No news about Enrique Recio shooting in Avery Ranch (Richardson: HOA, lawyer)

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

It is amusing that you say "let's be clear about the 'fence"... then speculate that there is pedestrian access at the 'end", which is a totally unfounded speculation. There is no access at the end. Here is a photo from google maps.



The Enrique house is at the bottom of this photo, the entrance drive is at the top. Unless he climbed the fence, he had to walk past four houses to get to the Enrique automobile parked at the end.
The

I find your difficulty with the fence amusing, not much else about this. The fence between the street and the driveway(and Yadzi's vehicle) is the height of a tennis net...not much climbing involved. Klutzy as I've become in my old age, I would have no trouble stepping over that fence. And, yes, I checked and found there is NO pedestrian gate or other access, but I doubt the young man walked to the common entry and backtracked to Yadzi's house. In any event, there is little to physically prevent someone on foot from getting to the common driveway IN FRONT of Yadzi's house.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

I find your difficulty with the fence amusing, not much else about this. The fence between the street and the driveway(and Yadzi's vehicle) is the height of a tennis net...not much climbing involved. Klutzy as I've become in my old age, I would have no trouble stepping over that fence. And, yes, I checked and found there is NO pedestrian gate or other access, but I doubt the young man walked to the common entry and backtracked to Yadzi's house. In any event, there is little to physically prevent someone on foot from getting to the common driveway IN FRONT of Yadzi's house.

<< there is little to physically prevent someone on foot from getting to the common driveway IN FRONT of Yadzi's house.>> Except for the fence! What does a fence imply? To me it says "stay out".

You were the one that made an issue about the fence, without even understanding where it was or if there was a gate or opening there. It does make a difference. Climbing a fence is usually considered an illegal or offensive act, otherwise why is the fence there? He had to either have climbed the fence or walked several hundreds of feet down the drive to get to the Engrique car he was found underneath. Either way it suggest wrong doing and is very hard to understand what legal purposes he had being there.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by atxcio

I agree... but a jury could also determine if you don't know where your property line is it is probably not reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing. Bottom line, I think when using the property/fleeing criminal defense (as opposed to self-defense), you better make sure that a crime has actually been committed. Because otherwise, your "reasoning" can be disproven if it was discovered that nothing illegal was done or attempted.

The good thing is that we'll know soon enough what the defense strategy is and whether it works. Trial starts next Monday.

Yes, I am interested in seeing how the courts and a jury see this. I agree that there is much about the law that is "open to interpretation" and not clear in its wordings or meaning. That is usually left up to the juries to struggle to figure out.

In a similar recent case the jury found the shooter not guilty of shooting an escort who he claimed was stealing his $150 after refusing to have sex with him. He shot her outside of his condo on the way to her car as she was leaving and trying to get away from him. I would have never expected the jury to reach this verdict but they did. I still think they were wrong, it is so sad that Texas law leaves so much up to the interpretation of the jury to try and figure out what the law means. Which is also one of the reason I find this so interesting. If I ever need to use a weapon in self defense, I desire to understand when that is legal, or most importantly, when it is not.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/san-a...t-shooter.html

[Trainwreck20]

In the SA case, there was stolen property (albeit that is somewhat debatable). In this case, nothing has been stolen...

Still, climbing a fence is usually considered an illegal act

No, climbing a fence is not in of itself an illegal act - there are small fences in the park I step/climb over on a regular basis. Yes, that is public property. Perhaps the one by the driveway is, as well. Trespassing is usually illegal, but not all fences denote a trespass automatically.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

You were the one that made an issue about the fence, without even understanding where it was of if there was an opening. It does make a difference. Climbing a fence is usually considered an illegal or offenive act, otherwise why is the fence there? He had to either have climbed the fence or walked several hundreds of feet down the drive to get to the Engrique car he was found underneath. Either way it suggest wrong doing and is very hard to understand what legal purposes he had doing there.

C'mon, now...the fence is three feet high...likely installed to discourage folks from taking shortcuts and to offer some buffer between the street and the driveway. Pretty sure I could step over that fence all day long and the POlice would only look at me funny.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

In the SA case, there was stolen property (albeit that is somewhat debatable). In this case, nothing has been stolen...


No, climbing a fence is not in of itself an illegal act - there are small fences in the park I step/climb over on a regular basis. Yes, that is public property. Perhaps the one by the driveway is, as well. Trespassing is usually illegal, but not all fences denote a trespass automatically.

How was it stolen? He voluntarily gave it to her. She showed up, kept him company for awhile and tried to leave before he shot her. I see no theft here.

[ScoPro]

Whatever the case may be, I would have considerable difficulty shooting a person in the back who was trying to get away from me....regardless if he was acting weirdly. I understand that some people would, but not me personally.

However, if the "perp" had run towards me or a family member under those circumstances that night, then yeah - "bang".

[LanceD]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Whatever the case may be, I would have considerable difficulty shooting a person in the back who was trying to get away from me....regardless if he was acting weirdly. I understand that some people would, but not me personally.

However, if the "perp" had run towards me or a family member under those circumstances that night, then yeah - "bang".

Thanks for sharing this case.

Man, this law is sick. This case is sick. The escort is not there to argue her case. This is all "he said".
The irony is that if he injured or missed her all together, he may be in jail right now because she can always claim that the $150 is the initial fee for accompanying him in his house or whatever.

This law unintentionally encourage shoot-to-kill. Once the victim is dead, it is not too hard to plant something in them, no matter how small, or to denied prior agreement, and claim that the victim was a theft.

Saying I'm shaking now is not entirely inaccurate.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by LanceD

Thanks for sharing this case.

Man, this law is sick. This case is sick. The escort is not there to argue her case. This is all "he said".
The irony is that if he injured or missed her all together, he may be in jail right now because she can always claim that the $150 is the initial fee for accompanying him in his house or whatever.

This law unintentionally encourage shoot-to-kill. Once the victim is dead, it is not too hard to plant something in them, no matter how small, or to denied prior agreement, and claim that the victim was a theft.

Saying I'm shaking now is not entirely inaccurate.

I wasn't talking about the San Antonio case, just the one at Avery Ranch.

I am in favor of the "Castle Doctrine" & "Stand Your Ground" laws. Citizens need to be better educated on what they actually say, not what they think they say.

From Yadzi's own statement, his use of deadly force does not follow the law's guidelines. That's why he was indicted.


I am in agreement with Roo's statement:

Originally Posted by RooCeleste

This whole situation bothers me, and I will be interested to hear the progression of the trial. Regardless of what the law says and what it allows me to do as a concealed handgun licensee (which I am) or under the castle doctrine law, I just cannot imagine a situation where I would be willing take a life unless I felt imminently in danger of harm for myself or someone with me (ie, I'm being attacked, grabbed, car-jacked, my home is being broken into, etc) or maybe if it was VERY clear that a significant theft was occurring without me being in danger -- even then, it would be a hard decision, since it is just stuff and not someone in danger. I wouldn't shoot someone who is in my front yard, stealing a metal flowerpot or something of the sort.

I don't agree with what Yazdi did, from what has been released so far, and I anticipate a conviction. And, for the record, I am in a law enforcement family, and we are heavily armed. Maybe that has given me a different perspective on things, too. You don't take gun-possession or gun-carrying lightly because a rash decision with a gun could change your life or someone else's life forever. Using deadly force is a last-resort to protect myself and my loved ones....it is so much more preferable to call 911 and let them sort it out.

[Hugh Jaephart]

This whole thing smells.