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.

 

Man attacked by robber, fights back, is charged with murder

page: 11
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 

But, it's scary to read over this thread and know that so many people think that running over a distracted man with a truck is "self-defense" and perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Who is this guy to be judge, jury and executioner? Since when is revenge a reason to kill somebody?

I don't have anything whatsoever against gun ownership, but to know that so many firearms enthusiasts support this behavior scares the crap outta me.


He didnt run him over for REVENGE..he ran him over because the perp hada just tried to pistol whip him to death, and now he had his wallet, he was probably going to kill him anyway.
Kill or be killed.
"Running over a distracted man"...who just robbed him and tried to pistol whip him to death..ha ha ha ...
Why dont you sell your house and give the money to his family so they can build a monument on the spot.




posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

MyHappyDogShiner
He is charged with murder because he killed the guy after the danger to his own life had passed when the guy went after his wallet when he threw it.

I don't understand why people can't figure these things out, and it makes it obvious why the gubmint doesn't want you to have fire-arms if you can't.

He was no longer defending himself, he was getting even.


Without being there, how can someone say the danger was gone. A person in close proximity with a gun, and has already demonstrated use of force, seems like danger to me.

There is some figuring for ya to do...



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

MyHappyDogShiner
He is charged with murder because he killed the guy after the danger to his own life had passed when the guy went after his wallet when he threw it.

I don't understand why people can't figure these things out, and it makes it obvious why the gubmint doesn't want you to have fire-arms if you can't.

He was no longer defending himself, he was getting even.


I don't understand how you think the threat to his life had passed. What makes you think that? I don't get it. There was clearly a continuing threat to his life.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
After reading some of the replies here i cannot believe that there are still people out there who side with the criminal, who after having attempted to kill the guy by pistol whipping him, was later run down by the victim.

1 - The perp went out to commit armed robbery of his own free will.
2 - He is a convicted felon with a history of violent armed crime.
3 - He attacked an innocent man in the street.
4 - He half beats the guy to death by pistol whipping him half a dozen times in the head.
5 - The guy gives him his wallet.
6 - While the scumbag goes after the wallet like a dog who hasnt eaten for a week goes after a bone, the guy half dazed from being beaten over the head by a pistol thinks the scum will return to finish the job.
7 - Scared, dazed man frightened for his life jumps in his truck and does what he thinks is necessary to protect his life, scared that if he runs Mr career criminal will shoot him in the back, and probably, he's right.
8 - The detrement to society dies on the spot, and all hell breaks loose because the guy had the balls to defend himself.
9 - The victim suddenly becomes a murderer, not a man who has defended himself..it's not like the guy went home come back 15 mins later, found the guy and run him down on the street.
10 - Stop the world, i wanna get off. Life is a lemon and i want my money back.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 


I wonder if DC just doesn't want to admit it has gun violence despite it's laws.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

andy1972
After reading some of the replies here i cannot believe that there are still people out there who side with the criminal, who after having attempted to kill the guy by pistol whipping him, was later run down by the victim.

1 - The perp went out to commit armed robbery of his own free will.
2 - He is a convicted felon with a history of violent armed crime.
3 - He attacked an innocent man in the street.
4 - He half beats the guy to death by pistol whipping him half a dozen times in the head.
5 - The guy gives him his wallet.
6 - While the scumbag goes after the wallet like a dog who hasnt eaten for a week goes after a bone, the guy half dazed from being beaten over the head by a pistol thinks the scum will return to finish the job.
7 - Scared, dazed man frightened for his life jumps in his truck and does what he thinks is necessary to protect his life, scared that if he runs Mr career criminal will shoot him in the back, and probably, he's right.
8 - The detrement to society dies on the spot, and all hell breaks loose because the guy had the balls to defend himself.
9 - The victim suddenly becomes a murderer, not a man who has defended himself..it's not like the guy went home come back 15 mins later, found the guy and run him down on the street.
10 - Stop the world, i wanna get off. Life is a lemon and i want my money back.



