Guy robs guy at gunpoint of his Air Jordan's through Craigslist. Victim then rams robber with his car. Robber loses arm. Literally, his arm gets severed off. Robbery victim gets charged with 2nd degree murder.
Is this fair?
Murder is defined as performing an action that you know is likely to result in the death of another. You only get away with it if it's done in self defense.
It can also be reduced to a manslaughter charge if the action was done after the perpetrator was exposed to conditions that would drive any reasonable citizen to homicidal behavior. Discovering infidelity, seeing one's child harmed, that sort of thing.
Recently getting robbed at gunpoint may fall under that criteria. I'm not sure.
Except in the OP, he's still in the presence of a robbery who assaulted him with a deadly weapon, assuming threatening to kill him.
But it depends on the circumstances. If someone robs you, and you in turn try to kill them out of retribution, then it's clearly murder/attempted murder.
It was the correct way.
He was already robbed, he should've said it to the police, instead he went vigilante.
Once the thief turned his back on you, you're no longer in danger, therefore if you attack then you should answer to the law.
>I wonder how many of those "border patrol militia" actively murder mexicans crossing the border.
I surely hope they are killing illegal invaders on sight. Why the hell do I pay my taxes?
in many states you are allowed to use lethal force to defend not only your life but your property as well
however new york is a duty to retreat state and therefore is not one of them
all phobias are pathological.
there are differences between people and cultures but there are many factors that contribute to it and ignoring externalities to instead reduce everything down to race/sex/gender is a fundamentally flawed ideology.
>Is this fair?
Yeah probably but if i was on the jury I'd let him off.
The world is likely better off for the robber not having an arm and i doubt the other guy will be running down any more people.
that's the dumbest shit i've heard all day
granted it's only 5 AM so you may be trumped later, but in NOWHERE on earth does it work like that save some shithole where you can bribe police
Possession is 9/10ths if the law. When asked, the thief will reply that the item is theirs and the police will tell you that they can't help you and its a matter for civil court. If you let someone walk away with your stuff, especially in a big city, you'll never getting it back.
There's so many fucked up and flawed ideology runnin around and yet you chose to defend the one where you have a chance to get your ass stabed by a total stranger not speaking your language.
he wasn't charged with murder he was charged with 2nd degree attempted murder, I'd be surprised if he can't get it reduced to 3rd degree assault or something like that. I wonder how different this would be if it wasn't on video.
>Is this fair?
At least in his case he did it after the fact so the prosecution has SOMETHING
What about this situation that happened in my country?
>guy is a farmer
>junkie steals his tools and gasoline on a weekly basis
>this goes on for months because cops don't give a shit
>farmer loses his shit when he catches the junkie stealing his gasoline again.
>cops arrive quickly this time
>they put the junkie in handcuffs.
>farmer is so pissed off that he shoots and kills the junkie while he's handcuffed
>farmer is arrested and received a 20 year sentence for murder
Was this right?
if you aren't shitposting you are legitimately fucking retarded and should probably start wearing a retard helmet
in most of the US, you are allowed to fuck someone's shit up in defense of your property
Say I wake up at 3 AM and see some spook heading for the door with my TV.
Just because Da'quarius has my flatscreen in his cotton pickers doesn't mean I can't legally ventilate him for stealing my shit on my property.
In many states, castle doctrine extends to your shit, EVEN if you're not at home. So if some asswipe with a knife takes my Air Jordans, I'm allowed to defend my property even if it means shooting him in the back(this has actually happened in Texas IIRC)
Now again, the dude in the OP is in New York so none of this would apply to him and he's gonna get assreamed by the courts because he didn't let some wigger with a rusty knife widen his asshole first
>then it's clearly murder/attempted murder.
The now armless man made his intention to shoot someone over a pair of shoes know. But once the thief starts moving away he becomes less dangerous.
Go fuck yourself.
The guy who rammed the psychopath only fault was not using a set of goodyears to flatten the thug's head, repeatedly.
No. It's an extralegal vigilante action against someone who was already detained and who no longer posed a threat.
I'm all for people being able to defend themselves and their property, but what you described is not that. It would be a different matter if he had shot the guy in the act before the police came though.
Texas is a castle doctrine state and outside of a few minor things castle doctrine is usually the same in any state that has it
just because people throw a shitfit doesn't mean he didn't get off free for it
I suppose you think just because people lost their shit at ZimZam means that what he did wasn't legally justifiable
>put gas cans inside structure
>shitkicker comes to steal gas
>shoot him in the fucking face
>call the police
>I was just in my barn doing _____ and this guy came in with a crowbar to steal my gas, saw me and threatened to kick my ass, so in fear of my life I shot him...
but yeah that guy murdered that shitkicker
>The now armless man made his intention to shoot someone over a pair of shoes know. But once the thief starts moving away he becomes less dangerous.
He made his intention to leave the area known by literally beginning to leave. Is this a hard concept?
