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

reply to post by Freenrgy2


I do not choose to CC because of the convoluted wishy washy laws assotiated with it. Ill take my chances with criminal idiots before people who make a living at putting people in jail in a proven unjust system that gets it wrong more than right, where often non violent offenders do more time than violent predators.I would prefer that if put in a situation like Arora, or sandy hook that i be equipped to positivly impact the outcome. But the laws make clear that we do not trust our neighbors nor their judgment. Sadly most of these laws stem from isolated incidents and do nothing but tie the hands of good people who are willing to act and written in ways that undermine and also tie the hands of judges and jurys.I am a search and rescue swimmer and one of the things they made clear to us are the good samaritan laws and that many states dont have them...I decided not to learn because i never want them to guide my or your actions when it comes to saving somones life.

reply to post by swimmer15


I guess you just need to ask yourself if you are willing to go to jail because of your actions. In your case, the answer is "no". For the victim in this situation, he obviously felt the answer was "yes".

Notice that I use the word 'victim', because I truly believe he is the victim here. To tell you the truth, if I were in that position and someone just robbed me and I was able to strap myself into a 2000lb weapon and run over my attacker while my adrenaline was shooting through the roof, I probably would.

What I'm trying to say is that when thrust into a situation like this, it's really hard to know if one is merely acting on instinct or if a thought passes, however brief, across one's mind that gives that person the option to take another course of action. Think George Martin. While I believe he should have never left his vehicle, once he was thrust into that situation, the adrenaline was going and he feared for his life, did he think or act? And what would you have done?

Would you give thought to perhaps doing jail time for the next action you take?

reply to post by Freenrgy2


i have been in enough situations to know that in this type of situation the thought of jail never enters your mind. Had i been in this situation, i would only hope that i walk away from it. Whatever gets me to that result is what i feel i needed to do, to say what you would or wouldnt do away from it is a whole lot different than assessing and reacting while your in it.

reply to post by swimmer15


I agree completely with this. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback these types of situations, but nobody can say for certain what they would do unless they were actually faced with an identical scenario.

Of course, lawyers and the courts will look to the evidence and an individual's actions to ascertain guilt or innocence. In this case, I think he's going to lose.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


And just because I dont have a CC does not mean I would not act of fear of Jail or death.When not in it...not worth it to me, avoid at all cost..a bad situation is just that, leave it to the pro's, wait for the team because I know its just chance. Believe it or not, when asked to become a rescue swimmer my first response was no way..I guess leadership noticed something about me I didn't know lol. By reading the the law and the responses of others I'm starting to think its that I am defective. After all, very little that I do would fall under what a "reasonable person would do". What reasonable person would fail to hesitate jumping into frigid waters to save the ass of someone likely to sue them for everything that they have? Luckily for us there are many! And discouraging such does us no favors. There are more good people in the world than bad, by a lot, and I know from experience that the first responder to a crisis is rarely a professional.

swimmer15
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

i have been in enough situations to know that in this type of situation the thought of jail never enters your mind. Had i been in this situation, i would only hope that i walk away from it. Whatever gets me to that result is what i feel i needed to do, to say what you would or wouldnt do away from it is a whole lot different than assessing and reacting while your in it.

Agreed.
Only twice in my life have I (or my family) been in a potentially life-threatening situation. In both cases when the bad guy saw me with a gun in my hand they retreated posthaste. I didn't even have to point it...even the crazed meth-head with a chain saw wasn't too crazed to know that a shotgun beats a chainsaw!
In both cases I called the cops and asked for assistance. I told the dispatcher that I was armed and would defend myself. Then I picked up my weapon with my father's words echoing in my head: "Never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot them." In the case of the crazed meth head chasing my husband down our driveway with a chainsaw---I fully expected to have to at least shoot into the air but just the sight/sound of me racking the shotgun as I stepped out the door was enough to make him flee. Upon reflection of the incident my husband asked, "Would have shot him?" My reply: "Rather than let him maim or kill you? Yup!"
The sheriff arrived half an hour later. The perp was long gone but was picked up after another episode just down the road. He died in jail several years later.
That jolt of adrenalin that the body produces is supposed to help us protect ourselves by producing the "Fight or Flight?" instinct. Indeed, the "flight" instinct has saved my poor behind on many occasions, but when others are in imminent danger the "fight" seems to kick in. Had I been one of those people hiding from the gunman in the enclosed yard, I would hope that someone would use whatever force at hand to subdue this robber with a gun!

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Shoots were fired at the beginning of the incident. The attacker already established he had no issue with shooting at the victim.

Common sense shows if he is willing to fire at the start, he should have no problem shooting at the end.

The victim should be praised. The attacked should be held as an example not to try to rob people.

macman
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

Shoots were fired at the beginning of the incident. The attacker already established he had no issue with shooting at the victim.

Common sense shows if he is willing to fire at the start, he should have no problem shooting at the end.

The victim should be praised. The attacked should be held as an example not to try to rob people.

SHOTS WERE NEVER FIRED. The victim had an opportunity to escape and he didn't take it. Instead, he took matters into his own hands and ran the guy over. Not saying the attacker didn't deserve it, just looking at this from a legal standpoint. Again, what you think was the right course of action and what the legal system determines was the best course of action are two different things.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


The attacker wasn't firing because at the moment, he was getting a wallet that didn't belong to him.
Common sense shows he was willing to shot once, twice and that he has no problem doing so again.

It will be left up to a jury, which is said because the attacker chose the life of crime, died while doing his choice and that is all that should have happened.

