Avery Ranch Shooting [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Avery Ranch Shooting


IT0
02-07-2012, 09:55
Edit...misspelled AVERY RANCH in the title. Sorry.

This happened about 5 minutes from my house. First let me say that The Austin American Statesman leans pretty far left, keep that in mind while reading the story:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/avery-ranch-man-charged-with-murder-after-early-2147469.html

In a nut shell from reading several sources:

1) Enrique Recio (23) Had a blowout and wrecked his car at 3am on Friday Night 2/3/12. The story does not elaborate about it, an nothing has been said whether alcohol was involved, but it was a single car accident and he was hiding afterwords.

2) So this guy wrecks his car then runs off an hides under the a car at a residence belonging to Fred Yazdi (47). How Fred found out this guy was under his wife's car at 3am is a mystery to me, but he did.

3) Fred get his gun and confronts Enrique, and tells him to stay right there (don't run) the cops on the way.

4) Enrique, runs and Fred shoots him.

5) Fred is charged with murder.

The liberal media is having a field day with this. I am undecided, if somebody was under my wife's car at 3am, I would be very concerned too, but I don't know all the details.

Any thoughts on this?

EDIT: update with a little more details- http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Funeral-services-today-for-victim-in-Friday-shooting-138787974.html

mgo
02-07-2012, 10:02
Shooting down a fleeing intruder is not self defense. Plain and simple. Thanks for the article. It is a reminder to me as a concealed carry permit holder that I cannot forget judgement and restraint.

Gunshine
02-07-2012, 10:08
Not being in Texas I'm not really familiar with the law. I do understand that in Texas a resident may use his weapon to protect his property as well as himself.

The problem here may be attempting to prove that life or property was being protected. The man was running. Possibly an illegal. But running away makes you frightened not a thief or potential murderer.

Given what I know, which is little I'd say he's in for a tough fight to stay out of jail.

OctoberRust
02-07-2012, 10:44
If the story is correct that we're reading. Looks like a bad shoot.

SCmasterblaster
02-07-2012, 12:18
Definitely looks like a bad shoot. The guy running away was not an act of violence toward the gun holder.

IT0
02-07-2012, 12:47
[Playing Devil's Advocate]

It is my understanding that:

In Texas a person may use deadly force to protect himself, his family and his property. So shooting a person to recover your property, as in you caught them in the act of stealing, and they ran away, and you shot, is somehow not a violation of the law. (I am not a lawyer)

So....IF YOU found a strange man under your wife's car in the middle of the night, what would you do?

I am pretty sure even playing Devil's Advocate, that I would not shoot them but I can see being concerned they were up to no good with my wife's car.

kensteele
02-07-2012, 12:50
Wow. :wow:

Travclem
02-07-2012, 12:52
Shooting down a fleeing intruder is not self defense. Plain and simple. Thanks for the article. It is a reminder to me as a concealed carry permit holder that I cannot forget judgement and restraint.
Yes it is, for all you know they are heading for cover to shoot back. In Texas, lethal force is justified for criminal mischief in the night time.

kensteele
02-07-2012, 12:54
Yes it is, for all you know they are heading for cover to shoot back. In Texas, lethal force is justified for criminal mischief in the night time.

So did the police get it wrong when they arrested the shooter and took him to jail and charged him with murder? Something tells me there is little to no evidence of "criminal mischief in the nighttime."

Bren
02-07-2012, 13:09
4) Enrique, runs and Fred shoots him.

5) Fred is charged with murder.



That seems to be the proper charge. I wonder what Fred thought would happen?

Hint: if you shoot a tresspasser for trying to get away, you should probably go ahead and bury him.

SigFTW
02-07-2012, 13:10
The homeowner should have stayed in the house and waited for the cops, there was no reason to confront a guy hiding under his car.

kensteele
02-07-2012, 13:12
The homeowner should have stayed in the house and waited for the cops, there was no reason to confront a guy hiding under his car.

what should you do, stay inside and let him set your house on fire? stay inside and let him steal your car?

it's not against the law in tx to come outside your home to "confront" a trespasser or thief.

Bren
02-07-2012, 13:17
what should you do, stay inside and let him set your house on fire? stay inside and let him steal your car?

it's not against the law in tx to come outside your home to "confront" a trespasser or thief.

That is true, but it is against the law to shoot one running away, unless it is necessary to recover property taken in a "burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime" and there is no other means for recovering the property.

If he was 100 yards away with Fred's hubcaps under his arm, it might be another story.

Travclem
02-07-2012, 13:19
So did the police get it wrong when they arrested the shooter and took him to jail and charged him with murder? Something tells me there is little to no evidence of "criminal mischief in the nighttime."
I don't know the whole story so I don't know who was right or wrong. I guess that'll be for the jury to decide now. A charge is not a conviction.

AA#5
02-07-2012, 13:44
The homeowner should have stayed in the house and waited for the cops, there was no reason to confront a guy hiding under his car.

Other than a need to play cop.....

cowboy1964
02-07-2012, 13:53
Glad this idiot didn't live next to me. Looks like a pretty populated area.

