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.

 

Armed Robbery Victim in NYC Jail after DISARMING Attacker

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: intrptr

So if it's ok to shoot the thief which would likely kill him, why isn't it ok to ram the thief with an SUV when the results and intents are both the same ?


Because he's no longer a threat and your life is no longer in danger. The results AREN'T the same--at all. When the kid was aiming a gun at the driver, THAT was a clear threat and he would have had the right to self-defense had he shot him then and there. But after the kid walked away with the shoes, that threat to the driver no longer existed.

That's the way the law reads and that's why the driver is charged.




posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: centarix

If your life is no longer threatened, no. If this guy killed the armed robber during the commission of the crime, than I would say he was within his right to protect himself. He could have easily called 911 after the suspect left and given the description of the kid. He could have followed far behind to help the police locate this kid.

This guy should of thought of the consequences before taking the law into his own hands. The guy who was robbed should have been thankful he got away with his life! I don't like the idea of anyone getting robbed. However, if these people are going to commit a crime, they're risking the chance the victim may take their life. Once the initial threat to their life is removed, the responsibility should be placed in the hands of the police.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Slanter

You have the right to try and recover your property.

Running somebody down with your vehicle is not pursuant to that right.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Ok, i'm gonna propose a scenario that i'm curious of the legality of. Say a guy comes up and pokes you in the back with an object, says its a gun, and demands your money and jewelry. After you give all your stuff to the robber, he then shows you that it was just a lipstick container, laughs, and starts walking off with your property. Are you still required to just call the cops and tell them about this event, hoping they'll catch the guy who robbed you, or are you allowed to go get your property back potentially using physical violence?



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

so what amounts of force are you allowed in the pursuit of your property? In the eyes of the law a car is just a large weapon. Are there laws that state at what point it's excessive use of force? I get there has to be a cutoff point somewhere.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Where does it start and end?

I 100% agree that the guy has the right to go and do what he can to retrieve it, but understand there is a line.
Could you say where it is or does it all depend on the situation.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

No flame here! Maybe dumb @ss punk hoodlums w/guns coast to coast will take notice... thou shalt not steal... guess he can't read either





posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Danowski

If he wanted the shoes so badly why didn't he sell his gun to get some?
Oh, that's right, he couldn't commit any more armed robberies without it.
He purportedly pulled the trigger only to have the gun malfunction.
At that rate he was on the fast track to killing someone.

I suspect his new nickname will be "lefty".



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Petty crime is now acceptable. The police are not going to search for this person. Doing your own police work gets you in trouble or ignored. Just the way it is today. Crime is a way of life for many people.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals




He purportedly pulled the trigger only to have the gun malfunction.


Which I am sure is coming from the guy that ran the kid over right?

Not saying it didn't happen, but lets just keep it in perspective where the information is coming from.
That guy has every motive to exaggerate the story.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

What about defense of property

The defence of property is a common method of justification used by defendants who argue that they should not be held liable for any loss and injury that they have caused because they were acting to protect their property. Courts have generally ruled that the use of force may be acceptable.

I can't find anything specifically for US but I'd imagine the same rights for defense of self extend to defense of property too.

I agree reasonable force is acceptable BUT how do we define what is reasonable or not, the thief tried to kill him so what is reasonable force against someone with a gun, let's not forget the thief still had the gun on him and could have unjammed the gun so is using your car against someone with a gun in order to defend your property reasonable or not ? It's really difficult to answer logically



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

I suspect his new nickname will be "lefty".



Talk about giving an arm, but not a leg, for a pair of sneakers.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Depends entirely on your state laws regarding the use of force to recover stolen property. There is no one size fits all answer to it. Some states allow reasonable force to recover property stolen directly from your person, others allow force for any kind of stolen property, some don't allow for any kind of force.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

If the gun was just "reported it jammed" then it might just be the guy trying to justify killing someone over shoes, but if he did ACTUALLY pull the trigger and it just didn't fire the bullet casing in the gun will show whether the hammer impacted or not. So it should be provable whether the gun jammed or not, and i'm guessing that is going to be what the results of this case are based on.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals


That's a good thought, which probably never came up in his mind because he got taught otherwise.
Do you think this boy just woke up on morning and thought "Today I'm gonna get myself a gun and rob myself some Air Jordans" ? Or do you think like a lot of teenagers he was lost and ended up with the wrong people?

It's the same with young drug addicts. Lost teenagers which end up with the wrong people.

Again, in no way I am defending what the boy did and he should be brought to justice. But Phil took this in his own hands (which he has no right to do) and ran him over. That wasn't justice, that was petty revenge.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
Ya figured as much.
Was gonna just delete the question but that was to much work
.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Sorry you got your shoes stolen, but going that far just to get them back is pretty crazy, also I bet the guy ruined the shoes in this process. Either got ran over with the kid or now has blood all over them.


It is pretty crazy, but I would imagine his reaction had more to do with having a gun pointed at him than some stupid shoes.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
For me it would have been the "jammed gun." Just being threatened with a gun I probably could keep my cool to some extent... but if the only thing that kept the guy from putting a bullet in me was his gun jamming, I probably would have trouble not committing murder.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
The idea that it is in your rights to run someone over with your car when you are no longer in danger from them is pretty ludicrous.

Sorry you got your shoes stolen, but going that far just to get them back is pretty crazy, also I bet the guy ruined the shoes in this process. Either got ran over with the kid or now has blood all over them.

Why not just follow, from a distance, the kid and call the cops?

So just watched the video, pretty bad IMO. The guy has a right to get his property back, but I don't think he is within his right to then ram him with his car to accomplish that.


The idea that I have to let someone attempt to discharge a firearm in my face and when it happens to jam pretend nothing happened is also ludicrous. I don't know if I would just calm down and let him walk away.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Slanter
For me it would have been the "jammed gun." Just being threatened with a gun I probably could keep my cool to some extent... but if the only thing that kept the guy from putting a bullet in me was his gun jamming, I probably would have trouble not committing murder.


i could envision someone grabbing the gun, clearing it, and shooting the guy. Basically ending up in the some situation. Taking the gun and pistol whipping the guy might get a pass.



new topics




 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join