Former FSU WR Travis Rudolph arrested on 1st Degree Murder

[supacane]

Oh good lord, that's complete bull****.

You're not listening. You're only hearing what you want to hear. The George Zimmerman case isn't "precedent", and the person who said that doesn't even understand what "precedent" is.

Rudolph doesn't have a legal defense. He MIGHT not be convicted, he MIGHT not go to jail, but it's not because he has a proper legal justification or excuse for what he did.

But, sure, keep acting like this is about his ethnicity. It's not.

The fact that you "see no difference" is frightening. The two situations (Rudolph and Zimmerman) are completely different.

And for the record, Zimmerman committed murder and lied about the self-defense circumstances. In 2012, I lived a few hundred yards from where that happened, and the claims of a "local crime problem" were asbolute falsehoods.

While nothing can erase past history, laws are now (belatedly) being applied more even-handedly. Kevin Monahan, a 65 year old white man, was just indicted in New York for murder for firing at a car in his driveway and killing a 20 year old woman.

And THAT case is a lot closer to what Rudolph did than the facts of the George Zimmerman case.

To compare that murderer in NY who was at no time ever attacked. The girls were turning their car, he had no idea who tf they were and they were leaving. To compare that to someone who got attacked by a gang basically is just asanine. And also that's NY. 2nd of all i didnt say anything about precedence. I have seen how similar situations the law is bended to fit whatever pre desposition is there, f precendence. This and the Zimmerman case are similar scenario, and Zimmerman was worse as he initiated the confrontation. Ruduolph did not.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

To compare that murderer in NY who was at no time ever attacked. The girls were turning their car, he had no idea who tf they were and they were leaving. To compare that to someone who got attacked by a gang basically is just asanine. And also that's NY. 2nd of all i didnt say anything about precedence. I have seen how similar situations the law is bended to fit whatever pre desposition is there, f precendence. This and the Zimmerman case are similar scenario, and Zimmerman was worse as he initiated the confrontation. Ruduolph did not.

Look, between the two of us, which of us went to law school?

Exactly.

I don't give a **** if you don't like my responses, they are accurate, while yours are hystericall and emotional.

As I have said before, and as you are evidencing in your response, it's ridiculous to keep talking about "who started it". That **** is for elementary school.

Rudolph had a choice. He went back inside, he armed himself, and he chased down people who were leaving while firing over 30 shots. That's not my opinion, that is what you can see on videotape. So stop arguing with me and go explain to Rudolph why what he did is NOT justified under "self-defense"/"stand your ground" laws.

I understand that you don't comprehend these legal distinctions. No need to be mad at me. I tried to explain, just to be helpful, and now you are made at me. Plus you are now trying to out-argue me with your non-JD-degree.

I'm done here. You don't like it, go argue with the state legislature.

 

[407cane]

forgot he's Hester's cousin

crazy ****

 

[supacane]

Look, between the two of us, which of us went to law school?

Exactly.

I don't give a **** if you don't like my responses, they are accurate, while yours are hystericall and emotional.

As I have said before, and as you are evidencing in your response, it's ridiculous to keep talking about "who started it". That **** is for elementary school.

Rudolph had a choice. He went back inside, he armed himself, and he chased down people who were leaving while firing over 30 shots. That's not my opinion, that is what you can see on videotape. So stop arguing with me and go explain to Rudolph why what he did is NOT justified under "self-defense"/"stand your ground" laws.

I understand that you don't comprehend these legal distinctions. No need to be mad at me. I tried to explain, just to be helpful, and now you are made at me. Plus you are now trying to out-argue me with your non-JD-degree.

I'm done here. You don't like it, go argue with the state legislature.

I aint mad about shyyt. I said what i said and you said what you said. U aint changing my mind even if you Matlock. I know the law is not applied equally. Never have, its been proven. Since u went to law school you should know that

 

[Brooklyndee]

Look, between the two of us, which of us went to law school?

Exactly.

I don't give a **** if you don't like my responses, they are accurate, while yours are hystericall and emotional.

As I have said before, and as you are evidencing in your response, it's ridiculous to keep talking about "who started it". That **** is for elementary school.

Rudolph had a choice. He went back inside, he armed himself, and he chased down people who were leaving while firing over 30 shots. That's not my opinion, that is what you can see on videotape. So stop arguing with me and go explain to Rudolph why what he did is NOT justified under "self-defense"/"stand your ground" laws.

