TexasCHLforum.com

A central Texas man has been sentenced to 20 years for shooting an intoxicated man that ran to his house after a traffic accident. The intoxicated man was fleeing the scene of the accident when he ran to the home. The judge told the homeowner that he could have just fired a warning shot and waited on police who were already on the way.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeow ... B_DFWBrand" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Is it just me or do you find the judges comment completely insane?

So now it's legal to fire warning shots? Who knew?

Is the judge Biden's cousin?

I suppose not even judges can be expected to know every in and out of the law -- that responsibility is reserved for mere citizens -- but does seem deadly force would be an area a criminal trial judge should know cold, and not make ignorant comments about warning shots.

Just from the facts presented in the story, hope the guy has enough $$ left to appeal.

baldeagle wrote:So now it's legal to fire warning shots? Who knew?

Yea, that's bad advice.. Especially from a judge.
I think the take away here is that you don't necessarily get to blast someone for banging on your door at night.

Apparently the shooter threatened and intimated his neighbors prior, I dunno if this made it in to court:

The court document lists 17 offenses dating back to 2006. It accuses Yazdi of threatening people who he believed were trespassing saying, "Do you like having a healthy family," and "I'm Iranian and when I go, I go all the way."

That's not a good background for what I want presented to a jury.

RPBrown wrote:A central Texas man has been sentenced to 20 years for shooting an intoxicated man that ran into his house after a traffic accident. The intoxicated man was fleeing the scene of the accident when he ran into the home. The judge told the homeowner that he could have just fired a warning shot and waited on police who were already on the way.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeow ... B_DFWBrand" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Is it just me or do you find the judges comment completely insane?

The story says

intoxicated man who ran to his house after a car accident

not into.
and

Judge Bert Richardson told Yazdi that he could have stayed in his house, fired just a warning shot and waited for police who were on their way.

I think things went wrong for the homeowner when he shot the guy twice as he was trying to escape over a fence, then a third time while he was on the ground.

However, the judge's comments were insane. Does this set precedence? So warning shots are ok now? This could cut both ways because people who read only the 1 paragraph blurb thing the ruling was soley based on the judge claiming a only a warning shot was appropriate and not deadly force. I don't think warning shot played into the jury's decision in this case, as I think it was the whole climbing the fence thing.

RPBrown wrote:A central Texas man has been sentenced to 20 years for shooting an intoxicated man that ran into his house after a traffic accident. The intoxicated man was fleeing the scene of the accident when he ran into the home. The judge told the homeowner that he could have just fired a warning shot and waited on police who were already on the way.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeow ... B_DFWBrand" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Is it just me or do you find the judges comment completely insane?

This is not correct. The guy didn't run into his house. He ran TO his house and was shot outside the house. The victim -who was drunk and likely less than coherent- was not near the house when the home owner shot him.

This is a better article.
http://www.kxan.com/news/williamson/fre ... cing-today" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I did edit my comments to say "to" the house.

However, my intent on this story was the comments that the judge made. I did not have (and still don't) to comment on the verdict or sentence.

Yeah. The judges comment was ignorant but that guy needs to be in prison. Good call. Hope he finds his "manhood" while there.

RPBrown wrote:I did edit my comments to say "to" the house.

However, my intent on this story was the comments that the judge made. I did not have (and still don't) to comment on the verdict or sentence.

The judge's statement is stupid.

Doesn't sound like the house was breeched, certainly bad judgement on homeowners part. But the judge's comments...

News the other day said he was claiming racism by the jury

texanjoker wrote:News the other day said he was claiming racism by the jury

When you have a history of publicly threatening your neighbors and shoot someone who isn't breaking into your house, the jury is most certainly racist.

Texsquatch wrote:I think things went wrong for the homeowner when he shot the guy twice as he was trying to escape over a fence, then a third time while he was on the ground.

However, the judge's comments were insane. Does this set precedence? So warning shots are ok now? This could cut both ways because people who read only the 1 paragraph blurb thing the ruling was soley based on the judge claiming a only a warning shot was appropriate and not deadly force. I don't think warning shot played into the jury's decision in this case, as I think it was the whole climbing the fence thing.

If the above is true it's an execution. Shooting someone on the ground is murder.
The "perceived" threat was over. We are authorized to use deadly force to protect our lives or the lives of others.