StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This could have gone in the news, but ... naw, mostly it's just weird. Short version: dude attempts to rob somebody, intended victim runs over would-be thief. Thief flees scene leaving, among other things, his ARM behind! Then he tries to get on a bus to leave the crime scene. Then he goes home instead of to a hospital.

No, not Florida. New York City. You either need Florida or a big city for shit like this:

Article

2 charged in robbery gone wrong where arm was severed

NEW YORK (AP) -- Both people involved in bizarre botched robbery over pricey sneakers have been arrested after the victim rammed the teenage robber with his SUV, severing his arm, police said Saturday.

Zachary Sam, 17, had arranged online to meet Philippe Pierre to buy a pair of $190 Air Jordan sneakers on a Brooklyn street, police said. But when he hopped into Pierre's SUV, he pulled out a gun and demanded the shoes for free, according to authorities.

Surveillance footage from the scene shows the teenager get out of the car, put something in his pocket, and walk away with a white plastic bag.

Pierre, 39, drives away slowly, but then makes a sharp U-turn and rams Sam, pinning him under the car and a fence. The teen hopped up and staggered away, his sleeve flapping. The arm and the gun were discovered at the scene, officials said.

Alex St. Fleur told the Daily News of New York that he was walking down the street when he saw the SUV jump the sidewalk and slam into the teenager. He and his son ran over and they saw the arm lying on the ground next to a shoebox.

"Everyone was yelling 'Come back! Your arm! You're going to bleed out!'" St. Fleur told the newspaper.

But Sam got onto a nearby bus, though the driver refused to move until he got off, and he ran to his home nearby. Sam remained hospitalized; his arm was severed below the elbow, according St. Fleur.

The teen was arrested on a charge of robbery and criminal possession of a weapon. Pierre was arrested on a charge of attempted murder.

Pierre's cousin told WABC-TV that the shaken man was just trying to help police catch an armed robber. He said the incident had destroyed two families.

Both men were in custody. It was not immediately clear whether they had attorneys who could comment on their arrests.

And link to ABC news with the referred to surveillence video.

Looks like the sneaker thief is now a one armed bandit.
One more arm to go and he won't be committing any more armed robberies.

Was the dude high? I mean, you'd think he'd have to be to be trying to ride a bus then running home after getting an arm off. Maybe adrenaline but even I dunno.

Both people sound like idiots. The one armed man for attempting armed robbery over a pair of shoes and the driver for having a meeting in a car followed by attempted murder over a pair of shoes.

You left out the part where he tried to shoot the driver, but the gun jammed.

I also like how putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger got a lesser charge than defending yourself with the means available from an armed person who had just demonstrated he was quite willing to kill you over a pair of shoes.

You're only allowed to use lethal force on someone who is an immanent threat. If the guy has his back to you and is moving a way he's not a threat to your life, that's why it's a murder charge.

Now, if someone is standing in front of your vehicle pointing a gun AT you, threatening to fire, then you can use lethal force i.e. hit him with your vehicle.

aerius wrote:Looks like the sneaker thief is now a one armed bandit.
One more arm to go and he won't be committing any more armed robberies.

Looks like there's more than one way to disarm a robber.

How do you think this will affect law enforcement's attempt to strong-arm him into a plea deal? Or do you think this will be handy in garnering a little bit of sympathy? I'm honestly a bit stumped here.

Broomstick wrote:You're only allowed to use lethal force on someone who is an immanent threat. If the guy has his back to you and is moving a way he's not a threat to your life, that's why it's a murder charge.

I'd vote not guilty. Without getting into any "Some folks need killing" defense, I simply think it is an unreasonable demand to make of someone that, if you are not prepared right now to deal in a calm and considered manner with someone trying to murder you to steal your shoes, that this is a moral failing on your part and you are negligent if you do not correct it. It is an outside context problem, and if Pierre failed to respond in an ideal manner to that extraordinary provocation, the only thing that separates him from billions of other decent human beings is that he was tested and we were not.

Napoleon the Clown wrote:How do you think this will affect law enforcement's attempt to strong-arm him into a plea deal? Or do you think this will be handy in garnering a little bit of sympathy? I'm honestly a bit stumped here.

I'm sure the guy who ran the kid over would be happy to lend them a hand.