I understand that you don't comprehend these legal distinctions. No need to be mad at me. I tried to explain, just to be helpful, and now you are made at me. Plus you are now trying to out-argue me with your non-JD-degree.

I'm done here. You don't like it, go argue with the state legislature.

BOY did we dodge the bullet here! Yes puns intended. Can you imagine if he came here as planned...

 

[SayWhat]

BOY did we dodge the bullet here! Yes puns intended. Can you imagine if he came here as planned...

I don't hold schools accountable, not this far removed from them attending. Often times the game and school is just delaying the inevitable or keeping them on track.

You know athletes, I know some as well, and when the game is gone there's a lot of tragedy that comes with it that's higher than those who typically just attend college. Same is true of NFL'ers.

I don't hold us accountable for Walton. The guy who raped someone elsewhere. That's just dumb stuff that fans do, to try and make them seem like their school is better or above it.

 

[ZuCrew]

Wow, that’s pretty deep for a John Wick reference. Sorry, I was on a different page.

What are disagreeing with? That Baba Yaga actually means boogeyman…when it really refers to a witch? Maybe my timing was just bad.

lol, nah I just replied to the wrong person.

 

[Empirical Cane]

It has been explained for pages.

The "stand your ground" defense was denied. The "self defense" defense is highly likely to fail. The "but she is crazy" defense is non-existent.

The defense is likely hoping for jury nullification, but some people on this board think there is some sort of non-existent "justification" or "excuse" ground, just because the woman is problematic.

A person was killed when Rudolph went BACK INSIDE of his house, retrieved a gun, and chased down people who were leaving and fired over 30 shots. All of that doesn't disappear because "she started it".

I understand that some people want to find a valid emotional reason for letting Rudolph go free, but that doesn't match up to the legal arguments.

Someone earlier was talking about the "George Zimmerman precedent", without even understanding what "precedent" is and means.

I'm not saying Rudolph goes to jail, but he doesn't have much of a legal case.

I'm very disappointed in your restrained response.

 

[camber_2374]

Look, between the two of us, which of us went to law school?

Exactly.

I don't give a **** if you don't like my responses, they are accurate, while yours are hystericall and emotional.

As I have said before, and as you are evidencing in your response, it's ridiculous to keep talking about "who started it". That **** is for elementary school.

Rudolph had a choice. He went back inside, he armed himself, and he chased down people who were leaving while firing over 30 shots. That's not my opinion, that is what you can see on videotape. So stop arguing with me and go explain to Rudolph why what he did is NOT justified under "self-defense"/"stand your ground" laws.

I understand that you don't comprehend these legal distinctions. No need to be mad at me. I tried to explain, just to be helpful, and now you are made at me. Plus you are now trying to out-argue me with your non-JD-degree.

I'm done here. You don't like it, go argue with the state legislature.

As someone with a law degree it is cringe to hear someone with a law degree talk down to another person without one. Does that mean they can’t have an opinion on the matter, even if it is not grounded in what the law says? I wonder how many people on the jury have a law degree.

He is right. You’re flat out wrong saying this case is more analogous to the NY case than the George Zimmerman. Especially since it was in a different state with an entirely different criminal statute.

I think you’re right that it is unlikely that a jury will let him off for self defense, but it’s very plausible. Like a previous poster said, with a jury anything is possible. A gun was found near by that they likely threw from their car. Rudolph testified that he saw them pointing guns at him from the car. Will that testimony hold up with a a jury being that all the shots were from Rudolph and hit the back of the car? Unlikely, but who knows with a jury.

There’s a reason why this went to trial. Him and his lawyers calculated that their chances at getting off were worth it enough to not take whatever deal that was offered and go trial. It sounds like you think that calculation was way off and they should have taken a deal?

If this was a bench your trial, your arguments would hold a lot more weight.

I also wonder if it results in a hung jury if the state would try to prosecute again. Do you think they would? I don’t live in Florida but I assume with the facts now known, most Floridians think Rudolph was within his rights, even if the law says he wasn’t.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Wow, that’s pretty deep for a John Wick reference. Sorry, I was on a different page.

What are disagreeing with? That Baba Yaga actually means boogeyman…when it really refers to a witch? Maybe my timing was just bad.

