Raul Rodrigues

As I have stated before I attempt to find cases that grab my attention at any given time. For example, while this may sound bad, domestic, spouse on spouse cases do not always do that. Sadly in our world it is such common place that it is almost unusual for a spouse to not be accused, and/or charged and convicted of murder, in some form or another when their spouse dies. There is almost always an underlying reason, greed and jealousy are the big ones. Then again as I say this there are times I sit down and those are exactly the ones that “grab” me on that day. However, almost always a case involving neighbors both intrigue me and frustrate me, but so much so that they bring me here.

First I believe these sorts of cases catch my interest because in many of the stories, it could be any one of us reading this today. I would gander to guess that most of us have at the very least lived in a neighborhood where there is at least one cranky neighbor that for the most part people avoid. For example, although I have not met the person, I have been told by several around that there is a neighbor near me that will report petty things to the city faster than anyone. For example if you do not mow your grass often enough or if you replace an appliance and sit the old one outside for more than a few days this person will allegedly call to report it. For that part it seems most of the neighbors avoids this person and makes sure to not do anything to provoke her. In general when there is someone like that in your neighborhood you simply avoid them and for the most part those types of people keep to themselves too. Then there are the cases in which one neighbor seems to bully everyone else in the area. Again, for the most part you will have most of the neighbors avoiding them but from time to time you have one that either will not be bullied, or decides they have had enough. These are the ones that end up in the massive feuds as in most cases neither side will back down and everyone in the neighborhood becomes miserable. When you are dealing with these sorts of people you never know from one day to the next what may happen and when someone will snap. On the flip side of this, these cases also frustrate me because it always seems that the one person who seemed to take things too far (almost always the bully neighbor) will attempt to justify their actions and when available attempt to use any form of a Stand Your Ground law they can muster.

Stand Your Ground laws, also known as Castle Doctrine laws, were all but enacted with good intentions but personally I am on the fence with them. It never fails that either the laws are written with loop holes or described to others with major misconceptions. It used to be that when someone was charged with a crime the only way they could claim self defense is if they could prove that they first had no opportunity to retreat from the area or situation and secondly that they reasonably felt that their lives were in danger. As our world became more and more violent and more crimes began happening people, justifiably so, became angry feeling as if it were the criminals and abusers who had more rights than the law abiding people. A good example to use would be if someone broke into your home. Prior to these sorts of laws a law enforcement officer or a 911 operator may tell you that you have the right to shoot them if you armed but they would also tell you to shoot in a non-lethal area, such as a leg. Even still there were a lot of hoops to jump through if you pulled that trigger and there was no way of knowing you could escape criminal charges. This angered people. They felt as if their home was their castle and they had the right to defend it at all cost and if that meant shooting someone who had entered the home with the intention of committing ANY criminal act, even though they already had by entering the home in the first place, then so be it. Some areas then extended these laws to include other property as well as vehicles as “sacred places.” Now, most of these laws had previsions that you still must reasonably feel that your life is in danger, but they stopped with making people retreat and get out of the situation if they could.

Well the problem would arise when say someone walked onto someone's property because they were lost and were shot. Or cases in which someone was actually lured to the home and then shot and killed because the homeowner would claim they felt in fear of their life. It appeared those who wanted to shoot did and when it was over they would want to always claim they were defending themselves or their property and they had felt their life was in danger. Then there were the people who thought these laws followed them wherever they went, no matter what they did or how they did it. This is one of those cases where the latter occurred. The perpetrator of this crime, Raul Rodrigues had even told people long before how to avoid prosecution and claim Stand Your Ground laws. The problem was that no only did he apparently not know the law as well as he claimed, he actually violated it himself. He even video taped most of the encounter himself, using language he thought he could use as a defense later. His lawyers attempted to argue that if he had intended to commit murder it made no sense that he would video tape it himself. I disagree. I believe Raul Rodrigues was so full of himself and believed himself to be so right and powerful that he honestly believed that he could get away with whatever he wanted. The fact he had mentioned long before how to use the Stand Your Ground defense and how he has been described by people who knew him has also left me wondering if he did not do what he did simply so he could claim Stand Your Ground to prove everyone once again how right he was and in essence give himself more “power.” Now of course the latter is pure speculation on my part but maybe after hearing the story you may feel the same way.

