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: 9
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
So its ok for someone to steal your property.. Something you worked hard for... Mind you your family is in personal danger now because someone who just took your wallet knows where you live..

They all ready took the wallet..

Their is also the law that the person in the commission of the crime is also responsible for all that happens..

screw it I am not looking up the law..

it exist..

so the man who died is responsible for his own death.. Defense I would use




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I would say society is indebted to him. The law today may consider his act criminal, but it would consider his act acceptable had it been performed the same way by any cop. The purp actions and weapon showed him to be an imminent threat to society and in the commission of a felony, had he been allowed to escape it would mean the lives of other citizens would have been placed at risk. We created police departments to protect and serve it has never been the other way around though it is becoming that way, still citizens should have the same right to use force as does any officer no matter what the situation.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

jimmyx
the only thing I would have done different, would be to back up and run over him again to make sure he wouldn't shoot me. screw that guy, these guys need to know that if they attack someone, they can and will be killed...don't want to be killed, don't attack someone...pretty simple to me



Hahaha, that could not have been said better jimmyx. The thief created those circumstances and those circumstances got him killed, simple as 2 + 2.

Making excuses for criminals to let them off the hook only enables them IMO.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Of course he is being charged!

Everyone knows the price the average citizen faces when, in Washington DC, they fight back against being raped, pillaged and plundered.

How many politicians have you seen go to jail lately for illegal actions? Standard procedure in DC. Prosecute the peasants.


reply to post by Asktheanimals
 



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Maybe the criminal should of fled the situation when the guy got in the car.
What happens if the guy fled in the truck then the criminal gunned down someone else. Is held responsible because he didn't provide adequate care to others on the property or in the immediate neighborhood.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Don't you be so quick Intrepid and I are friends off the boards too. I'm pleased to count him as a very dear friend.

This debate is pointless until more facts become known as it stands right now I stand by my opinion that it is right and proper that charges have been filed. In the end it will be up to a jury to decide as it should be.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by gallopinghordes
 


Yea I couldnt tell.

The dynamic duo knows best right?


Glad MODS dont write the laws, we would all end up victims for not giving would be robbers the courtesy
of a head start.



edit on 4-1-2014 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


...and that is first degree murder. A capital offense in some states. You'd get a nice room on death row.

All for the sake of a bit of petty revenge.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Just like your buddies- you assume way too much.

You dont have the information that says he had that ability.

Why dont you mods just say ...

"we are right- you are wrong- we dont need details- we stick together no matter what"

that way im not sitting here wasting my time typing the same things over and over and over.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


We're assuming too much? So, too, are you, sir. As for sticking together? We disagree far more often than we agree...just so you know.

You don't know any of the details any more than we do. You've been in similar situations? So, too, have I. I've got the knife scars to prove it. I defended myself 'til the threat was gone, then it was over. Finished. I didn't chase the guy down to kill him... Nor did I kill the other guy once he was down. It was over.

It changes nothing, once the initial danger of being pistol whipped is over, in the eyes of the law, he has no business going after the criminal. That's not self defense, that's assault with intent, or in this case murder.

My own opinion is, he shouldn't serve any jail time whatsoever. Mitigating circumstances all over the place. It doesn't change the fact, however, that he drove towards the man with intent to, at the very least, injure.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


What a weak and misguided view on how to treat criminals!

1. He attacked an innocent bystander with a gun.
2. The victim feared for his life and under the circumstances ie: the suspect brandishing a lethal weapon, physically assaulting the victim and also trying to rob him = the suspect being in the wrong, the end result is just and fair!

Granted we don't know what state the victim was in whilst in "control" of the vehicle he may have been able to drive away - he may have also been bleeding and dazed, considering that he'd just been smacked over the head with a gun; guns are heavy and pretty solid due to the fact they have to contain a small explosion. He could have had blood dripping into his eyes and had come to the conclusion that instead of driving down the road blind and out of control in blind panic very fast to escape some total nutter with a gun trying to rob him, where he might crash and die anyway. A better option would be to incapacitate the suspect with the only tool at his disposal that is of equal force as a gun - A car.

The victim couldn't have known for sure that the suspect would die as a result of being hit by the car. He may have rolled over the bonnet, instead of going under it, relieving him of his weapon and probably writhe around in pain due to a broken limb or two as well as being winded from the impact or unconscious.


