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

reply to post by Asktheanimals

I am familiar with all the "you cant harm your attacker if he's running away" arguments, but reasonable people have to understand that the victim was thrust into this situation through no fault of his own.

And when you're in a life threatening situation, you may not be thinking 100% clearly. Who knows what kind of emotions were pulsating through the victim.

In a perfect world, the victim would have been as cool as a cucumber, gotten in his truck and driven to the nearest hospital as though he wasnt almost bludgeoned to death.

Please people, even you "bleeding heart liberals" have to understand the situation which this man was thrown into.

I hope the jury has enough sense to acquit the victim and send a message to our politically motivated "justice" system.

Come to think of it, forget "acquitting", just nullify the damned thing.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I'm sorry. I don't have any pity for the robber who lost his life trying to rob someone who is trying to make a living. When anyone has the audacity to threaten somebody's life and rob him or her of their hard earned money, they're making a decision to take a personal RISK that they can lose their life in the act of committing the crime.

Whose to say after the man retrieved the wallet this thug wouldn't have turned the gun on his victim and shot him? It was ok that this thug had the right to beat his victim with a gun, when the victim was going about his daily routine?

I prescribe to the belief, if your morals are that twisted and you don't have any care for taking another person's life, and you commit a crime with a deadly weapon, no matter if the victim strikes back with your back turned, you deserve what you reap.

Who knows if this criminal has already taken another life or would have in the future. You don't take a deadly weapon to commit a crime if you don't intend to use it. They should pass a law stating any victim who kills a criminal that is in the possession of a deadly weapon during the act of a crime, should receive immunity from prosecution. i'm tired of our system giving criminals more rights than their victims.

Maybe than, criminals would think twice before committing a crime with a deadly weapon.

gladtobehere
Please people, even you "bleeding hear liberals" have to understand the situation which this man was thrown into.

WTH does political affiliation have to do with this? Nothing. This is about justice, not politics.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


You are obviously right in that when attacked especially with a gun all bets are off.

What really bothers me most is the mentality of people defending the attackers as if they have some right to do what ever they want and your only legal choice is to escape without harming your assailant.

Maybe if we ever become bullet proof this might be an option.

One of the issues I have with the legal aspect of these situations are that the ones that write and pass this type of law do it from a distance. They do NOT take into account the human emotional element of the intended victim, and the dire situation they perceive (correct or not) they are in at the moment. It is very easy to sit back and say, "logically he should have run away...". In this type of situation, the man was already attacked, brutally beaten, tried to escape, and was pursued and beaten a second time. That being the situation, perhaps he felt that escaping was no longer an option here, and his attempt to save his own life meant taking the life of his attacker?

intrepid

gladtobehere
Please people, even you "bleeding hear liberals" have to understand the situation which this man was thrown into.

WTH does political affiliation have to do with this? Nothing. This is about justice, not politics.

You are right. This is about justice.

And justice was served!

Serves the moron right.

I wouldnt have just ran him over, I would have put it in reverse, and ran his ass over a second time just to make sure he was no longer a threat. Then I would have got out of my truck, took his gun, and shot him just to make sure the little prick was dead. Ill be damned to take the chance of not putting that guy down, after being physically assaulted by someone with a gun threatening to take my life; over billfold money.

Darwin Award. For sure.

drivers1492
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

My reply, from reading those that have replied so far, will not make me a popular person. But, if you attack me with a gun, and I can kill you, I will. Even if you are in the process of leaving. By bringing something to the situation that threatens to take my life, I will take yours. If that means I will pay for being a murderer then so be it. There is no moral dilemma for me in a life threatening situation.

Thank God, a sane person finally showed up to the party!

Well, being one well accustomed to sitting off in the "them" seats for my positions on things at times? I'll take another unpopular one here I guess...

This doesn't strike me as significantly different from the Oklahoma Pharmacy Case where the pharmacy owner shot one robber, which he was legal to do at that point, then returned and pumped 5 more rounds into the injured body on the floor to finish it. That bought him him life in prison at roughly the same time the surviving robbers were given the same sentence in another court room. Justice served for a legitimate defense shooting, turned outright murder.

This guy would have been 100% within his rights to mash the punk as flat as road kill *IF* the attack had persisted or the guy showed even a hint of turned to engage him inside the tow truck with the gun. It doesn't sound like that's what happened though, and he went from a legal position of safety to disengage from within the truck to the aggressor and, in the end, murderer.

You can't end a threat then BECOME the threat, then call it even because you started off as being the victim. Unfortunately for this guy, he's going to learn that legal theory in a very hard way.

Battleline
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

What really bothers me most is the mentality of people defending the attackers as if they have some right to do what ever they want and your only legal choice is to escape without harming your assailant.

This bothers me too. Who wants to live in a society where the criminal has every legal advantage against his victims? Criminals, that's who!
Isn't it illegal to have a handgun in DC?
And to everyone who said they would have run away: you are not being honest with yourselves. After being pistol whipped and your assailant still very near you don't know that the threat is over. You all seem to forget were not talking about a rational person with predictable actions. We're talking about someone willing to kill for wallet money. Anyone who values their life, anyone with children, anyone with love in their life would have killed that man too.

The evidence at the scene might speak much. The distances between the men, the locations in relation to exits, whether the perp was facing the truck, etc. Hopefully reasonable people will decide this man's fate based on these things, not emotions.

