cylinder and frame, but in the Mateba and Chiappa the firing cylinder is closer to the hand so the blow back has a better chance to hit you. I have a SAA in 22lr made in post-war Germany before 1955, probably by Erma; anyway it spits fire consistently because it has a relatively long cylinder to barrel clearance...and it's little.
A Texas man convicted of shooting and killing his unarmed neighbor during a dispute over loud music received a 40-year prison sentence on Wednesday.
Raul Rodriguez, 47, faced a minimum of five years and a maximum of life in prison. He claimed he shot schoolteacher Kelly Danaher in self-defense under Texas' version of the "stand your ground" law.
But prosecutors argued Rodriguez provoked the incident by confronting Danaher, 36, and his friends with a handgun and demanding they quiet down at a late-night birthday party in May 2010.
The Houston case captured more attention in the wake of Trayvon Martin's death in Florida. There, George Zimmerman says he was being attacked and cited the state's "stand your ground" law after shooting the unarmed teen. But prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder.
Two dozen states reportedly now allow citizens to stand their ground even outside their home. The specifics vary by state, but generally justify a person not retreating and using deadly force when a threat is perceived.
As in Florida, Texas law includes public areas, "if a person has a right to be present at a location where force is used."
But veteran attorney Andy Drumheller told Yahoo News that the Houston jury appeared to draw a line with Rodriguez leaving his home and going down the street.
"The law is not designed to create this bubble that you can carry with you everywhere you go," said Drumheller, a former prosecutor now practicing criminal defense in Houston. "The jury's verdict is a cautionary statement on the limits of this defense."
The Rodriguez case is also unique because the former firefighter was recording video during much of the ordeal.
Rodriguez, who had been calling police about the loud party, dialed 911 again as both sides shouted at each other near Danaher's dark driveway.
"Tell you what, pal, you just pulled a gun on the wrong [expletive], OK?" one of the partygoers is heard telling Rodriguez on the home video.
Seconds later the partygoer warns, "When I go in that house and I come back, don't think I won't be equal to you, baby."
Rodriguez, who told police he suspected the men were drunk, tells the 911 operator that he's scared and will defend himself, if needed.
"I don't want to do this, and it all started over them playing their music real loud … it's about to get out of hand, Sir. Please help me. "
Seconds later, he says, "I'm standing my ground here, now these people are going to try and kill me."
The video is dark when Danaher and two other men apparently lunged toward him, laughing loudly. Rodriguez fired his gun, killing Danaher and injuring two others.
In lobbying jurors for a lenient sentence, defense attorney Bill Stradley blamed the tragedy on his client's misunderstanding of the state's "stand your ground" law. Something he predicts will happen with other Texas gun owners in the future.
"And they will find themselves, like Raul Rodriguez, charged with murder," said Stradley, according to the Houston Chronicle.
"Raul believed he had a right to be where he was. But he had two seconds to make that call, to pull that trigger."