Fucking this. I'm so sick of our society trying to justify ways to fuck people over on self-defense. You should have the right to defend your property, regardless of circumstances
there is no 'except'. this is textbook 2nd degree murder. your feelings do not change the fact that he went from victim to perpetrator, and not only that, committed the more grave crime of the 2, as they were individual events.
Here is what I've never understood about self-defense after a crime, especially after robbery and theft. The crime persists outside of the area in it was perpetrated, so why don't I have the right to run that guy over to get my shit back? They're still in possession of it?
>but what if the party is not in possession?
He/she still committed the crime. Self-defense already allows a small degree of vigilantism, why does time and distance have to be a factor and not whether you or your property is safe?
>The crime persists outside of the area in it was perpetrated, so why don't I have the right to run that guy over to get my shit back? They're still in possession of it?
The same reason he doesn't have the right to rob you in the first place.
the reason you "can't" is because the police are supposed to run him down, beat the shit out of him or kill him, then return your stolen property as a public service.
The problem is that da popo take 15-never to arrive and do such, since there are too many speeding tickets to write to deal with community policing effectively.
>you were no longer in fear of your life dumbass
Right because everyone is ratational and levelheaded after getting a gun pointed at them and only surviving because the gun misfired.
Your fucking living in candy land you twerp.
With another mans property and a smug grin on his face that he can do it again. Im so glad he lost his arm the only thing that disapoints me is that he is not crippled from the neck down.
>If it's irrational
>Expressing nationalism in a healthy way
These days even a small for of nationalism will label you as xenophobic, racist, or even a nazi. Take a look at some European countries. Their citizens are afraid to show a little bit of nationalism and have to spread their ass cheeks. Except if it's about sports of course.
if he was able to reach his car, he was able to escape. just like with trayvon. once he reached the safety of his fathers home and decided to leave and look for Zimmerman he went form victim to aggressor in the eyes of the law.
no its called knowing what the court of law will do to your ass when you're confronted with a prosecutor that will fuckin reck your asshole and send your ass to jail for murder, you have to convince a jury that you were in fear of your life AFTER HE TURNED AROUND AND LEFT
>Like being able to shoot a fleeing theif is not legal anywhere else but Texas.
it's legal in california - defense of others from obvious felons is 100% legit on all public property and any private property you are legally allowed to be.
Well there is your problem
More than Texas you can do that. There are actually lots of states that have that code.
Looks like we missed on boys. Lets trace that IP and round him up! We have broken through 6 of his proxies and uploaded the viruses to his firewall sockets. Lock and Load!
In Oklahoma you can shoot if they are comiting a crime
another criminal gone, good riddance
I've always been a fan of a finger for a hand. If you're knowingly committing a crime their isn't any reason why your punishment shouldn't be death. You're literally choosing to be a huge asshole. Such a policy would benefit people considerably because instead of allowing convicted criminals go about you just get rid of them and that's that
>Sam, who lost an arm in the crash, ran away from the scene,
>then stumbling to his house around the corner, where he collapsed in front of his mother
Holy shit, sounds like he got up and ran away with his arm detached. And his mom saw him running up to her missing his arm.
if you watch the video it shows him running with one arm...
also no one seems to mention that the robber pulled out a gun and put it to his head and pulled the trigger (gun jammed, probably a hi point)...even cops corroborated this
i know, was just making a poor nigger joke...jeeeez
Fine then. Kill all the people. No people no problems. It's the easier of the two to begin with anyhow.
Or do nothing. Or arrest everyone because we're all apparently terrible. /k/, pls, bye.
>cutting of the hand/arm that committed the theft
>people defending this retribution
So much support for Shariah here!
Everyone living in a state where you can't kill to protect property is sitting at about 180 degrees Fahrenheit on their way to the self defense frog being boiled.
Duty to retreat
Defacto no carry
Castle doctrine thrown out
"Proportional" force laws
>whahahwhah it's murder killing a criminal whwaahahahah muh feelings
Was he in imminent danger at the time he used a deadly weapon against the assailant? The law currently states that of you're not, then you can't be defending yourself because that doesn't denote defense. It's not up to you by yourself to determine the law, but you can work to change it if you disagree with it. However, I wouldn't want a society that has laws like the wild west where you can shoot anyone in the back for petty theft. In this case since the assailant had a gun and armed robbery is a felony, I would (and do) support laws against fleeing felons, but not those fleeing for committing misdemeanors (for example if he just snatched the shoes and ran with no weapon involved). There's also the issue of whether or not it's irresponsible to use your car as a means of defense. It is indeed a deadly weapon, but you're not trained to use it safely nor is there any way to use it as a weapon safely really.
Tl;dr: shits subjective yo.
you are shit and your opinions are worth less than shit.
Once the thief turns his back on you he has made a critical fucking error and you should be able to punish him for it and reacquire your property.
There should be no haven or safety for criminals. Once in violation of the law they are outside of its protection.