Some of this sounds like "if you have a job as a criminal, you can keep it". If a person infringes on someone's rights might they sacrifice some of their own as a result.

Stoddard attempted to run away but tripped and fell. Crouch repeatedly struck him in the head with the gun according to the Washington Post. Finally, Stoddard flung his wallet towards a fence and Crouch ran after it. While Crouch was distracted, Stoddard climbed in to a tow truck and ran over his assailant. Crouch died from his injuries a few hours later.

dailycaller.com...

Once he went from being the victim to being the aggressor, he just lost any/all protections that the law may have otherwise afforded him/ his situation.

for those claiming they would have run him over again, or took the gun and shot him, you'd likely be facing Murder in the First Degree.

good luck with that 'defense'

Who says the guy wasnt a threat once he went after the wallet?

Who says the guy wouldnt come back to finish the job?

Would you take that chance?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


But that's just it, wrabbit. Was the threat over? Everyone's assuming that the robber was going to leave the scene like a sane person would do. Anyone in that situation, after being beaten about the head with a chunk of steel would assume that the robber was gonna finish the job like a violent criminal would. We're not talking about reasonable people. We're talking about people who would break the law and risk their lives and their victims lives for wallet money.

Common Good
Who says the guy wasnt a threat once he went after the wallet?

Who says the guy wouldnt come back to finish the job?

Would you take that chance?

irrelevant, as it's merely conjecture and supposition at that point.

he Might come back
he Might continue to be a threat
he Might, Maybe, Would have, Could have... etc.. doesn't matter.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


No its not.

The guy already assaulted him with a deadly weapon.

You think his personality is going to change over a matter of a couple of minutes?

reply to post by riffraff

And to everyone who said they would have run away: you are not being honest with yourselves.

I would disagree with that and I'll tell you why. I did sit and put a bit of thought into this...and if given a safe, clear and open path to escape an armed confrontation, I'm taking the exit. Not re-engaging. Unless he had to drive through the guy to get to the exit, then turning into him actually gave the robber a better target to shoot, although I'm sure this guy wasn't thinking that fast or clearly.

I haven't 'been there' or 'done that' in any sense to compare to this. I have a family member who I take ques from though. A little battle few outside Iraq likely ever heard of, he ended up a medic in and killed an Iraqi who attacked him out of nowhere, face to face. It was personal, absolutely justified and can have no question whatsoever as to 'him or me' for mentally classifying it .... and I doubt he'll ever lose the shadow in his eyes or that bit of shadow to his personality from something he can't forget or fully get past.

If that's what it looks like for a man who had no choice but to kill or die outright and on the spot? I'll be happy to never have need to defend myself or use a single bit of the training for it. I hope I never see what it looks like when living with it carries even a little doubt as to 'what if...', later.

reply to post by Common Good


just the same as the woman who left the room to get a gun.

she fired a warning shot, but because she had already removed herself from the Immediate threat/danger she lost all protections of the law.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

The issue is right there. The perpetrator ran after the wallet so was no longer threatening the victim. When the victim got into the vehicle and ran over the prep their rolls became reversed and the perpetrator became the victim while the victim is now the perpetrator. Clear as daylight.

It might not be so black and white. If he was hit about the head and disoriented, throws the wallet and assailant chases it, climbs in car and kills would be attacker.

In the moment and facing a man with a gun, how does he know what the assailant would do after retrieving the wallet. The man could have been on PCP, or a float out psychopath so who's to say he wouldn't have turned around and fired at the man. Further, what if he tried to flee past the attacker and the attacker reacted and shot through the window and killed him.

It could easily be argued that the victim was still very much afraid for his life and acted to preserve his life over the assailant. Remember, not only did the attacker have a gun, he was beating the man in the head with it. That act alone is capable of killing the victim so no reason to think the victim wasn't in his right to assume his life was in danger.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Here's the thing: If someone comes in to rob you at gunpoint but somehow you end up shooting them maybe they'll go to prison, maybe not. Even if they did the guy knows where to find you anytime and just might want some "revenge" himself placing not only you but fellow employees or your family at risk.

We never know how any of will act until placed in such a situation. I know the adrenaline rush you get from someone pointing a gun at you and honestly I don't know if I could stop myself from killing someone were I given the chance. I'm the guy that moves turtles out of the road and catches spiders indoors and releases them outside. Each of us has the potential to go in to blind rage. It's entirely possible Stoddard was in such a state. Clear thinking is NOT something that's easy to do in such a situation, it's often impossible.

riffraff
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

But that's just it, wrabbit. Was the threat over? Everyone's assuming that the robber was going to leave the scene like a sane person would do. Anyone in that situation, after being beaten about the head with a chunk of steel would assume that the robber was gonna finish the job like a violent criminal would. We're not talking about reasonable people. We're talking about people who would break the law and risk their lives and their victims lives for wallet money.

That's a fair point on the threat being over and why a trial is so important. If evidence like that exists to show it wasn't over (the only thing I can imagine is such close proximity that running him over was almost unavoidable), then that does change things. That just isn't what it appears, here.

When he got into a vehicle...and a tow truck of all things for mental image of comparisons...he dramatically changed the balance of the situation in his own favor. I think that's where he could be said to have disengaged while the robber was off chasing what he came there for anyway. re-engaging is a fundamental no no.