He should be glad he is only getting away with a severed armed. If the victim or anyone else called 911, the cops would have showed up and shot him on the spot if past events are anything to go by.

That said, let there be a hung jury on the victim's part. It's pretty damn crazy that reckless drivers get away with "accidentally" killing people, but not someone like the victim here where the assailant had a gun.

Such sentiments are why the SUV driver is likely to be either acquitted by a jury or get a small judgement against him.

I read the thread title and thought, "huh, you mean Deadpool?"

Grumman wrote:I simply think it is an unreasonable demand to make of someone that, if you are not prepared right now to deal in a calm and considered manner with someone trying to murder you to steal your shoes, that this is a moral failing on your part and you are negligent if you do not correct it. It is an outside context problem, and if Pierre failed to respond in an ideal manner to that extraordinary provocation, the only thing that separates him from billions of other decent human beings is that he was tested and we were not.

This is at the heart of the "duty to retreat" and "stand your ground" debate, BTW. NY is a Duty to Retreat State, by the way.

Someone once told me that those Air Jordans cost an arm and a leg. I suppose they were half right.

Grumman wrote:

Broomstick wrote:You're only allowed to use lethal force on someone who is an immanent threat. If the guy has his back to you and is moving a way he's not a threat to your life, that's why it's a murder charge.

I'd vote not guilty. Without getting into any "Some folks need killing" defense, I simply think it is an unreasonable demand to make of someone that, if you are not prepared right now to deal in a calm and considered manner with someone trying to murder you to steal your shoes, that this is a moral failing on your part and you are negligent if you do not correct it. It is an outside context problem, and if Pierre failed to respond in an ideal manner to that extraordinary provocation, the only thing that separates him from billions of other decent human beings is that he was tested and we were not.

This nicely echoes my sentiments, it puts the finger on something I've been aware of and which has bothered me, but I hadn't been quite able to put into words, not just in this case but others that have been discussed through the years.

NOTE: Everything said below is based entirely on my reading the article in the original post. If other information not present in this article contradicts my understanding of events, then I will be easily proven wrong about the facts of what happened. If so, please understand that I posted this in good faith and am not being willfully dishonest or misleading.
____________________________

The problem is that society DOES expect the average citizen to have the sense to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

The problem is that there's a feature of human psychology which causes us to believe we are "defending ourselves" or others from violence very easily. This can often happen, when in fact what we are defending is our pride, our sense of control over our territory, or our property.

As a result of this (plus of course people just plain lying), you can get situations where a man who's just killed someone says "He was threatening me, I defended myself," when what the security camera will show is that after an exchange of insults, he tackled the guy from behind, then stabbed him twelve times with a knife.

See here for a more detailed description of the problem:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/pride.html

So the standards for what reasonably should constitute "self defense" for legal purposes have to be quite restrictive, because there's a huge category of frankly criminal violence, certainly undesirable violence, which starts with a threat to someone's "pride." Me hitting someone with a car after they are walking away from a successful armed robbery is not me "defending myself," it is me acting to salve my pride.

Society cannot function if people are legally entitled to maim and kill purely for the sake of their pride. For the sake of revenge. Or for the sake of getting back a $200 pair of shoes.
_____________________________

You can argue that the act of vehicular battery* and maiming inflicted by Mr. Pierre should be punished less badly than the assault by a deadly weapon inflicted by young Mr. Sam.

But on the other hand, you can also argue that Mr. Sam didn't hurt anyone physically, and that the total extent of his crime was the theft of a pair of shoes. Whereas Mr. Pierre tore someone's arm off, an injury that will cripple them for the rest of their lives. Mr. Pierre's motives may be easier to understand, but the nature of the offense is very grave. Assault with a deadly weapon is a serious crime, armed robbery is a serious crime... but so is attempted vehicular manslaughter.

*In the sense of "battery

Simon_Jester wrote:...As a result of this (plus of course people just plain lying), you can get situations where a man who's just killed someone says "He was threatening me, I defended myself," when what the security camera will show is that after an exchange of insults, he tackled the guy from behind, then stabbed him twelve times with a knife....

