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

swimmer15

intrepid

swimmer15
reply to post by intrepid

 

Im not sure how dealing with "these types of people" by trained individuals in a controlled environment correlates with average citizen dealing with "these types of people" in a tow yard setting after having their head bashed in. Could you clear that up because I'm not clear what makes you a subject matter expert?

edit on 4-1-2014 by swimmer15 because: (no reason given)

Never claimed to be a "subject matter expert" but working in that environment "may" make me one. "Controlled environment"? When a shank can be made out of a chicken bone? A toothbrush? Yeah that actually has happened in my place of work.

Im not trying to discredit you, you guys have my respect..may have come off wrong just wanted make you think a bit. But it is controlled,hours upon hours of training protocols and safeguards are in place and you know people die when not followed.you will and are to be expected to react different in situations like this than average citizen, just as i am when swimming in 15 foot swells in shark infested ice water.

I don't know about Intrepid, but my work involves home contact, face to face contact in unsupervised or unconstrained areas with criminals of all kinds. When you understand what motivates criminals to do certain things, you appreciate the potential risks. Obviously being attacked by anyone is a completely different environment.
(A poor analogy) It can be likened to being attacked by a wolf who is trying to get at food in your shopping bags. When you throw them away from you, the wolf is distracted. You shoot it in the head. Someone who works a zoo tells you that it just wanted your food, and you should have used the opportunity to drive away instead of killing it, to which you tell him he doesn't know what he is talking about. (again, a poor analogy, but I hope human life is valued more than an animals.)

reply to post by Lilroanie


You said it.

This is becomming a crazy world with crazy mindsets.

No wonder everything is going to crap.


Enjoy life while you can though- dont give up on us just yet =) Your daughter needs her father/mother around
for sound advice.

reply to post by spacedog1973


I value animals lives more than I do scumbags lives.

Take that to the bank.

Bambi or a no good piece of crap robber who likes to pistol whip people?

Bambi just got a break, and will go on enjoying the rest of their life till hunting season.

I'm surprised so many are arguing over who is right when nobody (to my knowledge) was there as a witness, an investigator or has access to victim, witness or investigator. It's like a glorified dick measuring contest.

No one here has a clue who was right or wrong in this situation because the facts aren't available. It doesn't matter if you a corrections officer, a marine or Barney the purple dinosaur.

I think we can all agree that in a situation like this, depending how it went down, the victim could have swapped roles or could've been well within his rights to do what he did. Even if the victim did tell the cops "I ran him over" he could have simply recalling the moments he remembered. Seeing the situation he was in, I'm sure its safe to assume he couldn't recollect exactly what happened now let alone at a time when he was disoriented from the experience and the beat down.

He could have simply incriminated himself by not knowing what he was saying was coming out wrong even though what he did was justified in self-preservation. Or he could have been thinking; "oh this bitch just #ed with the wrong marine" in which case this man also needs help.

Lilroanie

I SAID

"Then you two of ALL of us should KNOW most of these creeps GET OFF on hurting others or ending their lives or being in prison.

MOST not all. And you know for sure he wasn't a gang member or wanna be gang member maybe getting "jumped in" how? Lil

Most criminals don't get off hurting others. What a ridiculous thing to say. Most criminals comprise of theft, car incidents, drugs related and other minor crimes that do not involve any violence. Gang members are gang members for a range of reasons. Mostly a combination of money, status and prestige. The only people who get off hurting others are people with mental and emotional disorders. They comprise of a select group of individuals. Maybe he was a gang member, maybe he wasn't. What has that to do with anything?

I think I finally get it though. Law abiding=bad, criminal=good.

No, you don't get it at all.

intrepid

Common Good
HE is the victim- dont get it twisted.

OK, when does he stop being a victim?

When the victim is now safe with medical treatment and has recovered from his ordeal!

The funny thing was because out of 6 stores these two (in my case) robbed I was the only one to ID the gunman.... The cops were blown away I was so ready to go to court..... for several months going into SF corner shops in same area and you know cops hang out in corner stores/mini deli as there are tons of free eats whilst the store owner realizes that free food and coffee is a cheap way of having armed police in their stores providing security as a matter of a police presence. I was asked many times if I carry now and the suggestion from them that its safer for me to argue in court than to be on a slab....

31 years later I am still angry at the DA, as the Stats, would suggest that armed robbers re-offend and that the gunman I was involved would continued in his line of work in 4 years..... (suggestion here is that most criminal serve half sentences).

It seems to me that those who let the guilty off rather than getting the full punishment that "we" (law abiding citizens) would have thought an armed robber would receive under our justice system, should be responsible, for the next occurrence of similar behaviour! IMHO these actions of the DA and others involved in these plea bargaining cases would make said criminal more bold in their chosen profession, should be held accountable to the next victim or their surviving family, again IMHO! Especially true, if, the letter of the law suggests, I don't know, say, just guessing that 10 - 12 years should be served for armed robbery / attempt of murder which is then reduced to 6 or 8 years! Sentence not fitting the crime as it were as a result of a clever defense lawyer in a plea bargain. The next crime that happens during the time the criminal should still be confined for their previous crime... i.e. the difference of the "book" punishment and the time served, in this example the diff between 6 - 8 years served vs what the "book" prison sentence should have been. My idea of responsibility is as follows, if criminal is in prison then the public is safe from this criminal who has proved that they are indeed a danger to society! In simple terms the criminal cannot be in two locations at the same time! True in my case as the armed robber should have still been serving time for his last arrest! But this is off topic, sorry....

reply to post by Rosinitiate

That was well said.
I have not argued that the "initial perpetrator" deserved to die...
Have not argued that the "initial victim" acted appropriately.
And I am certainly not sitting in judgment of the ultimate victim. Wish he wouldn't have chosen that path, but I don't know his story. Condolences to his family.

Common Good
reply to post by intrepid

 

IMO- he will always be the victim of this crime.

I'm sorry but that is not only illegal but it is a call vigilantism. NOT what the Constitution was founded on. I'm out folks. Hopefully logic will prevail.

reply to post by intrepid


you assume he wasnt in fear for his life.

dont worry- now that you are gone-logic will stay intact.

with regards people and society in general .....


what concerns me most, in this type situation, is the 'preferential' application of The Law.

dismissing that the initial 'victim' ended up acting outside of The Law, yet all the while attempting to bolster/justify the same Because the assailant also acted ouside of The Law.


WTH!?

The Law can't be applied both ways, folks.

- all emotions aside -

????

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


How can you say that he acted outside of the law?

You still dont know the details of his ability to escape that threat.

Good lord.

Just because he got in his truck- doesnt mean that the fear of his life ended.


Ill respond to you if you reply to my comment- but I have said my peace on this matter.

I say we wait for the details before we can judge any further of the lawfullness of the case.

12m8keall2c
with regards people and society in general .....
...what concerns me most, in this type situation, is the 'preferential' application of The Law.
...dismissing that the initial 'victim' ended up acting outside of The Law, yet all the while attempting to bolster/justify the same Because the assailant also acted ouside of The Law.
...WTH!?
...The Law can't be applied both ways, folks.

... - all emotions aside -
...????

Your proposition presumes facts not in evidence (yet)...
... "that the initial 'victim' ended up acting outside The Law" ...
That is not known.
It is alleged.
More information is needed to conclude either way.

reply to post by intrepid


I agree with intrepid here about vigilantism but my take on "when does he stop being a victim" is when he is free and clear from the threat. As I said before as long as he is within range of the weapon from an attacker who already attacked him he remains threatened. Under the constitution the victim has no obligation to flee. And my opinion is that the attacker created the environment and should hold full liability.

I only chimed in because of this mentality of "right and wrong" way to react. When another person makes you choose you or them, the only right answer is the one that leaves you standing in the end. To make a criminal out of someone because they were forced to make this choice by another, makes no sense to me.

12m8keall2c
with regards people and society in general .....


what concerns me most, in this type situation, is the 'preferential' application of The Law.

dismissing that the initial 'victim' ended up acting outside of The Law, yet all the while attempting to bolster/justify the same Because the assailant also acted ouside of The Law.


WTH!?

The Law can't be applied both ways, folks.

- all emotions aside -

????

If he (the criminal) had been stealing a beer at the local mini mart UNarmed and hurt no one, I would agree with you.
The law CAN and should cover defending lives from people who wish to end them for personal gain or a thrill, and if the criminal dies? Then he should have chosen another profession, but at least the LAW ABIDING persons family won't have to mourn him.

Since when does The Law say I am not allowed to protect my life or the lives of others? And before ya start I know it says exactly that in a lot of states. THAT is the problem. I AM going to defend my life or the lives of anyone I can from being taken by a criminal. If that makes me a criminal as well? So be it.


Lil

12m8keall2c
with regards people and society in general .....


what concerns me most, in this type situation, is the 'preferential' application of The Law.

dismissing that the initial 'victim' ended up acting outside of The Law, yet all the while attempting to bolster/justify the same Because the assailant also acted ouside of The Law.


WTH!?

The Law can't be applied both ways, folks.

- all emotions aside -

????

Sorry to disagree but again IMHO "the initial victim" has been charged and is innocent until proven guilty!

The fact that and I quote "Police rejected arguments that Stoddard was merely attempting to flee in his tow truck, or acting in self-defense." is the police who responded after the fact, and not witness, is their opinion and charges.... until convicted Mr. Stoddard is still innocent in the eyes of the law... therefore do not understand your point of view!

The unfortunate thing for Mr. Stoddard was that there were no witnesses.

The reason I was using my experience was that most commenter, including Mods, may have never been a victim and again IMHO the inference in many postings was that Mr Stoddard at the time of him starting his truck was in the same frame of mind as those hitting the keyboard in this thread! Mr. Soddard was not in a calm, rational, normal mind as he was injured, bleeding and in fear of his life. Same emotions I was going through, my poor style of writing trying to give some understanding to Mr. Stoddard from my perspective! I worked in the heavy crime areas of San Francisco as my corporations favoured women reps, for my company I was the only male in San Francisco so my territory was not normal grids! My experience on the streets gives me a different perspective again IMHO....

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by mysterioustranger

 

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.

Are you a criminal that may assault someone with a deadly weapon? No- then nothing to worry about. Yes-then GOOD, be afraid.

I don't know all the details, but the article makes it sound bad for the driver, just a few things. Those lots are pretty tight most times, and it isn't quick or easy getting a big tow truck out of them. How severely was the guy beaten in the head? That could seriously effect your decision making, I've had a couple concussions, and will say you are definitely not of right mind. Lastly I'm just happy as a tax payer we aren't paying for this idiots prison stay, it costs more to put one of them up than for a year than I make in that year, if it were up to me we'd bring firing squads back.

reply to post by EverydayInVA

EverydayInVA
Are you a criminal that may assault someone with a deadly weapon? No- then nothing to worry about. Yes-then GOOD, be afraid.

I'm not afraid for me. I'm afraid for our country.

These laws are designed to make it complicated to stage a robbery to cover a murder. Once this was cleared up he should have been given the good citizen award for stopping a guy that may have killed his next robbery victim.