No news about Enrique Recio shooting in Avery Ranch (Cove: crime, homes)

[atxcio]

If the defense chooses a strategy based on what CptnRn has bolded, then they have already lost the case. There was no burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft and no escaping with property. If Yazdi thought there was, he was mistaken. And if you are mistaken and break the law, you still broke the law.

My suspicion is that they will instead try to prove that he felt threatened of death or serious injury to himself or family. A jury will decide if that was a reasonable feeling for him to have in the situation, or if he was just a nut who inevitably was going to shoot someone for something.

Since his upbringing/culture is also no defense for breaking the law, I doubt the defense will use that much either. If he is convicted, maybe it can help in his sentencing phase. At the very least, his aggressive nature/cultural upbringing will help him in prison when he drops the soap.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I guess I haven't followed this very closely, but specifically what was being stolen when he killed the guy? I thought the guy was just 'there' (lost, drunk, whatever - again, I haven't really read up on it).

I am playing devil's advocate here, because I do think there is still room for doubt as to what happened and if it was justified.

There have been very few statements made to the public about what actually transpired. According to the Yazdi's, the guy was underneath their car. Why would someone who had wrecked his car and just needed a ride be underneath someones car, unless they were trying to steal something? Steal a tire, battery or who knows what a drunk thought he needed?

Here is one:

The Blotter | www.statesman.com

Yazdi’s wife told officers that she heard voices outside the home, saw a man under her car and woke her husband, who went outside, the document said. Yazdi told police that he saw Recio outside the home and ordered him not to flee several times, the document said. He said he told Recio “If you flee, I’m going to shoot you,” the affidavit said. When Recio tried to run, Yazdi fired, it said.

And this:

Court documents suggest possible prosecution strategy in... | www.mystatesman.com

Police at the time said they had received a report at 2:57 a.m. that Recio, 23, had crashed the car he was driving in an area less than a mile from Yazdi’s home on Staked Plains Drive. Yazdi found him underneath Yazdi’s wife’s car, Austin police said. Yazdi told Recio not to flee, police said, and when Recio tried to get away, Yazdi shot him three times.

If Yazdi "reasonably believed" that Recio was stealing something from his car, and the only way he could retrieve it was to prevent Recio from fleeing the scene, then he was probably justified under Texas law in using deadly force to prevent his fleeing.

Why else would someone be underneath your car unless they were trying to steal something?

It is going to be up to the jury to decide if Yazdi's actions were reasonable after they hear all of the evidence, and after the are educated by the court on how the law interprets these events.

A jury in San Antonio recently decided that a man who called an escort to his house was reasonably justified in shooting her when she attempted to flee the house with his money, without having provided the sex services he assumed he was paying for. I don't agree with that verdict, he shot her during the commission of a crime, but I was not on the jury and did not hear all of the evidence and rulings they were required to work with.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by atxcio

If the defense chooses a strategy based on what CptnRn has bolded, then they have already lost the case. There was no burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft and no escaping with property. If Yazdi thought there was, he was mistaken. And if you are mistaken and break the law, you still broke the law.

My suspicion is that they will instead try to prove that he felt threatened of death or serious injury to himself or family. A jury will decide if that was a reasonable feeling for him to have in the situation, or if he was just a nut who inevitably was going to shoot someone for something.

Since his upbringing/culture is also no defense for breaking the law, I doubt the defense will use that much either. If he is convicted, maybe it can help in his sentencing phase. At the very least, his aggressive nature/cultural upbringing will help him in prison when he drops the soap.

The way I read the law, it does not expect the shooter to have absolute proof that a theft had taken place and that the perpetrator was escaping with property, only a "reasonable belief" that had happened.

A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

[10scoachrick]

Yazdi had better talk car-bomb instead of someone trying to steal his vehicle parts if he's going to justify deadly force...IMO, of course.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

Yazdi had better talk car-bomb instead of someone trying to steal his vehicle parts if he's going to justify deadly force...IMO, of course.

The law does not support your opinion regarding the value of the item stolen. The law has upheld several deadly force shootings where the perpitrator stole only a 12 pack of beer.

[woodinvilleguy]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I am playing devil's advocate here, because I do think there is still room for doubt as to what happened and if it was justified.

There have been very few statements made to the public about what actually transpired. According to the Yazdi's, the guy was underneath their car. Why would someone who had wrecked his car and just needed a ride be underneath someones car, unless they were trying to steal something? Steal a tire, battery or who knows what a drunk thought he needed?

Here is one:
And this:

If Yazdi "reasonably believed" that Recio was stealing something from his car, and the only way he could retrieve it was to prevent Recio from fleeing the scene, then he was probably justified under Texas law in using deadly force to prevent his fleeing.

Why else would someone be underneath your car unless they were trying to steal something?

It is going to be up to the jury to decide if Yazdi's actions were reasonable after they hear all of the evidence, and after the are educated by the court on how the law interprets these events.

A jury in San Antonio recently decided that a man who called an escort to his house was reasonably justified in shooting her when she attempted to flee the house with his money, without having provided the sex services he assume he was paying for. I don't agree with that verdict, he shot her during the commission of a crime, but I was not on the jury and did not hear all of the evidence and rulings they were required to work with.

This is my personal problem with the castle doctrine. The burden of proof goes to the person that was shot vs. the person who shoots. If the person is dead, basically you can say anything you want and the detectives have to prove that you lied. I have nothing against owning guns, just that with owning a gun you incur a higher responsibility than someone without because you know have an easy ability to cause great harm. We as a society, seem to forget that part of the deal.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

The way I read the law, it does not expect the shooter to have absolute proof that a theft had taken place and that the perpetrator was escaping with property, only a "reasonable belief" that had happened.

My understanding is there has to be an actual theft (committed immediately), and the "reasonable belief" part is that force was necessary to stop it or prevent the person fleeing. This is different from the protection from threat of bodily injury or death, which the action has not yet occurred and the "reasonable belief" that it could happen is enough to justify the shooting.

So, for example, if a store clerk sees someone walk out with a 12 pack without paying (at night), and they shoot them -- probably OK. If someone walks out of the store wearing a big overcoat, that could conceal something that was stolen, and they shoot them and nothing was stolen -- they will probably go to jail.

At least that's how I think it works, but I'm no lawyer.

I think Yazdi will have some trouble with a jury believing the "reasonable" part, either way.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by woodinvilleguy

This is my personal problem with the castle doctrine. The burden of proof goes to the person that was shot vs. the person who shoots. If the person is dead, basically you can say anything you want and the detectives have to prove that you lied. I have nothing against owning guns, just that with owning a gun you incur a higher responsibility than someone without because you know have an easy ability to cause great harm. We as a society, seem to forget that part of the deal.

I also find it amazing that we can have laws that require stopping and rendering aid in auto accidents, yet we can have another law which basically says "... unless that injured person happens to come to your door for help, then you can kill them instead."

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by atxcio

My understanding is there has to be an actual theft (committed immediately), and the "reasonable belief" part is that force was necessary to stop it or prevent the person fleeing. This is different from the protection from threat of bodily injury or death, which the action has not yet occurred and the "reasonable belief" that it could happen is enough to justify the shooting.

That is not what I read:

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

Force is justified if I reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent the other's unlawful interference with the property

[ATX Wahine]

I'll have to remember to pull out my Springfield the next time the school bus uses my long driveway to turn around. After all, how do I *really* know that's a driver and children onboard?

Ridiculous. The man suffers from paranoia and rage: a terrible combination to have armed in a family neighborhood. I hope he is convicted and spends many years in prison.