Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm on the planet where two wrongs don't make a right. Trying to KILL someone - someone who did not actually do the driver any physical harm, btw - by running him over with a car is the action of a horrible person. Two horrible people - the thief and the attempted murderer.
.
Using a gun for armed robbery is equivalent to attempted first degree murder. On what planet is that considered a harmless crime?
I hope that the DA for NYC/NY decides not to charge the driver.... If so, I, as the driver, would demand a jury trial and refuse any "deals" offered by the State... Even in NYC, there is no jury that would find him, the driver, guilty of any crime!!
As for the thief, they have re-attached his arm and it's sad to say this, but I truly hope that he doesn't regain full function of that arm ever again... He is a thug and I'm sure that if he would have gotten away with this ARMED robbery, it would not have be his last and I'm pretty sure that this event wasn't his first ARMED robbery as well... He walked away very calm and collect until his punk-@zz got ran over!! This is almost biblical justice!! BTW, I hope that the justice system in NYC will still charge him and lock up this criminal since he is guilty of ARMED robbery without question.
And no, he wasn't a good boy who was going to enroll in college or start a new job next week!!
The saddest part of this story is that all the honest, law bidding and hard working tax payers will have to foot the full medical bill to attach this arm back onto this felon!!
...Yes, we'll all do stupid things, but pointing a gun at a human and threatening to kill him over a pair of basketball shoes??!! That's beyond a mistake or a bad choice... Period!! The robber is basically a low life and got what he deserved.
The exchange was in a videocam area which the seller I'm sure picked because everything was on tape. Berg is right that this probably was not the thief's 1st robbery. Most would jump out of the car and run - this kid was calm, never expecting his victim to do anymore than call the cops by which time he'd be blocks away.
I feel no sympathy for the thief. There are consequences to everything you do - unfortunately, a lot of these kids have no ethics, morals and either the police are so busy or the victim's so scared that these types never face the consequences - well this guy lucked out!
And I think your responses here are an excellent example of why America is so damn screwed up - "You stole a thing for me, so you deserve to die." "You stole a thing so you deserve to have your arms and legs cut off."
That's some seriously f-ed up thinking, placing the value of a thing above someone's life, to be willing to commit murder over a thing. Murderous values don't make you smart, tough, cool, patriotic, manly, or any other stupid justification you can come up with.
Could he have legally aimed a gun at the teen and demanded his shoes back?
No. The laws are clear on when you can and cannot use lethal force. You have to be in fear for your life or the lives of other innocent people. Had the shoe seller been armed when the robber aimed a gun at him he would have had every right to shoot him. He had NO RIGHT to use lethal force after the shoes had been stolen and the robber was no longer a threat.
It doesn't matter what weapon the shoe seller used; he was not in danger at the time he used lethal force.
I have "0" sympathy for the criminal; he got less than he deserved. Had he been killed it would be one less scumbag on the street. My point is that in New York State it is illegal to use deadly force to retrieve stolen property.
S 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate
larceny or criminal mischief. A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force,
upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she
reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such
other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property
other than premises.
1. The kid should be prosecuted for an armed robbery with a deadly weapon;
2. He deserved it (in a moral sense), because it is totally foreseeable that there would be a retaliation . . . it is very likely that the seller may have had a gun and would have shot back.
3. The driver had no legal justification for harming the kid with a lethal weapon, i.e., the SUV, because he was no longer under threat. You can't go back after an escape and kill or maim the other person. Period. The law is clear on this.
4. The kid will surely incur at least million dollars in medical and rehab costs. He will sue the driver and, predictably, the city. He shouldn't win against the city but you never know in Brooklyn. The driver will likely lose, but doubtful that he can pay much; however he has, at the very least, a car insurance. However, they are typically limited in coverage and, more importantly, probably excludes intentional acts.
5. I have no problem if the driver took out a gun and shot the kid in the face . . . . if it happened during the robbery. But not after no physical harm was done to the driver . . . . that's what the cops are for.
Mick
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
