fluffy2097: but what set him shooting was people not turning the radio down.

No, it was his being a colossal piece of shiat. All he had to do was call the cops.

you are a puppet: fluffy2097: I'm asking you very nicely to stop posting.

let him go on and on proving what a colossal douche he is.

ongbok: He did call the cop

Well yeah, just a wee bit later than he should have. Also the fact he took along his gun is disturbing.

you are a puppet: fluffy2097: I'm asking you very nicely to stop posting.

Lets take a look at your profile.

I hate how nice guys finish last. I am a great guy I should finish first. 8 inches. Not a great talker but I love to listen. Own my own car and mattress. Looking for a soul mate. Must put out on first or second date, ok fine i'll settle for third.

Maybe you should re-evaluate your life before asking me to stop posting Mr. Girls must fark my giant 8 inches because I'm such a nice guy.

So what I'm getting is that if one of my neighbors comes on my property armed, I should shoot first and ask questions later.
Because apparently even if he is the one trespassing on my property, he can shoot me dead and be justified in it.

Fluffy, how about you grab one of the guns out of, I'm sure, your large collection and come on over.
I want to test this theory out.

ghare: you are a puppet: fluffy2097: I'm asking you very nicely to stop posting.

let him go on and on proving what a colossal douche he is.

His posts are annoying me and my trigger finger is itchy. He's been asked once. The polite thing to do would be to stop posting.

fluffy2097: gblive: He was standing on their property in their driveway. He was asked to leave. Rodriguez was trespassing and breaking the law.

How do you ask someone to turn down the music without knocking on their front door?


You knock on their front door and ask them.

You don't rush over there waving a gun around and saying you'll 'defend' yourself if they don't.

fluffy2097: you are a puppet: fluffy2097: I'm asking you very nicely to stop posting.

Lets take a look at your profile.

I hate how nice guys finish last. I am a great guy I should finish first. 8 inches. Not a great talker but I love to listen. Own my own car and mattress. Looking for a soul mate. Must put out on first or second date, ok fine i'll settle for third.

Maybe you should re-evaluate your life before asking me to stop posting Mr. Girls must fark my giant 8 inches because I'm such a nice guy.

You are on my profile and are therefore on my property. I feel threatened now. You are a dead man.

Mentat: skylabdown: I like it when we take some wombat-farking-retard story and use it to define the argument for the other 99% non-wombat-farking-retard instances when the law works just fine.

Dude sounds like a douchebag. Douchebag + Gun = Someone's ass is getting capped.

Grist for the mill I guess.

I'll remember that when some asshole guns me down after a fender-bender because he panicked when I reached for my insurance card.

Actually, given your description, you would not be remembering anything. Second, your "example" falls into the 1%.

LasersHurt: fluffy2097: LasersHurt: No, no it's not.

yeah. It is. The man may be mentally ill, but what set him shooting was people not turning the radio down.

I would have assumed it was the part where he thought he could address any situation with a handgun.

If you don't have a culture saying it's okay to take a lethal weapon into every situation, you'd probably end up with less deaths.

Next time you have a gun pointed in your face, dare em to shoot you. See how much your laws and morality and what is right will help you. Because all the laws in the world wont stop a crazy motherfarker from shooting you.

If someone is brandishing a gun at you, you get that gun pointed elsewhere with any means possible. You de-escalate the situation, then once the pistols have been put away you call the cops and let them handle the rest.

CHALLENGING a man with a gun gets you killed. Period.

/you people are way to caught up on "how things should work" as opposed to "how shiat goes down in real life"

I think before we can make up our minds about this case, we have to know some important details:
1) Is Rodriguez a "white hispanic"?
2) Was the victim a black teenager wearing a hoodie?
Without those details, the case looks uncomfortably clear.

WhyteRaven74: ongbok: He did call the cop

Well yeah, just a wee bit later than he should have. Also the fact he took along his gun is disturbing.

Like I said what he did was sick.

fluffy2097: gblive: He was standing on their property in their driveway. He was asked to leave. Rodriguez was trespassing and breaking the law.

