Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Retrial Begins for Firefighter Who Selfied “Stand-Your-Ground”

Retrial Begins for Firefighter Who Selfied “Stand-Your-Ground”

Firefighter repeatedly says he’s “standing his ground” on self-made video of deadly confrontation

A re-trial begins this week in Houston for retired firefighter Raul Rodriguez who was previously convicted of murder and sentenced to 40 years in jail, reports the Houston Chronicle.  Rodriquez had unsuccessfully argued self-defense at trial. The notable oddity of this case was the fact that Rodriguez had videotaped himself rather bizarrely confronting loudly partying neighbors. Rodriguez would ultimately shoot and kill one of those neighbors, Kelly Danaher.

I first wrote about this case back in December of 2014, after the appellate court ruled that Rodriguez was entitled to a re-trial: “New Trial for Man Who Video Recorded Own ‘Self-Defense’ Shooting.” The grounds for ordering a re-trial was an error in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on Texas self-defense law.

As I wrote at the time:

The facts of the case are somewhat ambiguous on detail, but in general they consist of an amalgam of a loud, drunken party, long-simmering neighborhood disputes, and incredibly poor judgment on the part of a retired fire-fighter in electing to exercise his concealed carry license by bringing his pistol to a confrontation. A tragic outcome was entirely predictable.

A particularly remarkable part of this case is that Rodriguez himself recorded the events of the conflict in an almost 20-minute video. A portion of the video recorded by Rodriguez is here. Roughly 15 preceding minutes are missing from this version, but the relevant end-stages of the conflict are captured, and the video ends with the first gun shot. Reportedly several shots were fired, including one which injured another party goer, in addition to the fatal round that struck Danaher.

Here’s that video:

Under Texas law a claim of self-defense can be defeated if the prosecution can prove that the defendant openly displayed (“failed to conceal”) a handgun in public concurrent with the purported act of self-defense (the legal reasoning behind this is complex, and described in detail in the post linked above).

The trial judge instructed the jury on this facet of the law using the following language [emphasis added]:

If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Raul Rodriguez, did then and there on May 2nd, 2010, fail to conceal a handgun in violation of the law stated above, before seeking an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the defendant’s differences with the other person, then you will find against the defendant on the issue of self-defense.

The prosecution had not introduced evidence that Rodriguez had unlawfully displayed a handgun during the events immediately concurrent with his claimed act of self-defense, but they had introduced evidence that Rodriquez had openly displayed a gun to a person not involved in the ultimate confrontation some hours earlier in the day.  The appellate court feared that the jury may have mistakenly believed that this earlier display of a gun required them to reject the claim of self-defense. Thus the appellate court awarded Rodriguez his re-trial, for which jury selection begins this week.

If anything interest results from the re-trial, we’ll write about it here.


Attorney Andrew Branca and his firm Law of Self Defense have been providing internationally-recognized expertise in American self-defense law for almost 20 years in the form of blogging, books, live seminars & online training (both accredited for CLE), public speaking engagements, and individualized legal consultation.
“Law of Self Defense, 2nd Ed.” /Seminars / Instructors Course / Seminar Slides / Twitter / Facebook / Youtube

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments



 
 4 
 
 1
jcarter50 | November 17, 2015 at 2:06 pm

This case does illustrate one of the hazards of citizen carry, however. Learning the ins and outs of self-defense law, even for just a single jurisdiction, isn’t simple, especially (but not only) when you move away from what just the statutes say and add in the legal and safety practicalities learned from experience and the case law. That’s the reason we have folks like Andrew and Massad Ayoob teaching classes — hours-long classes — in nothing but that. For everyone who takes one of those classes, however, there are dozens if not thousands of armed citizens whose only knowledge of self-defense law is that which has been summarily obtained through a brief concealed carry class, if not through the Internet and public media. Then even of those there is a significant number who — in our “read the instructions? Who, ME?” / “if it’s not intuitive I don’t want it” culture — either do not or cannot understand the subtleties of the law and only get the highlights which they reinterpret or sloganize by their own lights. Much of self-defense law and practice is far less than obvious and some of it even approaches being counterintuitive. Even more of that law and practice runs counter to what individuals who carry because of paranoia or a “me against the world” / machismo attitude want to hear. All of those can lead to false presumptions, if not magical or wishing-will-make-it-so thinking, with the result that we get cases like this and others that Andrew has commented upon here, such as Markus Kaarma, Michael Dunn, and perhaps Theodore Wafer and Tom Greer (who was pretty clearly not prosecuted due to his age, not the facts).


     
     0 
     
     3
    Char Char Binks in reply to jcarter50. | November 17, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    All true, but Rodriguez didn’t even follow the rules of common sense, and even a mandatory CCW class (as required in Wisconsin, anyway) covers brandishing enough that he should have known he was in the wrong.


