TX stand your ground.....

123 posts / 0 new

TX stand your ground,need I say more? This time it was over a loud radio, and he went to the offender's party and stood his ground. He taped it too so as to help his defence. He should have sought o'keefe to edit the tape first. Maybe in TX this is so ordinary it is published back in the gardening section of the paper.

Sorry: It's one of those Idiots With Guns days. Raul Rodriguez, a retired firefighter in Texas, is on trial for killing elementary school teacher Kelly Danaher and wounding two others after he confronted them about their party's loud music. Rodriquez claims he was just “standing my ground” - albeit on their property, after he baited and threatened them. Incredibly, he videotaped the entire incident; even more incredibly, he seems to think the chilling evidence will help his case. Scary in countless ways.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/06/08-2

In the video the news team takes his taped confrontation to a gun shop for an opinion. He said he was in fear of his life, the gun shop owner says. So case closed. He said he was armed and in fear, he tells the tape, oh they are going to go inside and bring their gun, so I'm in fear for my life. The gun shop owner will help anyone to get around concealed carry laws. And I guess teach them to hunt humans.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Just proves there are idiots eveywhere. Shotguns do not require a concealed carry permit. Besides, they would be a llittle hard to conceal. Why not ban idiots instead of blaming an inanimate object?

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

The gist of the post was against the law that now allows hunting of humans. Stand should be repealed, or start charging the stalkers. Stand means stand, not stalk, not hunt, not pursue, just stand and preferably in your own house. Does the nra have a training video out to rehearse your lines before you kill someone?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well obviously this idiot won't walk or beprotected by the stand your ground statute. So then why go afterhthe law and why not talk about thelives these laws have saved not just their abuse. It's like we should say that we should band self defense because some people falsely claim it.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Can you give me an example of a life that has been saved?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-sta...

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

That apprehension did not need the Stand Your Ground law. The person disarmed the lunatic without shooting him and had a store full of witnesses

Anything else?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Whst if he hadn't dropped the knife?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Then he would have shot the lunatic in the leg, and with all of those witnesses, he wouldn't even be questioned. If someone can prove that they (or others) were in mortal danger, or can convince a jury so—there is no need for that stupid law.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

No it says that if you are going to be attacked u can defend yourself regardless of location.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

This law seems to just say —

"Don't worry, pal.Want to show this person who's who? Shoot'em! Kill'em! Good job! Problem solved."

Its a law of encouragement toward peoples' avoidance of their anger-management classes.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:No it says that if you are going to be attacked u can defend yourself regardless of location.

But what it REALLY says—if you feel like shooting somebody, you can say that you were in danger of being attacked and you won't have any problems or police questioning you.

AND you got to kill the person you wanted to kil!

Woooooeeee! What a great deal that is! LOL!

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

No it doesn't just because a few wackos have used it for that does not mean that.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Whst if he hadn't dropped the knife?

What if the moon was made of cheese. Would mice build a rock to get there?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

As we all know—if a person can prove or else convince a jury that they acted in self-defence, they will not be indited or if indited, they will not be found guilty.

So, what exactly is the reason for the Stand Your Ground law?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

It prevents over zealous prosecutors from crucifying lawful gun owners on technicalities

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

And what is more important—what you said or having over-zealous gun owners shoot innocent people without charge?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

I would never want someone not to defend themselves because they were afraid of consequences

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

I would never want someone to be killed because a gun-carrying person wants to feel the power of taking away someone else's life and has no fear of consequences.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Most don't mostdust realize we live in a dangerous world and if crazy criminals have guns then we need guns.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Unarmed people running from a crime seen are not crazy people threatening gun carrying nuts. Horn killed a neighbor's attempted burglars, FL okayed a car radio theif's murder who was in retreat. Stand your ground means shoot in the back, if unarmed no problem.

In the UK your not allowed to kill trespassers, and even burglars if they are unarmed. You can shoot to injure, or warn. TX doesn't warn, they kill with pleasure, the innocent too.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It's awarning you don't wanna get shot don'tbreak in to someone'shouse. It is not my responsibility to know if your after the tv or my wife either way I'm gonna shoot u.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Retreating burglars are no threat, the two murdersedin TX by horn were no threat to him. Property over life is a bumper sticker. Kill at will is, too. Will to kill is another.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

How do u know they won't come back? The only way to besuede is to make sure they don't. If a criminal gets away with one house Robery they will be back for the rest of the neighborhood. Why are we worrying abouwhy he rightsorg criminals? Maybe the lesson here is if you don't wan to get shoot don't trespass.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

How do u know they won't come back? The only way to besuede is to make sure they don't. If a criminal gets away with one house Robery they will be back for the rest of the neighborhood. Why are we worrying abouwhy he rightsorg criminals? Maybe the lesson here is if you don't wan to get shoot don't trespass.

