Bubble
Saw this story: Texas ‘stand your ground’ shooter headed to prison
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 ruling is based on the fact that Rodriguez went to Danaher’s house to confront him initially and, while he had a legal right to be there, he was basically the instigator of the conflict. He picked the fight and refused to back down when it escalated.
At least from the news story, this seems correct. I don’t know many details of the event, so I’m taking it on faith that the court and jury have judged correctly and that the news account is more or less accurate.
This is the part of the story that caught Murdoc’s attention:
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.” [emphasis Murdoc's]
A “bubble that you can carry with you everywhere you go” is exactly what “stand your ground”/”no duty to retreat” means. If you have a legal right to be there, you have a “bubble” where self-defense is legal.
The ruling wasn’t that there isn’t a bubble in which to stand your ground. The ruling was that it wasn’t a case of self-defense because he sought out the fight.
Rodriguez made the mistake of believing the anti-gun hysterical press claims that SYG laws allow people to shoot at will.
Could be. I guess I’m not quite so quick to blame the media (completely, anyway) on this one.
Of course he and his lawyers are going to argue that he was covered by SYG, but that doesn’t mean he really thought it at the time or that he even really thinks it now. It sounds like he tried to set up a SYG case during the 911 call, but was that because he really thought so, or because he was trying to cover his ass? He claimed self-defense in a situation that he should have known would be fairly easy to attack as not a case of self-defense because he was an instigator. They did attack it and they won.
The media always shrieks about shootouts over parking spots whenever some state gets concealed carry. If there really WAS a shootout over a parking spot tomorrow by people with legal concealed pistols, would the media be to blame?
I’m not trying to make the case that the media is not irresponsible. I believe that it is, in general, especially concerning guns. But I’m not holding them responsible on this, either.
The ruling was exactly what is should be. The shooter prepared himself for the confrontation as if he knew all the buzzwords for a SYG shooting, and recorded it as if part of a pre-planned defense. This guy had wildly irresponsible misconceptions about the SYG concept. And I’ve seen online discussions with idiots spreading similar nonsense.