Then that man should be punished. That's not an excuse for zero tolerance bullshit where finding an innocent man guilty of attempted murder against the armed robber who had just shoved a gun in his face is considered acceptable collateral damage to protect a lie you've built your legal system on.

So the standards for what reasonably should constitute "self defense" for legal purposes have to be quite restrictive, because there's a huge category of frankly criminal violence, certainly undesirable violence, which starts with a threat to someone's "pride." Me hitting someone with a car after they are walking away from a successful armed robbery is not me "defending myself," it is me acting to salve my pride.

Doing so defends every single one of Sam's future victims. Sam is not merely an innocent man thrown into perilous situation where he made a split-second, arguably incorrect decision. Sam deliberately forced Pierre into that situation for his own criminal ends. At best, Sam was using his gun to deliberately force Pierre to abandon his usual thought processes. If Pierre was "temporarily insane", it's because Sam wanted him to be temporarily insane and used the threat of imminent murder to drive him temporarily insane. That that backfired and got Sam's arm torn off is entirely his own fault.

But on the other hand, you can also argue that Mr. Sam didn't hurt anyone physically, and that the total extent of his crime was the theft of a pair of shoes. Whereas Mr. Pierre tore someone's arm off, an injury that will cripple them for the rest of their lives. Mr. Pierre's motives may be easier to understand, but the nature of the offense is very grave. Assault with a deadly weapon is a serious crime, armed robbery is a serious crime... but so is attempted vehicular manslaughter.

Society can live with a man like Pierre. If every single person in the world was like Pierre society would still function, and function well. As long as you don't make a living out of threatening to murder innocent men so you can steal their shoes, Pierre has given you no reason to fear him.

Grumman wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:...As a result of this (plus of course people just plain lying), you can get situations where a man who's just killed someone says "He was threatening me, I defended myself," when what the security camera will show is that after an exchange of insults, he tackled the guy from behind, then stabbed him twelve times with a knife....

Then that man should be punished. That's not an excuse for zero tolerance bullshit where finding an innocent man guilty of attempted murder against the armed robber who had just shoved a gun in his face is considered acceptable collateral damage to protect a lie you've built your legal system on.

Except that if someone shoves a gun in your face, and then leaves, deciding to kill them out of revenge is not okay.

Once you set a legal precedent that it is okay, what comes next? Is it okay to follow the guy home and ambush him? Or stalk him, work out where he leaves, break into his house and kill him? Is it okay to get three or four of your friends to come along and make a family feud of it?

Where, and more to the point on what legal grounds, do we draw the line?

The best we can say about Mr. Pierre's actions is that they were done "in hot blood-" That he had understandable psychological reasons to be angry and to act without considering the nature or consequences of his actions. Thing is, ripping someone's arm off "in hot blood" is still illegal; you don't get permission to mutilate people just because you're angry and the "scared" neurotransmitters are still flooding through your veins.

So the standards for what reasonably should constitute "self defense" for legal purposes have to be quite restrictive, because there's a huge category of frankly criminal violence, certainly undesirable violence, which starts with a threat to someone's "pride." Me hitting someone with a car after they are walking away from a successful armed robbery is not me "defending myself," it is me acting to salve my pride.

Doing so defends every single one of Sam's future victims. Sam is not merely an innocent man thrown into perilous situation where he made a split-second, arguably incorrect decision. Sam deliberately forced Pierre into that situation for his own criminal ends. Whether Sam's gun jammed or he simply decided not to murder Pierre in cold blood because he handed over the shoes, there is no guarantee that the next time he does it will have the same result.

Sam goes to jail anyway. He's behind bars. Likely would have been anyway in this case, because the transaction between them is a matter of record and Pierre could easily have identified Sam to the police.

Or are you saying Mr. Pierre's actions were justified because they inflicted (possibly fatal) harm on a criminal likely to commit future crimes?

And again, where do we draw the line, and on what legal grounds?

Is it legal to wait for the armed robber to start walking away, then draw a gun and shoot him in the back? Is it legal to follow him home and shoot him there? Is it legal to shoot a criminal who attacked someone else? Is it legal to do so on the strength of the accusations of the alleged victim- because we call that "lynching" and there is a profoundly ugly history in the US of what happens when 'ordinary citizens' are able to lynch accused criminals with impunity.