If you cannot agree that this victim's actions were fair and just you must have taken leave of your senses and I sincerely hope that you live in the United States and face a similar situation with a gun in your face.

This is not me attacking you - this is me trying to teach you a life lesson and trying to make you understand that what you just said is sick! "Bad people need dealing with".


Decision making by the weak, who are too afraid to end people, has made this world into the twisted and corrupt place it is today stop feeding that fire with more weakness.


OOooo I wish I could freely swear on here!



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


AGAIN- for the 8th time.

YOU DONT KNOW THAT HE HAD THAT LUXURY.

Details have YET to be emerged about his ability to run away.

Its not always so cut and dry like people want it to be.

He was brutally attacked- threw his wallet- found an opportunity to buy himself more time- then found a weapon of his own to protect himself with while in the process of saving his own life.
Im glad to hear you personally dont think he should get jail time- but its still not clear yet as to whether he was able to take the high road by letting that nutcase go off and do more harm to society.

Until this issue is resolved- nobody- not even myself included, can know exactly what happened.

Im leaving it at that. Thanks for the reply.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by neilarm
 


How was the victims actions criminal in any way? (sorry no political bull# allowed - I want a humane answer that doesn't protect someone who has just revoked their human rights by brandishing a weapon to aid them in attacking someone innocent. That crap don't fly!

He killed some nutter with a gun that was trying to rob him and possibly kill him.

Would the law prefer that the actual criminal had killed the victim and survived the attack?

There is no criminal offence here. There is self defense - fearing for one's life - survival instinct and a scumbag who died as a result of being a total copout of a human.

What is wrong with people trying to defend attackers? This victim should be reward with a cash prize for getting rid of a repeat offender.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Never seen the mods arguing before.... kinda funny (as long as there is no fallings out over it).

Anyway...as a Brit.....as someone who is against firearms....

If someone was to pull a gun on me, I would do my best to talk my way out of the situation, failing that, disarm them (I have disarmed knife/baseball bat and even a cricket bat wielding thug(s) before). If successful in disarming them, I would aim the gun at them and tell them to give it up...I wouldn't like to take the chance of them overpowering me and getting the weapon back, so if they continued to come at me again, I would shoot them...but I would try and make it none fatal (I have had firearms training, for the record).

If the attacker no longer pursued me, armed or unarmed, I would attempt to make a speedy departure from his/her presence without further aggravation of the situation and or/violence.

At the end of the day, the way I see it, if the perpetrator had wanted to shoot the guy then rob him, he would have. The chances are he was using his weapon and an instrument of fear so he could get some cash. This may be wrong, but what if he had no intention of killing the victim, only scaring him into getting what he wanted? Does that mean he deserves to loose his life because he was a little hard up?

Was the gun even loaded?

The right thing to have done would to have been to drove off and alert the authorities, the guy might have been arrested, done a little jail time and in a few years could have tried to sort his life out, little chance of that now.

The original victim of the crime deserves everything he gets, he had the opportunity to leave the scene and do the right thing, instead he chose to end the assailants life, someones son, loved one, possibly father. Yes, he may have been a bit of a bad character, but now he doesn't have the opportunity to mend his ways, does he.
edit on 4/1/14 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Common Good
reply to post by seagull
 


Until this issue is resolved- nobody- not even myself included, can know exactly what happened.



But we know exactly how it should have ended... Like it did.

The criminal attacker not being able to attack any more.

It's just tough luck that he died. If he hadn't have attacked he wouldn't be dead would he. I have minus-sympathy for the fool - he paid a fair price, this was not his first offence.

Thank you God for relieving our planet of yet another scumbag. The world will be a better place without IT.
(I am not religious but I must say thank you some how).



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

woogleuk
Was the gun even loaded?


This is totally irrelevant.

This is allowing people to rob others with an unloaded gun (that might not be).

From one Brit to another - let me point a gun at you and demand your property. I'll let you decided if my finger is actually hanging your life in the balance or not. Let us watch you soil your underwear and cry for your life because we don't come face to face with guns on a regular basis. Let's watch your adrenaline kick in and your heart pump as you want to rip my face off with your finger nails and bite my nose off and then stamp on the side of my cranium so my head splits and I can't harm you any more.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

seagull
reply to post by Common Good
 

...once the initial danger of being pistol whipped is over, in the eyes of the law, he has no business going after the criminal. That's not self defense, that's assault with intent, or in this case murder.

