Armed Robbery Victim in NYC Jail after DISARMING Attacker

a reply to: centarix

Ummmm, really? You're all for him taking the law into his own hands and running the kid down with his SUV? Seriously?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: EightTF3

Is it acting out of instinct to drive away and then turn around?

It isn't flight and fight, he made a decision to get away, but then changed his mind.

What bubble do you live in that you've never been put in a situation where you aren't thinking rationally? You're siding with a thug who woke up that morning and decided to bring a gun instead of money for some #ing shoes. I don't know what went through the head of the guy who ran him over in that minute or so after possibly getting robbed at gunppoint. I can though see the thought process of a piece of # thinking a pair of shoes are worth armed robbery.

The point is the guy who ran him over went out to sell some shoes. If the asshole didn't rob him and create a nightmare scenario nobody gets hurt

a reply to: greencmp

The crime had already been committed by that point. So unless the guy that did the robbing said "hey just FYI I'm gonna hop out and go rob that deli over there, probably shoot the owner too" then no, failing to run somebody down with your vehicle after they rob you does not fall under the category of having prior knowledge of a crime.

Pointing a gun at someone, whether loaded, not or unable to fire, is the same to me. It's still a threat to life of the victim in their mind.

In my state there is nothing abut loaded / unloaded. It's the same as far as gun laws.

a reply to: EightTF3

He is not siding with the thug, he is attempting to explain to you how the law works. I agree, and so does the law. In any case like I said, it will get plead down for the same reasons you are trying to acquit the man of, emotional, rash, reaction from anxiety etc etc ...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: greencmp

The crime had already been committed by that point. So unless the guy that did the robbing said "hey just FYI I'm gonna hop out and go rob that deli over there, probably shoot the owner too" then no, failing to run somebody down with your vehicle after they rob you does not fall under the category of having prior knowledge of a crime.

But who was the mugger/attempted murderer going to murder next?

a reply to: EightTF3

What bubble do you live in that you've never been put in a situation where you aren't thinking rationally?

I have been, and unless you can't control your emotions it doesn't last that long.

Sam managed to make it only about 100 yards with the shoes when the driver made a U-turn, stepped on the gas and struck Sam. The teenager was pinned against the fence and his right arm was severed "completely," a police source told PIX11.

pix11.com...

Maybe I am reading his wrong, but if the guy was able to walk 100 yards before being ran over, that sounds like some time passed.
The kid was wrong, he should have never done what he did, but two wrongs don't make a right.

While I'm enjoying the hell out of this example of idiocy via pure, unadulterated schadenfreude (serves the dumb ass thief right) this guy's actions are way, way beyond any reasonable expectation of self-defense. After the threat (thief) walked off, he lost his right to use extreme force to defend himself.

But I betcha the little twerp doesn't rob people again. Silver lining & all here.

a reply to: greencmp

Good question, and if that guy was so concerned about it there are other channels besides running him over to go thru.

a reply to: greencmp

Who did he murder to begin with?

For all anybody knows, he was on his way to donate those shoes to a handicapped kid that loves basketball. You can't prove that he wasn't going to do that any easier than you can prove he was on his way to go murder somebody.

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.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: greencmp

Who did he murder to begin with?

For all anybody knows, he was on his way to donate those shoes to a handicapped kid that loves basketball. You can't prove that he wasn't going to do that any easier than you can prove he was on his way to go murder somebody.

The driver knows for sure that the mugger just committed attempted murder on his own person.

He knows for sure that he has the opportunity to subdue the assailant, the question is whether deadly force can be justified.

a reply to: EightTF3

You didn't answer my question. Its okay, just pointing that out.

If someone steals your shoes and you jump in your car and run him down, you are going to jail.

a reply to: greencmp

The driver knows for sure that the mugger just committed attempted murder on his own person.

Does he? Guess he knows all the language needed for that crime and how it applies to the situation he is in.

Not sure how deadly force can be justified when some one has their back to you.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

The driver knows for sure that the mugger just committed attempted murder on his own person.

Does he? Guess he knows all the language needed for that crime and how it applies to the situation he is in.

Not sure how deadly force can be justified when some one has their back to you.

Yes, he does.

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.

a reply to: intrptr

This is twice now that we've agreed on something.

It's also cold as hell where I'm at.

Coincidence?

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?

This situation is a great thought experiment.

If this mugger had grabbed a women's purse and a man ran him down beat the crap out of him and returned the purse he'd be a hero. When they play the scene in the movie we never think hero just attempted murder.

I do not think I could prosecute this guy. If a guy in your neighborhood had just robbed you at gunpoint and is now running around the neighborhood armed what do you do?
Let's say your kids are outside. There is a active attempted murder on the loose.
This guy can't get out his car and chase him down because this guy has a gun. Nobody in there right mind is going to chase down an armed guy while unarmed.

Do I agree with this guy's actions over something so small? no. Do I think this is a bad guy? no.

armed robbers are just murderers who didn't have to go through with it. Robbers are scum. be a burglar or shoplifter if one really has to steal.

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.