Before you say this is a slippery slope argument, consider. If I'm not misunderstanding you, you have just argued "it's okay to commit assault, battery, mutilation, and presumably death as long as your target is a criminal who poses a future threat to other citizens, and it doesn't matter whether you personally are in any danger at the time you launch your attack."

Once you accept that as a valid legal argument... honestly, where does one draw the line about which homicides are 'justified' because the target 'needed killing?'

But on the other hand, you can also argue that Mr. Sam didn't hurt anyone physically, and that the total extent of his crime was the theft of a pair of shoes. Whereas Mr. Pierre tore someone's arm off, an injury that will cripple them for the rest of their lives. Mr. Pierre's motives may be easier to understand, but the nature of the offense is very grave. Assault with a deadly weapon is a serious crime, armed robbery is a serious crime... but so is attempted vehicular manslaughter.

Society can live with a man like Pierre. If every single person in the world was like Pierre society would still function, and function well. As long as you don't make a living out of threatening to murder innocent men so you can steal their shoes, Pierre has given you no reason to fear him.

You can't know that.

You only know that Pierre tried to kill someone for committing a crime against him. He had good reason to know a crime had been committed... but lots of people think crimes have been committed against them. Some of the acts in question aren't actually illegal.

Maybe Pierre would also have hit someone with his car for wronging him in some other way. Would it be safe to be his ex-girlfriend? His ex-girlfriend's new lover? Would it be safe to evict him from a home for failing to pay his rent? For posing a public nuisance? Would it be safe to fire him from a job? What if he shows up drunk to work and you're harming him by firing him- his capacity to restrain violent impulses is diminished, and you have just harmed him, at the same time. And we already know he has a history of committing extreme violence against people who 'wronged' him in his own mind, regardless of whether the law permitted it or not.

Again, I understand Pierre's motives. But that doesn't make his actions legal.

A person who feels entitled to use violence against people who have wronged him, regardless of whether they pose a present danger or not, is a threat to innocent bystanders, just as much as an armed robber is.

There are more ways for crime to become a problem for society than just the stereotypical "brutal young mugger."

Simon_Jester wrote:Maybe Pierre would also have hit someone with his car for wronging him in some other way. Would it be safe to be his ex-girlfriend? His ex-girlfriend's new lover? Would it be safe to evict him from a home for failing to pay his rent? For posing a public nuisance? Would it be safe to fire him from a job? What if he shows up drunk to work and you're harming him by firing him- his capacity to restrain violent impulses is diminished, and you have just harmed him, at the same time. And we already know he has a history of committing extreme violence against people who 'wronged' him in his own mind, regardless of whether the law permitted it or not.

You are arguing we should punish Pierre for crimes he has not committed and has shown no inclination to commit. I could just as easily argue that you should be locked up so that you can't go on a drunk shooting rampage if you're ever fired from work. The only thing Pierre has demonstrated is that he is a deadly threat to an asshole who robbed him at gunpoint. Everything else is you talking out of your ass.

The guy ran over a person who was retreating. He did a U Turn to do so. That's not self-defence, that's a revenge attack and the government should not be tacitly approving of revenge attacks. The guy should arrested on the appropriate bodily harm, attempted vehicular murder charges, tried and the jury and/or sentencing judge can take into account for the mitigating circumstances of 'the guy robbed me and tried to kill me'.

Crazedwraith wrote:The guy ran over a person who was retreating. He did a U Turn to do so. That's not self-defence, that's a revenge attack and the government should not be tacitly approving of revenge attacks. The guy should arrested on the appropriate bodily harm, attempted vehicular murder charges, tried and the jury and/or sentencing judge can take into account for the mitigating circumstances of 'the guy robbed me and tried to kill me'.

Exactly!

"I had reason to be angry with this person, and acted hastily," are certainly mitigating defenses. It is much less bad to do something like this hastily to someone who just robbed you at gunpoint, than to do it on a premeditated basis to a random bystander.

But it's still an illegal act. I don't get to decide after the robber has walked away that I am going to attack them and maim them as 'punishment' for their actions. I am not a judge, a jury, or an executioner.

It may be that the precise circumstances surrounding my actions reduce the punishment that should apply. Or even mean that I cannot be proven to have formed a criminal intent, and therefore would go free.