There it is again..... the "what if" question.

What if they don't come back.

What if..... what if..... what if....... an endless circular tactic.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote Karolina:

Can you give me an example of a life that has been saved?

It happens every day mostly without news reports. Most incidents never even get to the police report stage. Here are a couple more examples. When you are through digesting them I will be happy to provide you with a few hundred more if you feel the need.

http://fox6now.com/2012/03/25/man-credits-concealed-carry-weapon-for-saving-two-lives/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/research-concealed-carry-and-guns-save-lives-95307939.html

http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/officers_peril.htm

http://www.ccwbystate.com/temple-university-student-concealed-carry-saves-life/

http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-news/navy-ensign-awarded-medal-for-heroism.html?col=1186032325324

http://polykahr-standingby.blogspot.com/2010/09/couple-with-ccw-save-womans-life.html

THISAA's picture
THISAA
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 6:49 am

I have no reason to read any more articles if they report people shooting in defense of themselves or of others, to maim or disarm the person who is out of control or intruding. Shooting in defense was always legal without the Stand Your Ground law.

So what exactly is the purpose of the Stand Your Ground Law?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Like I said stand your ground prevents these situations from being taken advantage of by das

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

In 2005 Texas passed House Bill 94[32] which created an exception for unlawful entry of place of residence to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack unless a "reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated".[33]

In 2007 Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 which extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

  • Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
  • Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
  • Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.[13]

Senate Bill 378, made effective September 1, 2007, also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."[34]

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

You will never convince me or any normal person that there should be a law allowing people to kill other people, unless it is in defense.

And I am likewise sure that unless you get lots of therapy, which I am sure you won't, I won't be able to convince you that killing people is NOT okay, unless it is the ONLY sure way to safety in defense-situation.

We'll just have assume that everyone is carrying—and shoot to kill!

Or change the law.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

How does thelate provide protection for this guy I provided the text above. Saying because of one nut we should get rid of stand your ground is like me saying that we should get rid of welfare because of thefraud.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Well, since all this hoopla over 'hate crimes' has come up against 'stand your ground laws', I have offered two real world examples that happened right here on the border of Texas and Mexico. One involved a rancher who shot an illegal immigrant in the back on his ranch. Even in the 'gun-happy state of Texas', that man was charged with manslaughter--and convicted (you see, most gun-owners, even in the gun-happy state of Texas, don't take too kindly to shooting somebody in the back). The other is a pregnant woman alone in her ranchhouse when two unarmed illegal immigrants got on her porch and proceeded to enter her house even with her pleading for them to stop. She shot both of the unarmed dead--no charges were filed. Now, is there really a problem here--or not? Adding the term 'hate crime' doesn't alter the incident--or, in my opinion, when it comes to real personal responsibility, the judgment, either....but, many of the liberal 'new paradigm' accusers don't believe in 'personal responsibility', any way.....it's all 'judged on social hate' (of course, by those who claim 'social love') like, somehow, you could actually determine that.....bullshit....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thom is weighing in on this subject today. Here's what he has to say:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is taking a close look at “Shoot First” laws after numerous studies show there's a racial bias inherent in the law.

For example – an FBI study found that, “34% of cases involving a white shooter killing a black person were deemed as a justifiable homicide. Meanwhile, in similar situations, when the shooter was black and the victim was white, the homicide was ruled justifiable only 3.3% of the time.” In other words – the Shoot First laws are a licence for white people to kill black people, but not the other way around.

The Committee is expected to release its finding within a year – too late to stop more murders of blacks by whites, while the rate of so-called justifiable homicides continues to explode in America since these laws – written by corporate gun sellers like WalMart and the NRA – were passed. Another example of corporate corruption of our legislators leading to the death of Americans.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Deadly force may also be used to prevent the person who has committed the criminal act from fleeing with the property.

Read more: Texas Penal Code Laws on the Use of Deadly Force | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6656468_texas-laws-use-deadly-force.html#ixzz1xVCnmIlz

If one doesn't believe in private ownership of guns for home, property and self protection, would you be willing to erect a sign in your front yard advertising that?

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Jan couldnt that statistic be explained by the fact that the black crime Makes up 38% of the crime in this ?country.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_race_percentages_of_crime_in_th_us

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Also only 19% of non whites own legal guns http://reason.com/archives/2001/05/01/gun-ownership-the-numbers?nomobile=1

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote jan in iowa:

For example – an FBI study found that, “34% of cases involving a white shooter killing a black person were deemed as a justifiable homicide. Meanwhile, in similar situations, when the shooter was black and the victim was white, the homicide was ruled justifiable only 3.3% of the time.” In other words – the Shoot First laws are a licence for white people to kill black people, but not the other way around.

