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

reply to post by intrepid

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.

Justice for... whom?

Not sure about political affiliation but Its very political. IMO a victim is more likely to be charged with this type of crime in places like DC, MD, NJ, NY, etc.

For whatever bizarre reason, the more Liberal NE seems to hate the idea of self defense. You may argue that this wasnt self defense but as I said in my first post, there should be some consideration given to the mental state of a person who was just subjected to a violent attack.

I'd say its much less likely that the victim would be charged with this type of crime say in a state like Texas or Utah.

If you're saying that our "justice" system isnt politically motivated or influenced, I'd have to disagree.

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

if you have an opportunity to escape, then it is NOT self defense.

It stinks, but that is how viewed most places. He must continually state he feared for his life the ENTIRE time,

The throwing of wallet, and the guy went for it? wow! that is incredible, like a dog and Frisbee.

I thought the story was going into a guy mad he got towed and followed the driver to the lot.

Pistol whipping is attempted murder almost everywhere. Luckily the guy is alive, may have PTSD for life, and charged with murder but hopefully will be acquitted.

reply to post by intrepid

So the citizenry are now to act as the police? What's next? Blowing a neighbor away if they are doing drugs? "Hell, cops never see it, can't let them get away with that."

That is an entirely different issue. There is no need to use strawmen.

Everyone has the right to life. If you threaten the life of another, you are granting that person consent to kill you.

If I were smoking weed in my house and my neighbor came over to "blow me away," I would have no qualms over smashing their faces in with a hammer.

But, the OP was talking about when you are being directly attacked. Not fascist vigilantism. Which is what your neighbor example is.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by SonsOfTheMeek

 

Oh arguing semantics are we? I was just making the point that if he CHOSE to get into his car and run him down, when he had the chance to just leave, then he deserves the murder charge as he is a murdered.

That's not self defense. Self defense is when you have NO OTHER CHOICE.

A jury of his peers will decide if he did or not.

~Tenth

Sure he had a chance to leave but perhaps he wanted to do so without getting shot in the back of the head. Last time I checked tow trucks aren't bulletproof nor can they outrun a bullet. You people keep overlooking the fact that you are not out of a danger area until you are out of range of the weapon, which in this case happens to be a gun.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

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.

And, to me, this line of thinking is completely backwards. It is rational to become the threat. In a sane society, we should become the threat if someone tries to do us harm.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I was just making the point that if he CHOSE to get into his car and run him down, when he had the chance to just leave, then he deserves the murder charge as he is a murdered.

If your life is threatened and you have the choice to leave or kill the person why leave. Why does society think that I have to run or I'm wrong. If I didn't start the altercation why should anyone think I must take my opportunity and just go instead of end it right then and there. It makes no sense to me at all. It's just how I views things I suppose.

reply to post by SonsOfTheMeek




I'm a bit miffed. I've not fired many kinds of firearms in my life, but it seem like it would be relatively hard to shoot through the back of something like this and hit somebody.

In any case, there is a lack of facts in this case, so we can argue till we are blue in the face, but were only talking half truths.

~Tenth

gallopinghordes
Once the Stoddard was in his truck he was no longer in immediate danger

I have to disagree, if the man assaulted him and robbed him at gunpoint he is an immediate threat as long as he has a weapon and victim is within the effective range of the weapon. To think otherwise is a good way to get dead. Its easy to play monday morning quarterback... Bottom line is the attacker put the man in fear of his life and the end result should lie entirely on the attacker.

reply to post by drivers1492

If your life is threatened and you have the choice to leave or kill the person why leave. Why does society think that I have to run or I'm wrong. If I didn't start the altercation why should anyone think I must take my opportunity and just go instead of end it right then and there. It makes no sense to me at all. It's just how I views things I suppose

Honestly?

Because I don't consider MY life to be of more importance than somebody else's.

Perhaps you do, but I cannot make the decision that somebody deserves to die by my hands.

It seems like the kind of thing you'd decide if you thought you lived on a pedestal above everybody else.

~Tenth

nothing that doesn't happen probably a good 1000 times a day in the you es?

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Honestly? Because I don't consider MY life to be of more importance than somebody else's. Perhaps you do, but I cannot make the decision that somebody deserves to die by my hands. It seems like the kind of thing you'd decide if you thought you lived on a pedestal above everybody else.

I can understand that. But, when you threaten/attack someone with a deadly weapon you should expect that person to take your life in return. If your willing to put a life at risk then, at least in my mind, there should be no expectation that your life is secure. It's not a matter of being better than someone else, it's simply that no one gets make the choice as to when mine will end. If they feel that they do have that choice, like I said then I don't see where there should be any expectation of you living through the encounter.

Having read through the article, and down to the bases of the facts, this is how we should come to a decision:
A person with a gun, made his way into a fenced yard, and assaulted a tow truck driver, trying to rob him at gun point for his wallet. A fight ensued and the tow truck driver threw his wallet towards the fence, where the person with a gun went running for it. The driver got into his tow truck and ran over the person with a gun, causing enough injury to kill him.

The base level in this case shows that there are some things that should be taken into consideration. The first is how are the gun control laws in DC working for people? After all the person being robbed did not have a gun, or a firearm, and was assaulted by a criminal holding and using an illegal weapon, under the statues of DC.

Where the driver will get nailed is that he was in his vehicle, he then had a means to escape, but did not, instead choosing to enact a form of justice on the person who had assaulted and battered him and rob him of his wallet. While in the heat of the moment the driver decided to enact vengeance against the person.

