Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AUSTIN -- Police investigated a fatal shooting Friday morning. Officers say a homeowner opened fire when a man walked onto his property. According to state records, Fred Yazdi, 36, lives at the house with his wife and children. When a man came onto his property, police say Yazdi opened fire, shooting and killing him. The victim died along the sidewalk on the other side of an iron fence that runs in front of the home. According to state records, the car that crashed belongs to a 23-year-old who lived about a mile away. It’s unclear whether he knew Yazdi.
A Taco Truck owner in downtown Oakland shot a lowlife that was trying to hold himup at gunpoint the other night, while he was cleaning the parking lot around his truck. There is video camera surveillance of it somewhere on the net. Both were shot in the exchange but both lived. Too bad now we will have to pay for that lowlifes medical bills, trial and jail.
Plus we are still waiting to see if the Taco Truck driver will get charged for defending himself with a unlicensed concealed weapon.
Lots of chatter on the local gun forums to get out and support this guy. Kind of like an Occupy movement for gun owners. We will see how far that goes.
According to state records, Fred Yazdi, 36, lives at the house with his wife and children. When a man came onto his property, police say Yazdi opened fire, shooting and killing him. The victim died along the sidewalk on the other side of an iron fence that runs in front of the home.
People fail to understand that lethal force laws still apply in conjunction with the Castle Doctrine laws. I don't know why someone would open fire on someone on the sidewalk side of a fence in a suburban area (if he dropped and died where shot). This does not, at face value, appear to meat "fear of imminent lethal force" criteria.
People fail to understand that lethal force laws still apply in conjunction with the Castle Doctrine laws. I don't know why someone would open fire on someone on the sidewalk side of a fence in a suburban area (if he dropped and died where shot). This does not, at face value, appear to meat "fear of imminent lethal force" criteria.
"if he dropped and died where shot", we don't know that.
There is not enough information available yet to assume any of that. He could have been shot attacking the guy in the yard and stumbled over to the fence after being shot. Without more information it is too early to make any judgements.
Looking at the yard photos I did observe that the yards were very small. Not much distance between the sidewalk and the house. The homeowner could have easily been standing on his front porch and felt like the guy was attacking him. I doubt many people would have shot someone simply because they were stumbling down the sidewalk.
"if he dropped and died where shot", we don't know that.
There is not enough information available yet to assume any of that. He could have been shot attacking the guy in the yard and stumbled over to the fence after being shot. Without more information it is too early to make any judgements.
Looking at the yard photos I did observe that the yards were very small. Not much distance between the sidewalk and the house. The homeowner could have easily been standing on his front porch and felt like the guy was attacking him. I doubt many people would have shot someone simply because they were stumbling down the sidewalk.
Reading is fundamental to comprehension. I qualified my statements and made no assumptions.
People fail to understand that lethal force laws still apply in conjunction with the Castle Doctrine laws. I don't know why someone would open fire on someone on the sidewalk side of a fence in a suburban area (if he dropped and died where shot). This does not, at face value, appear to meat "fear of imminent lethal force" criteria.
There is not enough information available yet for anyone to determine anything "at face value". Meet in this usage is spelled "meet".
Also "fear of imminent lethal force" is not exactly a criteria mentioned in the Castle Doctrine in Texas.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
Last edited by CptnRn; 02-03-2012 at 02:48 PM..
Reason: also...
LOL, it's in your link, (people should really learn to read legislation) grey <strikeout> is used to indicate repealed sections 9.32 covers the use of deadly force in section 9.31
From the Bill...
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
<strikeout>(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] </strikeout> when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
So you have no duty to retreat and can use force, the level of that force is only equal force, except where provided by Sec 9.32, which is described in sub-sections (A) and (B) above.
(A) clearly states you may use deadly force to protect the actor against the others use of unlawful deadly force, or to protect others against the imminent commission of unlawful deadly force or a bunch of malum in se offenses.
It's obvious that more information needs to come out on this to determine if the shooting was legal, but initial impressions, shot outside the house (possibly outside the fence), no 911 call prior, vocal contact with the victim before shots fire, and the victim being a straight A student at an acclaimed university?
Add the neighbors comments and it starts sounding fishy imo, it can certainly be argued that he comes off as more trigger happy and/or paranoid than in actual need of self defense, BUT that's what the police and DA's are employed to work out, not me, I'll keep an eye on this story though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
