It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Wallet Snatcher Dead - Jumped By Bystanders

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
So if you commit a crime against me, say, scratch my car, I can kill you? Or is only in cases of theft can I kill you? What if I think you robbed me? Can I kill you, or just wound you?


If I every try to harm you our your property I would expect you to defend it. If I was killed in the process It would be my fault. And guess what? If you try to rob or harm me or anyone else around me I will use whatever force I feel is needed to stop you. If you dont like it,dont try to take what is not yours



You know, some people not as honest as yourself, will kill people, and then make up a reason later. Instead of killing them for a real reason, like stealing your tv.


And some people will kill you while they are robbing you so what is your point?

I never said I supported them killing him but I dont feel the least bit sorry for him and do not believe they should be punished. He brought this on his self

You still have not answered my question, who started this? Whose fault was it that this happened?

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Amuk]




posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I can understand this completely! I am not one of those woman that stand by and yell, "help, help"....if I see something like that and I can help, I will. I'd like to know the background on this guy...no if someone scratches your car, that's not a reason to kill someone....a bit over board there aren't we? LOL So this guy was unarmed...most that hold up convince stores are....maybe it will send a message to others not be thieving fools! I'm not in any way saying it was ok to kill this guy....but it happened and that's where the laws of cause and effect comes in....and thinking about the consequences of ones actions!



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
America took a giant step backward when police officers started appearing in videos telling citizens not to resist in an armed robbery, as they did in New Orleans, which while it may have been good advice to the law-abiding, it was a welcome mat to the very large population of criminals who reside there.

Every citizen has the right to detain anyone who commits a crime until the police can respond. This does not include the use of lethal force, however, unless the offender threatens life or limb.

If this man's life was deliberately taken, then the citizens involved should be held to account, just as we would expect police officers to be held to account. This is not the model for justice in America.

[edit on 04/12/7 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
We get money lifted out of our wallets every day and nobody reacts.

They take 40% and no one says anything.

Rob the poor and give to the rich.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   
The theif commited a crime and got puished, I guess. The person who killed him commited a crime and should be punished. You cannot pick and choose laws when it suits you.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I think I would like to know more before opining on this particular case.

Regarding the broader question of bystanders getting involved in stopping crimes, I guess it's a question of circumstances.

If the crime is a violent assault, for example, would we prefer that people step in, or call 9-1-1 and stand around watching as an assault turns into a hostage situation or a murder?

While a wallet-snatching is not necessarily the same as a violent assault, this discussion reminds me of the debate over the Catherine Genovese murder. Perhaps this case will become a counterpoint to that one.

Because there are so many variables involved, generalizing in cases like this seems like a quick way to be in the wrong, and I advise not errantly jumping to conclusions one way or the other.

However, one detail stood out:


From the WESH.com source article:

McCray has a criminal record in Seminole County, including charges of domestic battery, armed robbery, burglary and petty theft.

Apparently, this wasn't Freddie McCray's first offense, but it was his last.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:09 AM
link   
.
If you steal billions in Washington, there are no negative consequences and sometimes additional rewards. If you are a pick pocket you die.

Doesn't seem fair to me.

Glad to see people defend victim, but killing the guy seems excessive.
.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:42 AM
link   
hmmm, fine line between, "well done folks, stand up for yourselves" and "hey we have police for that". As much as perps seem to get the better end of the stick, which is mighty unfair, i think not doing anything about vigilanti actions like this, particularly where they involve a death could set a dangerous precedent.
Imagine being mistaken for a wanted criminal by misidentification, and set apon and killed by an "angry mob" of vigilanti's. Or a misunderstanding being witnessed , such as accidently bumping into woman as you pass her, someone thinks your trying to steal her purse so they shout "theif" and every redneck wannabe cop in the vicinity comes running and jump you.
very fine line.
These people should have their arses kicked, even if the theif deserved his kicked, stealing a wallet does not command or deserve the death penalty.
If you allow joe citizen to takle the law into his own hands, theres no way to control his actions, emotional responses take over. For instance, Id beat the living sh*t out of a guy who harrassed a child or sexually assulted a woman, whos to say where it would stop if others joined in .



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:50 AM
link   

McCray has a criminal record in Seminole County, including charges of domestic battery, armed robbery, burglary and petty theft. Investigators are awaiting the results of McCray's autopsy.


This is from the orig. article as you see, he was a local, that people knew .

He had an arrest record for serious crimes. He could have been armed an' dangerous for all they knew.

Yeah, it might lead to more killings by civilians, and that would probably still be a 1:20 ratio , civilians v. criminals.

[edit on 12/8/2004 by bodebliss]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:01 AM
link   
What bothers me is my gut reaciton if I was ever in touble or saw someone in trouble and an atlercation is in progress WOULD BE to grap a heavy object and whack him over the head because he'd have to be stopped and nothing short of that could guarantee stopping him. This is exactly what the female clerk did when her customers were in trouble. I can't imagine that she intended for him to die. It also doesn't indicate the crowd beat the guy any further but held him and waited for police to arrive.

