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: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: centarix

the 17-year-old pulled a gun on the man, took the sneakers and walked off.

Rather than calling the police, Phil took things into his own hands. He did a quick u-turn and ran over the teenager attempting to walk away with the sneakers. The thief's arm was severed in the collision

Source: www.sbnation.com...

Is it without our rights to use any force we deem necessary to recover stolen property? It it reasonable to think that in the cited story, that the robber may have gotten away cleanly had he not be DISARMED.


Sadly, the confrontation was over when the gentleman decided he wanted revenge and his sneakers back. Regardless of the previous malice, the followup assault was certainly tantamount to attempted murder.
What do you propose for the restitution and punishment for the disarmed man and the initial attacker?




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

You are an interesting individual.

On one hand, you think that someone who shoots a person armed with a knife (I believe it was a cop in the thread I am referring to), that is trying to attack them, is a coward.

Yet you would "pull a mans arms off and beat him to death with them" for trying to steal your boots.

Why is it okay to kill someone for stealing your boots, but not okay to shoot someone that is armed with a knife and trying to kill you?
edit on 15-2-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: TrueBrit

You are an interesting individual.

On one hand, you think that someone who shoots a person armed with a knife (I believe it was a cop in the thread I am referring to), that is trying to attack them, is a coward.

Yet you would "pull a mans arms off and beat him to death with them" for trying to steal your boots.

Why is it okay to kill someone for stealing your boots, but not okay to shoot someone that is armed with a knife and trying to kill you?


lol, I've never seen truebrit ever begrudge someone their self defense. As a brit, he's likely got the customary cultural maximum level of 2nd amendment sympathy of roughly 0% or else they would be up in arms that they don't have constitutional carry.

I think these examples are useful demonstrations to bridge the gap between cars, guns and other tools in the political sphere and psyche of ordinary folk.

If the driver was legally carrying and shot the mugger, that would be the end of it but, circumstances are complicated enough that a clear definition is necessary for incidents differing from that cut and dry example. I would prefer that the case could be made without invoking any unfamiliar statutes.

This is a rare case where I think that a declarative piece of legislation might actually be useful, a 'Giggler's law'.
edit on 15-2-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Well, in the thread "Scots Police Teach US Cops How To Avoid Gun Use," he referred to cops as cowards if they shoot an attacker with a knife.

I just want to know why it is okay for him to rip someones arms off and beat them to death for stealing boots, but as a cop I am a loser if I shoot someone that is threatening me with a knife.

I am legitimately curious. I know he'll answer soon, and it will be articulate as Hell.

edit on 15-2-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TorqueyThePig

When someone jams a gun into your face, and you kill them with your bare hands, there is a significant difference in motivation, and the position from which you make your move.

The difference is, that in the scenario in which I would tear pieces off of another person, that individual has shown that he is prepared to aim a gun at an unarmed person, over a pair of boots. An individual who will do that, poses a far greater, and more immediate risk to a greater number of potential victims, both intended, and collateral, because of the nature of the weapon. Therefore, terminating that threat with every possible level of overkill, is justifiable from a public protection angle, and to ensure that the assault is so overwhelming, that making it does not constitute a bigger threat to me, than to the target.

It must also be said that I also commented in another thread, where a man who was amped up on drugs, and wielding a knife, had shown that he was in something I refer to as "super soldier mode". This is where an individual is so wrecked on drugs, that they ignore damage from things like bean bag rounds, and pepper spray. These immunities mean that tackling that subject by main strength is going to be damned near impossible, and on that occasion police shot the living hell out of the man. An unfortunate, but justified kill.

In short, my preparedness to go after a man who puts a gun in my face while I myself am unarmed, is a very different thing to a cop seeing a knife, and insisting on emptying the magazine in his service weapon. There are exceptions, as I mentioned, but I think you will agree that the scenarios differ wildly!
edit on 16-2-2016 by TrueBrit because: Added accuracy



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Just so we are clear on this greencmp, I am of the belief that the second amendment is one of the most important segments, of one of the most valuable documents ever composed for political reasons.

I support it. I am one of those Britons who finds it disgraceful that I may not carry a sword on my own nations soil.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: centarix

The difference between you a lawful citizen, and that kid is that you can't take the law into your own hands.

Yeah the shoes were expensive, and yeah it sucks to be a victim of a crime, but that kid wasn't going to have much luck in the future, he should have let him go, and he would have dug his own early grave.

So it goes to a jury, who can take into account the prevention of this kid becoming an even worse menace to society, or blame the guy for acting recklessly and irresponsibly, I mean if you don't know by now that Craig's list is a criminal lure, then you're stupid.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: imd12c4funn

It's only attempted murder if the suspect shot at the victim.
Otherwise it's just plain old robbery.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

To shorten your statement, he was wrong when he made the decision to run him over. That's contemplation, not reaction.
edit on 2/16/2016 by Brainiac because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Brainiac

I rather think that I shall be the arbiter of what I meant, and how long my statements ought to be, thank you very much.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: greencmp

Just so we are clear on this greencmp, I am of the belief that the second amendment is one of the most important segments, of one of the most valuable documents ever composed for political reasons.

I support it. I am one of those Britons who finds it disgraceful that I may not carry a sword on my own nations soil.


Cool, thanks for clarifying that.




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: centarix

From watching the video, it is clear the man in the SUV did react a tad over board. However, it is an odd one considering if the police would have pursued the young boy in that manner and hit him or killed him, it would have just been him resisting police arrest. Erase the CCTV and back to another day on the streets.

Obviously the man driving is in the wrong but still, seemed he got what was coming to him. In my eyes.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
In Texas you're allowed to use any force necessary to prevent the consequences of theft...up to and including lethal force. BUT the law is like that because Texas has a lot of rural area where law enforcement is not readily available. So it would all break down to individual circumstances- Rural or urban area? Was it one continuous incident, or was there a point where it was pretty much over and then one person actively continued? The suspect was armed- well the safest way to confront him and get your property back is in a car.

It all comes down to exactly how the law is written in this area. And just because the victim was charged, doesn't mean he'll be found guilty. A few years ago I was charged with assault for defending myself, and it was later dropped because it was a BS charge and I was covered under the law.

* and for PP's of the opinion 'the suspect was just a poor misguided kid'...umm, you point a gun, you just bought yourself deadly force in return. The kid's lucky he's not dead.


edit on 16-2-2016 by ladyvalkyrie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Just looked up NY law:


6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article,
use physical force upon another person in self-defense or defense of a
third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny
of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or
prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized by any
such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance,
nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or
qualify such authorization.

NY Law

So NY law DOES allow you to use force to prevent larceny. It also says:


4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she
reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

May not use deadly force in order to prevent escape UNLESS the suspect has committed robbery and who is in immediate flight therefrom. The suspect committed robbery (theft + assault/weapon) and was in immediate flight thereof. Therefore the victim, by law, was justified.

Lawyer up, buddy.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
um...no

pardon the pun, but if he disarmed him in the vehicle while he had the gun on him that's one thing. To run him over after he was out of physical danger, that's attempted murder.

You or another have to be in harms way to exercise lethal action for it to be classified as self defense. Even then its severely limited to that's states laws on self defense.

now in some states, if you see someone trying to end another life, you can put them down even if they are fleeing the scene as it qualifies as stopping a felon in flight from prosecution. The South does it all the time.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Under the circumstances, he will have an uphill battle in court. Especially since its New York we're talking about here.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I honestly missed the last part of your sentence.

I agree, if someone sticks a gun in my face I will do what is necessary to stop the threat.

The same applies to someone that threatens me with a knife.

That said, what the guy did in this case was not legally justified in my opinion.
edit on 16-2-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I doubt its contemplation.
Idk if you've ever been in a serious rollover car accident but its the same situation. So much adrenaline is pumped into the body that it just acts. I've been been there, Running up and down a freeway at midnite trying to flag down a car at midnight. while my shoe had flown off and my foot was getting frostbitten running back and forth in the snow.

The victim was frozen for about 20 seconds, as its's really flight, fight, and freeze. that adrenaline did what a lot of people would of done, he fought with his car.


A lot of people here cant even say what they would do. Unless someone has been in real life or death situation they could not even understand what happens in the brain. Some get angry, some freeze, some break down, and some become leaders.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
To bad that little jerk didn't die. EFF that punk. The loser let his guard down after robbing someone at gunpoint. I would've judged that kid Dredd style, too. BTW, was that video of Michael Brown doing an unarmed robbery in Missouri really the Michael Brown that the cop shot? If so, I still have no opinion on the cop shooting Brown, because I wasn't there, and I don't really know what happens. BUT, I think it would be awesome if armed and unarmed robbers got their brains blown out all day every day.

Thought experiment: your neighbor vandalizes your property by keying your car, slashing your tires, or breaking windows. You saw him do it. There is no solid evidence. How many tires, windows, paint jobs, et cetera, are you going to replace before you want to bump him off?

If all lives matter, then the first life to not matter is the life of one who threatens the natural human rights of another.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Darmok

I agree with you on most points. About the neighbour vandalising your belongings,you could get photographic evidence,even if it means hiding discreetly for long amounts of time,till you catch him in the act. Then with this evidence you have a criminal case against him,if that is not serving justice to your satisfaction make a civil case,use something like Legal Aid if you cannot afford a lawyer.Or you could just jump out from hiding and beat the everloving crap out of him,and both of you will most likely face court cases,whichever option you prefer.

In my country,South Africa,the most violent society in the world,it is usually not obnoxious scum-neighbours that's the problem,but rape,murder,attempted murder,car hijackings,armed robbery etc by tsotsi's.Sometimes armed with guns,or knives,sometimes unarmed,because they rely on the fearfulness of the general populace,especially women,to just acquiesce to their demands. So here,you Really have to have,or Very quickly develop, the political will to be the survivor and not another statistic.

My family is one of those who will have to be gunned down in a hail of bullets,anything short of that is going to get the attempting robber,murderer,rapist,burglar,hijacker etc only one thing,a place in the morgue.We are not of those who will "go quietly into the night" If you don't gun us down (and you'd better use an automatic weapon like an AK-47,because if you shoot at us and miss,god help you) we SHALL slaughter you. And deal with the fall-out in court.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
edit on 17-2-2016 by Raxoxane because: grammar

edit on 17-2-2016 by Raxoxane because: added

edit on 17-2-2016 by Raxoxane because: added



new topics




 
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join