Have you ever seen @Baba Yaga and John Wick porst at the same time?

There you go.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Why not?

Winner: Porst of the Quarter.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

As someone with a law degree it is cringe to hear someone with a law degree talk down to another person without one. Does that mean they can’t have an opinion on the matter, even if it is not grounded in what the law says? I wonder how many people on the jury have a law degree.

He is right. You’re flat out wrong saying this case is more analogous to the NY case than the George Zimmerman. Especially since it was in a different state with an entirely different criminal statute.

I think you’re right that it is unlikely that a jury will let him off for self defense, but it’s very plausible. Like a previous poster said, with a jury anything is possible. A gun was found near by that they likely threw from their car. Rudolph testified that he saw them pointing guns at him from the car. Will that testimony hold up with a a jury being that all the shots were from Rudolph and hit the back of the car? Unlikely, but who knows with a jury.

There’s a reason why this went to trial. Him and his lawyers calculated that their chances at getting off were worth it enough to not take whatever deal that was offered and go trial. It sounds like you think that calculation was way off and they should have taken a deal?

If this was a bench your trial, your arguments would hold a lot more weight.

I also wonder if it results in a hung jury if the state would try to prosecute again. Do you think they would? I don’t live in Florida but I assume with the facts now known, most Floridians think Rudolph was within his rights, even if the law says he wasn’t.

Hilarious. You joined just to make that post. Or "rejoined".

I explained it. Multiple times. And, no, don't try to tell me this is the Zimmerman case. It's nowhere close.

This is a case of something happening in a driveway leading to a person's house. And a person coming out of the house, armed, and shooting into a vehicle that is leaving the driveway. THAT is why the two cases are analogous (not identical). The question is going to involve whether the actions of arming yourself to shoot into a car that is leaving are valid claims sufficient to find a defendant "not guilty". The facts of the Zimmerman case are COMPLETELY different (regardless of Zimmerman's lies).

Now, if you want to argue that there was more provocation in Rudolph's case than Monahan's case, that is a different issue. Although Monahan's defense is going to try to build up his "fear" and the "threat", because they are now talking about "revving the engine" and stuff that other cars may have done previously to cause fear to Monahan.

If you cared about accuracy, you would acknowledge that the facts of the Zimmerman case are more analogous to those in the Gregory/Travis McMichael case in Georgia (people following someone as "neighborhood watch" and then manufacturing a situation where they use deadly force to "defend" themselves when the person being followed tries to defend himself), and you would admit that the Rudolph and Monahan cases are analogous on whether you can go blasting people who are leaving your house in your driveway or the street in front of your house.

As for Rudolph, the Ring Doorbell video is pretty straightforward. The people were leaving his premises, and he went back inside to retrieve a gun, and then ran after them to shoot them 30+ times.

There's a reason why the judge has already ruled out "stand your ground" as a defense.

 

[tomi]

Hilarious. You joined just to make that post. Or "rejoined".

I explained it. Multiple times. And, no, don't try to tell me this is the Zimmerman case. It's nowhere close.

This is a case of something happening in a driveway leading to a person's house. And a person coming out of the house, armed, and shooting into a vehicle that is leaving the driveway. THAT is why the two cases are analogous (not identical). The question is going to involve whether the actions of arming yourself to shoot into a car that is leaving are valid claims sufficient to find a defendant "not guilty". The facts of the Zimmerman case are COMPLETELY different (regardless of Zimmerman's lies).

Now, if you want to argue that there was more provocation in Rudolph's case than Monahan's case, that is a different issue. Although Monahan's defense is going to try to build up his "fear" and the "threat", because they are now talking about "revving the engine" and stuff that other cars may have done previously to cause fear to Monahan.

If you cared about accuracy, you would acknowledge that the facts of the Zimmerman case are more analogous to those in the Gregory/Travis McMichael case in Georgia (people following someone as "neighborhood watch" and then manufacturing a situation where they use deadly force to "defend" themselves when the person being followed tries to defend himself), and you would admit that the Rudolph and Monahan cases are analogous on whether you can go blasting people who are leaving your house in your driveway or the street in front of your house.

As for Rudolph, the Ring Doorbell video is pretty straightforward. The people were leaving his premises, and he went back inside to retrieve a gun, and then ran after them to shoot them 30+ times.