SigFTW
02-07-2012, 15:06
what should you do, stay inside and let him set your house on fire? stay inside and let him steal your car?

it's not against the law in tx to come outside your home to "confront" a trespasser or thief.

We are talking about a guy hiding under a car, not setting the house of fire, not stilling a car! Man, am I glad I did not hide under your car when I was a kid and ran away from home, you would have have shot me:faint:

What if his friend comes and shoots you in the back while you have him at gun point? what if you trip over a cat and shoot your in the foot:wow:? what if, what if??? we can talk about what if all we want. the fact is that just because you confront a BG with a gun does not mean you will be in control of the situation. You have to be willing to get shot or killed yourself (over stuff). For my family I am willing, for stuff I am not.

IT0
02-07-2012, 15:16
Glad this idiot didn't live next to me. Looks like a pretty populated area.

You bring up an interesting point, I cant imagine discharging a firearm in that neighborhood. If you miss, there is no telling what you might hit.

Altaris
02-07-2012, 15:20
We were talking about this at work yesterday. The wife said she heard voices outside. For all we know the guy was just hiding while he was calling his friend to ask for a ride, since he had just wrecked his car.

Is just sitting in someones yard considered criminal mischief? (serious question...I don't know).

IT0
02-07-2012, 15:26
I read that he was hiding under her car, so yeah that would be mischief, but to be fair there is a lot of misinformation out there about it, and whether or not he was intoxicated is conspicuously missing from the article.

Bren
02-07-2012, 15:33
I read that he was hiding under her car, so yeah that would be mischief, but to be fair there is a lot of misinformation out there about it, and whether or not he was intoxicated is conspicuously missing from the article.

"criminal mischief" means destroying property, not just mischief as the term is commonly used to refer to children.

Gunhaver
02-07-2012, 15:35
Looks to me like Fred might have been itching to shoot someone. That might explain how he found a guy under his wife's car at 3AM.

RussP
02-07-2012, 16:24
Too many unknowns, too many questions to draw any conclusion from the news report version(s) of the shooting.

Able 5
02-07-2012, 17:23
yep, too many of everything....

kensteele
02-07-2012, 17:56
We are talking about a guy hiding under a car, not setting the house of fire, not stilling a car! Man, am I glad I did not hide under your car when I was a kid and ran away from home, you would have have shot me:faint:

What if his friend comes and shoots you in the back while you have him at gun point? what if you trip over a cat and shoot your in the foot:wow:? what if, what if??? we can talk about what if all we want. the fact is that just because you confront a BG with a gun does not mean you will be in control of the situation. You have to be willing to get shot or killed yourself (over stuff). For my family I am willing, for stuff I am not.

You bring up an interesting point, I cant imagine discharging a firearm in that neighborhood. If you miss, there is no telling what you might hit.

We were talking about this at work yesterday. The wife said she heard voices outside. For all we know the guy was just hiding while he was calling his friend to ask for a ride, since he had just wrecked his car.

Is just sitting in someones yard considered criminal mischief? (serious question...I don't know).

You guys aren't really from TX, are you? :whistling:

SpringerTGO
02-07-2012, 18:00
It never ceases to amaze me when so many people come have enough answers to judge the homeowner. We really don't have a clue about the specifics.
Until we have all of the facts, don't you think we should give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt?

It's kind of funny how so many people on this forum discuss what to say to the cops if a person is involved in a "justifiable" shooting. The common answer is to be prepared to go to jail to sort things out.

All we know is a homeowner shot someone in the early morning, and 1/2 the people on a pro gun forum are convicting the guy, without evidence!

Funny stuff.

Bruce M
02-07-2012, 19:50
I don't know the whole story so I don't know who was right or wrong. I guess that'll be for the jury to decide now. A charge is not a conviction.

Agreed a charge is not a conviction. However a charge is, if nothing else, potentially devastating financially.

Dragoon44
02-07-2012, 20:10
this story mentions a neighbors statement that Yadzi had previously state to her that He would not hesitate to shot if he found someone on his property.

http://digitaltexan.net/2012/austin-local-news/man-involved-car-crash-shot-killed-entering-homeowners-yard/article25565/

This one states that the body was found on the sidewalk 100 feet from the residence.

http://site.ninjacops.com/blog/13596/man-charged-with-murder-after-early-morning-shooting/

The only reported statements or far from the shooter is that he told the cops he had warned the guy if he tried to flee he would shoot him and he did.

The case is going to the Grand Jury so they will decide if he goes to trial or not.

Gunnut 45/454
02-07-2012, 20:22
So I take it the after dark Trespass law no longer applies in TX? If I remember correct you can shoot Trespassers after dark in TX? Just saying!:whistling:

IT0
02-07-2012, 20:42
this story mentions a neighbors statement that Yadzi had previously state to her that He would not hesitate to shot if he found someone on his property.....

There is a good example of why its a good idea to keep your mouth shut. I wonder if he talking big talk on the internets too, and if that could be used against him?

