Texas Man Sentensed to 40 Years - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Texas Man Sentensed to 40 Years


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-28-2012, 02:36 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,626
Liked 3248 Times on 1941 Posts
Likes Given: 2347

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJK View Post
I am scared after reading the majority of the responses here. The man had a CCL which entitled him to carry a concealed firearm anywhere not posted. I know people who even carry while at home. What difference does having his firearm on him in a lawfull manner make?

He had called the police at least twice. He started the call on the video by stating his name and that he had called before concerning this same incident. He was on a public roadway when the truck pulled up at which time multiple large sized males confronted him. He asked them to turn down the music countless times and they refused. At this point they became aggressive in mannerism and speech. They made numerous aggressive movements toward the individual. I counted around 5 men at one point. A couple of which were being held back by friends while threatening to get guns and shoot him. One man w/ multiple friends right behind him, aggressively approached the firefighter. At this point it would have been smart for him to retreat but according to my understanding of the law he is not required to, stand your ground. Right.

The 3 men lunged at the firefighter after threatening his life.

He was standing on public property reporting a violation of the law when he was approached by multiple men all of which appeared to be larger, stronger, younger, more fit, highly intoxicated, and ready to fight.

He was confronted by them.

Does standing on public property reporting a violation warrant an attack by multiple assailants?

Now what did the firefighter do that was illegal? Not wrong or not smart, but against the law.
this will just be a agree to disagree post.

imo, people who willingly engage in a cofrontation, should NOT be protected by these laws. its kind of like the "who threw the first punch argument." there is a huge difference between a fight and an assault. in the end, the fact is....people are dead and hurt over LOUD MUSIC....its not a reason for someone to die over.

imo, to be protected by the castle doctrine or stand your ground, the person using the deadly force should be a victim, not someone starting a confrontation or fight. the person with the firearm should do everything in their power to get away from or deescalate the situation. the only expection to this imo, would be someone protecting their property or home, in which they should not have to try and escape imo.

to me, this only draws ONE important similarity to the trayvon case. to decide guilt, one must decide if the shooter was the victim of an assault OR simply willingly involved in a confrontation, in which they used a gun to kill someone.

ending a willing fight, argument, or confrontation with a gun is murder.

if i'm in this situation with a gun, i back off the moment it starts getting threatening. i use language like "i don't want any trouble" or "please back away" and "just let me leave." i walk away from this, cause i know it is not worth me being hurt, or the other party being killed. i think gun owners NEED to understand, 'stand your ground" laws are not in place so you can use a gun to be a tough guy, or win petty arguments. these are laws are to protect gunowners who are victims of UNPROVOKED violent crimes.

just my opinion, of course. i normally stay out of the political forums for good reason, this will be my last post and thanks for listening.

Last edited by hawkguy; 06-28-2012 at 02:38 PM.
hawkguy is offline  
4
People Like This 
Old 06-28-2012, 02:57 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Polygon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 843
Liked 69 Times on 54 Posts
Likes Given: 117

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
So much going on in this one that its really hard to know right or wrong with the info available. No doubt, exercising your rights does come with liabilities and possible outcomes that are not positive. If he truly felt in fear of his life, he did the right thing because he is still alive. Now comes judgement day when the right thing for him gets scrutiny by everyone else including the courts.

Having the right to do something and doing the right thing may not be the same thing, in this case, he really pushed the envelope too far. Actually, His filming probably was the death blow to his case, His fear factor didnt drive his response until after it got way out of hand, he was trying to make a point with drunks, not smart!. I do believe he was angry to begin with, probably not the first time his peace had been violated by these folks. Judgement lacking, he confronted drunks with a camera and a gun in hopes of creating a you tube moment, what did he think was going to happen, a beer summit at the Whitehouse? After he realized the situation had moved from uncomfortable to near riot, he got scared and did defend himself.

This is a chicken and egg thing, who really was responsible for the final action seems to be predicated on the belief that this was an unprovoked response, while the noise was the initial sign of an issue, the situation grew more dangerous as he attempted to control a dangerous situation that nobody with a brain should have tried to do alone with a camera.

MikeJK, you were 10th mt, would you have tried to defend your position against a mob of drunks alone with a camera and a handgun or retrograde and call for backup? Defending ones post is honorable but there was no danger close until he tried to deal with it inappropriately. My guess is you would choose the second response and live to fight another day. Im pretty sure most of us would do the same, loud music is not a precursor to the need of lethal response; that wasnt an invasion, it was an irritation.