There's a reason why the judge has already ruled out "stand your ground" as a defense.

Lol if someone came to your crib, threatened you, jumped you and your brother, and then aim 2 guns at you while they in their getaway car, you’d just let them go and hope they don’t come back to finish the job. I understand that he could have hurt someone innocent but bro can’t think about who else could be hurt. All he can think is protect himself and his family from the criminals who just came to kill him.

If you think it’s wrong then so be it, but I for sure see how that is self defense. Went from a normal night playing 2k or something to a bunch of dudes trying to literally kill you and your brother but you should be able to rationalize and be clear-headed and not fear for your life

 

[passitback]

The law is not a moral compass.

He had a bunch of goons show up at his house with very violent intentions.

It's a shame he didn't clip all of them.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Lol if someone came to your crib, threatened you, jumped you and your brother, and then aim 2 guns at you while they in their getaway car, you’d just let them go and hope they don’t come back to finish the job. I understand that he could have hurt someone innocent but bro can’t think about who else could be hurt. All he can think is protect himself and his family from the criminals who just came to kill him.

If you think it’s wrong then so be it, but I for sure see how that is self defense. Went from a normal night playing 2k or something to a bunch of dudes trying to literally kill you and your brother but you should be able to rationalize and be clear-headed and not fear for your life

Keep making up facts.

Like this nugget of bull****:

"then aim 2 guns at you while they in their getaway car". Good lord, that one is insane in its insanity.



1. "their getaway car"? Were the robbing a bank? It was also "their arrival car".

2. Where is the evidence of "aim 2 guns at you while they in their getaway car"? Because YOU can say it, but it doesn't make it true. Or evidence.

3. So is it your contention that an event that happened LATER (this mythical "aim 2 guns at you") is the JUSTIFICATION for going back inside to bring out a semi-automatic weapon and start shooting before you ever see these "2 guns" aimed at you? Because that would be an amazing trick of time-travel, if true.

4. And, I don't know...but your retelling of hypothetical facts seems to omit other elements of timeline. For instance (for right or wrong) many people have guns in their cars. So maybe, JUST MAYBE, if someone runs up to your car holding a semi-automatic weapon, MAYBE it might be a reasonable response to aim 2 guns at him? Even if the "2 guns" thing was true, it could have been a reaction to a crazy John-Wick-wannabe chasing you down with a semi-automatic weapon.



Go back and re-read this thread. It's not that long, even though it started 2 years ago. I realize there are a lot of SJWs (Street Justice Warriors) on here who try to use their own personal definition of "self-defense", instead of the legal definition of "self-defense". You even do that with "just let them go and hope they don't come back to finish the job". Let them go? Yes. Call the police? Yes. Once again, it's not a John Wick world where you can go back inside to arm yourself while chasing down people to execute them in the street while they are driving away.

Just try not to exaggerate and invent bull****. You just typed "a bunch of dudes trying to literally kill you and your brother", but there is absolutely no evidence of that at trial. No evidence that this "bunch of dudes" tried to LITERALLY kill anyone.

Maybe don't use "literally" if you don't mean it. Adding "literally" when it isn't true doesn't help the argument.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

The law is not a moral compass.

He had a bunch of goons show up at his house with very violent intentions.

It's a shame he didn't clip all of them.

"Very violent intentions"...that were not acted upon.

Go back and re-read the thread. I said that Rudolph's mug shot indicated no bruises or cuts evidencing that he was "jumped". People have had 2 years to present evidence of this alleged horrible ordeal that Rudolph and his brother endured...but...crickets...

Loud disagreements (even if based on misunderstanding and/or exaggerations) are not grounds to go inside, get a semi, and chase down a retreating car in a residential neighborhood while firing off 39 rounds.

Real life isn't John Wick. Real life isn't Scarface. Domestic disputes and infidelity arguments should not end up in semi-automatic gunfights in residential neighborhoods because someone is scared of hyopotheticals.

"It's a shame he didn't clip all of them". Give me a break.

 

[GoCanes!!]

I actually spoke to his mother about that. Sounds to me like his girl at the time who was married had a bunch of dudes show up at him Moms house threatening him mom after she told them to leave. they parked about 200 yards from the house and after he pulled up ran up on the house and was showing a weapon. When travis came out with his weapon he started shooting protecting his family.. pretty wild story and I don't remember all the details but I actually worked on his BMW the day after they got it out of the impound lot. still had evidence tape all over every door.