RussP
02-07-2012, 21:00
this story mentions a neighbors statement that Yadzi had previously state to her that He would not hesitate to shot if he found someone on his property.

http://digitaltexan.net/2012/austin-local-news/man-involved-car-crash-shot-killed-entering-homeowners-yard/article25565/

This one states that the body was found on the sidewalk 100 feet from the residence.

http://site.ninjacops.com/blog/13596/man-charged-with-murder-after-early-morning-shooting/

The only reported statements or far from the shooter is that he told the cops he had warned the guy if he tried to flee he would shoot him and he did.

The case is going to the Grand Jury so they will decide if he goes to trial or not.A couple other things: Why did Recio leave his wrecked car and walk to Yadzi's house? Did Recio call the police about the accident 9 minutes before the call was made to police about a possible homicide, or did someone else?

Dragoon44
02-07-2012, 21:57
A couple other things: Why did Recio leave his wrecked car and walk to Yadzi's house? Did Recio call the police about the accident 9 minutes before the call was made to police about a possible homicide, or did someone else?

One of the stories mentioned he had called friends to come pick him up. when they arrived he was already dead.

TDC20
02-08-2012, 01:14
As crazy as it seems, if I understand the Texas law correctly, Fred should not be charged with any crime. A person is justified, only after dark, to shoot a fleeing criminal. How did Fred know what the guy was doing under his wife's car? The article mentioned that Fred was employed by the IRS, could it be that someone whom Fred audited was going to get even by cutting his brake lines, or planting a bomb on Fred's car? Even if the guy was just trying to steal something off of Fred's car, it doesn't matter. The facts presented so far (and I'm not saying we have all the facts) put Fred in the right in terms of Texas law. Fred said he gave the guy warning that if he runs, he shoots. If there's no conflicting evidence or testimony to refute Fred's claim, then he walks. I'm not saying it's right, but that's Texas law. If you don't like it, then blame the state legislators who specifically wrote it the way they did . Maybe this case will be a catalyst to get that part of the law changed. I certainly wouldn't have shot the kid if he ran.

BTW, 100 feet from the home is nothing. My driveway is 100 feet long, and a person with a GS wound could easily make 50 feet or more before collapsing. Forensics should determine if Fred's story checks out. It sounds to me that only his wife could say differently, and she doesn't have to testify against him.

As far as the "role model" kid claim goes, he already fled the scene of a single car accident (isn't that a felony in every state?), and appeared to be hiding from the police. When Fred appeared with a gun and the order to not run or get shot, I'm pretty sure the kid, already knowing he was in deep doodoo if he got caught fleeing the scene of an accident, figured Fred was bluffing and wouldn't shoot him, and had to get away before the cops arrived. Unfortunately, he figured wrong. In effect, Fred did indeed shoot a fleeing felon (although he couldn't have known it at the time).

The whole thing is a tragedy that could have been prevented if either one of 2 people had used better judgement.

RussP
02-08-2012, 05:45
One of the stories mentioned he had called friends to come pick him up. when they arrived he was already dead.One news report said he'd wrecked his car on Avery Ranch Road near the railroad crossing and that the shooting occurred in the 11300 block of Staked Plains Dr. A more recent news report said that the police report said they responded to 11304 Staked Plains Loop. So, lets combine the two news reports and say it occurred at 11304 Staked Plains Dr.

Do a search on Google Earth for 11304 Staked Plains Dr, Austin, TX. Go to the Street View and look at the house, where the vehicle is parked, the fence between where the car is and the sidewalk.

Bren
02-08-2012, 06:00
As crazy as it seems, if I understand the Texas law correctly, Fred should not be charged with any crime. A person is justified, only after dark, to shoot a fleeing criminal.

There is your problem, and maybe Fred's.

Texas law DOES NOT say that, but some people seem to think it does. Even the police aren't allowed to shoot any "fleeing criminal."

In fact it only allows you to shoot fleeing criminals who are fleeing with your property and there is no other way to get your property back. There was no claim that this guy had property and those little technicalities are the difference between "justified" and "murder."

IT0
02-08-2012, 06:16
...

As far as the "role model" kid claim goes, he already fled the scene of a single car accident (isn't that a felony in every state?), and appeared to be hiding from the police. When Fred appeared with a gun and the order to not run ....

1) He was not a kid, he was an adult. If I found a teenage boy under my wife's car, I would not be all that concerned.

2) I am not so sure you understand Texas law.

3) Again, a single person accident and he is hiding from the cops? That is HIGHLY suspicious. If you have blowout and wreck your car, you stay their and call a tow truck; the whole running and hiding under some car to call a buddy to come get you just does not smell right.

Bill Lumberg
02-08-2012, 09:22
In this particular case, you would be correct. If the shooter were a) a police officer, b) just saw the perp inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict death or serious bodily injury on someone, and had a reasonable belief that the perp posed an imminent threat in flight, it would have been legit. Definitely not in this case. Shooting down a fleeing intruder is not self defense. Plain and simple. Thanks for the article. It is a reminder to me as a concealed carry permit holder that I cannot forget judgement and restraint.

