No news about Enrique Recio shooting in Avery Ranch (move, bars)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Ole Texan

'a double-tap' what a genteel way to describe the ending of someone's life. If this scumbag was in the military he would clearly understand the finality of death and should be able to quickly assess a real threat.

Double tap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[atxcio]

So what do we think he'll get as far as a sentence? The judge will make that decision next week, it could be between 5-99 years. I'm guessing he gets around 20.

I found it strange that he opted out of the jury sentencing. Especially with what seemed like 2 sympathetic jurors. Could it be that he just overreacted again, getting mad at the jury for convicting him and just deciding "They screwed me, so now I won't let them sentence me"? By rejecting the jury sentencing, he lost the opportunity to get the charge reduced to 2nd degree murder "under sudden passion".

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by atxcio

So what do we think he'll get as far as a sentence? The judge will make that decision next week, it could be between 5-99 years. I'm guessing he gets around 20.

I found it strange that he opted out of the jury sentencing. Especially with what seemed like 2 sympathetic jurors. Could it be that he just overreacted again, getting mad at the jury for convicting him and just deciding "They screwed me, so now I won't let them sentence me"? By rejecting the jury sentencing, he lost the opportunity to get the charge reduced to 2nd degree murder "under sudden passion".

It is possible that given the 10-2 deadlock on the jury that he would not have faired well. I assume his lawyer also influenced his decision. I would expect a judge to be more rational in weigh how heinous the crime was and weigh it against other similar crimes and perpetrators.

Considering it on a scale of 1-10:

1= the lowest, an otherwise decent person who is almost an innocent victim of circumstances.

10 = being a blood thirsty, evil, known violent criminal with an extensive record, who intentionally planned and committed murder while during the commission of a crime.

Justice must measure the severity of the crime and consider to what degree Recio contributed to the occurrence.

Considering that Yazdi is a father, husband, gainfully employed individual and productive member of the community, with no significant criminal history; a foreigner who did not understand his rights here, who to a very large degree he is a victim of the circumstances (he did not ask for an inebriated Recio to come wandering into his yard at 3 PM, scaring his wife and family with his inexplicable behavior).

I would say he is maybe a 2 on that scale. I think Yazdi's biggest crime was misunderstanding his rights and to what degree he could protect himself in our society.

I think to some degree he was found guilty because he is not a very likable guy, a foreigner who intimidated and scared his neighbors.

I believe that if he had been a more likable, friendly person, considered highly by his neighbors, he would have been found not guilty.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I would say he is maybe a 2 on that scale. I think Yazdi's biggest crime was misunderstanding his rights and to what degree he could protect himself in our society.

I'd put him at about a 5 on your scale. Even if he did misunderstand his rights, he showed significant disregard for human life. That pulls him a little closer to the "blood thirsty, evil" side. Also, there may be reason to believe he would pose a future threat to his neighbors and others.

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I think to some degree he was found guilty because he is not a very likable guy, a foreigner who intimidated and scared his neighbors.

I believe that if he had been a more likable, friendly person, considered highly by his neighbors, he would have been found not guilty.

That is certainly true, and it should be lesson to remember the golden rule. Otherwise, it may come back to bite you. What I find appalling is that he showed no remorse in court for taking Recio's life during the trial. Yet after being found guilty, when the judge informed him he's looking at 5-99 years he breaks down and cries. He sheds tears only for himself, it seems. That's going to hurt him in sentencing, even with the judge.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by atxcio

I'd put him at about a 5 on your scale. Even if he did misunderstand his rights, he showed significant disregard for human life. That pulls him a little closer to the "blood thirsty, evil" side. Also, there may be reason to believe he would pose a future threat to his neighbors and others.


That is certainly true, and it should be lesson to remember the golden rule. Otherwise, it may come back to bite you. What I find appalling is that he showed no remorse in court for taking Recio's life during the trial. Yet after being found guilty, when the judge informed him he's looking at 5-99 years he breaks down and cries. He sheds tears only for himself, it seems. That's going to hurt him in sentencing, even with the judge.

Well, if you misunderstood what your rights were, and were suddenly confronted with a verdict that shockingly contradicted your understanding, you would probably cry too.

I think in order to get anywhere close to a 5 one would have to be knowingly and intentionally setting out to break the law and kill someone.

On a scale of 5-99 years, you guess around 20 years. 20 years equates to only about a 2 on a scale of 1-10. So it appears we are closer in agreement then we thought.

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

That is not new information and there is nothing surprising about that in my opinion. Most self defense classes teach one to double-tap at minimum. If you are going to shoot, make sure they stay down.

Sorry, no self defense class teaches you to shoot someone when they are down. When you are in the initial act of shooting, sure, fire as many rounds as you need to. But to go up to someone who is down and deliver the coup-de-grace is not taught by any legit class. That's not self defense, that's an execution.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by austinnerd

Sorry, no self defense class teaches you to shoot someone when they are down. When you are in the initial act of shooting, sure, fire as many rounds as you need to. But to go up to someone who is down and deliver the coup-de-grace is not taught by any legit class. That's not self defense, that's an execution.

How many self defense classes have you taken? All of them? If not how can you make that claim?

You were not there were you? No you weren't. There were no eye witnesses.

So everything you say above is pure fantasy. No proof it happened that way. So your condemnation is based on what? Speculation you read in the newspaper? How often are they accurate? Rarely in my experience.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Well, if you misunderstood what your rights were, and were suddenly confronted with a verdict that shockingly contradicted your understanding, you would probably cry too.

Killing another man, shooting him when he's down, not showing a bit of remorse then bawling when he hears his potential sentence?

To me, that looks like a crazy gun-toting coward. In any culture.

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

How many self defense classes have you taken? All of them? If not how can you make that claim?

You were not there were you? No you weren't. There were no eye witnesses.

So everything you say above is pure fantasy. No proof it happened that way. So your condemnation is based on what? Speculation you read in the newspaper? How often are they accurate? Rarely in my experience.

No, obviously I have not taken "all of them", but I've taken a few and I know folks who teach them, and absolutely positively there is no way that any of them would teach to pop two rounds into someone who is down and not a reasonable threat.

My statement isn't about whether or not this is what he did. What I said was to have someone who is supposedly defending himself to go up to a downed individual and to shoot them twice will usually net you a manslaughter/murder conviction. Your post was in reply to a comment that said that he shot him twice while Recio was down. You didn't question the veracity of that statement and therefore implied that the act of double tapping a downed individual was taught by "most self defense classes". It's that implication that prompted my reply.

[Ole Texan]

cptnrn "Most self defense classes teach one to double-tap at minimum. If you are going to shoot, make sure they stay down."

Originally Posted by austinnerd View Post
Sorry, no self defense class teaches you to shoot someone when they are down.

cptnrn "How many self defense classes have you taken? All of them? If not how can you make that claim?"

Bit of a double standard here cptn, unless of course you have attended MOST self defense classes.