Armed Robbery Victim in NYC Jail after DISARMING Attacker

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: greencmp

That's the driver's story anyway. And pretending the driver has no reason to lie is, to be blunt, ignorant in the extreme.

That question lies only in your mind. Not the law. That driver has no probable cause to believe the mugger is going to go shoot somebody else, any more than he has cause to believe that the mugger will go pawn the shoes. The driver, assuming he's telling the truth, has probable cause to believe the mugger attempted to kill him. He then missed his opportunity to act on that belief.

No amount of spin is going to turn this in to the driver somehow would've been charged for failing to prevent a crime by not running this dude down. Outside of the mugger point blank telling him he was going to go do some other criminal act, anyway, and even then I doubt it.

Calling 911 fulfills your responsibility to make a reasonable effort to prevent a crime, for what it's worth.

Key phrase: reasonable effort.

It's a hypothetical. Presuming the story checks out, is deadly force justified?

Evidently not where he lives, since he did pretty much exactly what you're pushing in your hypothetical.

So, as jellyrev brings up, an armed known assailant and possible attempted murderer is loose in your neighborhood, you would do nothing?

Is Mr. Deeds justified or should he be thrown in the slammer?

originally posted by: jellyrev
Is Mr. Deeds justified or should he be thrown in the slammer?

Actually, slammer for that one.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: greencmp

That's the driver's story anyway. And pretending the driver has no reason to lie is, to be blunt, ignorant in the extreme.

That question lies only in your mind. Not the law. That driver has no probable cause to believe the mugger is going to go shoot somebody else, any more than he has cause to believe that the mugger will go pawn the shoes. The driver, assuming he's telling the truth, has probable cause to believe the mugger attempted to kill him. He then missed his opportunity to act on that belief.

No amount of spin is going to turn this in to the driver somehow would've been charged for failing to prevent a crime by not running this dude down. Outside of the mugger point blank telling him he was going to go do some other criminal act, anyway, and even then I doubt it.

Calling 911 fulfills your responsibility to make a reasonable effort to prevent a crime, for what it's worth.

Key phrase: reasonable effort.

It's a hypothetical. Presuming the story checks out, is deadly force justified?

Evidently not where he lives, since he did pretty much exactly what you're pushing in your hypothetical.

So, as jellyrev brings up, an armed known assailant and possible attempted murderer is loose in your neighborhood, you would do nothing?

Certainly wouldn't go looking for them, no. I'm infinitely more concerned about my kids' welfare than I am somebody three streets over that I've never met.

I'm not interested in going through a dozen hypotheticals and made up scenarios, so with that I'll bow out until a fact based conversation resumes.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: greencmp

That's the driver's story anyway. And pretending the driver has no reason to lie is, to be blunt, ignorant in the extreme.

That question lies only in your mind. Not the law. That driver has no probable cause to believe the mugger is going to go shoot somebody else, any more than he has cause to believe that the mugger will go pawn the shoes. The driver, assuming he's telling the truth, has probable cause to believe the mugger attempted to kill him. He then missed his opportunity to act on that belief.

No amount of spin is going to turn this in to the driver somehow would've been charged for failing to prevent a crime by not running this dude down. Outside of the mugger point blank telling him he was going to go do some other criminal act, anyway, and even then I doubt it.

Calling 911 fulfills your responsibility to make a reasonable effort to prevent a crime, for what it's worth.

Key phrase: reasonable effort.

It's a hypothetical. Presuming the story checks out, is deadly force justified?

Evidently not where he lives, since he did pretty much exactly what you're pushing in your hypothetical.

So, as jellyrev brings up, an armed known assailant and possible attempted murderer is loose in your neighborhood, you would do nothing?

Certainly wouldn't go looking for them, no. I'm infinitely more concerned about my kids' welfare than I am somebody three streets over that I've never met.

I'm not interested in going through a dozen hypotheticals and made up scenarios, so with that I'll bow out until a fact based conversation resumes.

Frankly, that's not very neighborly.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Hypotheticals are important in order for us to draw boundaries on what is acceptable and is not acceptable.

and I enjoy them so there is that.