How do you ask someone to turn down the music without knocking on their front door?

Unless you have a badge, you call the police. You are not the police.

skylabdown: I like it when we take some wombat-farking-retard story and use it to define the argument for the other 99% non-wombat-farking-retard instances when the law works just fine.

Isolated incident, eh?

BarkingUnicorn: I don't buy Zimmerman's story at all. But there's nothing to refute it.

Yes, there is. Facts which are not in dispute:

* Zimmerman was so angry, he could not refrain from using foul language and epithets while on the phone with police.

* Zimmerman was especially angry that "these assholes always get away." From this, and combined with his angry, aggressive demeanor, we may infer that Zimmmerman set out with the intent to detain Trayvon.

* Zimmerman was carrying a loaded firearm, which gives rise to the inference he was confident in his ability to handle a physical confrontation.

* When asked to arrange a meeting place with the officer, Zimmerman declined. Instead, he asked that the officer call him upon arrival. This evidence adds to the inference that Zimmerman intended to follow Trayvon after hanging up with the police.

* Trayvon tried to avoid confrontation, by fleeing from Zimmerman.

* Trayvon was not carrying a loaded firearm, or any weapon at all.

* Trayvon was conducting lawful business in a place he had a right to be, and minding his own business.

Thus, it is undisputed that an armed, angry, and confrontational Zimmerman had a physical confrontation with Trayvon after a) know for a fact he pursued Trayvon before talking to the police, and b) we may permissibly infer from the undisputed evidence he continued to pursue Trayvon after talking to the police. We likewise know Trayvon, unarmed, tried to avoid physical confrontation altogether.

The undisputed facts alone give rise to the inference that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. In reality, the only evidence Trayvon started the physical confrontation comes from Zimmerman himself. We now know Zimmerman is less than credible, and the most reasonable course of action is to disregard his statements.

We have other credible evidence supporting the inference that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. Specifically, Trayvon's girlfriend's statement that Trayvon was frightened, that moments before the confrontation, Trayvon asked "why are you following me, that Zimmerman did not answer Trayvon's question, but instead bellowed "what are you doing around here," and that after that, Trayvon said "get off, get off." I emphasize the word "are" there, because if the girlfriend's credible statement is believed, then it adds still more to the inference Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after talking to the police.

All of this taken together paints the picture and permits a reasonable jury to find that an armed, angry, aggressive Zimmerman set out to detain Trayvon, and began the confrontation by in fact physically restraining him.

There are no "assumptions" here. Only facts, evidence, and stated inferences therefrom. It is plenty to dispute Zimmerman's claim, and more than enough for a fair minded jury to convict.

fluffy2097: gblive: Unfortunately the trial judge is not allowing evidence from over 20 neighbors about their previous run-ins with the armed nutcase Rodriguez.

Evidence that is not allowed is probably not allowed because it is in no way documented.

"Yeah, that asshole has been waving guns at us for years.'
"And have you ever called the cops on him?"
"No, we'd have to prove he was actually doing it then and he never did."
"I think we're done here."

Maybe you should go read some of the previous articles before you make this type of assertion.

fluffy2097: CHALLENGING a man with a gun gets you killed. Period.

He was on someone else's property, it was not his place to be standing with a gun. Indeed he was an idiot for even bothering with the gun.

I'm all for the second amendment. I completely support the "Make My Day" law. I want to be able to use lethal force on a violent intruder in my house. But this SYG law is basically making an argument for the innocence of cold blooded murderers. You can't kill a man just because his music is too loud.

This line from another more fully detailed article is classic.

"Although he shouts several times that the music is too loud, it is not heard on the recording"

// Sounds like he is over there under totally false pretenses.

LasersHurt: I am focusing on how they should work, because that's what laws are all about. You seem to think that everyone should be ready for people to pull guns on them, and always give in to their demands.

I take a "one-step-back" approach where PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE PULLING GUNS ALL THE FARKING TIME.

We're not talking about getting mugged in an alley, where it's a criminal and you're best to just give him your shiat. We're talking about people who think the law is giving them the OK to wander into any situation with a gun.