Maybe because most criminals are liberals/democrats? Washington Examiner
Don't want to lose those votes. You know...the same way they want to allow illegals amnesty to gain votes and how they don't want even confirmation of identity at the polls.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Once you make the decision to trespass on private property and assault someone with a deadly weapon in an attempt to rob them, you have sacrificed your right to life. Have you ever been in a fight? Have you ever been hit in the head with a deadly object? I have. Adrenaline shoots through your body, you go into survival mode, and it becomes kill or be killed. In my case it was a bottle, and I made sure my attacker was not going to be able to harm me anymore by knocking his lights out with a head butt and a series of punches. But in this case it was a gun. Who's to say the robber wouldn't have pursued his victim even after obtaining his wallet? If you ask me, that scumbag deserved to die, and anyone who says otherwise is a blind liberal fool whose only fights have been fought from behind a keyboard.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

roadgravel
reply to post by andy1972
 


I wonder if DC just doesn't want to admit it has gun violence despite it's laws.


I freely admit we need to have firearms laws, we cant go back to the wild west.
However, the law needs to remember that a criminal who dies whilst he's commiting an act of violence against an innocent person, has got what he deserves.

So lets not shed a tear for the poor career criminal choose to pick up a gun and rob someone and died as a result of a situation he provoked.
Shed a tear for the guy who will have to live the rest of his life thinking about the night he had to kill someone to save his life.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Asktheanimals

spacedog1973

Most criminals don't get off hurting others. What a ridiculous thing to say.


You've said this at least twice.
The attacker bashed him in the head with a gun
Maybe he didn't enjoy it but he still did it.
Stoddard was assaulted so what difference does your above generalization make here?
Most victims don't get the chance to neutralize the threat to them either.


A selected quote taken out of context, without the original quote I was refering to. Really? Did you even understand what I was responding to?

Your response is all over the place because it seems you didn't read who I was replying to. If someone did something, it doesn't mean that they enjoyed it. Its bares repeating until you understand the distinction.


edit on 5-1-2014 by spacedog1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by sirbritton
 


Once you make the decision to trespass on private property and assault someone with a deadly weapon in an attempt to rob them, you have sacrificed your right to life.


So you figure trespassing and strong armed robbery are rightful crimes to qualify for execution?

I'm actually a pretty strong supporter of the Death Penalty and I'm not near as picky about what it's applied to for crimes, as some are. There are some lines though and property crime isn't something I believe should justify losing one's whole life and future over.

When the physical assault ended and dummy went chasing the wallet in the other direction, it reverted to a property crime for all purposes of self defense law, as I understand it ..and that's understanding in a generous state for how the law is written. I'm thinking D.C. is anything but generous with the line crossed here being much clearer than it may be elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The second you bring a deadly weapon and attempt to use it all logic is thrown out of the window, if you think I am going to trust you not to shoot at me just because you have my wallet then you are crazy. I will not follow the law when dealing with someone breaking it, if you try and kill me then you have made the decision to die as well.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



Krakatoa
So, if the tow truck driver had not ran over the assailant (who still had the weapon on him), he was clear to attack the hiding customer in the same fashion or even kill him. I see this as the threat was still in effect in that yard, and the driver was attempting to neutralize the threat and save the others in the scene.


You have a good imagination. But the WP story suggests none of that.

Besides, ATA said the new article made MORE sense that the truck driver was charged with murder...

Anyway... I'll be eager to see how this one comes out.



Interesting since the story you linked to states clearly:


Crouch answered with an expletive, the police report said, and pulled out a dark-colored gun and pointed it at Stoddard. “Give the [expletive] up,” Crouch said, according to the police report.

The customer ran to the back of the parking lot, hid behind a car and called police on his cellphone.

Another employee who was nearby also ran. Police said Stoddard tried to run but slid near a gate in a fence and fell to the ground. “Crouch ran to Stoddard and struck him twice on the head with his pistol,” the police report said. “Stoddard then pulled out his wallet and threw it toward the fence and ran in the opposite direction.”

Police said a witness saw Crouch run to the fence and apparently pick up the wallet. “Stoddard stated to officers that he ran back to the tow truck, which was parked on lot,” the report said. “He stated further that he got in the tow truck and ran over Crouch . . . by the corner of the fence.”


So, the assailant would still be in the yard, armed and dangerous, with the hiding customer....or are you blind and can't read properly. If the assailant was after money, then there were 2 more changes to rob others there at that time.....right? SO, what in his current behavior indicates he would not accost these others for more money?