       
       2 
       
       0
      Gremlin1974 in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 17, 2015 at 3:40 pm

      I still remember what my CCW instructor said when it came to drawing your weapon. He made it very simple; “If your gun clears the holster you don’t fire warning shots, you don’t display the gun and scream freeze, and you don’t shoot to wound, you shoot and you shoot to stop the threat, period. When you draw your gun you should already have decided to fire. If you draw your gun a wave it around you will be going to jail.


         
         0 
         
         4
        Char Char Binks in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 17, 2015 at 3:52 pm

        That’s nothing like mine said. He said you could brandish, either by drawing, or simply displaying, if in fear for your life, to stop an imminent threat of death or GBI, and not have to shoot, if that is enough to end it. What if you draw your gun and your assailant suddenly backs off, drops his own weapon, or hightails it? What is your next step, shooting him in the back? Of course, then you’d still call the police and do everything else you need, but you don’t necessarily have to shoot to use a gun for self defense.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 17, 2015 at 5:44 pm

          I guess that could happen, which is why he put the 99.9% and not 100%. However, I don’t know how fast you can draw and put rounds on target but for me once my hand is on the gun, it will be less than a second before the loud noises start. Most people won’t even have had time to notice you have drawn before you shoot, much less run, drop their weapon or surrender. Which is why you should be damn sure you are drawing for the right reasons.

          Also, I have never heard an instructor say to draw and then give them time to respond, or run, or drop their gun. I would say that if you can draw your gun and brandish it and give them enough time to do any of those things then you probably weren’t justified in drawing your gun in the first place, because if a threat is truly imminent the time for wait and see has passed.

          That is why this guy was convicted and will be convicted again, he showed his gun, even drew his gun and then started pontificating and using language that he thought would help his self defense case. He felt comfortable enough to speak, he had no reason to draw his gun.

          Char Char Binks in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 17, 2015 at 6:21 pm

          It’s probably not as uncommon as you think. It’s about the situation, and situational awareness. It’s not about giving a man time to back down or retreat; if he withdraws, the threat is over, and you have no right to shoot. Maybe you’re a quick draw, but maybe some who are quick on the draw are slow in dealing with buildup to it — brandishing a gun, and yes, commands such as “Freeze!” can de-escalate a dangerous situation, but it all depends on the exact circumstances. Imagine a man coming at you with a 9-iron, threatening to put a divot in your head. You draw your gun, or even just show it by lifting your shirt, he drops the club, puts his hands in the air, and the threat is over. As Sun Tzu taught, to win without fighting is the acme of skill.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 18, 2015 at 1:11 am

          @ Char Char Binks

          “but maybe some who are quick on the draw are slow in dealing with buildup to it — brandishing a gun, and yes, commands such as “Freeze!” can de-escalate a dangerous situation, but it all depends on the exact circumstances.”

          Yep, and you are still guilty of brandishing a weapon in any jurisdiction that I know, and if you are drawing your gun and talking then you are not in Imminent fear of your life and you had no right to draw the gun in the first place. Either that or you must have a much different definition of “imminent” from the rest of the world.

          As far as your situation with the guy with a golf club, if he is coming to attack me he is probably never going to realize I have drawn a gun. Once again even most untrained people can draw and start to fire before he can react. Now I can see if you shoot and miss and then they give up, sure.

          Yep, and you are still guilty of brandishing a weapon in any jurisdiction that I know, and if you are drawing your gun and talking then you are not in Imminent fear of your life and you had no right to draw the gun in the first place.

          I’m with Char Char here, Gremlin. Here’s an example: I hear loud noises at my back sliding-glass door. I grab my gun and run to the door. I can see two balaclava-clad men with knives trying to force their way in. There is imminent danger here — any reasonable person would agree that any act of self-defense on my part would be covered under self-defense immunity. Yet I don’t shoot immediately the second I draw on them. They’re still on one side of the sliding-glass door; I’m still on the other. I really don’t want to be forced to kill someone, and I’m really hoping they see the gun and take off. And that’s what happens – they see that I’m armed, that there’s a gun pointed straight at them, and they turn around and run away, and then I call the Sheriff.

          I don’t know what jurisdiction you’re in, but in mine, I’m 99.9% certain that our local Sheriff is not going to do me for “brandishing” (in Florida this is covered under s790.10, “Improper Exhibition Of A Firearm Or Other Weapon”, and is a misdemeanor).

          790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree

          This kind of scenario, where someone draws their weapon in legitimate self-defense but thankfully doesn’t need to use it, is probably a more common outcome than that in which the person actually has to end up shooting.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 18, 2015 at 3:59 pm

          @Amy in FL

          Yes, I agree Amy, but you added 2 critical elements that @Char Char Binks didn’t to your example.