My own opinion is, he shouldn't serve any jail time whatsoever. Mitigating circumstances all over the place. It doesn't change the fact, however, that he drove towards the man with intent to, at the very least, injure.

As you stated, before - we don't know enough facts to justify any conclusions.
And, on that count, we, likewise, do not have enough information to justify the portion of your comment that is underlined (above).
You might be correct under some circumstances...but only some.
In a 'home invasion' - when the invader turns their back, or walks from the room...is the threat gone?
No (or - rarely).
If such an incident takes place in most other employment settings (confined, constricted, limited mobility, etc...), just because "the perpetrator" is not on top of someone...does that in any way diminish the threat?
Who could judge, in such a scenario, that the threat was over?
The wrecker was probably "running" the whole time (normal operating procedure in such situations)...
It seems more likely, to me, that the wrecker driver was continuing to act out of desperation to survive - rather than calculating and weighing options, laws or 'how others would view his actions'.
I could be wrong...but have been in numerous situations in wrecker yards (or wreckering situations) where guns were introduced to the equation. Once a gun comes out - all bets are off. Everyone gets crazy.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by crzayfool
 


agreed.

he got what he deserved.


I guess he didnt expect to get ran over that day/night. haha.

Thats what you get for being a dumbass, one less dangerous ahole roaming the streets.
Im ok with that. Darwin Award is deserving.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   

woogleuk
...The right thing to have done would to have been to drove off and alert the authorities, the guy might have been arrested, done a little jail time and in a few years could have tried to sort his life out, little chance of that now.

The original victim of the crime deserves everything he gets, he had the opportunity to leave the scene and do the right thing, instead he chose to end the assailants life, someones son, loved one, possibly father. Yes, he may have been a bit of a bad character, but now he doesn't have the opportunity to mend his ways, does he.

Every bit of this presumes a highly unlikely scenario.
He was in a wrecker/impound yard. None of the wrecker/impound yards/lots I have ever been involved with, in metropolitan areas, had open exit paths. They ALL had gates that were closed & in most cases locked...and oft-times controlled remotely by someone-else.
Therefore - under the most common scenarios to consider - he would not have had an opportunity to leave the scene and do the right thing.
The presumption that he could/should have jumped to the conclusion (or - rightly discerned) that the perpetrator only wanted his money, is, imo, unmitigated nonsense.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   

woogleuk
If someone was to pull a gun on me...


Bull# - You have stated you are a Brit. You don't know how to handle this. Guns aren't like what they are in movies, they actually rip a hole through you and the warm thick life line of blood that keeps you -you- starts oozing out like there's no tomorrow... It hurts beyond how much pain you body can handle so you go numb... and then there isn't a tomorrow - still willing to be Kickass and get that gun?

If I were an attacker and you flinched or made a run for it I'd depress that trigger faster than you could squeal like a pig in pain and then pick your wallet out of your jacket.



The right thing to have done would to have been to drive off and alert the authorities, the guy might have been arrested, done a little jail time and in a few years could have tried to sort his life out, little chance of that now.


The right thing to do is not waste anyone's time in trying to correct someone. Life is too short to be sorting other peoples problems out - or paying for them for years to come.


The original victim of the crime deserves everything he gets, he had the opportunity to leave the scene and do the right thing, instead he chose to end the assailants life, someones SCUMBAG, IDIOT , possibly BAD INFLUENCE OF A father. Yes, he may have been a bit of a bad character, but now he doesn't have the opportunity to mend his ways, does he. GOOD WHY SHOULD HE?
edit on 4/1/14 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)


I cannot even be bothered to try and correct your misunderstanding of how the world works.



(Yes my posts can appear quite hostile. That is for a reason. I am trying to get people to understand on the lowest possible level how decision making becomes warped when someone is attacking you. I make my posts deliberately graphic so that you may attack me back; like the victim attacked the suspect back. This is just the internet and a website - imagine yourself in this guys position under attack from a total stranger with no clue as to what he/she is capable of; Have they killed someone already? Are they on drugs? Will they actually kill me? Is this a dream? Are they desperate?

Don't take any chances. Life is a game in some ways but you can't load a save game when you lose).



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join