Its not cold blooded murder but certainty isnt the classic case of one defending their property or self against an intruder. I wouldnt want to have been on that jury, it would be really tough for me to support his actions leading up to the shooting and I would have to be able to to set him free without any repercussions but I do think 40 years is excessive, someone was making a point, dont take the law into your own hands, right or wrong, he's got 40 years to think about it now.

Just because we can doesnt mean we should, the law of unintended consequences is always in effect and he should have thought more and acted less, sorry a drunk is dead but they sounded like a bunch of scumbags, he may have done his neighbors a favor. I do believe it will cause confusion and redirect the intent of the Stand your ground law in areas it wasnt designed to deal with, thats the really bad part.
I don't think this could have been stated any better!
Polygon is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:02 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,427
Liked 40 Times on 39 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
So much going on in this one that its really hard to know right or wrong with the info available. No doubt, exercising your rights does come with liabilities and possible outcomes that are not positive. If he truly felt in fear of his life, he did the right thing because he is still alive. Now comes judgement day when the right thing for him gets scrutiny by everyone else including the courts.

Having the right to do something and doing the right thing may not be the same thing, in this case, he really pushed the envelope too far. Actually, His filming probably was the death blow to his case, His fear factor didnt drive his response until after it got way out of hand, he was trying to make a point with drunks, not smart!. I do believe he was angry to begin with, probably not the first time his peace had been violated by these folks. Judgement lacking, he confronted drunks with a camera and a gun in hopes of creating a you tube moment, what did he think was going to happen, a beer summit at the Whitehouse? After he realized the situation had moved from uncomfortable to near riot, he got scared and did defend himself.

This is a chicken and egg thing, who really was responsible for the final action seems to be predicated on the belief that this was an unprovoked response, while the noise was the initial sign of an issue, the situation grew more dangerous as he attempted to control a dangerous situation that nobody with a brain should have tried to do alone with a camera.

MikeJK, you were 10th mt, would you have tried to defend your position against a mob of drunks alone with a camera and a handgun or retrograde and call for backup? Defending ones post is honorable but there was no danger close until he tried to deal with it inappropriately. My guess is you would choose the second response and live to fight another day. Im pretty sure most of us would do the same, loud music is not a precursor to the need of lethal response; that wasnt an invasion, it was an irritation.

Its not cold blooded murder but certainty isnt the classic case of one defending their property or self against an intruder. I wouldnt want to have been on that jury, it would be really tough for me to support his actions leading up to the shooting and I would have to be able to to set him free without any repercussions but I do think 40 years is excessive, someone was making a point, dont take the law into your own hands, right or wrong, he's got 40 years to think about it now.

Just because we can doesnt mean we should, the law of unintended consequences is always in effect and he should have thought more and acted less, sorry a drunk is dead but they sounded like a bunch of scumbags, he may have done his neighbors a favor. I do believe it will cause confusion and redirect the intent of the Stand your ground law in areas it wasnt designed to deal with, thats the really bad part.
It's disgusting to see opinions like this. Opinion doesn't matter. This is/was a case in a court of law not opinion.

I can't (I have tried very hard) understand how anyone could think you was provoking this group of guys. Why? Because he had a CCL and was exercising his right to carry? Where in the law does it say he was in the wrong for carrying at that moment? This man was convicted because of others opinion that he shouldn't have been exercising his rights and nothing else.

I live on the edge of a nice quiet but older neighborhood. Are any of you familiar w/ the Chicago School theory of social disorganization? Basically you have zones that radiate in rings from the city center. As you move outward crime rates decrease. As people become more financially secure they move to the outer zones and others move in behind them. Over time as the homes in the inner zones get older they become less expensive thus are more affordable by lower social/economical classes. The crime rate in these zones increases. The older people that moved into these zones when they were nice start mixing w/ these other classes. Like I said we live on the edge of what would be zone 2 and 3. Zone 2 being the one w/ the highest average crime rate. There are low income duplexes across the street from us. The common resident are drug dealers. Loud music is common as are other not so attractive behaviors. I woke up at 3am once to yelling. One vehicle had ran another up into the yard 2 doors down from me and the guys were standing in the yard yelling/ claiming their gang affiliation to each other. I call 911 a lot. I had an officer on my porch ask me if I had gone over there to ask them to turn the music down. I looked at him like he was retarded. I asked him what he thought would have happened if I had. I think it clicked at that point. However, it would have been my right to do so I figured it wasn't smart.