IT0
02-08-2012, 09:27
I read somewhere recently that every bullet you shoot has a lawyer attached. Even if that hypothetical guy had my laptop in his hands as he ran away, it seems like it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just buy a new laptop.

Dragoon44
02-08-2012, 10:43
As crazy as it seems, if I understand the Texas law correctly, Fred should not be charged with any crime.

Obviously your understanding of the law and the police and District attorney's are quite different. I think the nod goes to them.

How did Fred know what the guy was doing under his wife's car? The article mentioned that Fred was employed by the IRS, could it be that someone whom Fred audited was going to get even by cutting his brake lines, or planting a bomb on Fred's car?

two things here,

1. the only one who claims they saw the guy under the car is the wife. while this could be true it could also be an after the fact item meant as a defense for her husband. think about it for a minute, the chances of spotting someone under a car even in a well lighted neighborhood at 3am.

the shooter himself only states he found the guy in his yard and warned him not to flee or he would shoot. Notice there is no statement of him saying he shot in self defense or to protect any of his property from damage or theft.

2. the "what if he was gonna......... spiel so often raised in situation like this doesn't hold water, actions based on paranoia, fear or panic are generally not justifiable. that is because the standard is the reasonable man standard not the paranoid man standard. your actions are only going to be justified when compared to what a reasonable man would reasonably believe was necessary.

voomie
02-08-2012, 11:12
I hate to rain on everyone's parade but....Open carry would have prevented this...:rofl:

SigFTW
02-08-2012, 11:20
I hate to rain on everyone's parade but....Open carry would have prevented this...:rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

ColdSteelNail
02-08-2012, 11:51
I won't wager how this will come out but I probably would NOT have fired under the circumstances as they were reported. I would have just tried to make myself small and let him go. Of course the location and safety of my wife would figure in also.

AZ Honkey
02-08-2012, 13:38
Question...

IF the victim was running away, why was there a bullet wound in his chest?


Also, why hasn't anyone asked that question?

SCmasterblaster
02-08-2012, 13:58
Question...

IF the victim was running away, why was there a bullet wound in his chest?


Also, why hasn't anyone asked that question?

It must have been an EXIT wound out of the chest.

Dragoon44
02-08-2012, 13:58
Question...

IF the victim was running away, why was there a bullet wound in his chest?


Also, why hasn't anyone asked that question?

the reports I have seen use the term Flee that does not necessarily mean turning your back and running. From what I can tell he was most likely backing away in an attempt to get away.

grmnracing
02-08-2012, 14:20
It may be knocked down to manslaughter. I can't see the shooter getting off without charges.

As the saying goes "dead men can't tell lies".

If the guy that got shot was still alive, I believe the shooter would be in jail for life.

IT0
02-08-2012, 14:54
Austin, TX (Travis county) is the most liberal county and city in the state of Texas. Back when Bush was running for his first term, he took every county in Texas except Travis and one down south on the boarder. Whatever stereotype you may hold dear to your heart about Texas and the South, does not apply to Austin. Austin is weird and damn proud of it too. We even have "Keep Austin Weird" bumper stickers.

However, I think I read that Fred is being charged in Williamson county which is just north of Austin/Travis, which is a quite a bit more conservative.

BUT...Williamson county is still reeling from this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/04/national/main20115395.shtm

Personally I feel like he has a better chance of a "No Bill" with Williamson County, but if it does go to trial and he gets convicted the punishment will be a lot harsher.

Either way this is going to cost him a lot of money and very possibly his freedom.

I also wanted to say that I am reserving opinion until more facts come out and until after the legal proceedings.

SpringerTGO
02-08-2012, 15:26
I hate to rain on everyone's parade but....Open carry would have prevented this...:rofl:

Only if he was carrying Israeli.....:tongueout:

Dragoon44
02-08-2012, 15:34
Only if he was carrying Israeli.....:tongueout:

he may have been the report states they found two live rounds laying in the doorway of the residence.

gommer
02-08-2012, 15:45
Unarmed man shot in the back dead 100ft away from the home.

Now, I'm not a judge and it's all so easy to be an internet big-shot and give an opinion based on so little facts...

BUT.. given the few facts (based on the media so more like heresay), sure sounds like murder to me.

If you could be shot in the back while unarmed and fleeing while not having commited a crime... well.. :dunno:

RussP
02-08-2012, 16:49
Only if he was carrying Israeli.....:tongueout:he may have been the report states they found two live rounds laying in the doorway of the residence.:wow:

SpringerTGO
02-08-2012, 16:59
he may have been the report states they found two live rounds laying in the doorway of the residence.

That's probably the latest way to Israeli carry.....
I mean, if you are really proficient you should be able to rack the slide 3 times (to empty 2 rounds), give the perp a running start, and kill him with one shot.
Who needs condition one?:rofl:

Dragoon44
02-08-2012, 17:22
That's probably the latest way to Israeli carry.....
I mean, if you are really proficient you should be able to rack the slide 3 times (to empty 2 rounds), give the perp a running start, and kill him with one shot.
Who needs condition one?:rofl:

I think he found the situation nerve racking.