I think so far all we see is the intent of people to assist that went horribly wrong. But if this woman gets charged with manslaughter, now on top of the fear from what could happen if victimized, when victimized I would have the fear of attempting to defend myself or others, by any means available, since let's face it, how can I know the fine line between disabling somone enough to prevent further harm and going too far and he dies.

On the other hand there are plenty of cases in other countries where mob rule has been occurring due to lack of faith in the police and there are not uncommon instances of a crowd mistakenly killing someone they "thought" had done something wrong, when in fact the person was innocent. I would hate to see that either. But this case does not come close to those types of instances I have read where the crowd literally brutalized and lost all regard for the life of the person in question.

The best hope here is that they find the guy had some condition that causes him to not survive a blow that someone else would have, and that after the initial blow, no further beating occurred, only restraint. This is probabaly a stretch though. I would hope that the law does prevent prosecution of the clerk and others if they truly only intended to restrain him. I just hope no one ever has to be afraid to defend themselves and fight back in the process of being victimized.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
I would hope that the law does prevent prosecution of the clerk and others if they truly only intended to restrain him. I just hope no one ever has to be afraid to defend themselves and fight back in the process of being victimized.


Bingo


That is what investigations are for. If they find that the man WASN'T trying to Rob the woman then they should of course be charged with Manslaughter. This would help to insure that people don't cross the line. But whither the bleeding heart liberals believe it or not in America at least you have a right to defend your self or even another person in the right conditions.

No one here that is crying for the criminal has yet to explain how this was not HIS fault that it happened. Who else can the criminal blame? Who FORCED him to rob the woman?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
No one here that is crying for the criminal has yet to explain how this was not HIS fault that it happened. Who else can the criminal blame? Who FORCED him to rob the woman?


For myself, I'm not crying for the criminal. I just doubt that it was necessary to beat the man to death in the street. Mob violence is never a good thing in a civilized society.

In contrast, I saw a video tape on the news last night in which a female store clerk was held up at gunpoint. After she handed the robber all the money, he told her to step out from behind the counter, at which point she pulled a revolver and shot him several times. I'm not sure if he died from his wounds, but in any case, she was justified in her actions.

[edit on 04/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Hi all,

Killing someone is a crime, the moment these people killed this man they themselves became an even worse criminal than him. Murder is a much more serious crime than theft no matter what the circumstances.

Regards,
Neo!



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
The guy snatched a wallet - in other words he committed a crime. Who knows what else he was doing - screaming threats? Who knows. A previous poster here said that once he committed the crime he lost his rights. I couldn't agree more.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Ah, this is a great story. The thief is dead. The message is clear. You never know when your intent to commit a crime, or the actual act of doing so, may backfire. There are several hunting magazines availabe with sections dedicated to how armed U.S. citizens have killed robbers, intruders, etc. I think it's great. I have a sign that says "CAUTION, ARMED AMERICAN CITIZEN, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THIS HOUSE IS WORTH DYING FOR"



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by superdude
The guy snatched a wallet - in other words he committed a crime. Who knows what else he was doing - screaming threats? Who knows. A previous poster here said that once he committed the crime he lost his rights. I couldn't agree more.


So if that is correct then the moment they killed him they lost their rights.

Regards,
Neo!



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
I have a sign that says "CAUTION, ARMED AMERICAN CITIZEN, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THIS HOUSE IS WORTH DYING FOR"


But apparently you think it's worth killing for. If it was a choice of my life or his, I'd kill him. My DVD player or his life? He can have the freakin' DVD player. Let the cops handle it. I'm not killing anybody over silly stuff. Even though most wars are fought over silly stuff like money. (I mean silly in relation to a human life. I do dig money)



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neodaemon

So if that is correct then the moment they killed him they lost their rights.

Regards,
Neo!


When is it a crime to protect yourself and your property? You conveniently skip the part about HIM CAUSING his on death by committing the crime to begin with. He would not be dead if HE HADN'T TRIED TO ROB SOMEONE. Again what if the money in the wallet was the victims money for Heart pills or his kids surgery? Is his, a totally innocent victims, rights non existent?

To be honest who cares? Just another dead scumbag.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   



So if that is correct then the moment they killed him they lost their rights.

Regards,
Neo!


Compelling argument. While I don't really agree with the mob mentality, I don't really have a problem with the outcome in this case. There are facts that we don't know - such as how was he fighting back. Was he threatening people?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
So say you have a son. He goes and robs someones wallet and gets killed.
Would you still have this view?

This man probably has a family, mother, father, maybe children now they may grow up without a father......

Regards,
Neo!




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join