What if I had? Chances are as I stood in the street they, being intoxicated would have walked into the street to talk **** and tell me to kick rocks because I can't tell them what to do even if they were in violation of the law. The last thing I would want to do is turn my back and walk in my house. Who knows what they would have done. In my state we have "stand your ground." Considering the overwhelming circumstances of being out numbered it would be in my legal rights to defend myself. Does it make a difference if the assailants are black drug dealing gang members or an over aggressive intoxicated white teacher w/ his like minded buddies looking for a fight?

If a murder is committed while you are committing a crime the responsibility falls on you in most places. The firefighter wasn't committing a crime. Therefor when the three+ guys jumped on Rodriguez they committed a crime. The only crime committed that evening.

If anyone can point out a crime he had committed or a law he was in violation of let me know.

A man is about to spend the rest of his life in prison because of opinion rather than law. This is a sad moment in our history. And another will shortly follow.

Being jumped by multiple assailants is a precursor to a violent response, being asked to turn down your music is not.

Last edited by MikeJK; 06-28-2012 at 03:25 PM.
MikeJK is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:23 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,427
Liked 40 Times on 39 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
this will just be a agree to disagree post.

imo, people who willingly engage in a cofrontation, should NOT be protected by these laws. its kind of like the "who threw the first punch argument." there is a huge difference between a fight and an assault. in the end, the fact is....people are dead and hurt over LOUD MUSIC....its not a reason for someone to die over.

imo, to be protected by the castle doctrine or stand your ground, the person using the deadly force should be a victim, not someone starting a confrontation or fight. the person with the firearm should do everything in their power to get away from or deescalate the situation. the only expection to this imo, would be someone protecting their property or home, in which they should not have to try and escape imo.

to me, this only draws ONE important similarity to the trayvon case. to decide guilt, one must decide if the shooter was the victim of an assault OR simply willingly involved in a confrontation, in which they used a gun to kill someone.

ending a willing fight, argument, or confrontation with a gun is murder.

if i'm in this situation with a gun, i back off the moment it starts getting threatening. i use language like "i don't want any trouble" or "please back away" and "just let me leave." i walk away from this, cause i know it is not worth me being hurt, or the other party being killed. i think gun owners NEED to understand, 'stand your ground" laws are not in place so you can use a gun to be a tough guy, or win petty arguments. these are laws are to protect gunowners who are victims of UNPROVOKED violent crimes.

just my opinion, of course. i normally stay out of the political forums for good reason, this will be my last post and thanks for listening.
Listen to the call. He did not go down there to provoke a confrontation. He was standing quite a distance away. The others walked out into the street to confront him. This was not a case of a willing fight. This guy was jumped by multiple assailants.

This guy was scared. You can hear it in his voice. He was walking backward and it was his right to be on that public roadway in what appeared to be an attempt to avoid confrontation. Are we regulating when and where citizens can access public roadways in residential neighborhoods now? He was reporting a crime that had gone untreated by the local law enforcement. He was the victim of an unprovoked violent crime and exercised his right to defend himself. Are we saying that if someone asks us to turn down our music we have the right to attack them? If he had walked down there w/o a concealed firearm this would be a different story. He would have possibly be the deceased in this case. He was threatened w/ deadly force by this group. How did he know that one of the many men confronting his didn't slip back into the house and grab a firearm like they threatened/promised? He didn't. I take threats of bodily harm and/or death very seriously and would have been in the right to take them for their word.

Again, if someone knocks on your door to make a complaint are they looking for a fight?
MikeJK is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:55 PM   #25
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 7,486
Liked 8222 Times on 4235 Posts
Likes Given: 9466

Default

JK no disrespect meant, Im just saying that confrontation should be avoided whenever possible, his actions were not anything to do with avoidance, they were confrontational, I never said his right to carry concealed was an issue. It couldnt have been too concealed if they knew he had it. I was always trained to option the element of surprise whenever possible, he gave up his ace before the situation blew up. You cant argue with drunks, Ive found that not to work so well. It looks like this argument is going to cost 2 lives, one dead (NBD for most cept his momma), one thats gonna wish he was dead after 40 years in the pen.

