Fleeing driver shot dead in Avery Ranch (castle, property)

[cBach]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

If a man intrudes into your home, should you have to put yourself at risk to frisk him down and verify he is armed before you shoot him to defend your family?

Oh geeze. The man DID NOT intrude into his home.

That's what 911 is for.

[justanothercalifornian]

if someone comes INTO my home and threatens my family you better believe I will do whatever it takes, killing if necessary, to protect them. that is not what happened in this case.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by atxcio

We are not talking about a hypothetical case where you are threatened. We are talking about a real case where someone is dead and someone has been charged with their murder.

According to the police, Yazdi is the murder "suspect" and the disabled motorist was the "victim". So either you are calling the police so completely incompetent that they have mixed that up, or you are just
choosing to flip around the suspect and victim for the sake of defending an argument... purposely choosing to refer to the victim as "suspect", rather than using that term for the person charged with the crime. And in the process, disrespecting the life and family of the deceased -- talking about them like they are a suspect of a crime. My opinion, of course.

Anyway, how do you know he didn't ring the doorbell, or that he was trying to do so before he was intercepted? How do you know that the victim didn't state that he'd been in a car accident to Yazdi? Seems very likely to me that he would, unless he was completely disoriented. And more importantly, what evidence do you have that he was ever under anyone's car? Just the word of the murder suspect, or his wife about what she "might have thought she saw"?

Again, I suspect the evidence at the crime scene and other witness reports suggest otherwise -- and that's why Yazdi was arrested the same day for the murder.

Amen, I've already repped you but I need to spread the love around so here's a virtual +1 for you. I've been repping everyone that is pointing out the fallacies in cptrains arguments.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Moderator cut: see comment

Not every guy who kills someone deserves to go to prison. There are often questions and discussion that are necessary to determine if the shooting was legal. This is one of those cases. This shooting may have been entirely legal. Maybe you could comprehend that if you would bother to try and read and understand the law.

The recent case of the convenience store clerk shooting and killing a man who was running away with a 12 pack of beer after stealing it proves my point. He was not sent to prison. He was given probation, primarily because he tampered with the evidence after the shooting. He probably would have gotten off with no punishment had he not done so.

So clearly, under the law, there are some cases where theft can result in a death sentence. I didn't say it was OK or that I would take such an action against a thief. What I have said repeatedly is that it could be legal in some cases, and this might be one of them, depending on the facts of the case. Right now, if the facts that have been reported are correct, this might be a legal shooting.

You are the one making up hypothetical BS to justify sending the homeowner to prison, possibly to the death penalty based on your speculation about what might have happened.

Where did you get the idea there was a tire blow out, I cannot find a single news report that says that. Even if it did, what bearing does it have on the shooting?

Some people are sheep and prefer to call the police and hope someone else comes to their defense in time. Often times the police are too late to defend the sheep. Other people believe in taking action to defend themselves and their property, I support those rights. The police rarely ever arrive at a crime scene quickly enough to apprehend the criminals, they spend most of their time taking reports after the criminal is long gone. Even the Fire Department, which has far more fire stations located all over town, has a response time that is often over 3 minutes. It is much longer for the Police.

Yes, I defend a man's right to defend himself and his family. And so does the law. I hope the jury will have 12 people on it who are capable of reading and understanding the law. Moderator cut: see comment

Moderator cut: off topic/personal

If I was on the jury I would say guilty as charged and for the sentencing phase I would go for the maximum allowed sentence.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

If the homeowner, while defending his property or his legally occupied driveway, had reason to fear serious bodily harm to himself or another then he was justified in using deadly force against the intruder.

The location where this situation occured was NOT on a public street, it occurred in the subdivision driveway in front of this man's home, where he normally parked his cars. This area was seperated from the public street by a fence and landscaped border. The person who was shot could not have entered this area without climbing over the fence or walking 4 houses North to the gate and then walking another 4 houses South to this man's house.