Mr. Deeds threw an extra punch or five, I could throw a misadeamonr his way lol.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: greencmp

That's the driver's story anyway. And pretending the driver has no reason to lie is, to be blunt, ignorant in the extreme.

That question lies only in your mind. Not the law. That driver has no probable cause to believe the mugger is going to go shoot somebody else, any more than he has cause to believe that the mugger will go pawn the shoes. The driver, assuming he's telling the truth, has probable cause to believe the mugger attempted to kill him. He then missed his opportunity to act on that belief.

No amount of spin is going to turn this in to the driver somehow would've been charged for failing to prevent a crime by not running this dude down. Outside of the mugger point blank telling him he was going to go do some other criminal act, anyway, and even then I doubt it.

Calling 911 fulfills your responsibility to make a reasonable effort to prevent a crime, for what it's worth.

Key phrase: reasonable effort.

It's a hypothetical. Presuming the story checks out, is deadly force justified?

Evidently not where he lives, since he did pretty much exactly what you're pushing in your hypothetical.

So, as jellyrev brings up, an armed known assailant and possible attempted murderer is loose in your neighborhood, you would do nothing?

Certainly wouldn't go looking for them, no. I'm infinitely more concerned about my kids' welfare than I am somebody three streets over that I've never met.

I'm not interested in going through a dozen hypotheticals and made up scenarios, so with that I'll bow out until a fact based conversation resumes.

Frankly, that's not very neighborly.

Leaving your elementary school age kids to fend for themselves while you go try to live out your vigilante fantasy is terrific parenting, too.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: greencmp

That's the driver's story anyway. And pretending the driver has no reason to lie is, to be blunt, ignorant in the extreme.

That question lies only in your mind. Not the law. That driver has no probable cause to believe the mugger is going to go shoot somebody else, any more than he has cause to believe that the mugger will go pawn the shoes. The driver, assuming he's telling the truth, has probable cause to believe the mugger attempted to kill him. He then missed his opportunity to act on that belief.

No amount of spin is going to turn this in to the driver somehow would've been charged for failing to prevent a crime by not running this dude down. Outside of the mugger point blank telling him he was going to go do some other criminal act, anyway, and even then I doubt it.

Calling 911 fulfills your responsibility to make a reasonable effort to prevent a crime, for what it's worth.

Key phrase: reasonable effort.

It's a hypothetical. Presuming the story checks out, is deadly force justified?

Evidently not where he lives, since he did pretty much exactly what you're pushing in your hypothetical.

So, as jellyrev brings up, an armed known assailant and possible attempted murderer is loose in your neighborhood, you would do nothing?

Certainly wouldn't go looking for them, no. I'm infinitely more concerned about my kids' welfare than I am somebody three streets over that I've never met.

I'm not interested in going through a dozen hypotheticals and made up scenarios, so with that I'll bow out until a fact based conversation resumes.

Frankly, that's not very neighborly.

Leaving your elementary school age kids to fend for themselves while you go try to live out your vigilante fantasy is terrific parenting, too.

"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

-unknown

The reason he ended up in jail - He used a car as a weapon. The thief was running away from him. What if there were bystanders between him and the thief? Would they have been run over as well?

a reply to: greencmp

Indeed! Which begs the question as to why you'd leave your children alone and unprotected with an armed murderer running around your neighborhood while you went to go play bloodhound and track him or her down.

Karma...

Always seems to get the upper "hand"...

a reply to: centarix

When I posted this question, I wasn't quite sure of my opinion but have one now. Basically, the SUV driver did suffer from an emotional break-down and do something stupid, but it was the attackers fault he did so. I was also thinking about the cop in Ferguson who shot a guy in the back after he had stolen a box of cigars, and how incredibly abusive that was. But, there is no reason to believe the cigar shop owner wanted that to happen... I believe he didn't want that.

I think if someone puts your life in jeopardy on purpose, its within your personal rights as a victim to decide how to punish the attacker. I've decided I wouldn't feel like I'm in any danger around the guy with the SUV. Only dangerous people belong in jail, and there is little reason to believe the SUV driver is dangerous to anyone except someone who randomly pulls a gun on him. So, I believe the law if it treats this as a crime is not right and such a law should be changed. I don't think it should be considered a criminal matter on the part of the SUV driver.