To really judge that, jan in iowa, you really need the circumstances of the incidences involved--not just some numbers that claim a bias without such scrutiny. What were the circumstances involved and were those circumstances judged differently according to who the race of the victim vs. the shooter were. If so, you have definitely got grounds to the claim. If not, these are just numbers....unqualified numbers. Apparently, even according to the numbers, there were some black shooters justified in killing white victims. Were the justification of the white shooters with black victims made along the same lines. And, much more to the point, were there black shooters that were not justified in situations where white shooters were justified? If so, you have a leg to stand on. If not, those are just numbers--and, the first lesson I learned in statistics class was numbers can always be fudged without correlating explanations to go with them....and it is another thing that the 'new paradigm' accusers against rationalism think 'statistics tell the truth' without rationally explaining what's involved.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I guess that means shoplifters are fair game, a piece of gum is worth more than a life. Of course whether a crime was actually committed doesn't matter because the only challenger to the accusation is now dead. I guess you have to plant something when you shoot a man in the back, unless the dead man is black, and wearing a hoodie.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:How does thelate provide protection for this guy I provided the text above. Saying because of one nut we should get rid of stand your ground is like me saying that we should get rid of welfare because of thefraud.

Its not the same at all....in fact it is the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Giving gun-owners situations (other than where they would be acting in sheer defense) in which they are allowed to kill people—shows no respect for human lives.

Getting rid of the law that allows the killing of people in any other situation except in sheer defense—SHOWS RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIVES!

Having welfare for poverty-stricken people—shows respect and defense for human lives.

Getting rid of welfare (which provides the grimmest basics for the people & children who need it) rather than hiring more social workers to moniter all of the people who are on welfare—SHOWS NO RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIVES.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Jan, "The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is taking a close look at “Shoot First” laws after numerous studies show there's a racial bias inherent in the law."

Racial bias??? How can that be when, by far, the majority of violent crimwes are committed by blacks.

Every year there are about 1,700,000 violent crimes between Blacks and Whites. Of those crimes, Blacks commit 85%. The remaining 15% are committed by someone whom the U.S. Department of Justice considers "White," which includes most of the Hispanics resident in the United States. When you remove the Hispanics from the tally of "White" offenders, the proportions of B&W crimes shift to 90% having Black perps and 10% having White perps.

So for each violent crime having a White perpetrator and a Black victim, there are 9 crimes having a Black perpetrator and a White victim. That's an astounding imbalance of violent crime, especially when you consider that Whites outnumber Blacks in the USA by a ratio of six. It means that Blacks are 54 times more likely to commit a violent crime against Whites than the reverse.

That ratio of 54 is only for crimes with a single perpetrator and a single victim. Black GANGS are about 200 times more likely to attack someone White, as compared with the reverse.

The whole "hate crime" idea is a legitimized scam, based on illusion, whose purpose is to make Whites look worse than they are, to make Blacks look better than they really are, and to inflict more legal punishment on Whites than on Blacks for offenses of equal seriousness.

Jan, "the Shoot First laws are a licence for white people to kill black people, but not the other way around."

What does a burgular, rapist, carjacker, robber et al violent criminal not understand, that he may get shot, even killed, maybe beat to death by hand or with a weapon, if he commits a crime against another's home or person. How hard is that to figure out to not be a violent criminal. People have the right ,even duty, to protect their person and property.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Jan, "Getting rid of the law that allows the killing of people in any other situation except in sheer defense—SHOWS RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIVES

And who gets to decide what constitutes sheer defense? Criminals need to show respect for human life or suffer the consequences.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:The whole "hate crime" idea is a legitimized scam, based on illusion, whose purpose is to make Whites look worse than they are, to make Blacks look better than they really are, and to inflict more legal punishment on Whites than on Blacks for offenses of equal seriousness.

camaroman is a bona fide racist. he admits it in writing. Amazing.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

It will be interesting when the study comes out later this year. It will shed light on the affects of the laws we've been discussing. I'm sure we all want to read their findings so that we can make more measured judgments about the value of such laws.

BTW .... The United State Commission on Civil Rights is an agency of the government. Here is a link to their website:

http://www.usccr.gov/

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Karolina is a little tattletail twit!!! NANANANAAA BULLSHIT!!!

The horrendous murders of Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd launched drives for new hate crime laws, so cynical politicians could pander to gays, African-Americans and other groups. The murders of both Shepherd and Bird would justify the harshest punishment under victim identity-neutral (read: democratic) laws already on the books for centuries, but never mind: this was an opportunity to sooth prime constituencies, while tarring any sensible opponent of the legislation as racist, or homophobic, or not sufficiently caring.

