TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:...I don't think this is "entire and uncut"...

That's the way he was describing it on the radio. I didn't bother watching.

tomtexan wrote:I keep reading where his video was 22 minutes long yet there are only just short clips of it being shown. I would liked to have seen the entire video. I'm sure the jury did get to see the entire thing.

Entire uncut video.

http://mattpatrick.iheart.com/pages/mat ... e=10199432" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Warning: cursing and strong language

Maxwell wrote:Jumping,

Rodriguez was the instigator and was on Danaher's property with a gun and a camera! Rodriguez had every intention of shooting the guy at the first excuse! Witnesses have said repeatedly that no one threatened Rodriguez!

So what?

That is true. But Danaher is still dead when he could have chosen to walk away instead.

It was still stupid of Danaher to charge at someone who said he was going to shoot him.

"Why is that snake making a sound like a baby's rattle? I think I will play with it!"

If a person has a gun drawn on me and tells me not to come any closer, I am going to believe them and act accordingly. (In my case, "acting accordingly" may include shooting them . . . )

You know, everyone has been talking about the CHL on trial.

Let's talk for a minute about Kelly Danaher, the teacher who was shot and killed.

Just as an aside, I would not want that teacher teaching my children. Charging a man you know has a gun and who stated he will shoot you if you approach him . . . not too smart. Not saying I am sympathetic to the CHL on trial, but I am also not sympathetic to the teacher. Water finds its level, drunk and stupid reaps what it sows.

The other lesson here is if someone is telling you they have a gun and they will shoot you if you don't leave them alone, then LEAVE THEM ALONE and go away as quickly as possible! "Why is that snake making a sound like a baby's rattle? I think I will play with it!"

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.