He wasn't simply standing in a public street, waiting for a ride when he was shot. Why was he inside of this private fenced area tampering with the property owners car?

See the photo below:

Give it a rest, we already know your viewpoint and many of us disagree and you'll never convince us that the shooter was anything but a cold blooded killer just as you believe the driver deserved the death penalty for getting in an accident on a slick highway in the wrong neighborhood. I hope it never happens to you...

[cBach]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Sorry, that just isn't true. The store clerk was convicted of MURDER, which absolutely IS a rejection of the Castle Doctrine defense in that particular case. The severity or leniency of the sentence is a separate matter. First comes the verdict, then the sentence. Personally, my analysis is that the leniency of the jury largely depended on the perception that the dead guy was a low-life repeat offender, CLEARLY committing an actual crime. If he had been, say, just an A student committing a prank, I feel the punishment would have been much more severe.



Like I said, he is also now a registered felon, lost his vote, etc. In other cases of this type, even without a conviction, the shooter has been successfully sued for millions. It's a big deal to kill someone, with major consequences, no matter what your theory is about what your rights are.

One of my lawyer friends opined that you should think of a cartridge in your "home defense" gun as being worth at least $100,000, because if your bullet has to be dug out of another person, that's what it's going to cost you, bare minimum, no matter what the circumstances were.

And I say that as an avid competitive shooter with a CHL and a fair-sized collection of firearms. IOW you might expect me to side with you on this, but I don't. I simply know better based on the facts. All the brave talk I hear so often about "defending my property" is largely just uninformed. Yes, for sure, defend yourself and your family against harm, if there is a real threat, but seriously, just let the rat go who ripped off your spare tire and is running away, or you might lose your house. That's the reality.



100% agree that Yazdi is LEGALLY innocent until proven guilty, and that's a principle I thoroughly support. But the court of popular opinion is already in session, as it always is in these situations, and if I were Yazdi I'd be sweating it right now. He does not seem to be in a strong position at all.

He APPARENTLY killed an innocent kid, a good kid, who might have been drunk or possibly just stunned from crashing his car, but who almost certainly was not doing anything illegal, and he did it while the kid was trying to run away. The Castle Doctrine, far from being an automatic "Get Out of Jail Free" card, is merely one of the many factors the judge and jury will have to weigh in this case.

I fully agree.

[cBach]

You know what I can't understand. Why those that claim to value human life so much (anti-abortionists) are the ones that are the quickest to pull the trigger on someone for the smallest infraction against them. Oh no, somebody stole your sprinkler head, time to gun him down. It makes the reasons for abortions and the like seem quite reasonable by comparison. Just saying...

[ScoPro]

This thread has degenerated into a hatefest. Pretty sad.

[riaelise]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I wonder, after Yazdi shot him, if he tried to render aid, staunch the bleeding, or otherwise save his life, or if he just left him lying there to die out by the street next to the fire hydrant where he was found.

Even if I shot an intruder in my home, once he was obviously no longer a threat, I'd try to save him if I could, while waiting for Police.

If Yazdi's intention was to hold for apprehension by Police, then once he disabled the suspected intruder, he should have rendered aid. If he didn't, does it matter to anyone and does it say anything?

I totally agree with this post. Hypothetically speaking here, if the 'threat' is no longer a threat (as in the person is down), wth don't you render aid? That shows a callous disregard for a human life and that is abhorrable.

[TheoBald]

I haven't weighed in on this because I hadn't seen the "scene of the crime", but from CaptainRn's photo, that doesn't look private to me - it looks like a street and the fence looks like decoration. I imagine at night it looks even less private - all that concrete, looks like a parking lot. Who said the guy was hiding under the car? Yazdi? Why would the guy be hiding under the car.. unless of course Yazdi was threatening him with a gun - then he would try to hide wherever he could.

For me, Yazdi's a whack job. The problem with gun ownership is less with guns falling into the hands of criminals, than of guns falling into the hands of whack jobs - look at Gabrielle Gifford.