Houston shooting... self defense or murder?

[LeeH]

Sounds like he was out to make a point to me. Videotaping while saying things like, "I'm standing my ground," and "I'm in fear for my life." What do you think?

Man Claims Self Defense in Fatal Shooting of Neighbor | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo!

[DonDavis]

That's just stupid. He went looking for trouble and found it. The shooter's voice didn't sound distressed to me.

[bivenator]

Murder.

[mossguy]

Originally Posted by bivenator

Murder.

Agreed

[Moses]

Guilty of murder. And indescribable stupidity.

[gr8fl4porsche]

Nothing like providing a nice section of rope for the hangman to fashion into a noose.

[slakjaw]

I think he is going to a federal pound me in the ass prison where he will later sit in the gas chamber.

[slakjaw]

maybe if the cops weren't so busy arresting people who cheer at graduations from that other thread they would have been there sooner?

[wdfifteen]

The stand your ground laws say you can kill people who scare you. He went over there, he stated that he feared for his life, and he defended himself. That's what ALEC wanted when they arranged the passage of those laws. All is working as planned.

[tevake]

He should be toast!

[Head416]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

The stand your ground laws say you can kill people who scare you.

Really?

[Head416]

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified : (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

PENAL CODEÂ Â CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Emphasis mine.

The RED section is what is referred to as Stand Your Ground. It just means you aren't legally required to run before defending yourself.

Read the rest; clearly you can only kill in defense. Saying you were scared isn't enough. You have to be scared, and the danger has to be imminent, and deadly force has to be necessary to prevent the attack, and this all has to be deemed "reasonable" by a jury after the fact.

[vash]

i read it as premeditated murder. he planned it.

hell, he even got the script down..it's called the "stand my ground" law?

he worked it into his script!

Rodriguez told police over the phone. "Now, I'm standing my ground here. Now, these people are going to try and kill me."

who are the other two people shot? party people? so the dead guy has witnesses?

[krichard]

Was he the neighborhood watch captain?

[dan88911]

This is what happens when you allow a dumb a$$ to own a gun.

[LeeH]

I'm thinking he's first guilty of disorderly conduct per TX law:

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Prosecutors will use this as evidence that he provoked the others and the "stand your ground" claim will go out the window.

[dhoward]

Happened last year. Why is it being dragged up by the media now?

[LeeH]

Originally Posted by dhoward

Happened last year. Why is it being dragged up by the media now?

Probably because it's just now going to trial.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by dhoward

Happened last year. Why is it being dragged up by the media now?

Because it's a slow week for the news circuses. No face eating zombies yet this week.

The news media are dragging stuff up to get people excited.

[slakjaw]

I just noticed that. Wtf is going on here?

Happened last year. Why is it being dragged up by the media now?