          1: You are in your home.

          2: You have actual time to respond.

          The situations we were discussing were imminent threats, (i.e. man running at me with a golf club). Also, I said from the beginning that there were going to obviously be instances when you draw and don’t have to shoot. Like someone is getting stupid and knows you carry, sure that person may have time to surrender in some way before you clear the holster. But that is not what was being discussed. If you have an unknown assailant running at you with a golf club to hit you, are you seriously going to draw and not fire? Because he isn’t going to have time to surrender and I would have to presume that in the case that @Char Char Binks put forward the person is already within 21 feet, which means you have about a second to do something.

          Char Char Binks in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 18, 2015 at 6:37 pm

          Gremlin, I left out distance away from the attacker, for brevity’s sake, but it seems I shouldn’t have. There could be plenty of possible instances when someone is a threat, but just out of 9-iron distance (and doesn’t have a driver). You seem to place a lot of value on quickness, but why wait till you need to quick draw when you can MORE QUICKLY brandish LAWFULLY and end the threat?

          Char Char Binks in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 18, 2015 at 6:52 pm

          Furthermore, I reject the notion of shooting automatically and unthinkingly just because you’ve mentally checked a box on your escalation list. That kind of thinking comes dangerously close to Raul Rodriguez and his, “I’m in fear for my life.” nonsense. Pulling the trigger is a decision, right or wrong, no matter how long you take, or need to take, to make it, and it’s always dependent on the particular circumstances.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 18, 2015 at 8:07 pm

          @ Char Char Binks

          Of course distance matters, but no if someone is more than 20 or so feet away with a golf club, I am gonna retreat, not draw my gun a scream drop it, retreating is the smarter action.

          “but why wait till you need to quick draw” when you can MORE QUICKLY brandish LAWFULLY and end the threat?”

          My comments on reaction time are just that about the time you have to react not being a quick draw shooter.

          “when you can MORE QUICKLY brandish LAWFULLY and end the threat?”

          In my state there is no time when you can “brandish lawfully”. Now as Amy said they my decide not to charge you but that doesn’t make it lawful. I encourage you to check your local laws.

          Also, there is a point to be made that since the person is further away than 21 or so feet, you “brandishing” instead of retreating means that you are committing a crime.

          “(and doesn’t have a driver)”

          In that case you, most likely, wouldn’t be justified in using deadly force in the first place.

          “I reject the notion of shooting automatically and unthinkingly just because you’ve mentally checked a box on your escalation list.”

          Which is not something I ever said or advocated. Nice try though.

          My suggestion to you is to take a force on force class that actually involves mock instance where you have to decide to shoot or not, it can be very eye opening.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 18, 2015 at 8:09 pm

          @ Char Char Binks

          ” Pulling the trigger is a decision, right or wrong, no matter how long you take, or need to take, to make it”

          Yes it is, and it is usually a decision that you only have an instant to make.

          Char Char Binks in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 19, 2015 at 9:50 am

          Obviously, you’re not a golfer.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 19, 2015 at 2:39 pm

          @ Char Char Binks

          LOL, no I am not a Golfer, I already have one habit I can barely afford and that is shooting, I don’t need a second.

    This case does illustrate one of the hazards of citizen carry, however.

    The only reason we’re talking about this case, though, is that it’s a pretty rare occurrence for something like this to happen. There are millions and millions of us in this country with concealed carry licenses (over a million in Florida alone), and for almost all of us, common sense kicks in and keeps us from pulling stunts like this.

    Once you have a concealed carry license, that’s not a license to go around looking for opportunities to defend yourself. If you wouldn’t go confront a drunk bunch of partying neighbors without a gun, don’t do it with a gun either. An inner voice has just told you that you acknowledge that the situation might erupt into violence (why else would you need your gun? why else would you be reluctant to go over without your gun?), and no-one’s life or immediate safety is in danger, so most sane, normal, law-abiding gun-owners are smart enough to stand down and find other ways to handle the situation. It’s just common sense.

    This guy’s actions were the extreme exception to the rule. His behaviour was unusual for a CCL holder. I don’t think it points to “the hazards of citizen carry”, because if it were a general hazard of citizen carry, we’d be hearing about dozens of cases like this every week. And we’re not.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Gremlin1974 in reply to jcarter50. | November 18, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    I would like to see your evidence of the “hazard of citizen carry”, because in every area where concealed carry has been instituted it has had the opposite effect. Also, this case isn’t a matter of citizen carry, since the guy was basically right at his home and could have just brought the gun outside with him, regardless of his CCL status.


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend