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

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


I don’t agree.
The victim may have felt that if he tried to drive away the crook may have still shot at him because he could ID the guy.

That’s why even though the crook had the wallet the victim still had to think he may be shot because of that ID

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I think a person has every right to neutralize any threat that is physically presented to them. This man had a gun, had committed assault, it doesn't matter that the victim could have made his exit without incident. He was high on adrenaline and had just been attacked. He did society a FAVOR by killing this piece of blank. Give him community service like the affluenza dick hole.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


I completely agree with you (and tenth, intrepid, etc) in that the driver should have driven out of there. Of course, we don't know the details of the incident... the gunman could have been charging the truck, gun at the ready when it happened...

But, it's scary to read over this thread and know that so many people think that running over a distracted man with a truck is "self-defense" and perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Who is this guy to be judge, jury and executioner? Since when is revenge a reason to kill somebody?

I don't have anything whatsoever against gun ownership, but to know that so many firearms enthusiasts support this behavior scares the crap outta me.

mysterioustranger
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

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

The perp was a threat to every decent person in the street the moment he FREELY ELECTED to try and rob someone with a firearm.
There would have been no need to flee if the perp hadnt tried to rob him in the first place.

th3dudeabides
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

I think a person has every right to neutralize any threat that is physically presented to them. This man had a gun, had committed assault, it doesn't matter that the victim could have made his exit without incident. He was high on adrenaline and had just been attacked. He did society a FAVOR by killing this piece of blank. Give him community service like the affluenza dick hole.

I agree with you completely, however, today, in a world completly F***ed up, there is a world of difference between what is RIGHT and what is LEGAL.

From what the article states the dead guy proves the pointlessness of more gun laws

Crouch has a criminal record: He was convicted of carjacking in 2009, when he was 17, and served four years in a youth facility. As part of his plea deal, several assault and gun charges were dropped.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

So if our gun laws are so needed why did 1. his gun charges get removed via plea bargin 2.how did this felon acquire a gun? He died in the course of committing a violent felony! That was justice, not what the legal system did by allowing this guy to spend less time in jail. We all know this would have been getting a different reaction if he went and shot up a school. Fact is he used a gun in committing a crime not once but at least twice. He would still be alive if he had been forced to serve a sentence that included the gun charges. Instead he was killed by a tow truck! The driver performed a public service, since this Crouch fellow had no problem using a gun to commit crimes. It seems to me the legal systems failings are glaring on this case.

reply to post by andy1972

But, there WAS a need to flee and he didn't. He placed the threat back on him when he had all the weight of that truck....to go the other way. But he pursued and continued and progressed the threat.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

I'm with you...
Seems most people responding to this topic have never, or rarely been in a wrecker-yard.
I spent years in wrecker yards & impound facilities.
Anyone saying "once he was in the vehicle, the threat was over" is speaking from a lack of knowledge.
Wrecker yards and other such impound facilities are notoriously tight quarters.
More often than not - the "gates" are closed &/or locked.
I'm sure more information will be made available, later...but, most that I worked at had women/female employees on site, as well.
Getting into the vehicle did not ensure "escape", nor did it ensure that all others were safe.
Because the initial attacker pursued the wallet does not mean the threat had extinguished.
As another poster stated - adrenaline would be playing a huge role in the wrecker driver's behavior, rationale and response/s.
And another thing - driving wreckers (especially in "repossession" or "legal violation" scenarios) places such drivers/individuals in a constant state of wondering if "this will be my last day".
We don't know that he wasn't simply trying to pin the perpetrator to the fence, or otherwise ensure that the threat to said driver and/or any other employees, patrons & 'guests' had been neutralized.
In the few years that I did participate in said occupation - I can count no less than a handful of occasions where vengeful 'guests' brought weapons and injured or killed someone on the lots.

mysterioustranger
reply to post by andy1972

 

But, there WAS a need to flee and he didn't. He placed the threat back on him when he had all the weight of that truck....to go the other way. But he pursued and continued and progressed the threat.

A NEED to flee and the CHANCE to flee...to things way different.
A closed in parking, how far can you throw a wallet??
Maybe the tow truck driver knew he wouldnt have had the time to flee before the perp turnded around and began to open fire.
Maybe the parkings too small to get out quick...

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.

Not so clear. I mean, was he laying right next to his truck? Was he pulled out with the keys already in the ignition?

Not enough information. Even if he tossed his wallet, that doesn't mean the robber was going to let him go -- if he had a firearm, he could have discharged it as the driver attempted to drive away.

This isn't clear cut, dudes.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Thank you

I legally carry concealed 24/7 and if Ive learned ANY important lesson about carrying...and I cant stress this enough (especially to those opinionated non-carrying citizens)...is NOT...NOT...about carrying firearms to use them...just the opposite.

After training and understanding when to use them...its all about NOT having to use them.

That trucker was wrong.

mysterioustranger
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Thank you

I legally carry concealed 24/7 and if Ive learned ANY important lesson about carrying...and I cant stress this enough (especially to those opinionated non-carrying citizens)...is NOT...NOT...about carrying firearms to use them...just the opposite.

After training and understanding when to use them...its all about NOT having to use them.

That trucker was wrong.

edit on 09-22-2013 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)

This isnt about the trucker taking out a .45 and shooting the guy...the driver didn't have a gun, the perp did.
The driver didnt have to understand when not to use the gun he didnt have.
The attacker had pistol whipped HIM.

The driver, through fear of imminent death, did what probably everyone else might have done when fight or flight sets in. He wasnt going to give the perp ANOTHER opportunity to kill him after he'd already tried to beat his head in once.

Laykilla
Not enough information. Even if he tossed his wallet, that doesn't mean the robber was going to let him go

And the above, is the crux of the issue. The perp had tried to beat his head in with the pistol, so it was clear that he was prepared to kill. The kid, in my opinion, would'nt have let him go even if he had given him his wallet.

mysterioustranger
reply to post by andy1972

 

But, there WAS a need to flee and he didn't. He placed the threat back on him when he had all the weight of that truck....to go the other way. But he pursued and continued and progressed the threat.

As mentioned, the threat was distracted not gone. And you even said, he progressed the threat, meaning you acknowledge the threat was still there. What is the need to flee? A persons need to flee is based on the individual and his own perception of situation. The attacker was out witted and obviously he was the one who needed to flee. So we criminalize the victim because the criminal was not good at his craft and allowed his victim to turn the table? What sense does that make?

He leaves in the truck and the robber gets away with his wallet with inside are:

His address, credit cards, pictures of his family

And the robber has free rein to go kill this man any time he wants

So the man has to move, get all his cards changed, watch out for his family members,
Etc etc etc

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Really??? After being over powered and hit repeatedly on the head with a gun...

I know who you are now....

One of those characters that the Govenator played before acting in California government!

BTW when was the last time you were hit more than once in the head with a gun to be so certain this victim had to power to do more than what he did to remain alive?????????????

Drive away when the man has a gun???????? Tow truck is not faster than a speeding bullet... or superman. The distance to the gun man was a safer distance to travel than to flee as you would have been a huge target for at least 6 rounds at your back... not good odds... Glad mate you were not on my team!!!

Before leaving the US 30 years ago I was in an armed robbery where I was almost killed...... I was one of the first 10 people chosen by DA Washington to start a Redeye unit now days called a Stinger in the very early 70's..... I assure you all one can do against those odds is pray someone makes a mistake then you do what you have to do to survive!!! Also as far as fleeing and thinking your back of your head is bullet proof the victim tried to flee once... he tripped and was repeatedly hit on the back of the head with a gun ergo that did not work.... Most of us learn from our mistakes as the tow truck driver did with the FAILED 1ST attempt of fleeing.... with blows to the head only armchair heroes would think he had the thought power to think rather than simple survival instincts or the strength left to do much else....

That is unless you have the powers of a character that the Govenator played!!!

Most people have never been put in these types of situations- and they are usually the first ones to scream foul- like they know anything about it.

Someone pistol whips me in the head- thats intent to kill- at that point- I am in fear of my life.

Once I get into my tow truck- I am still in fear for my life.

Robber still has gun- Im still in fear for my life.

Robber now has my identification and maybe the identities of the people I love- Im now in fear for their lives.

Robber chasing after the wallet- does not stop the robbers intent on being violent towards that person.

People sticking up for the robber- I fear that they dont take their own lives as seriously as they should.

The tow truck driver outwitted the Robber- Which isnt suprising, because robbers are stupid and dont respect
the value of other peoples lives.

Keep on defending the bad guy. I just hope you are never in a position that the driver was in.

Oh poor armed robber,how sad!For the logically impaired here:If the guy didn't rob the other guy at gunpoint he would be alive today.How sick to blame the victim for defending himself.

gallopinghordes
To those of you who say I would do this or that; I'm not buying it. You don't know what you will do in any given situation until you are faced with it.

Once the Stoddard was in his truck he was no longer in immediate danger; which is generally the standard used and therefore when he attacked with a tow truck he became the aggressor and is now rightly being charged. The standard used is what would a Reasonable person do. It is not generally held that a reasonable person would run somebody over with a tow truck.

Further to those who say he was doing society a favor by killing I would say you're awfully quick to judge somebody you do not know as being worthless and beyond redemption; careful it might be you one day.

After an armed robbery and beaten with a gun on the back of the head I take issue with you that Mr. Stoddard was no longer reasonable or thinking and was only in survival mode...

I suggest you re-read your first line and reread your second paragraph which only make sense if you have been in exactly same situation and walked away.... (flee for the second time that is) otherwise you fall foul of your opening first sentence!!!

First I'll say that the story doesn't provide all the details needed for us to decide guilty or not due to the complexity of DC laws.

That said, IMHO, the man who died gave up his right to life as soon as he pulled a gun on a law abiding citizen. He deserved to die for his actions.

I believe, and again this is my own opinion, if you use the threat of deadly force during a crime then the victim of that crime AND the state both should be allowed to put you down. Removed from the gene pool as they say.

The deceased got what he deserved and I am glad the toe truck driver got out ok. IF I served on his jury he would get off without even a slap on the wrist, but I can't even begin to guess how a DC jury will respond...