This case began on May 1, 2010 in Huffman Texas, about thirty miles from Houston. Raul Rodrigues had lived in the area about five years at that point with his wife and children. I found little information about his family in my research. All I can say is that it appears he had more than one child since “children” was used often and they were of some sort of school age as their was references to him picking them up at their bus stop. I have to wonder if his family, or at least children, were not sheltered by the media in some way due to the publicity of this case. In the end it appeared that the only people who believed Raul Rodrigues was in any way in the right and justified were the defense attorney and Raul himself. Kelly Danaher also lived in the neighborhood with his wife, Mindy and his three year old daughter, Peri. I am unclear just how long they had lived in the neighborhood, but like others in the area they had moved there to get away from the big city and be in a more quiet and peaceful area. Just how far the two families lived from each other seems to be a debate. Some reports say “down the street;” some say “next door;” while even at least one report said they lived “two doors away.” One report also stated that at least the Danaher's had about two acres of property. I point this out because it does not appear that it was necessarily like a housing addition where the homes were super close to each other. Kelly Danaher was thirty-six years old and Raul was about eight years older. I also point this out so you know we are not talking about two couples in which one is much older than the other. We all know that cranky elderly man that lives down the street, such as the person I described in my own neighborhood, but that was not the case here either. Other neighbors would later testify that there did not seem to be a particular problem between the Danaher's and the Rodrigues' prior to this night. So it is not one of those cases in which argument after argument had ensued and they just kept getting worse. As far as anyone knew this would be the first, and only issue.

The day apparently seemed to start out and go very well. The Danaher's were having a party. It appears during the day it was a kid/family friendly time as they were celebrating Peri Danaher's third birthday. There were people coming and going all day. There were the normal kids party things such as cake and ice cream and a barbecue grill going. As the day went on into the night it went from a kid birthday party to an adult birthday party for Mindy Danaher's celebration. Now there was music, karaoke and drinking.

As the night went on according to those who spoke to Raul Rodrigues, his wife and a few neighbors, he was agitated over the supposed loud music. In fairness by the time this culminated it was around midnight so in theory it does sound rather late for there to be loud music and partying going on. But, I suppose that “loud” can be subjective. It appears that only Raul believed it to be loud and annoying. Some neighbors were sleeping and were only awoken by gunshots later. Some of the others were apparently awake and stated that it was not loud. By all accounts Raul had allegedly called the police several times who apparently came out each time, assessed the situation and determined there was not a problem. Now, if the officers approached and spoke to Danaher is in question. It appears that the official release by the police department was that Danaher was made aware that Raul Rodrigues had complained but he was never asked to tone it down or end the party. But, a statement made by Mindy Danaher indicates that no one, including Kelly Danaher was made aware that anyone was being bothered and that if he had been told he would have attempted to tone things down to be accommodating. Regardless, apparently according to Raul's wife, he had paced the home agitated over the alleged noise for several hours and felt that the police were not handling the situation correctly. Right around midnight Raul left his home with his gun, a flashlight and his cell phone. He may have also had a video camera with him too. Some reports say that the twenty-two minute video that would later be shown was taken by his cell phone while others claim it was from a standard video camera. I tend to believe that there likely was another video camera involved because on his way to the Danaher home, and during the altercation Raul once again called 911 and was talking to an operator.

Raul got to the edge of the Danaher driveway and something in his behavior led Mindy's father to go talk to him. The exchange was heated and expletives were said. The camera continued to roll and yet oftentimes it was at an odd angle to which the viewer could really see nothing but only hear voices. There would later be questions as to who possibly said what and how close they were to Raul when it was said. Kelly Danaher made his way down the drive likely to see what was going on. A scene was beginning to happen and a few more made their way down the drive. Several significant things happened before shots began to ring out.