So you're in magical fairy land then. Best of luck when you encounter a mugger. I'm sure he'll sit around and let you call the police so they can save you before he stabs you and steals your wallet.


If you are at a party, and a man shows up on your front yard with a pistol, telling you to turn that shiat down do you?
A:Turn that shiat down?
B:Call the cops?
C:Turn that shiat down AND call the cops?
D:Tell the crazy man with a loaded weapon you're going to gun him down before he guns you down.

Which of these do you think will have a good outcome?

When you are dealing with a crazy person, it is your job to de-escalate the situation. The crazy person isn't going to be rational. If that means giving into a few unreasonable demands, FINE, it keeps you from getting shot and as soon as the cops show up your crazed gunman will be arrested anyways.

Turning the music down could have prevented any of this from ever happening, even though the gunman was a crazed maniac. Instead, the partygoers escalated.

trespass onto private party. tell owner how to handle things on his own property. All while having a weapon visible. But you're standing your ground. Guess what asshole? it wasn't your ground to stand. You had no right to be there. You call the police and let them handle it. The other guy was absolutely justified to go into his own home and get a gun against an armed aggressor on his property.

Fluorescent Testicle: skylabdown: I like it when we take some wombat-farking-retard story and use it to define the argument for the other 99% non-wombat-farking-retard instances when the law works just fine.

Isolated incident, eh?

Uh... yep.

All he shoulda have said was it was a high school keg party the cops would have sent in SWAT.

lostinjersey: The other guy was absolutely justified to go into his own home and get a gun against an armed aggressor on his property.

He sure was, but it ended up getting him killed. For the sake of not turning down a farkin stereo.

LasersHurt: It's the victim's fault they were shot by a dickhead who felt it was appropriate to approach with a gun. Gotcha.

/ridiculous

It's the victims fault they decided to pick a fight with an armed crazy person.

It's the shooters fault they ended up dead.

It's really, really hard for me to expect any other outcome from picking a fight with a crazy person with a gun.

You have to question the sanity of the judge in this case. Not only is he not allowing testimony from neighbors about previous run-ins with a armed Rodriguez. He also is not allowing testimony about Rodriguez bragging to others that he would not be found guilty of shooting his neighbor.

Twist in trial of man accused of murdering neighbor

"The judge didn't allow prosecutors to show certain testimony from a neighbor, who was just a few houses down when the shooting happened. Prosecutors claim Rodriguez bragged to the neighbor that he'd never be found guilty of murder because he said on tape that he feared for his life."

If it was in Florida, he's probably within the law.

fluffy2097: gblive: Unfortunately the trial judge is not allowing evidence from over 20 neighbors about their previous run-ins with the armed nutcase Rodriguez.

Evidence that is not allowed is probably not allowed because it is in no way documented.

"Yeah, that asshole has been waving guns at us for years.'
"And have you ever called the cops on him?"
"No, we'd have to prove he was actually doing it then and he never did."
"I think we're done here."

Wait a minute................ doesn't that go counter to WhyteRaven74's reply to you, earlier?

fluffy2097: is, but the guy who taunts a man with a gun gets bullet in the brain pan.
- So it's cool to kill people when they taunt you? If the guy didn't like the music being so loud, he could've called the cops.

If you're not allowed to call the cops when someone comes at you with a gun, because the cops arrive after they leave once informed the cops are on the way................. what exactly can you do? How does one successfully prove that one is being threatened by someone else?

Former neighbors, union: Man accused of killing teacher was 'always paranoid' .

HOUSTON - In Raul Rodriguez's old community in Huffman, neighbors said they remember him for one thing: conflict.

On Oak Knoll, neighbors said it is hard to forget Rodriguez.

"He was a nuisance that thought he pretty much ran the street in a way," said Jamie Johnson, one of Rodriguez's former neighbors. "He had us paranoid because he was paranoid. We didn't know when he was going to go off."

Rodriguez, who is facing murder charges in the shooting death of his neighbor, New Caney ISD teacher Kelly Danaher, is a retired Baytown firefighter. He quit about a year after Nito Guarjardo, 24, died fighting a fire in December 2004. According to colleagues, Guarjardo was one of Rodriguez's few friends on the force.

The president of the Baytown Firefighters Union, who was asked not to go on camera by Harris County prosecutors because of the trial, told KHOU 11 News that Rodriguez was the first and only firefighter voted out of their union. The union felt he was divisive, prejudiced and always felt people were out to get him.

"He was paranoid to the point he thought somebody was going to do something to him," Johnson said.

Johnson said Rodriguez often showed off his gun, argued with adults and children and had confrontations in his old neighborhood similar to what was caught on tape and showed in court Wednesday.

The video, filmed by Rodriguez himself, shows the confrontation with Danaher and his friends that led to the fatal shooting. While Danaher was throwing a party for his wife, Rodriguez came over with his video camera, flashlight and gun, complaining that it was too loud. Eventually, the partygoers and Rodriguez got into an argument, and at some point, Rodriguez opened fire. Three people were shot, but Danaher did not survive his injuries.

"He did that to my ex-husband," Johnson said. "He didn't do that to us out here in the road, but police when they came to my house said he really knows his handbook real well because he used the right words. He said that my ex-husband was coming at him in an aggressive way on his property."

Much like members of the firefighters union, Johnson said prosecutors subpoenaed her to testify in court. However, she was not sure if that would happen.

Molavian: Mentat: YOU CANNOT PROVOKE A FIGHT AND THEN CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE WHEN YOU KILL SOMEONE

Please keep it down.

I suppose that now that I'm guilty of inciting several of you to violence you're perfectly justified in beating me to death, whereas I have no recourse to defend myself. Because I provoked the fight and all.

If you're in Texas, you deserve to die. According to Texas judges.

Mentat: skylabdown: Actually, given your description, you would not be remembering anything. Second, your "example" falls into the 1%.

Oh, look who learned the word 'pedantic'.

Sending love to you man.

ExperianScaresCthulhu: If you're not allowed to call the cops when someone comes at you with a gun, because the cops arrive after they leave once informed the cops are on the way................. what exactly can you do? How does one successfully prove that one is being threatened by someone else?

You must have an IQ of 2.

A man is pointing a gun at you from 1 foot away. The gun is cocked and loaded. His finger is on the trigger, the safety is off.

Do you:
A: Lie through your teeth to get the man to put the gun down so you can live long enough to call the cops.
B: Say "You can't shoot me! That's ILLEGAL!"

The shooter was farking crazy, the the party goers were still dumb as rocks.

nail his house doors and windows shut. can of gasoline. a match.

problem solved.

fluffy2097: gblive: He was standing on their property in their driveway. He was asked to leave. Rodriguez was trespassing and breaking the law.

How do you ask someone to turn down the music without knocking on their front door?

I would go to their front door unarmed and politely ask them to turn down the music. If they told me to leave their property then I would leave their property and call the police about the noise when I got home. If I stayed on their property, after being asked to leave, then I would be trespassing and breaking the law.

Very simple.

fluffy2097: Turning the music down could have prevented any of this from ever happening, even though the gunman was a crazed maniac. Instead, the partygoers escalated.

There is no music heard on the video. Apparently, they more than turned it down.

bugontherug: There is no music heard on the video. Apparently, they more than turned it down.

I've never had audio not picked up on a cell phone before...

fluffy2097: bugontherug: There is no music heard on the video. Apparently, they more than turned it down.

I've never had audio not picked up on a cell phone before...

Apparently the court testimony from neighbors stating that there was no music on during the last 10 minutes of the conflict before the shooting will not convince some people either.

jbuist: Tigger: So if Martin assaulted Zimmerman wasn't he standing his ground?

No. You can't shoot somebody for following you. That does not warrant deadly force. Likewise you can't beat up on somebody for following you.

Zimmerman following Martin was foolish. Martin beating on Zimmerman took it from foolish to rodeo and that's where deadly force became permissible. That is, assuming all the evidence I've seen stacks up in court.

No trial yet, so no evidence, Just got booted out of voir/dire.