Fleeing driver shot dead in Avery Ranch (Early: cost, legally)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by kittenlittle

I saw a comment on Facebook about the deceased being nude and laying on the sidewalk. If that's true, then there definitely is more to the story than a simple case of misunderstanding and being trigger happy.

Oh, for Christ's sake girl, do you really rely on Facebook for your facts?

Originally Posted by LetMePost

4) he's latino, so why would he be in avery ranch

Originally Posted by Smooth from ELP

Can you explain this point? Maybe I am reading into it incorrectly? I live in Avery Ranch. There are all kinds of Latinos. I know some from Venezuela, Spain, and Deep interior and Borderland Mexico. Do we belong in Avery Ranch?

The homeowner was Fred Yazdi. The Yazdi name origins are Iranian, how much more minority can you get in Austin?

Where are all the minority rights groups crying out for his rights?

In addition to being a minority, he is a Disabled Veteran. Doesn't he deserve a little more consideration?

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

The photos don't lie, go back and look at them again.

You are mistaken about the private drive, the public road is outside of the iron fence, the private drive is inside of it. He had to hop a fence to get there by any direct route, otherwise this house could not have been the first one he walked to. If he had walked to it without climbing over a fence, he would have had to walk past 3 other houses before arriving at the Yazdi house. If all he was looking for was help, why didn't he stop at any of those other houses and ring the door bell?

If he was just waiting for help why wouldn't he be out at the intersection, where there were four huge street lights, instead of 150' away inside a dark, private fenced area where it was unlikely that his friend would be able to find him?

Originally Posted by Austin97

the fence is more a decorative fence. It is around 3ft high. It doesnt look like a "private drive" either. He didnt have to "climb" over the fence. It is unlikely he had to hop over it either. The fence also doesnt go all the way around. It ends at staked plains loop

It is not decorative, it is a very solid iron fence and it is a private drive, it is not a street, there are no street signs, you enter through a gate. The iron/wood/fences go all of the way around this group of houses. There is nothing unclear about this being private property or a private drive. Except for a criminal trying to make excuses.

Its not so easy to step over a 3' high fence. You don't step over one and pretend that you didn't notice it, or that it did not occur to you that you may not be welcome on the other side. A 3' high iron fence is a pretty clear indication that crossing is entering into private property. Why else would anyone put a fence there?



Look at the photo again...

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

It is not decorative, it is a very solid iron fence and it is a private drive, it is not a street, there are no street signs, you enter through a gate. Etc...

Here's my issue... trespassing is not a capital crime, and should not be one. Theft is not a capital crime, and should not be one. Vandalism is not a capital crime, and should not be one. And execution, if it is to be sanctioned by the will of the people, should be carefully regulated and administered only by the state.

I have no problem with a person defending themselves and their family against a perceived harmful threat to life and limb.

I have every problem with a person killing another for a transgression against property. That has no place in a civilized society. None.

[justanothercalifornian]

Here's my issue... trespassing is not a capital crime, and should not be one. Theft is not a capital crime, and should not be one. Vandalism is not a capital crime, and should not be one. And execution, if it is to be sanctioned by the will of the people, should be carefully regulated and administered only by the state.

I have no problem with a person defending themselves and their family against a perceived harmful threat to life and limb.

I have every problem with a person killing another for a transgression against property. That has no place in a civilized society. None.

this exactly^ Spot on.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Here's my issue... trespassing is not a capital crime, and should not be one. Theft is not a capital crime, and should not be one. Vandalism is not a capital crime, and should not be one. And execution, if it is to be sanctioned by the will of the people, should be carefully regulated and administered only by the state.

I have no problem with a person defending themselves and their family against a perceived harmful threat to life and limb.

I have every problem with a person killing another for a transgression against property. That has no place in a civilized society. None.

That is your opinion. That is NOT what the law says:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[owlman]

It might be a hard sell to call that a trespass. The fence isn't really designed to keep out intruders, plus there's the wide ungated opening just a few homes down. Unless Yazdi warned him to get off his property--and it sounds like he did the opposite, telling him to stay put--I don't see how the trespass issue matters here.

To me Yazdi's only possible excuses are that he felt threatened (Recio advanced on him, looked like he pulled a gun or knife, etc) or that he seriously thought Recio stole something from his car and needed to use force to get it back.

[justanothercalifornian]

just because the law allows you to kill someone over theft doesn't mean you should do it. blows my mind. and I actually support gun ownership. I just can't figure out why you would need to take someone's life for fear of loosing your material possessions. what a backwards world we live in.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

That is your opinion. That is NOT what the law says:

Perhaps not, but it is what the law SHOULD say. The Cowboy Era is long over and human life is too precious to squander on outdated concepts. Somebody running off with a big screen TV or a spare tire does not deserve to die for it.

Cops have to follow this principle, why not private citizens? There's really no rational excuse for it.

[motherofthree]

I guess I'm missing something. By the pictures that CptnRn posted above, it does NOT look like a private road to me. It looks like a regular road to a bunch of houses with a small decorative fence in between it and the main road. Are there signs saying do not enter - private property?

[cBach]

Originally Posted by AustinTx78660

I love how you defend the trigger-happy guy who shot an unarmed, and - by all indications - completely innocent, young man.

Where was the "innocent until proven guilty" premise when he shot and killed the young man? He shot someone who he thought might be doing something wrong and he gets defended by you? He's not the victim here, he's the killer.

I think your view here is extremely perverted.

I totally agree. Why is he presuming that the guy that was shot had bad intentions but the killer had good intentions?