Also, the gun didnt provoke anything, it just followed orders. The man behind it was the one giving them and he would have been wiser not to join their location at that time.
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
Polygon Likes This 
Old 06-28-2012, 04:15 PM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Polygon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 843
Liked 69 Times on 54 Posts
Likes Given: 117

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJK View Post
I can't (I have tried very hard) understand how anyone could think you was provoking this group of guys. Why? Because he had a CCL and was exercising his right to carry? Where in the law does it say he was in the wrong for carrying at that moment? This man was convicted because of others opinion that he shouldn't have been exercising his rights and nothing else.
I don't see where anyone has refuted that fact. He was not convicted for carrying his gun in public. He was convicted for killing another person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJK View Post
I live on the edge of a nice quiet but older neighborhood. Are any of you familiar w/ the Chicago School theory of social disorganization? Basically you have zones that radiate in rings from the city center. As you move outward crime rates decrease. As people become more financially secure they move to the outer zones and others move in behind them. Over time as the homes in the inner zones get older they become less expensive thus are more affordable by lower social/economical classes. The crime rate in these zones increases. The older people that moved into these zones when they were nice start mixing w/ these other classes. Like I said we live on the edge of what would be zone 2 and 3. Zone 2 being the one w/ the highest average crime rate. There are low income duplexes across the street from us. The common resident are drug dealers. Loud music is common as are other not so attractive behaviors. I woke up at 3am once to yelling. One vehicle had ran another up into the yard 2 doors down from me and the guys were standing in the yard yelling/ claiming their gang affiliation to each other. I call 911 a lot. I had an officer on my porch ask me if I had gone over there to ask them to turn the music down. I looked at him like he was retarded. I asked him what he thought would have happened if I had. I think it clicked at that point. However, it would have been my right to do so I figured it wasn't smart.

What if I had? Chances are as I stood in the street they, being intoxicated would have walked into the street to talk **** and tell me to kick rocks because I can't tell them what to do even if they were in violation of the law. The last thing I would want to do is turn my back and walk in my house. Who knows what they would have done. In my state we have "stand your ground." Considering the overwhelming circumstances of being out numbered it would be in my legal rights to defend myself. Does it make a difference if the assailants are black drug dealing gang members or an over aggressive intoxicated white teacher w/ his like minded buddies looking for a fight?

If a murder is committed while you are committing a crime the responsibility falls on you in most places. The firefighter wasn't committing a crime. Therefor when the three+ guys jumped on Rodriguez they committed a crime. The only crime committed that evening.

If anyone can point out a crime he had committed or a law he was in violation of let me know.

A man is about to spend the rest of his life in prison because of opinion rather than law. This is a sad moment in our history. And another will shortly follow.

Being jumped by multiple assailants is a precursor to a violent response, being asked to turn down your music is not.
You're missing the point here. He used some extremely poor judgement. You even said yourself you wouldn't confront someone for the same thing for fear of the reaction it might provoke.

Now, he should have done what you said you do, call the police. These people were drunk. They aren't going to have good judgement either. Intoxicated people will do things they wouldn't normally do, like attack you for stupid reasons. I would ave figured most people would know that. Going out there with a gun was always a bad situation waiting to happen. As soon as they became even slightly hostile he should have left and called police.

As Webley said:

Quote:
MikeJK, you were 10th mt, would you have tried to defend your position against a mob of drunks alone with a camera and a handgun or retrograde and call for backup? Defending ones post is honorable but there was no danger close until he tried to deal with it inappropriately. My guess is you would choose the second response and live to fight another day. Im pretty sure most of us would do the same, loud music is not a precursor to the need of lethal response; that wasnt an invasion, it was an irritation.
Now, a lot of people light off fireworks around my house. They do this when it isn't legal. And a lot of them aren't legal to light anywhere in the state at any time. This makes me mad because they're loud and there's a fire danger to worry about. In fact, because of how high the fire danger is around here this year my city has banned fireworks altogether. Now, I'm a licensed CWP holder. I'm not about to go confront them for the same reason. It's provoking a situation. Regardless if you see that or not. That's exactly what he did. It was not worth taking another person's life over. That's why he's going to prison. I don't feel that the punishment fit the crime, but he did deserve to go to jail for his very poor judgement.