In california if someone breaks into your house armed with a baseball bat and you draw a bead on them, if they drop their weapon you can no longer legally open fire on them. let alone fire on them as they are trying to flee the scene. I wish this wasn't true but california has ridiculous self defense laws.
Couldnt he have hit the guy with his car door, or hit him at like 15mph?
Not trying to do the whole shoot him in the leg thing, but its possible to just knock him down instead of fully ramming him
He wasn't fleeing. He was looking for cover so he could shoot me. It's odd that you're so convinced that "as long as someone that's threatening my life with a deadly weapon has his shoulders turned away, he can't kill me, so I'm not in mortal danger!"
Because then thugs would just walk backwards, shooting cops all over town. It'd be more effective than body armor!
Have you ever even been to Texas? The only people who are scared of other people are the liberals in Austin.
>inb4 muh southern racists
>inb4 first slave state to secede
It doesn't look to me like they can let this slide.
Cars are very effective offensive weapons, defensive, not so much. They're gonna feel the need to set a precedent against that.
Otherwise, someone could end up ramming a moving train with a truck, and then play accidental and sorry.
CA can do that too, as well as many other states. Texas isn't special. And that guy that killed the hooker in Texas was in accident; he killed her with a ricochet after hitting the tires of the car she was in.
Young brown doesn't know how to get a passport or work visa or even speak English, blames others when he faces the consequences of breaking the law.
I lived in the southwest for over 20 years and every young Mexican I met spoke English. It was the 40 year old Mexicans who didn't, and they were some of the hardest working and most religious people I've ever met.
Knowing like 12 phrases in Spanish isn't fucking hard either.
you both are stupid and wrong, you can absolutely shoot and kill fleeing criminals (there are multiple cases, a few from central CA and a few from southern CA) there is case law precedent for this self defense.
CA self defense is the only good thing about anything related to guns in the entire state.
That's not what hard working means. That means they are willing to undermine the efforts of millions to maintain an organized, safe border just so they can get some money and drunkenly beat their children.
> blames others when he faces the consequences of breaking the law
The consequences of the law are getting deported, possibly serving time in a shitty jail in the interim. Getting murdered by a gang of retired welfare queens with nothing better to do is not the law.
If you want to be a vigilante how about you go to a ghetto neighborhood and kill people actually committing violent crime instead of being a pussy shooting unarmed non-violent criminals.
>The much more plausible reason for the verdict is that the jury believed the defendant’s claim that he didn’t intend to shoot the victim. Per Texas’ homicide statute, the prosecution needed to prove that Gilbert “intentionally or knowingly” killed Frago or intended to cause her “serious bodily injury.” The defense argued that Gilbert lacked the requisite intent for murder because when he shot at the car as Frago and the owner of the escort service drove away, he was aiming for the tire.
>shot the tire.
>not the hooker
still think texas is somehow special?
Sounds like it was retaliatory. Which would be illegal. Now, if the robber lost his arm while clinging to the side of the vehicle as the victim panicked and floored it, then there was no premeditation on the victim side.
For there to be a legal justification to use deadly force, a reasonable person would have to believe that they were in imminent fear of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or rape. If it's not imminent, you have no legal excuse. However, if he ran away with the gun in his hand and there were other people on the street, one may argue that the driver was acting in defense of others, believing that they were in immediate danger from the robber.
Texan here. Fuck you we don't care about you or your opinion. I have mexibros down here who are just as respected as white bread Texans. We don't give a shit who you are or what you believe so long as you embrace being a Texan. This is truly one of the last bastions of free America.
It's unabashedly wrong. The country would be far betfer served if we instituted a nationwide "fleeing felon" rule for self-defense. As far as crimes go, you have to be doing some fucked up shit to get a felony charge (generally). Obviously we need to get rid of a lot of bullshit felonies as well but seriously....does anybody care if someone gets merked running away from an armed robbery? I would fucking hope not.
>As far as crimes go, you have to be doing some fucked up shit to get a felony charge
You mean outside of drugs? Because people get felonies for weed, and federal jail time.
If you smoke weed and ever filled out a 4473 (or whatever it is) you committed a felony.
Yes, California is clearly superior.
>because police don't monitor pawn shops and craigslist for reported stolen goods
>because if someone steals a purse and a police officer is within eyeshot he'll run that fucker down and arrest the individual "to keep societal order" but won't return the ladies purse because that's "not his job"
>because if you get wind of a burglary and call the police as you hide in your hall closet with piss dribbling down your pantleg and they arrive in time (kek) they won't arrest the individuals and return any stolen property.
The problem with that is you end up killing innocent people convicted by mistake. The whole reason the prison-industrial complex of the US exists is not to rehabilitate the parriahs of society that are known felons, but to make sure that those that accidentially get locked away are still intact once the fuzz figures out that had the wrong dude three decades later.
The guy who owns that restaurant was a heart doctor who go so sick of his fatfuck patients that he opened a restaurant that serves food that will literally kill them. There have been multiple deaths and he has the ashes of some of his patrons on display.
Cynical troll of the highest order and I applaud his efforts.