Had said person fired the weapon at him, striking the vehicle or the driver, then it would have been very much a case of self-defense, however, this is not the case and the driver did have a means of escape from the situation.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Have you ever been attacked in such a way where you had to defend yourself such as this man did?

I have- a few times- I have been kidnapped by a mad man with a gun who was all doped up after he robbed a blood bank--I have had a 12 inch butcher knife trying to stab and cut me and a friend- Ive had 2 guns put in my face.

Trust me- You either act- or you die.

Its not always about running away- sometimes you just cant run away- sometimes you have to deal with the situation at hand with force when force is directed at you.

I really -really believe what this guy did was what he had to do.
(until contradictory evidence comes out- this guy IMO was in survival mode)

edit

The guy had just been attacked and suffered wounds to his head. Shock? He was not thinking correctly. I would free the guy because of his state of mind. To be honest I dont blame him for running the crook down. He did not set out to kill the guy, it was the crook with the gun. Live by the sword...

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

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.

And, to me, this line of thinking is completely backwards. It is rational to become the threat. In a sane society, we should become the threat if someone tries to do us harm.

I'll say this about that. If TSHTF and civil order collapses to remove police or a justice system as being an option for criminals? Everything changes, because the traditional term Vigilante isn't accurate anymore. Someone who would rightly go to prison today would, in that setting, simply be handling a problem in life and doing a community service, for lack of any other means to accomplish it.

I hope we never get to that world of civil order breaking down. This certainly wasn't such a case, and killing the guy wasn't, apparently, necessary. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the legal system though. There could be evidence we have no knowledge of at this point that makes what he did look different. Who knows, eh?

Maverick7
I suspect the guy was charged because he talked to the cops. Had he said nothing and gotten an attorney, there would be no charges, because the only witness is himself.

"...and then, I ran him over..." M'kay thanks, that will be 2nd degree.

100% accurate! Most assume the 5th is for criminals but it was designed for the innocent to not incriminate themselves. Whenever you are being detained or arrested, 100% of the time you should be pleading the 5th. There will be ample time to get your side of the story out before you sit in front of a jury.

I would not consider the inside of a car or truck a safe haven from a person with a hand gun. The ability to shoot through a glass window is basically a given.

Havn't had time to read all the post, so im sure this had been said before, but -
The instant the perp picked up the gun and went out to rob someone at gunpoint, HE SEALED HIS OWN FATE.

Dont shed tears over this kid -

HE made the choice to rob at gunpoint
HE chose to attack the guy
NOBODY forced him to do what he did.

He became the victim of his own crime...

"Quien a hierro mata, a hierro muere..who kills with steel, dies by steel.."

I dont feel remorse for anyone but the tow truck guy who'll have to live with the decision he made for the rest of his life...feel sorry for him, not the trash who tried to jack him.

Common Good
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Have you ever been attacked in such a way where you had to defend yourself such as this man did?

I have- a few times- I have been kidnapped by a mad man with a gun who was all doped up after he robbed a blood bank--I have had a 12 inch butcher knife trying to stab and cut me and a friend- Ive had 2 guns put in my face.

Trust me- You either act- or you die.

Its not always about running away- sometimes you just cant run away- sometimes you have to deal with the situation at hand with force when force is directed at you.

I really -really believe what this guy did was what he had to do.
(until contradictory evidence comes out- this guy IMO was in survival mode)

edit

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

Your right on point, I've been in situations where i could have justifiably used deadly force.. Thing is I'm a search and rescue swimmer and 11 year military vet. I know from experience that the majority of the population wont react to similar situations like i am able to, and i don't expect them to.. People who are untrained are expected to react with fight or flight.nothing more nothing less. I see no way to make a criminal of a person forced to make that split second decision by another. Would a cop been justified to use deadly force here? Yes and they would have.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

Had a firearm training last weekend. The instructor stressed this as a way to understand things about defense.

1. You come home, see a burglar in your house. Go blazing in and shoot him? There was no threat to you and you voluntarily went into the house (yard, garage, shed) to confront.
That would get you arrested. There was no threat to you, and you put yourself into the picture.

2. You look outside and someone is stealing your tires (car, lawnmower whatever). You get your gun and yell "Hey!" and get off a shot. That would be an offense and you'd go to jail.
PS-On this one, even a shot in a air would (could-may)get you arrested for firing a gun within city, township, suburban limits.

3. You see someone committing a crime and you pull out your weapon and wave it around in a threatening (to the person) manner. You can go to jail for that. Brandishing.

The laws have been changed in some states to allow self-lethal defense in 3 basic instances, and one can use lethal force, though these aren't all of them.

1.Youre inside and see someone coming into your home, business, yard, garage etc ? You have a right to assume potential harm and can defend yourself.
2. Carjacking. Someone trying to physically remove you from or prevent you from getting into your vehicle. Stealing it? Nope. You can go to jail for trying to stop them unless it WAS a car-JACKING.
3. Rape.

These all include defending others from the same things happening as well.

That truck driver should have hauled butt outta there and removed the threat. If I shoot at a fleeing robber from my house or go get my gun and chase someone now running AWAY from me? Im TOAST and Im going to jail.

Its a fine line about self-defense and defense of others. And my wife...once concerned about having one...was much more relaxed when she understood that we cant defend STUFF', and that its not to USE a gun that's important. OF course it is.

And Ill say this too...its a fine line between having a firearm and using it and now my wife understands its more like when you carry one...its even more important to everyone...of knowing when NOT to use it.

The trucker had no threat to him. None, and should have fled away from the threat and removed it.