Perhaps it is you that needs to have a little more imagination?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Even if the attacker grabbed my wallet and was running down a public street trying to get away, I would run him the hell over.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 

The way this story is being reported (various sources) is just like Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon Bombing, etc, et al, etch-a-sketch...
There are simply too many variables entering the equation.
Was Stoddard still in the wrecker yard when he was hit...or outside, on the sidewalk?
Was it just Stoddard - or was there an accomplice?
When looking at Google Maps Streetview scenes of the location - I find it highly unlikely that the Wrecker could have struck and dragged Stoddard on the sidewalk...
The logistics for that one will need some explaining.
This 'wrecker yard' is not like most that I have been involved with.
Guess we'll have to wait and see if other information is made available.
edit on 1/5/2014 by WanDash because: making amends



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Before I grew a brain, I would have said the guy was right to run the criminal down like a dog, like a lot of the replies here lean toward the justification of. There is really not any point at all trying to explain something to people who have a really big vindictiveness streak and very little conscience.

Here is another one most of you probably will side with the so called "Victim" on. This guy was sleeping and heard a commotion in front of his house in the driveway. He went to see what the noise was and saw two guys hooking his boat onto a truck to steal it, went and got a gun and fired on them as they were leaving. He was charged with attempted murder and public endangerment.

Without going into a long explanation and offending those thinner skinned of us who feel killing someone is ok because they are really no more than a bunch of fraidy cats and get even types....

Once the boat was on the road, the danger to the owner had passed, yet he still tried to be an immature little middle school kid, and stop them without regarding the safety of the thieves or anyone else in the vicinity....He failed to realize he could probably get another boat, he also failed to take into account that death is permanent, and bullets have no conscience regardless of who they might strike.

All they guy in the truck had to do was drive away, but he was one of those tards out here who believe it's all right to kill someone because they TRIED to maybe kill him, and steal his property.

I am afraid of most of the people in this country because they are so utterly ignorant and unknowledgeable and can't understand why this guy is being charged with murder.

They both messed up, when only the aggressor was the one who initiated the violence, and in the beginning was the only wrong doer.

If the guy had a weapon and defended himself while he was being assaulted, it would be an entirely different story. But no, many of you just can't understand.

And now comes the question of whether the danger had passed for the "Victim"....All he had to do was drive away instead of running the guy down like a dog.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner
 


Your failure to see the difference between the two scenarios shows your brain needs further growing. In your scenario the "victim" did not and needed not confront the criminal, he did not stare death in the eyes. Although i still would not make a criminal of him and he should be allowed to protect himself and his property how he feels he must.
if a criminal wants to play with his than its on him/her. I wouldnt blame the shark if it bit me, its a risk i know is there everytime i get in the ocean, just like these idiots know. No one owes them a safeguard from the risk they take.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 



Finally, Stoddard flung his wallet toward a fence, and Crouch ran after it. While Crouch was distracted, Stoddard climbed into his tow truck and ran over his assailant. Crouch died from his injuries a few hours later.

Read more: dailycaller.com...


Why didn't he drive away?

Because he was assaulted, he had the right to take that man's life? With a ton or more of metal behind him?

IMO he's being charged for the use of excessive force. I don't see any reason that he needed to kill him, if he was able to get back into his truck an drive the thing.

~Tenth


this was not excessive force at all. you want to be a thief then this is what happens when the system fails and put a guy like that back on the street



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sirbritton
 



sirbritton
Once you make the decision to trespass on private property and assault someone with a deadly weapon in an attempt to rob them, you have sacrificed your right to life.


Really? Gosh, I've never heard that one... Where did you get this information? Because I thought:

A: Even the lowest of criminals has a Constitutionally-guaranteed RIGHT to be tried for their crimes.
B: Until tried and convicted, there is an assumption of innocence.

I guess we don't need a justice system at all!

I HAVE been in a fight. And I have been raped. I never killed anyone.


If you ask me, that scumbag deserved to die, and anyone who says otherwise is a blind liberal fool whose only fights have been fought from behind a keyboard.


Yeah, I'm not asking you.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner
 


This guy here lives on Elysium, lets talk when you come back to the real world.
edit on 5-1-2014 by chishuppu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Alright first post.
I'm not defending the perp but think of it this way.
Tow truck driving towards perp to run him over= clear shot for perp to shoot him
sounds a lot more dangerous than if the tow truck driver decided to drive away.. the boom in the back of the truck and the fact that this guy was 21 and had spent the last 4 years in corrections i would say chances of hitting the driver are slim to none..also if the perp wanted to kill the driver wouldn't he have just shot him when the driver threw his wallet? sounds like straight up revenge kill to me. Anyone remember Gandhi?



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join