:whistling:

RussP
02-08-2012, 17:27
I think he found the situation nerve racking.

:whistling:That is a classic!!!:cool:

unit1069
02-08-2012, 19:58
The homeowner should have stayed in the house and waited for the cops, there was no reason to confront a guy hiding under his car.

I'm inclined to agree, since anyone possessing a firearm while investigating definite suspicious and unusual events ought to assume he/she will have to use that weapon.

The homeowner's biggest mistake was blabbing to the police before speaking with an attorney. As a former resident of Austin I know it's simpatico with places like Berkeley and Madison and I remember well the vicious political prosecutions by long-time Prosecuting Attorney Ronnie Earle.

I'm not a bit surprised Yazdi has been charged with murder; these Austin politicos are the exact kind of prosecutors knowledgeable gun writers warn us about. Not saying I think Yazdi isn't guilty of serious misjudgements on a few levels, but having a wife hear suspicious noises and seeing a figure in the dark crawling under the family car would certainly cause anyone to possibly forget common sense.

IT0
02-08-2012, 20:27
.... The homeowner's biggest mistake was blabbing to the police before speaking with an attorney....

With this I agree 100% but I will probably be the only one.

Dragoon44
02-08-2012, 20:36
I would like to hear the 911 call that the wife made.

one unexplained factor in this story is the cops said they responded to a call of a possible homicide. who made that call? a neighbor? the wife? she claimed later she heard no shots.

*** EDIT****

This story says the shots fired call came from within the shooters home.

http://www.kvue.com/news/One-dead-after-crash-and-shooting-in-northwest-Austin-138635259.html

On a city-data.com site under Austin, two people claim to know the shooter. one says he is the most consistently surly/angry person he has ever met and is an immigrant from somewhere in eastern europe judging by his thick accent.

another who is apparently a neighbor says the couple do not park their vehicle in their driveway they park in the street. o the unanswered question is was the dead guy ever actually on Yadzi's property?

the answer to that question may be why the shooter was charged with murder.

TDC20
02-08-2012, 23:07
I read somewhere recently that every bullet you shoot has a lawyer attached. Even if that hypothetical guy had my laptop in his hands as he ran away, it seems like it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just buy a new laptop.

Exactly this! If it's something really expensive, report it to your insurance. Guns aren't the proper tool for resolving property crimes, conflict resolution, breaking up street fights, or a dozen other things that people misuse them for.

I now carry OC spray with me whether I am armed or not. There's a part of me that would rather take a calculated risk of dying in the street because I failed to use the necessary level of force to defend myself, rather than spend the rest of my days behind bars. Unless you have lots of money and great lawyers, just because you think the law says you can, doesn't mean you should. It's better to escape and evade if you can than to let one of those bullets with the lawyer attached to it fly.

What I still don't understand is the rationale of shooting at a fleeing burglar (with your property in his hands) after dark. Did the Texas legislators write the law this way because they know most people can't hit a fleeing burglar in the dark anyway? Was it just meant to scare the bejeebers out of them? Give criminals something to think about while committing property crimes after dark? Part of a civil disobedience/riot control plan? Or was it a conscious act aimed at thinning the herd? Maybe I don't understand because I'm not from Texas.

Anyway, sounds like a few more details are adding up against Fred's defense. This is a perfect example of what can happen when two people, independently violating the three rules of stupid, converge.

Bren
02-09-2012, 05:21
I'm not a bit surprised Yazdi has been charged with murder; these Austin politicos are the exact kind of prosecutors knowledgeable gun writers warn us about. Not saying I think Yazdi isn't guilty of serious misjudgements on a few levels, but having a wife hear suspicious noises and seeing a figure in the dark crawling under the family car would certainly cause anyone to possibly forget common sense.

Another possible explanation, besides viscious prosecutors and a political conspiracy, is the fact that, as the guy apparently admits, he intentionally shot and killed somebody with no legal justification.

Have you considered that as one of the reasons he was charged?

RussP
02-09-2012, 06:34
I would like to hear the 911 call that the wife made.

one unexplained factor in this story is the cops said they responded to a call of a possible homicide. who made that call? a neighbor? the wife? she claimed later she heard no shots.

*** EDIT****

This story says the shots fired call came from within the shooters home.



On a city-data.com site under Austin, two people claim to know the shooter. one says he is the most consistently surly/angry person he has ever met and is an immigrant from somewhere in eastern europe judging by his thick accent.

another who is apparently a neighbor says the couple do not park their vehicle in their driveway they park in the street. o the unanswered question is was the dead guy ever actually on Yadzi's property?

the answer to that question may be why the shooter was charged with murder.The attached image shows the front of the house and the parked car.

Bren
02-09-2012, 06:56
That's probably the latest way to Israeli carry.....
I mean, if you are really proficient you should be able to rack the slide 3 times (to empty 2 rounds), give the perp a running start, and kill him with one shot.
Who needs condition one?:rofl:

Jokes aside - not uncommon for a person who is udner serious stress and isn't used to it to do things like that. I didn't read what he was shooting, but if he started with an empty chamber, chambering a round, then yelling at the guys some, then chambering another one or two because he forgot, isn't strange at all. Fairly common.