So, I don't believe he should have to compensate the disarmed man, and I don't believe he should face any criminal penalties. While the driver made an emotional mistake, it is understandable given that he quite nearly died. When someone points a gun at you there is a certain reasonable expectation that you may offer a passionate retaliation. A fitting punishment for pointing a gun at someone when it is totally unwarranted, is to be subject to any passionate acts of hate your victim immediately retaliates with. So, because it was not planned on the victims part, I don't think he should get blame for the disarmament.

Also, Its quite possible as well that NYC is now safer as a result of the attacker being disabled. But, this is a guess on my part, and I don't know this. But I do know the attacker lost his arm, which is a very heavy financial damage to him.

I think if someone very clearly initiates an attack on others, its ideal to use the minimum force necessary to put a stop to the attack. However, I think its within our natural rights, whether or not its within the laws as written in most countries, to retaliate in a way that causes great harm to the attacker in a way that prevents others from suffering like you did.

a reply to: stormcell

If there were bystanders you hope one would use discretion. Just like when one decides whether to swing a bat when a bystander is between the retaliating victim and the perp.

my turn

It poses the question as to when a crime is over. Once one hands over the loot is the crime immediately over?
Or once the criminal leaves private property? In the commons is the crime over once possession of goods is transferred?
This would leave the criminal in a very favorable situation. As a robber if I know once I obtain the loot the victim now has to decide whether to go to cower or go to prison by retaliating against me. That is a very bad precedent, especially in a strict gun control city.

I think this is something left up to discretion and the juries to decide. I couldn't sentence someone to such a hard sentence for that situation.

He has only been charged. He could win his innocence in jury trial.

a reply to: Swills

Absolutely...
Second line...

The driver was wrong..yet I feel no sympathy for the little sh#tbag, gun jammed? does that mean he tried to shoot? if he did..he got what he deserved although not legal.

originally posted by: EightTF3

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: EightTF3

I had a guy try and rob me years ago at knifepoint when I was walking home from the bar in South Boston. I had basically nothing on me but I wasn't giving him # out of principle.

Dude had a gun… would you have stared down a gun barrel as readily?

"Take it muffu---" Blam!

Facing down a knife gives you a little more edge, assailant has to close to within arms reach… staring down a gun barrel at five or ten feet… a little different.


I heard a cop say once, give it to him, your life is not in your wallet. That stuff can be replaced.

That's entirely up to you which I said, it's your choice. Everybody has their own values. I'm not alright with handing my # over because the principle, the stuff has no value. You can do whatever you want because you obviously don't feel that way. The way I see it the guy losing his arm is called Karma. He wasn't stealing food, cloths or water. He wanted some mint Jordan's and thought armed robbery was the way to go.

Just returning to apologize for my comment earlier to you. You were just stating your values, and I took it the wrong way.

Sorry about that.

Can anyone source the gun jam?
I went thru the first page of google results earlier and didn't see anything about it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

Not saying it didn't happen, but not going to just accept the word of the guy that ran someone over as fact.

He has every reason to make it seem worse than it was, or do we not care about that?
I guess you guys are more willing to take his word because he did what he did...

I take his word because he didn't start the encounter by attempting to rob anyone at gunpoint.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Discotech

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 ?

Besides the whole law thing, you mean?

Because chasing after running the thief down after the fact makes it a separate incident. Your proposal he could have shot the guy during the robbery or to prevent the robbery. According to how the law sees it.

Imagine how many people get run over tomorrow for various "crimes" if they don't come out against this?

Theres a drug dealer, wham, a prostitute, my ex, a banker… wham, wham, wham.

(just kidding about my ex, I don't have one of those)

It's actually a state by state law. Some states like stand your ground states you do not have to back down. Ever. This incident certainly pushes that limit though.

Interesting case. I can't speak to the legality of this.

However, my gut response is that I would like to have gone full Death Race 2000 on him. The original, not the remake.

Check out what Stallone does to this guy. The fun parts starts at about the 5 minute mark.


Yep. Spin that wheel on his butt. (literally)



-dex