A turd died.

macman
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

The attacker wasn't firing because at the moment, he was getting a wallet that didn't belong to him.
Common sense shows he was willing to shot once, twice and that he has no problem doing so again.

It will be left up to a jury, which is said because the attacker chose the life of crime, died while doing his choice and that is all that should have happened.

A turd died.

Did you real the article? Shots WERE NEVER FIRED. He drew his gun and when the victim tripped, he hit him in the head with it several times.

Do you look at any of the facts, or let your emotions dictate your response?

So, it would have been the "reasonable" thing to do to jump in the truck and drive away (providing the gate to the lot was even open) leaving the customer and employee hiding behind vehicles in an enclosed lot with an armed bad guy who had demonstrated a willingness to cause bodily harm? ....and hope that the authorities arrived in time to prevent innocent loss of life? Yikes, I hope to never have to depend on you for help in an emergency!
I don't know how the laws of self-defense read in DC but in Kentucky you have the right to use deadly force anytime a gun is brandished because a reasonable person assumes their life is in danger when a gun is pointed at them.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.

KRS 503.055(3)

reply to post by diggindirt


Not every state has a 'Stand your Ground law'. If your state has one, good for you. How that means I wouldn't help you or anyone in an emergency is beyond me, but I guess it makes you feel better to attack someone who might be looking at this from a legal perspective, rather than relying on an emotional response.

So far, I've had two people (you included) add information to the story that wasn't included to make it fit your position. The story makes no mention of additional employees or customers being present at the time, nor any shots being fired.

Instead of trying to bait me (I already said I thought he got what he deserved), you have to look at the law. And D.C., if I remember correctly, does not have a Stand Your Ground law. Therefore, killing someone when you had a chance to flee was not justified.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


From the link on page 10: "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.”

How did I somehow add information? It's right there in the article, did you not read it? I'm sorry if you misunderstood the situation due to incomplete early story. There were indeed, two other people at risk, hiding from the gunman, according to the linked story.
I did respond by "looking at the law" as I know the law in my state, and stating that it is from my state. I know this law quite well.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Well, I must have not read it correctly then. Thought that it stated shots were fired.


Still doesn't retract from the fact that the attacker had a weapon and displayed it with possible intent on using it.

A POS turd died while in his criminal actions. No tear is shed, no silent moment is needed.

reply to post by diggindirt


I apologize if another article contained this info. I only saw the OPs post, which did not mention this.

I really can kick myself for even getting involved in these threads. They're put up to solicit a knee-jerk reaction from folks and, I think, are a disservice to the ATS community. Instead of debating or discussing, the threads are usually designed to be lopsided towards one position. In this case, the majority believe the victim was right to plow the attacker over.

And a lot of you are so quick to point out how it is where you live. But, in legal terms, this does not matter. It only matters what the law is where the incident occurred. And, to think that by simply discussing the law, someone can actually say what kind of person I am and whether I would help someone in an emergency?

ATS, in my opinion, has really fallen. There was a time many, many years ago where a MOD wouldn't put up a thread in a knee-jerk fashion as this and when members could actually debate based on the facts....not invent their own details to fit their agenda.

At least Intrepid took a step back and tried to look at this critically as well.

Makes me wonder what some of you would do, if ever assigned to a jury.

Please tell me how I "invented" details?
The simple fact that you did not read the full thread and get the later story means that you were unaware of the facts of the situation. How does that make my statements "knee jerk" reactions?
I'm truly sorry if I offended you but I assumed (wrongly) that you were informed to the same extent I was and were saying that driving away leaving two unarmed people to face a man with a gun was a good and proper thing to do.

1. You didn't read the entire thread before you began commenting.
2. Because you weren't informed you made rash statements that didn't take into consideration the entire real-world situation.
3. You blame the mods for the slippage in quality of posts when you are the one not taking the time to read the thread. (I posted honestly that I had read only the first 10 pages closely.)
4. Can we get an apology for your "attack" which sprang from ignorance?

diggindirt
Please tell me how I "invented" details?
The simple fact that you did not read the full thread and get the later story means that you were unaware of the facts of the situation. How does that make my statements "knee jerk" reactions?
I'm truly sorry if I offended you but I assumed (wrongly) that you were informed to the same extent I was and were saying that driving away leaving two unarmed people to face a man with a gun was a good and proper thing to do.

1. You didn't read the entire thread before you began commenting.
2. Because you weren't informed you made rash statements that didn't take into consideration the entire real-world situation.
3. You blame the mods for the slippage in quality of posts when you are the one not taking the time to read the thread. (I posted honestly that I had read only the first 10 pages closely.)
4. Can we get an apology for your "attack" which sprang from ignorance?

My responses in reverse order.

4. Apparently, you didn't read my previous response where I did apologize.

3. I stated that MODS at one time, actually debated instead of putting up posts designed to illicit an strictly and emotional knee-jerk response. Really, does anyone (me included) think the attacker didn't get what he deserved? The thread should be about the legal fallout on this, not everyone's opinion on whether or not the guy deserved it nor what the law is in their state.

2. Only one statement I made about you inserting additional information was wrong. I DID take into account the situation and the LAW and based my position on that. There are just not enough FACTS to determine if the other customer and employee were in immediate danger.

1. I read the OP's post and linked story which is what this thread was based on. Wasn't that enough to get the ball rolling for everyone else? Even you admit you didn't read the entire thing. Does that mean I should discount all of your posts?