Keep in mind again, the video camera is going, although it's often showing nothing significant other than the ground or feet of other people, but Raul is still on the phone with 911. Kelly Danaher apparently asked Raul to leave... I.e.. retreat, and he refused. While still on the phone Raul at some point pulled out his gun (some say making sure that he himself had his feet in the street and not literally on the Danaher property) and said “Stop right there. Don't come any closer.” By now others from the party have also called 911, but the operator that Raul had called was hearing it all. Some say that Raul's next words were for video purposes and for the 911 operator to hear because they were words that were said to be needed in a Stand Your Ground defense.... “I'm in fear for my life, my life is in danger.” Remember that at this point Raul is in the street, he has been asked to leave and there is no evidence that anyone has come near him or left the Danaher property. There is also no evidence, nor was there ever any evidence that there was another weapon present. Now, I am not going to argue and say that there was not more than a few people in the Danaher driveway at this point, but Raul would have had plenty of opportunity to walk away and just go back home. And, to be fair while Raul was waving his gun one of the partygoers did tell Raul that they could go into the home and get their gun and make it a fair fight but there is absolutely no evidence that the person did so. Through all of this another friend of Kelly's came up the drive named Ricky Johnson. There were reports that Johnson just did not take the situation as serious as he should, and seeing the video myself I have to wonder if alcohol had not played a role in his behavior but still remember that Raul is making these outlandish statements that he feels like his life was in danger and he was scared, when in fact not only had he started the confrontation, he was continuing to egg it on. It is my opinion after seeing and hearing things that the behavior of Johnson who allegedly waved his arms and was laughing was a direct response to the things Raul was saying to the 911 operator. At this point Raul say “I'm not losing to these people anymore” and would claim later that Johnson “lunged” at him and that he fired his gun. At this point the first gunshot hit Kelly Danaher and he fell to the ground. The video camera shut off just after this but Ricky Johnson would be shot multiple times after and another man would also be shot and wounded.

By the time the police arrived at the scene there were two crowds of people in or near the Danaher driveway. One crowd was hovering over Kelly Danaher while he lay dying in his driveway and they attempted to help and the other crowd was subduing Raul Rodrigues, preventing him from a) firing anymore and b) leaving before he could be apprehended. As he was being arrested Raul was already insisting he had a valid defense and was quoting parts of the Stand Your Ground law.

In 2007 Texas had expanded and clarified their Stand Your Ground law but still it was not used often and for that reason Raul's case garnered national attention. While he and his lawyers were claiming this was their stance, the prosecutor was fighting back. I cannot say for certain that it happens in every case but it does appear that when someone uses this law as a defense there has to be a hearing on it before things can proceed. We saw it in the George Zimmerman case in Florida also. Now, even if in the hearing the judge determines that the law does not apply to the situation that does not mean that a self defense claim cannot still be made in a trial, such as in this case. The prosecutor argued that the law had expanded to allow deadly force in particular situations when they were defending their home, workplace or even their vehicle. But it also stated that the defendant could not provoke an attack nor could they be involved in any criminal activity at the time of the incident. All of this alone should tell you just reading it that it did not apply in this case and yet the defense attempted it.

First, Raul was not in his home (work or vehicle), or even on his own property at the time of the incident. Secondly, his own video tape showed that not only had he gone to the Danaher home on his own and it was his actions that had escalated the situation. It was also Raul who had garnered the one and only weapon let alone the fact that if anyone else did have a weapon Raul had pulled his first. The prosecutor pointed out that in his own video that Raul had used language almost from the beginning that indicated that he intended for the situation to get to the point in which he planned to use the Stand Your Ground law.