Dragoon44
02-09-2012, 06:57
The attached image shows the front of the house and the parked car.

I notice in the pic there appears to be no street lights. But the wife claims to have seen someone under the car at 3am?

And one of the pics I saw of the scene showed the sealed off area with what looked like a yellow blanket covering something was on the other side of the fence.

repo4sale
02-09-2012, 07:33
If the story is correct that we're reading. Looks like a bad shoot.

I have collected about 30 "shooting articles" in Kalifornia (Sucks), but here is my opinion as a retired litigation paralegal in Kalifornia. We have to get rid of Brown/Boxer/Finestein! Anyway, in California, it's not a CASTLE state, so unless someone is "assaulting you, friend or family with a deadly weapon" you cannot use a deadly weapon to stop the other person. I'm a retired BIG ASSETS LANDLORD, and drawing a gun = many lawsuits. So much so in Kalifornia, my Umbrella Insurance company said they will drop my $5m (Now $10m) policy if I carry with a CCW. This was in 1994! So out went the CCW and in with the Extra Liability Insurance of $5m Umbrella! Sucks, but it pays to SPRAY THEM with pepper spray. Did that about 6x and the cops always seem to label the "sprayer" the Victim in Kalifornia!

RussP
02-09-2012, 07:45
On a city-data.com site under Austin, two people claim to know the shooter. one says he is the most consistently surly/angry person he has ever met and is an immigrant from somewhere in eastern europe judging by his thick accent.

another who is apparently a neighbor says the couple do not park their vehicle in their driveway they park in the street. o the unanswered question is was the dead guy ever actually on Yadzi's property?

the answer to that question may be why the shooter was charged with murder.Links to the info in Dragoon's post... http://www.city-data.com/forum/austin/1487937-fleeing-driver-shot-dead-avery-ranch-5.html and http://www.city-data.com/forum/austin/1487937-fleeing-driver-shot-dead-avery-ranch-6.html.

RussP
02-09-2012, 08:12
I notice in the pic there appears to be no street lights. But the wife claims to have seen someone under the car at 3am?

And one of the pics I saw of the scene showed the sealed off area with what looked like a yellow blanket covering something was on the other side of the fence.There is a street light in the median strip approximately 50' away from the car. There is another street light about 130' north of the front of the car.

At this time of year the trees would not have leaves, so the median street light could illuminate the passenger side and the area in front of the car. There are evergreens between the other light and the area where the car is parked which might diffuse its effectiveness.

I didn't see the image of the sealed off area. Got a link? Found it...

IT0
02-09-2012, 08:12
Links to the info in Dragoon's post... http://www.city-data.com/forum/austin/1487937-fleeing-driver-shot-dead-avery-ranch-5.html and http://www.city-data.com/forum/austin/1487937-fleeing-driver-shot-dead-avery-ranch-6.html.


That is a private dive in front of his house. While I don't know the legal classification, I would consider it my driveway if I lived there.

RussP
02-09-2012, 08:49
That is a private dive in front of his house. While I don't know the legal classification, I would consider it my driveway if I lived there.How about the house next door? Could they park their car in your driveway like the car in the photo?

If it is not a public road maintained by the County, that 'driveway' would be a common area providing access to the homeowners' private driveways. Common areas are for the benefit and use of all residents.

IT0
02-09-2012, 10:11
How about the house next door? Could they park their car in your driveway like the car in the photo?

If it is not a public road maintained by the County, that 'driveway' would be a common area providing access to the homeowners' private driveways. Common areas are for the benefit and use of all residents.

No, the county nor city maintain that drive in front of the house. Typically the property lines go all the way to the street (black top) or to the fence line, and an easement is granted for private drive. To complicated this, there is sometimes an common area owned by the HOA on decorative fence lines like this one.

While I do know for fact that this neighborhood has an HOA, I would have to see the plat map to see the where his property line ended and where (if at all) the common area for he HOA started.


UPDATED: I just went to the Williamson County Appraisal District site and from looking at the GIS map, is looks to me like he owns the property all they way to the street on the other side of metal fence. Which means that concrete common drive in front of his house is indeed his.

http://search.wcad.org/appraisal/publicaccess/PropertyDetail.aspx?PropertyID=233251&dbKeyAuth=Appraisal&TaxYear=2012&NodeID=11&PropertyOwnerID=421771

RussP
02-09-2012, 11:40
No, the county nor city maintain that drive in front of the house. Typically the property lines go all the way to the street (black top) or to the fence line, and an easement is granted for private drive. To complicated this, there is sometimes an common area owned by the HOA on decorative fence lines like this one.

While I do know for fact that this neighborhood has an HOA, I would have to see the plat map to see the where his property line ended and where (if at all) the common area for he HOA started.