The resulting laws are inherently anti-democratic, by their very existence declaring that one human being’s death or serious injury at the hands of lawless brutes is of more concern to society than another’s, because that human being belongs to a special, special class that it is especially wrong to hate. Most of the people who applaud such laws usually hate plenty, of course, but it is virtuous hate, since in their world view it is only right to hate Republicans and successful entrepreneurs and conservatives and Fox News and fundamentalist Christians and global warming skeptics and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Other people’s hate, however is criminal. Add in the element of that bad, senseless hate to an old-fashioned murder, and you have an extra-bad murder.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Go listen to Thom's radio, camroman. Learn something.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

I am amused by the hypocrisy here. Hate cime laws do nothing to deter any violent crimes, they are a way for pols to pander to special interests. One of James Byrd's killers has been put to death, another is awaiting the same fate and the third perp is sitting in prison for life with my tax dollars paying for his upkeep. He should be executed with a cheap bullet. But hoe could they be anymore dead hate crime or not. Murder is Murder. From another thread----What do you think should be done with a DNA convicted child rapist murderer, Karolina???

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

I can't answer what I would think, because my mind would go to the injured child's need for an access to tremendous help with boundless love and support, so as to turn that horrorizing victimization into a distant memory where all emotion around it is healed to inner peace, self-respect, self-confidence, strong ego and the ability to love.

If you are asking me if I believe in the death penalty for a person who has had the misfortune to have become a crime perpetrator, even of murder—the answer is no.

I am not "God" and neither are you.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Karolina, "I can't answer what I would think, because my mind would go to the injured child's need for an access to tremendous help with boundless love and support" The operative word there was MURDERER. What would you do with a DNA CONVICTED child rapist MURDERER? That would be a HATE CRIME of the sickest nature. Misfortune??? You are kidding right? The child is DEAD!!! Karolina, "I am not "God" and neither are you" What would you do with him then. Rehabilitate him? HaHaHa!!!

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

You idiot, I am overwhelmed with work that I have to do and missed the fucking word, so leave me the fuck alone, you piece of crap.

I answered your fucking question anyway—not pro execution NO MATTER WHAT.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Even with the inherently anti-democratic "hate-crime" laws? How much more can one be punished by being locked up for life at taxpayer expense. Try execution after one appeal. Remember we are talking about a DNA CONVICTED child RAPIST MURDERER.

But I'll bet you would go right along with the Kumbaya clan and be for the sucking of the brains and crushing the skull of a child right before it's born, if that is what the mother wanted right? Womens rights, you know!!!

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

I don't want 'just the (FBI's) findings', jan in iowa. I want to know the circumstances involved with either race serving as the shooter and the one being shot and see if you can glean a discrepancy out of that. Were there instances where, with similar stories, the black shooter was accused where a white shooter was acquitted? That sort of thing. I don't want to know 'just' the 'FBI's findings' (or judgment) without it--and, despite how some here in thomland like to portray numbers in statistics as if they, alone, could represent scientific or political facts, such issues just do not count without a rational, correlating explanation.

Of course, as douglaslee seems to say, all could be lies without corroborating witnesses--even if it is over a piece of gum. In assigning such racial biases to the shooting with the assumptions being made here on how each shooting is so racially judged, are you saying that white people would be more likely to shoot over a piece of gum than a black person? The judgment becomes quite tricky when the bias is assumed before any evidence is disclosed. And, what about the punishment? Were the one being murdered being gay or black, is that to mean that the punishment considered is to be amplified accordingly? That murder justifies 'harsher punishment' than just any murder under those circumstances would? We are playing a vicious game with responsible action and judgment of such action when we do that.....

As camaroman points out, the perpetrators of Matthew Sheppard's and James Byrd's murders got the harshest sentence the law offered without any 'hate crime' endorsement with it (both cases got the perpetrators death penalties in death penalty states--Matthew Sheppard's perpetrators were converted to life in prison at the request of Matthew Sheppard's family). What purpose does adding 'hate crime' to it do other than politicize the judgment--and endorse, not remove, any 'hate' with it? And, away from personal responsibility as if it were any individual......what a farce if government is to have anything resembling 'equal protection' in law....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Real Carbon “Monster” Revealed

Another day, another stupid assault on the truth by the fossil fuel industry and its paid lackeys. In a recent op-ed for the New York Post, Tom Harris, the executive director of the so-called International Climate Science Coalition -- an organization that’s funded, in part, by the fossil fuel industry -- blasted Leonardo DiCaprio for his work on “Carbon,” a new documentary on climate change that I helped write and present.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system