Court Grants New Trial To Man Who Said ‘I Am Standing My Ground’ As He Shot Neighbor Over Loud Music
Raul Rodriguez video recorded himself saying “I am standing my ground here” as he shot and killed his neighbor over loud music at a birthday party. At trial, he invoked Texas self-defense provisions to argue that he killed in self-defense and had no “duty to retreat.” A jury rejected this argument in 2012, convicting him of murder and sending him to prison for 40 years.
Last week, a Texas appeals court overturned Rodriguez’s conviction and granted him a new trial, finding that the instructions to the jury were too confusing and that the self-defense claim was the “focus of, indeed ‘the very basis of the case.'”
On the night of the killing, Raul Rodriguez went over to Danaher’s home to confront the party hosts about loud music from a birthday for Danaher’s wife. He brought with him a gun, video camera, and flashlight, and stated during the recording that he was “standing my ground here,” and invoked other language from the expansive self-defense law that authorizes the use of deadly force with no duty to retreat. Rodriguez stated my “life is in danger now” and “these people are going to kill me now.”
Rodriguez called the police and recited this language to them as he stood across the street from the Danahers’ home and shouted complaints over noise from the party. Several attendees at the party, who were seemingly intoxicated, responded when Danaher pulled out his gun in disbelief and outrage. Danaher said, “You’re gonna flash your goddamn gun?” After Rodriguez called the police and stated for all to hear that he fears for his life, some partygoers challenged Rodriguez to “drop the gun and let’s go ahead and duke it out mother f__er.” None of the individuals were described as having guns or other weapons, although Rodriguez said he believed they would go into the house to get a gun.
Rodriguez said to the 911 dispatcher, “Look, I’m not losing to these people anymore.” And when one party-goer walked out into the street and said “Ha ha ha,” Rodriguez dropped the camera and shot, killing Danaher.
The facts evoke those of several other cases involving the “Stand Your Ground” law, an expansive self-defense provision that removes the duty to attempt retreat before resorting to a gun or other means of deadly force. In Texas, that duty is removed in some circumstances if the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to protect against death, and if the person is anyplace they have a right to be, has not provoked the person, and is not engaged in criminal activity.
Rodriguez, like George Zimmerman in Florida, demonstrated his knowledge of expansive self-defense provisions and used language evocative of those provisions to justify his behavior directly to the cops. And Rodriguez, like Zimmerman, initiated the interaction with Danaher while carrying a gun. Danaher even remained in place even when he purported that his life was in danger. Studies have found that states with Stand Your Ground laws have higher homicide rates, and many have linked the laws directly tovigilantism, because shooters like Rodriguez can turn directly to the law to aim to justify their behavior.
Prosecutors said at the time of Rodriguez’s conviction that they hoped it would deter others from using the Stand Your Ground law. “I think it sends a clear message that this was not a case of stand-your-ground,” prosecutor Kelli Johnson told Fox News. “And I think from his behavior, his intent, the provocation … shows that this had … nothing to do with self-defense.”
The facts of this case also mirror those in the case of Michael Dunn, who killed teen Jordan Davis after a dispute over loud music in a convenience store parking lot. At the first trial, the jury deadlocked on the charge of first-degree murder, as some jurors cited the Stand Your Ground law as central to their decision-making. On retrial, Dunn was convicted.
Rodriguez’s successful appeal hinged on a jury instruction about when Rodriguez was required to have concealed his gun in order to have remained in compliance with the law such that he could invoke self-defense provisions. Prosecutors agreed that the jury instruction was confusing, but argued that it was a harmless error because the jury would have convicted Rodriguez anyway. A three-judge panel held otherwise, meaning Rodriguez gets a second shot to argue self-defense.
For more articles by Nicole Flatow, click here!
For more articles by Nicole Flatow, click here!