UPDATED: I just went to the Williamson County Appraisal District site and from looking at the GIS map, is looks to me like he owns the property all they way to the street on the other side of metal fence. Which means that concrete common drive in front of his house is indeed his.

http://search.wcad.org/appraisal/publicaccess/PropertyDetail.aspx?PropertyID=233251&dbKeyAuth=Appraisal&TaxYear=2012&NodeID=11&PropertyOwnerID=421771Thanks for the WCAD map.

Yes, there is an Avery Ranch HOA. I'm still looking for their CC&Rs which would define common area use and maintenance responsibility.

It does appear that the property extends to the street. While he "owns" that property, he does not have 'exclusive use' of the area. My experience in several states developing properties similar to Avery Ranch with common driveways/access roads is that there will be an easement granted to the HOA for ingress and egress, in this case across the front of the property. There would be a separate easement or easements for the "Green Belt" and "Pedestrian Way" areas between the common drive and the street.

The residents of the house next door could not park their vehicles in a way that blocks access to any other property.

IT0
02-09-2012, 12:34
I do not know if you "exclusive use" is a legal term we use here, but he does pay taxes on it.

Also to add another tidbit, on the property appraisal I noted he had a DV (Disabled Veteran) exemption and I believe I read he was in his thirties. This would imply he was in the middle east conflict and it makes me wonder if PTSD will come in to play in his defense.

FlCracker70
02-09-2012, 14:52
There's a part of me that would rather take a calculated risk of dying in the street because I failed to use the necessary level of force to defend myself, rather than spend the rest of my days behind bars.

Of all the arguments made, this one is the most disturbing to me. I have a wife and children who rely on me for income and support, I have friends who enjoy my company and a life that I really enjoy living. I would assume that you and everyone else on this board has a similar life.

I do not go looking for conflict and actively avoid dangerous situations. I carry a firearm in order to help ensure that if avoidance fails, I will not willingly become a victim. I refuse to take a beating or let someone take items that I have worked very hard simply be taken from me. I am not a pacifist that believes that violence never solves anything. Instead I'm a realist that understands that most of the perpetrators of violence do not respect the sanctity of life.

In this case leaving the protection and security of his home was a mistake. The burden of proof however should be on the individual who trespassing as he was responsible for setting in motion his own demise. Trespassing at 3am is not a very good decision and ultimately cost this person his life.

Dragoon44
02-09-2012, 14:58
Trespassing at 3am is not a very good decision and ultimately cost this person his life.

At this point it has not been established that the dead guy was in fact trespassing.

IT0
02-09-2012, 15:00
Looking at this picture:

http://statesman.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge_remote.asp?source=&remoteimageid=3906703

...and comparing it to google street views, and the GIS map, I would say this is the sidewalk DIRECTLY in front of Mr. Yazdi's house, and within his property lines, although the sidewalk is open to the public.

The Austin American Statesman says this is 100ft from his house, however using the scaling tool in Google Earth it scales 59ft from the front door to the corner of the hedge that is shown in the picture.

What bothers me is the way the story is written is makes it sound like the guy was 100ft off the property running down the road, when in fact it appears he was still on the property and a lot closer.

IT0
02-09-2012, 15:03
At this point it has not been established that the dead guy was in fact trespassing.

While not an authority on the subject I do believe that unless he jumped over the other guys fence, or entered a property clearly marked "no trespassing", or was previously given a warning of criminal trespass that it would not be considered trespassing.

FlCracker70
02-09-2012, 15:18
At this point it has not been established that the dead guy was in fact trespassing.

Agreed and unless both parties agree on the facts, there is often a question about the facts.

I think that its helpful to discuss the situation given the facts presented. Assuming that he was trespassing (which is the case if he was under the car), that decision dis cost him his life.

The homeowner however should have called the police from a safe place inside his house. He could have picked an optimal defensive position and with gun in hand wait for the police to arrive.

I am always trying to learn from the experience of others. Learning first hand is no something I want to wait for.

RussP
02-09-2012, 15:37
I do not know if you "exclusive use" is a legal term we use here, but he does pay taxes on it.I would expect restrictions exist either by deed or by the CC&Rs on the use of the common driveway in front of the home and the landscaped and fenced area beyond it. While he may pay the taxes on the parcel, I'd bet he cannot block the drive or sidewalk, put up "NO TRESPASSING" signs on the eastern boundary of his property controlling the public access to the sidewalk.

Paying taxes will not negate existing deed restrictions or provisions of the covenants, codes and restrictions agreed to.

We did properties in College Station, Lewisville, Tomball, McKinney, Tyler, Arlington, and other locations in Texas, so I have a pretty good idea of how Texas real estate law works.Also to add another tidbit, on the property appraisal I noted he had a DV (Disabled Veteran) exemption and I believe I read he was in his thirties. This would imply he was in the middle east conflict and it makes me wonder if PTSD will come in to play in his defense.All the reports I've seen have his age as 47.