The defense made a few points of their own. They pointed out that it made little sense that if Raul was planning to go to the Danaher home and commit a crime why would he, himself, video tape the situation. I have expressed my feelings on this above when I stated I believe Raul really believed that he could get away with it and intended to use the language that he did for his own defense. I do not know that I necessarily believe he left his home intending to kill someone but I do believe he never planned to back down and thought a video tape would help him. The defense claimed that Raul stated he took the video camera so that he could show the police just how loud the party really was since he had called several times and they had not done anything. It is unclear if Raul felt like the party would quiet down when the police arrived and get louder when they left or he simply felt the police were not understanding his point. Another point that the defense made pertained to the fact that Raul took a gun with him. It was a well known fact by those who knew him and in the neighborhood that Raul always carried his gun in his holster with him. To see him without his gun would be more unusual so their point was that the fact that he had his gun with him did not mean premeditation.

In the end the judge sided with the prosecution and held Raul over for trial. His trial would be conducted in 2012. The prosecution had several witnesses from the party, as well as people from the neighborhood. Raul was described as a bully in the area who seemed to judge everyone but in the same respect had not seemingly had any ongoing feuds with anyone in particular, especially Kelly Danaher. There was testimony from at least one person who talked of how Raul seemed, even for Texas standards, to be overly obsessed with his gun collection and had mentioned the Stand Your Ground law and how to get away from a prosecution long before the incident in May of 2010. Some reports say that the defense did not call any witnesses and maybe they did not but there was a note that his wife had “defended” him. Whether that meant in court or the media is unclear. Presumably the defense felt the video tape spoke for itself and that they had gotten all they needed out through the prosecutors witnesses. In the end the jury convicted him. He faced the possibility of a life sentence. Instead the jury opted to give Raul a sentence of forty years.

So one would think that things ended there, but they did not. A few years into his sentencing the appeals court overturned his conviction saying that the jury had been given “confusing” instructions before they deliberated. It appears that this all still circled back to the idea of the Stand Your Ground, even though the prosecutors successfully argued against it. Apparently however it was still allowed to be mentioned in the trial and the jury would get to decide themselves. It is my opinion that the original hearing on the merits of the law in this case basically let a judge decide if the case should move forward. When the judge decided in his (or her) mind that the case should go to trial it did not prevent the defense from still trying to utilize the law, only this time it was an option for the jury to consider. With their ruling the courts had decided that due to this confusing error Raul deserved a new trial.

In 2015 Raul would once again face a jury. It sounds as if the only real difference is by this time his wife had divorced him and she testified for the prosecution as to his demeanor prior to leaving the home and heading to the Danaher home. What this case in the end proved is.... Be careful what you wish for. In the end the jury in this case took two hours (it was implied that it was much shorter than the first trial) to deliberate before returning with a guilty verdict. Once again Raul faced a life sentence. The difference is that this time he got it. Had he never appealed the first conviction he would have likely served less than half of the forty year sentence. I did a search to find out just what a “life sentence” in Texas meant and it indicated that life... meant life... meaning the defendant would ultimately die in prison. However, according to the Texas Department of Corrections he is eligible for parole in the year 2043. This seems odd since that is only thirty-three years from the time of the crime. Raul will be about seventy-seven years old at the time and it is plausible that he could not only still be alive, but also be granted parole due to his age. Although we will have to wait and see what happens I suppose.

I think what surprises me, or should I say scares me most about this case is that while, yes, there was indications that he was not the easiest person to get along with in general or in the neighborhood, there seemed to be no indication that things would happen like this. I mean you see the cases where feuds begin and things seem to get a little worse each time something happens and things slowly lead up to where something like this could be possible. That was not the case here. There seemed to be no indication what so ever that the two families had any run ins prior to this or even if they had even spoken to each other. There was also no indication that this party was something that was a regular thing for the Danaher's or that anyone had an issue with them or their behavior in the neighborhood. It is like this attack came out of no where and that is what makes it scary.