TexasCHLforum.com

The photo shows him pretty beat up, but this may have been after he started shooting everyone.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Testimon ... 40005.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I'm not changing my guilty verdict. Real easy to avoid this, turn around and walk home.

This guy is the poster child of what NOT to do as a CHL.

XinTX wrote:. . .But from what I've seen, he had more than ample opportunity to de-escalate the situation. And in the CHL class I took, there was a BIG emphasis on de-escalating situations. . . . If that's true, it shows a pattern that de-escalation was not in his thought process.

I realize that the CHL training course has material that covers de-escalating conflicts. I remember them talking about adult to adult interactions, etc.

However, realize that nowhere in the statutes justifying use of force or deadly force does it state we have a duty to de-escalate anything. The statute does say "did not provoke the person against whom the force was used", but it does not say "failed to attempt de-escalation" anywhere. Whether or not someone attempted de-escalation is as irrelevant as whether or not they tried to retreat.

Thus, a talking about someone's failure to de-escalate as a reason to conclude they are guilty of homicide is simply placing a burden on the defendant that is not there in the law.

Don't get me wrong. I believe de-escalation is a wise choice to make for people who would like to avoid the pain, drama, and expense of a self-defense shooting. But failure to make that choice is not a reason to hang someone in effigy on the internet.

philip964 wrote:The photo shows him pretty beat up, but this may have been after he started shooting everyone.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Testimon ... 40005.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I'm not changing my guilty verdict. Real easy to avoid this, turn around and walk home.

According to the video in the above link, one of the guy's other neighbors claims this was not the first time he had pulled his gun on people and "harassed" them. The neighbor suggested it had happened on a number of occasions.

What we know (or what we are lead to believe):
1. He approaches his neighbors property to complain about the loud music.
2. He has had confrontations with the neighbor previously.
3. He believes that there is the likelihood of a confrontation so he brings a camera to document the event.
4. When his "request" to lower the music is rebuffed, instead of retreating to his own property to call police he chose to "stand his ground".
5. When he is approached by someone who appears to be on their own property (or property they were invited to) he immediately pulls his weapon.
6. One of the guest (fearing his life is in danger) tries to disarm the uninvited guest at which time the shots are fired.

As my kids would say, "Epic fail".

what the heck was this guy thinking? He went looking for trouble and found some. His actions on the video show he is provoking the party guests by brandishing his gun and talking down at them with a "Go ahead punk, make my day" attitude. He is toast!

BritOnTour wrote:what the heck was this guy thinking? He went looking for trouble and found some. His actions on the video show he is provoking the party guests by brandishing his gun and talking down at them with a "Go ahead punk, make my day" attitude. He is toast!

Exactly what I was thinking. So sad and so avoidable.

Jumping Frog wrote:

XinTX wrote:. . .But from what I've seen, he had more than ample opportunity to de-escalate the situation. And in the CHL class I took, there was a BIG emphasis on de-escalating situations. . . . If that's true, it shows a pattern that de-escalation was not in his thought process.

I realize that the CHL training course has material that covers de-escalating conflicts. I remember them talking about adult to adult interactions, etc.

However, realize that nowhere in the statutes justifying use of force or deadly force does it state we have a duty to de-escalate anything. The statute does say "did not provoke the person against whom the force was used", but it does not say "failed to attempt de-escalation" anywhere. Whether or not someone attempted de-escalation is as irrelevant as whether or not they tried to retreat.

Thus, a talking about someone's failure to de-escalate as a reason to conclude they are guilty of homicide is simply placing a burden on the defendant that is not there in the law.

Don't get me wrong. I believe de-escalation is a wise choice to make for people who would like to avoid the pain, drama, and expense of a self-defense shooting. But failure to make that choice is not a reason to hang someone in effigy on the internet.

I think we're in violent agreement here. I don't think the failure to de-escalate goes to the issue of guilt or innocence. As I said, I don't know near enough on this case to give a good opinion. And IANAL. But I think it shows that perhaps some part of his training didn't stick. De-escalation may not have been required by law. But hopefully good sense would do so. And I like to think that most CHL holders have better sense than to go into a pack, beard the lion, and not expect a bad outcome. Even if he's aquitted, his troubles are only beginning.

This is a great example why you should call the cops to report noise and public intoxication. People who act like that don't appreciate being treated like adults and are likely to attack or threaten you for asking politely. The only safe solutions are call the cops or set their house on fire.

If I were "scared to death" or "in fear of my life", I would return home.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:If I were "scared to death" or "in fear of my life", I would return home.

Why do you need to carry a Kimber if that always works?

Moby Duck wrote:

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:If I were "scared to death" or "in fear of my life", I would return home.

Why do you need to carry a Kimber if that always works?

Sorry, let me clarify.
If I were (standing in a street in my neighborhood having a shouting match with drunk neighbors that are several meters away and pose no immediate threat) "scared to death" or "in fear of my life" (of them) I would return home.

Is there irony that he's the one that carried the camera? Implies that it either went drastically different than he thought it would or he had a distinct view of what his CHL empowered him to do.

I think that even though it can be twisted, by-and-large, audio and video evidence are incredibly valuable. I hope that my actions on camera would always bring me the justice i intended. Would definitely be embarrassed plenty, but hopefully not in situations involving the use of force to protect myself.

Anyone read this from KTRK's website:

"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. "

I think he will be found guilty, but even if he is not, he will not make it through the civil suit filed by the family and the survivors.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=8694721" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another story with updates from this weeks trial.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/articl ... 621862.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A statement from my CHL instructor stuck with me from our class. Paraphrasing, when you draw your weapon, a crime has been committed. He then said you want to make sure that the crime was committed by the other party, not you. Further, that crime needs to be a crime where deadly force was justified to stop it. Additionally, he said that if its bad enough to draw, its bad enough to shoot. It seems that it wasn't bad enough to draw the first time he drew his weapon. It might be that when the people "attacked" him that he legitimately feared for his life, but it seems all that happened after he committed a crime (drawing his weapon without legal justification).

Of course the standard caveat that I wasn't there and don't know all the facts applies.