Here's a link about the DV Exemption. http://texas-veterans.com/claims/property-tax-exemption

You may have as little as a 10% disability rating and have an exemption. There are many other disabilities besides PTSD.

marcus40
02-09-2012, 15:38
The one article in this thread stated "The document said Recio had gunshot wounds to his chest, hip and inner thigh", so apparently he didn't shoot the gun in the back, which you would think would have happened if he was running away.
Anyway, not very good press for home owner self-defense.
Marcus

IT0
02-09-2012, 16:46
....All the reports I've seen have his age as 47....

I saw that later too, and may have been mislead by bad information which seems to be abundant in the reporting.

I would like to say I am reserving judgement until all the facts are clear.

grmnracing
02-14-2012, 11:08
Any new info on this case?

IT0
02-16-2012, 13:16
No... I have been doing daily news searches but I think this is the part were the wheels of justice turn real slow.

IT0
02-23-2012, 13:01
Not much of an update but this popped up today:

http://weareaustin.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_357.shtml

RussP
02-23-2012, 13:15
Thanks, ITO.

void *
10-27-2013, 18:04
I have been looking for updates on and off since this happened as I live close - he was convicted four days ago by a Williamson County jury.

http://www.kxan.com/news/williamson/deliberations-resume-in-yazdi-trial

(Edit: I have heard some things locally that I do not know whether or not they are true - for instance, I've heard that "hides under a car" was not "hides under a car" but "hides behind a car because the guy who answered the door you knocked on is now pointing a gun at you". I don't know if that's true or not. However, what I have heard that I can trust - I have a co-worker who lived two doors down from Yazdi up until a few months before this happened, and Yazdi seems to have been /wanting/ to be involved in a shoot, based on what he told me - leads me to believe the verdict was quite likely the correct result and it was a bad shoot. I could be wrong. The other thing to note here is that while this technically happened in Austin, it happened in the part of Austin that is in Williamson County, and so his Grand Jury and trial jury occurred in Williamson County, pulled from a pool of Williamson County jurors. If I were involved in a shooting I would *much* rather have it be in Williamson County than Travis, and the fact that it went past a Grand Jury in Wilco somewhat solidified my opinion that it was a bad shoot.)

Darkangel1846
10-31-2013, 09:39
No you don't shoot someone while they are running away, not even in Texas!
Only an AH would do that!:wavey:

Lord
10-31-2013, 10:07
[Playing Devil's Advocate]

It is my understanding that:

In Texas a person may use deadly force to protect himself, his family and his property. So shooting a person to recover your property, as in you caught them in the act of stealing, and they ran away, and you shot, is somehow not a violation of the law. (I am not a lawyer)



You are incorrect with this. To recover your property, you are clear to engage in fresh pursuit, however, you are not clear to fire upon a fleeing alleged criminal unless he turns and engages you and places you in imminent danger of harm or death. There does seem to be one exception to this, however, as it's been tested several times here in TX... and that is if they steal your vehicle (especially at night). In several cases, the BG was shot and killed, and no charges were filed on the shooter.

Fig
10-31-2013, 15:14
My wife and I were discussing this the other night. I would also think that your location has something to do with the situation as well. If you live in a neighborhood with a small yard and neighbors right next to you, one would have to assume that at some point in time people are going to be in your yard. So just because there is someone in your driveway at 3AM doesn't make them immediately a bad guy. Now if you live out in the country and have acres around your house it might be a different situation if someone is wandering around your house. Some of the earlier posters also alluded to the fact that firing a gun in a tightly packed neighborhood is not something to take lightly either.

SCmasterblaster
11-07-2013, 11:24
I'd have to come up with a really good explanation for shooting someone in the back in my apartment.

dregotglock
11-07-2013, 11:44
In Texas

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42#sthash.P2rl9vhA.dpuf

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.



My opinion - he should not have used deadly force on a fleeing bad guy.

FireForged
11-07-2013, 17:54
Shooting down a fleeing intruder is not self defense. Plain and simple. Thanks for the article. It is a reminder to me as a concealed carry permit holder that I cannot forget judgement and restraint.

exactly..


I can tell you that there is not a circumstance where I am going to exit the safety of my home to confront some weirdo out on my lawn, under my car or up in a tree. Nope, the law can confront him and if he happens to leave on his own before they get there... that's fine too. Even if I lived in the great state of Texas.. I personally would not use deadly force expect to protect life that is in peril [right now] but that's just me and my moral reservations talking.

Bruce M
11-07-2013, 18:28
I agree with being very reluctant to use deadly force in this case based on what I read.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2013, 11:38
Shooting down a fleeing intruder is not self defense. Plain and simple. Thanks for the article. It is a reminder to me as a concealed carry permit holder that I cannot forget judgement and restraint.

At 3am, shooting a fleeing person that is not carrying a piece of your property is the problem. No danger to safety, no danger to property, don't shoot anything other than a camera.

Personally, I doubt I'd use deadly force to defend property. The deductable on my insurance would be cheaper.

SCmasterblaster
11-08-2013, 11:47
At 3am, shooting a fleeing person that is not carrying a piece of your property is the problem. No danger to safety, no danger to property, don't shoot anything other than a camera.

Personally, I doubt I'd use deadly force to defend property. The deductable on my insurance would be cheaper.

Good thinking . . . . . . :cool: