TX - Several issues involved in shooting

[Drizzt]

There is too much information not present in this to make a call one way or the other. I don't think it is going to go well for this fellow in the end...

GEORGETOWN — A Northwest Austin resident accused in the shooting death of a man outside his house in the Avery Ranch area plans to plead not guilty, his lawyer said Monday.

Fred Yazdi, 47, has been charged with murder and appeared at his first pre-trial hearing in the 26th District courtroom in Williamson County.

http://www.statesman.com/news/willia...t-2203580.html

The fact that the guy was hiding under Yazdi's wife's car is in the favor of the homeowner, but we really don't know what everyone's actions were after Yazdi caught him.

[TXAZ]

Local media had a field day with this about 3 weeks ago, as there may have been a couple of 'updates' in the story as told to police from the home owner. The truth is not clear from any of the news reports (surprise), we'll realistically have to wait for the trial.

In the end, this may support the axiom "there are 4 sides to every story: The plaintiff's, the defendants, the verdict and the truth." It's not clear to me where the media versions lie.

[ClayInTx]

Hiding under a car is not a clear indication of a threat of bodily harm or death. I believe it’s going to go bad for this guy.
.

[csmsss]

Hmmmm. Travis County. He couldn't have picked a worse place in the state to have a shooting. And I don't see how the castle doctrine could possibly come into play, considering the shooting happened outside. I wouldn't want to be the attorney arguing on his behalf in this case.

[Ben Towe]

Isn't there a Texas state law that addresses intruders on your property after dark?

[GlockedNLoded32]

Texas Laws on Protection of Property

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

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.
(b) 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:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.42. [COLOR="yellow"] 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.[/COLOR]

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, based on the new reports, Fred Yazdi is in a LOT of trouble. He apparently has given a statement to police that he shot the man because the man was trying to flee; yet Mr. Yazdi had no authority to detain the man (a citizen's arrest in Texas requires you witness the crime) and the man had not committed any property crime that allows the use of deadly force in Texas.

The initial news reports kept repeating the "crimes against property" angle; but I think that would be a very weak link to hang the defense on. I notice that one story reports that Mr. Yazdi had requested a public defender and a later report indicates he has hired his own counsel.

This was a guy who really should have spent the money to talk to a lawyer before hand. I imagine he is going to be regretting not doing that for a long time to come.

[CowTowner]

a citizen's arrest in Texas requires you witness the crime

Interesting. I had no idea there was any provision for a citizen's arrest in Texas.
Thank goodness I can still learn more every day

[Double Naught Spy]

Yeah, I don't see where Yazdi had any justification for shooting the guy given what was reported...even under Texas' laws allowing for defense of property by with lethal force. There was apparently no burglary or vandalism of Yazdi's property, no arson or other serious felony being committed that Yazdi knew about. Basically it looks like he discovered a trespasser and shot the trespasser to keep him from escaping. It doesn't help that Yazdi made it known that the reason for shooting was to keep the shootee from fleeing.

I found this interesting.

Fred Yazdi's wife heard something outside and told police Recio was under her car. According to court documents, Yazdi warned Recio that if he ran, he would kill him.

Recio started running away and police say Yazdi shot him three times in the chest hip and leg. He died there on the sidewalk.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/a...hooting-victim

So Yazdi first threatened to kill Recio if he tried to run and when Recio ran, Yazdi made good on his threat.

Given what it sounds like, having Yazdi surrender is firearms seems prudent.
http://www.kvue.com/news/Yazdi-in-co...140555613.html

[Ben Towe]

Interesting. I had no idea there was any provision for a citizen's arrest in Texas. Thank goodness I can still learn more every day

Most states do. Generally you have to witness a felony to do so.

[MLeake]

I don't think Travis County as location is a factor in this one. From what has been reported, it seems like a bad shoot, and it seems like it would be a bad shoot anywhere in the US, including the other counties in Texas.

[CowTowner]

I don't think Travis County as location is a factor in this one. From what has been reported, it seems like a bad shoot, and it seems like it would be a bad shoot anywhere in the US, including the other counties in Texas.

While I would agree that this appears to be a bad shoot, Travis County is a factor. The Chief of Police is anti-gun and, so I am told, is the County Prosecutor.
***The latter is hear-say and I am not a resident of Travis County.***

[checkmyswag]

I would like to read about some "good" shootings in Travis county. Place has a super bad reputation in terms of CHL holders. Don't know if these are based in the attitudes of the powers that be or actual outcomes of investigations of "good" shootings.

[Double Naught Spy]

While I would agree that this appears to be a bad shoot, Travis County is a factor. The Chief of Police is anti-gun and, so I am told, is the County Prosecutor.
***The latter is hear-say and I am not a resident of Travis County.***

Not being a gun rights issue, but a simple prosecution of the law, I don't follow your logic. Most prosecutors are anti-rape, but nobody seems to think that is a factor in prosecution.

I would like to read about some "good" shootings in Travis county.

There was a big case back in 2000 where a CHL holder shot an unarmed car burglar in the back and killed him after chasing him down (all things that supposedly will result in negative impacts against the good guy). Prosecution was not successful.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...+street+austin

2010...
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...se-540443.html
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/a...xmas-eve-crime

[carguychris]

Most states do [allow a citizen's arrest]. Generally you have to witness a felony to do so.

From the TX Penal Code...

Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
[Subsections (b) and (c) omitted]
(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.