 

[camber_2374]

Hilarious. You joined just to make that post. Or "rejoined".

I explained it. Multiple times. And, no, don't try to tell me this is the Zimmerman case. It's nowhere close.

This is a case of something happening in a driveway leading to a person's house. And a person coming out of the house, armed, and shooting into a vehicle that is leaving the driveway. THAT is why the two cases are analogous (not identical). The question is going to involve whether the actions of arming yourself to shoot into a car that is leaving are valid claims sufficient to find a defendant "not guilty". The facts of the Zimmerman case are COMPLETELY different (regardless of Zimmerman's lies).

Now, if you want to argue that there was more provocation in Rudolph's case than Monahan's case, that is a different issue. Although Monahan's defense is going to try to build up his "fear" and the "threat", because they are now talking about "revving the engine" and stuff that other cars may have done previously to cause fear to Monahan.

If you cared about accuracy, you would acknowledge that the facts of the Zimmerman case are more analogous to those in the Gregory/Travis McMichael case in Georgia (people following someone as "neighborhood watch" and then manufacturing a situation where they use deadly force to "defend" themselves when the person being followed tries to defend himself), and you would admit that the Rudolph and Monahan cases are analogous on whether you can go blasting people who are leaving your house in your driveway or the street in front of your house.

As for Rudolph, the Ring Doorbell video is pretty straightforward. The people were leaving his premises, and he went back inside to retrieve a gun, and then ran after them to shoot them 30+ times.

There's a reason why the judge has already ruled out "stand your ground" as a defense.

Never said it was the Zimmerman case, just that’s it’s more analogous. We can agree to disagree on that point. I’m not saying you have the facts or law wrong. Obviously you know what you’re talking about. But I would say you’re thinking as if you’re writing a legal memo. Do you think the fact that the woman texted her brother(s) to basically shoot Rudolph, the fact that they went to his house and attacked him, the fact that the video shows the woman hit Rudolph first, the fact that they had a gun either on them or in their car, the fact that she was married to another man won’t have any sway on the jury? I know legally these facts don’t really matter, but we are talking about a jury trial.

If I was Rudolph, and people attacked me. Then I saw them go to their car. It would definitely cross my mind that they were maybe going to their car to get a gun. I think that’s a reasonable belief. We’ve all heard stories of people going to their car to get a gun after being in a physical altercation. Now once they start driving away, obviously it’s difficult to “legally” argue your life was still in danger, which is why the judge denied the stand your ground defense. But with all the facts present, I don’t think anyone can be surprised if a jury says not guilty or has a hung jury…Just from people’s responses in this thread shows that is very real possibility.

 

[RozayCane]

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Never said it was the Zimmerman case, just that’s it’s more analogous. We can agree to disagree on that point. I’m not saying you have the facts or law wrong. Obviously you know what you’re talking about. But I would say you’re thinking as if you’re writing a legal memo. Do you think the fact that the woman texted her brother(s) to basically shoot Rudolph, the fact that they went to his house and attacked him, the fact that the video shows the woman hit Rudolph first, the fact that they had a gun either on them or in their car, the fact that she was married to another man won’t have any sway on the jury? I know legally these facts don’t really matter, but we are talking about a jury trial.

If I was Rudolph, and people attacked me. Then I saw them go to their car. It would definitely cross my mind that they were maybe going to their car to get a gun. I think that’s a reasonable belief. We’ve all heard stories of people going to their car to get a gun after being in a physical altercation. Now once they start driving away, obviously it’s difficult to “legally” argue your life was still in danger, which is why the judge denied the stand your ground defense. But with all the facts present, I don’t think anyone can be surprised if a jury says not guilty or has a hung jury…Just from people’s responses in this thread shows that is very real possibility.

Look, you can spin this any way you want. I said what I said. This isn't about "writing a legal memo". This thread is 2 years old. Someone recently bumped it, and several people misstated wild non-law-school-grad takes on legal issues. I'm just trying to provide context and explanation to some folks who may not be aware of, say, why "stand your ground" does not apply here, and I only took issue with one hardhead who kept pressing his own personal opinions on what the law is, or should be.