Once again, just because you can doesn't mean you should. I don't go into any potential bad situation just because I have a gun on me. I do everything to avoid them. Carrying a gun doesn't give you the excuse to cavalier. He had plenty of time to leave. But he just stated there with his camera. I don't know about you, but if I feel my life is in danger, I'm going to drop the camera. That gives me the impression he wasn't in mortal danger until the end of the video. That's how a jury is going to see it since you can't make out **** in the video.
Polygon is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 05:13 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,427
Liked 40 Times on 39 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

The confronted him. He was in the roadway talking to 911. They confronted him. He then asked them to turn down the music. When did asking someone a question turn into provoking a confrontation? He never mentioned a concealed firearm until the guys charged at him the first time.

Looks like the day has arrived when one is not permitted to ask another to stop committing violations of the law for the fear that person/people have entitlement issues.

Last edited by MikeJK; 06-28-2012 at 05:18 PM.
MikeJK is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 05:30 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,427
Liked 40 Times on 39 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

This is about me being right or wrong I want to be wrong in this instance. I don't want to think that defending yourself against multiple assailants for asking them to turn down there music will land a citizen in the penitentiary for 40 years. I don't want to believe our society is gotten to this point. The video shows he was defending himself against multiple attackers. They attacked him because he ask them to turn down there music. He wasn't anywhere you legally shouldn't of been. He didn't finish it the confrontation, they did when I pulled up in the pickup truck. I believe what everyone is concentrating on is that he had his conceal carry firearm on him concealed legally. That is his right by law. He never brandished it he never played the tough guy he warned them that he was armed when they tried to attack him the first time the second time he didn't warn them.

I'm judging this by the laws currently in the book everyone seems to be judging this by what they would have u\or would not have done. And that is wrong. This case was not tried in a court of opinion it was tried in a court of law.

I want to see a law that would show what he did was wrong.

Last edited by MikeJK; 06-28-2012 at 10:30 PM. Reason: Talk to Text while driving :eek: spelling errors
MikeJK is offline  
 
Old 06-28-2012, 07:32 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 3,443
Liked 3323 Times on 1496 Posts
Likes Given: 3062

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
JK no disrespect meant, Im just saying that confrontation should be avoided whenever possible, his actions were not anything to do with avoidance, they were confrontational, I never said his right to carry concealed was an issue. It couldnt have been too concealed if they knew he had it. I was always trained to option the element of surprise whenever possible, he gave up his ace before the situation blew up. You cant argue with drunks, Ive found that not to work so well. It looks like this argument is going to cost 2 lives, one dead (NBD for most cept his momma), one thats gonna wish he was dead after 40 years in the pen.

Also, the gun didnt provoke anything, it just followed orders. The man behind it was the one giving them and he would have been wiser not to join their location at that time.

I call BS on the avoid confrontation. That's the problem with today's society everyone is afraid to confront these a$$holes. Good thing the founding fathers weren't afraid of confrontation.
rjd3282 is offline  
Jim1611 Likes This 
Old 06-28-2012, 08:00 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
beastmode986's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: California
Posts: 967
Liked 158 Times on 111 Posts
Likes Given: 171

Default

I believe he could have done this differently but i don't see much wrong with the option he chose.I would have walked over said hows everything going and been nice then asked if they could please turn the music down. If they refused i would have most likely went home and waited for law enforcement to arrive, If they did not arrive i would have asked he people to turn the music down again if they didn't i would leave and call leo again if they still didnt come i would not go back over because its not worth fighting about.
However, in this situation they became aggressive and he waned them not to step closer and to get back multiple times. They kept taunting him even after he said get back or i will shoot. The drunks should be charged with something as well. I have heard people when they terrified , you can just tell by there voice and this man was scared. He could have went home but he didnt. I personally dont think he should have been sentanced but if he was it should have been much less time, like 20 years max.

The problem is that many people today are big baby liberal loonies. Many people nowadays complain about everything (in certain cases,But this time these people were being obnoxious. I agree its ok to ask people to not do things and stuff but some people want to restrict you from your way of life) or they believe you should only let leo handle situations(certain times leo aren't there in time) but leo is minutes away when you only have seconds,This man had more than seconds but im saying in general.
beastmode986 is offline  
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
After 6 years... evo9guy AR-15 Discussion 15 07-02-2012 03:58 PM
Only took 32 years to get it. BenLuby The Club House 19 10-19-2011 11:26 PM
25 years ago MobileMarine Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 09-27-2011 08:12 PM
Deadly Fires in Texas & Texas State Rifle Assoc. Members american121 Legal and Activism 1 09-12-2011 05:04 AM
Eight years ago right now..... canebrake Politics, Religion and Controversy 20 09-12-2009 04:37 AM



Newest Threads