(emphasis mine)

IOW TX law allows a citizen to detain another person "for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest", and it does not have to be for a felony offense.

However, AFAIK the issue here is whether Mr. Yadzi had a reasonable cause to believe that the man under the car had actually committed an arrestable offense. TX law does not seem to allow for a citizen's arrest based on suspicion or mere intent. IOW even if the person under the car had explicitly told Mr. Yadzi, "Yeah, I was going to break into your car / sexually assault your wife" but he hadn't actually done anything, Mr. Yadzi did not have the right to restrain him for it, much less use deadly force to do so.

[Technosavant]

This appears to be the part that got him in trouble:

Originally Posted by The OP's Linked Article

Yazdi told Recio not to flee, and when he did try to get away, Yazdi shot him, according to the arrest warrant.

There's a reason we generally say "shoot to stop the threat" and "once the threat is over, quit shooting." While I agree we don't have a lot of detail, a fleeing person who does not seem to have committed a crime against the homeowner does not seem to me to be a threat.

I expect it will go very badly for Mr. Yazdi, and based on what is being reported, that is probably the way it should go.

[CowTowner]

Most prosecutors are anti-rape, but nobody seems to think that is a factor in prosecution

Very true. But personal beliefs seem to factor into the decision to prosecute, the charges filed and the vigor with which the prosecution is executed.

I too believe that this is going to go badly. Without more information there doesn't appear to be enough evidence to warrant the use of deadly force.

[Double Naught Spy]

Right, it is going to go badly for Yazdi, but not because of the prosecutor's or chief's views on guns. It is going to go badly because he apparently committed murder. The case would not go better for Yazdi in a more pro-gun jurisdiction either. This isn't a guns rights issue. It is a lethal force and murder issue.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

IOW TX law allows a citizen to detain another person "for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest", and it does not have to be for a felony offense.

The statutes concerning lawful arrest are under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

The relevant law is:

(a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.

So for Mr. Yazdi to have the authority to arrest this man, the offense would need to be a felony and have been committed within the view of Mr. Yazdi. Additionally, the statute does NOT authorize the use of deadly force to detain someone. Mr. Yazdi would still have to rely on Section 9 of the Penal Code for any use of deadly force.

It looks like Mr. Yazdi's best angle is to argue that there was an immediate threat of death or serious injury posed by the man; however, that is going to be hard to square with the reporting and the statements given to police.

[Double Naught Spy]

It looks like Mr. Yazdi's best angle is to argue that there was an immediate threat of death or serious injury posed by the man; however, that is going to be hard to square with the reporting and the statements given to police.

Yeah, I don't think conflicting post event fear for life rationalizations will carry much weight when they were not expressed at the time of the event when interviewed by the cops and no witness statements from the time (the girlfriend/wife or whatever) did not indicate such either.

[lll Otto lll]

I would like to read about some "good" shootings in Travis county. Place has a super bad reputation in terms of CHL holders. Don't know if these are based in the attitudes of the powers that be or actual outcomes of investigations of "good" shootings.

Ok, here's a "good shooting" for you. Hispanic male walks into a convenience store and steals a twelve pack. Store clerk shoots a warning shot but the shoplifter doesn't drop the beer. Store clerk then shoots the shoplifter in the back but the shoplifter gets away and later dies. Meanwhile, store clerk picks up the 16 empty shell casings off the ground and hides them and then erases part of the store's surveillance video (in Texas tampering with evidence is a Felony).
Long story short, the store clerk gets probation with no jail time.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...liberatin.html

[lll Otto lll]

While I would agree that this appears to be a bad shoot, Travis County is a factor. The Chief of Police is anti-gun and, so I am told, is the County Prosecutor.

The shooting occurred in Williamson County not Travis. Williamson is ultra conservative while Travis county is as liberal as San Francisco.
The trouble for Yazdi is that the District Attorney prosecuting his case is in an election fight to keep his job. The DA will want to appear tough on crime and will most likely make an example out of Yazdi. I suspect this case will get pleaded down to manslaughter considering that the shooting wasn't premeditated and there were no witnesses. Yazdi made a huge mistake by talking to the cops without the presence of an attorney.

[CowTowner]

The shooting occurred in Williamson County not Travis

I stand corrected and thank you.

[Double Naught Spy]

Nice, Otto!

Since the attitude of Williamson County is ultra conservative, the DA Bradley being a conservative Republican, if we apply the same logic being attributed to Travis County, then folks should be claiming that things are going to go well for Yazdi because of Bradley's pro-gun beliefs. After all, Bradley isn't going to strongly pursue getting a conviction of an accused murderer if the accused murder used a gun, right? Heck, the decision to prosecute may even be dropped since personal beliefs come into making the decision to prosecute.

See how silly all that sounds when you claim things will be worse off for an accused murder because of the county attitude/politics being anti-gun now that you find out he is in a different county with completely different political views toward guns?

Assuming Bradley is re-elected, how the case turns out may be interesting to watch. Bradley is claiming to be bothered a wrong 25 year old murder conviction where the convicted man has not been exonerated.
http://www.texastribune.org/library/...ange-of-heart/

[CowTowner]

See how silly all that sounds when you claim things will be worse off for an accused murder because of the county attitude/politics being anti-gun now that you find out he is in a different county with completely different political views toward guns?

Actually, no I don't. Politics can and do play a role in some cases and places.
So how about we simply agree to disagree?
I hereby disengage and declare myself vanquished.