As for your take on the facts, it really doesn't matter. We both know why those less relevant issues are being presented, and it's for jury nullification purposes.

All I'm asking FROM YOU is to be honest.

1. "The woman texted her brother(s) to basically shoot Rudolph". And? Outside of trying to gin up jury nullification, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? First, if people were indicted and convicted for their angry/upset texts, half of America would be doing jail time right now. Second, and more importantly, where is the evidence that the four men did ANYTHING to follow through on her angry texts? Did these four guys show up at Rudolph's door with guns drawn and holsters full of ammo refills? NO. Therefore, the use of texts to show HER frame of mind has nothing to do with anything outside of emotions. I can ask you to commit a crime. That doesn't mean you have to do it.

2. This "attack". Be more specific, please. Did four guys show up to confront Rudolph, based on (sadly) an exaggeration of the situation? Sure. But arguments and misunderstandings happen all the time. Here's a thought...if you JUST had an argument with a female, and then four guys (some of them related to the female) show up at your front door, DON'T OPEN THE DOOR. Or at least open the door WHILE HOLDING A GUN. Either response is fine and legally permissible, and would not have resulted in a trial for Rudolph. But opening the door unarmed, and then LATER running back into the house and chasing guys down to execute them IS WHY RUDOLPH IS IN A TRIAL RIGHT NOW. So...I don't know...maybe choose the decision that will not ruin your life for two years while you prepare for trial and spend your life savings on a defense attorney? Right?

3. I don't know why you think the video of her hitting Rudolph earlier in the day means anything (outside of jury nullification). Here's a thought. Don't have an affair with a married woman and/or cheat on that married woman. It doesn't take a lengthy search of this board to find a bunch of posters who like to tell the rest of the board how the *** is SO HOT with a "crazy woman". And then later, these same posters will BEMOAN the fact that some "crazy woman" accused some friend-of-a-friend with something and now that guy is doing 200 years in jail or some such nonsense. So, again, I'm just spitballing here, maybe avoid crazy people and bad decisions made by crazy people, right? OR ELSE, if you play with that kind of fire, maybe wear some flame-retardant clothing and keep a fire extinguisher handy.

4. Finally, I'm going to skip a bunch of the rest of your post and go to ONE THING you wrote near the end. Which is that you think it's a "reasonable belief" that people "going back to a car" are going to retrieve a gun.

a. At THAT MOMENT, Rudolph is unarmed. So WHY would anyone need to "go back to a car" to retrieve a gun, particularly with a 4-on-2 advantage? And why, if they are willing to shoot an unarmed man, would they have left the proverbial cannoli in the car? Why wouldn't they have brought the guns FROM THE OUTSET? First, they have no idea what they are facing, exactly, so why wouldn't you "overprepare"? Second, people have claimed that they went there with "violent intentions", but why would they start out with a "peaceful" approach not involving guns from the beginning, if they are so prone to go and get the guns later?

b. If we are supposed to have a "reasonable belief" that every retreat, every situation where someone walks away, is just "I'm going to my car to get my gun", then not only are we going to have a lot of neighborhood violence, we are also going to have a lot of INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS that lead to needless bloodshed. Because IF IF IF "going back to the car" was such a reasonable predicate for "I'm coming back with an ****nal", then it would HAPPEN MORE in real life (not just John Wick movies) and there would be a lot more stories about neighborhood gun battles. Or, you know, such an assumption of "going back to the car to load up" might be completely unwarranted, right?



Maybe there will be a hung jury. Maybe. But unlike some of the dopey "Team Rudolph" fanboys, this is not a binary all-or-nothing case. People on BOTH sides of the argument should be convicted of crimes. Maybe the prosecution offered immunity, and we won't see charges against the female or the guys who confronted Rudolph. But to act as if Rudolph should "walk free" is to ignore the lengthy series of bad choices he made that have complicated the last two years of his life and finances.

People cheat all the time. People argue all the time. Domestic violence happens all the time. But the reason why there aren't more neighborhood gun battles involving 39 rounds of semi-automatic gunfire is that most people make better decisions, either to "not open the door" or to "call the police" or to "not run outside like you're John Wick".

I feel bad for Rudolph, I really do. I could definitely see a "lesser charge" being an agreeable compromise. But you have to step back and look at what really happened. Just be honest.