But we can't just say on general principles "it's okay to hurt people as long as they're criminals who just threatened you."
____________________________________

Grumman wrote:You are arguing we should punish Pierre for crimes he has not committed and has shown no inclination to commit.

The events of this robbery and maiming have shown Pierre has the inclination to commit criminal acts out of revenge for perceived wrongs and threats, whether he is in immediate danger or not. So the second half of your statement is not correct.

The first half of your statement is correct... except for one thing. I'm not the one arguing this. You are.

You started by arguing that it is right for Pierre to have hit Sam with a car, because having a private citizen maim him in revenge for a robbery "defends every single one of Sam's future victims." That is exactly what you just said.

I'm not even disputing that Sam is likely to commit crimes in the future.

But how do we know Pierre won't? All we know is that he will attack and maim people who have wronged him, no matter what the laws on the books say about whether it is right to do so. Sure, the person who wronged him threatened him physically, but the threat had ended by the time Pierre turned his car around to hit Sam. Who knows what other, similar acts of violence Pierre might commit the next time someone 'wrongs' him?

Your argument is that it is right to commit acts of vengeful vigilante justice on those who pose a risk of committing future crimes.*

My argument is that if you're correct, why wouldn't the same logic apply to putting Pierre in jail, for his proven track record of attacking people who are no longer an imminent threat and who he believes have robbed him? Just as we have reason to think Sam might rob or kill in the future, we have reason to think Pierre might assault or kill in the future.
______________________

*No, seriously, that is exactly what you were arguing, I can back up every word of that sentence.

I could just as easily argue that you should be locked up so that you can't go on a drunk shooting rampage if you're ever fired from work.

No, you couldn't.

See, I've never ripped someone's arm off as revenge for attacking me. Mr. Pierre has.

The only thing Pierre has demonstrated is that he is a deadly threat to an asshole who robbed him at gunpoint. Everything else is you talking out of your ass.

If I'm willing to take illegal revenge against a criminal who robbed me, how can anyone else know I won't take illegal revenge against a cheating spouse, or a boss who (in my opinion) wrongfully fired me? Or any of the many other classes of people in this world who cause harm that is legal but which I might reasonably resent?

I am arguing that Sam would commit armed robberies because he committed an armed robbery. The only extrapolation I am making is that a person willing to commit premeditated crimes against strangers purely for their own profit is willing to commit premeditated crimes against strangers purely for their own profit, until something happens to change that mindset.

Even arguing that Pierre would do what he did again is more of a stretch than that: Pierre was thrust into a deadly and unforeseen situation against his will and responded to that situation as best he could, but even if the same thing happened again it is no longer an unforeseen situation. But you don't stop there; you are accusing Pierre of being a dangerous loose cannon because he reacted poorly when someone tried to fucking murder him for his shoes. Which do you think is more likely: that not once in Pierre's 40 years has he ever been insulted, fired or otherwise provoked; or that it was only the extreme nature of this particular provocation that caused him to respond with deadly force?

MKSheppard wrote:

Grumman wrote:I simply think it is an unreasonable demand to make of someone that, if you are not prepared right now to deal in a calm and considered manner with someone trying to murder you to steal your shoes, that this is a moral failing on your part and you are negligent if you do not correct it. It is an outside context problem, and if Pierre failed to respond in an ideal manner to that extraordinary provocation, the only thing that separates him from billions of other decent human beings is that he was tested and we were not.

This is at the heart of the "duty to retreat" and "stand your ground" debate, BTW. NY is a Duty to Retreat State, by the way.

Stand your ground and duty to retreat does not apply in this case at all. It applies in the commission of a crime, not afterwards. In a duty to retreat State, it means Zach Pierre has to get the fuck out of his own car and retreat to a safe location if it's all reasonably possible. He's not allowed to use force to defend himself until he's cornered and out of ways to retreat. In a stand your ground State, Zach is allowed to blow the guy's head off when he's trying to rob him in his own car, but he'll still get charged with attempted vehicular homicide for running the guy over after the crime has been committed.

Unambiguous self-defense would be if, hypothetically, the thief is pointing the gun at the driver of the SUV and firing it when the SUV driver runs him over.

Doing a U-turn and running the thief down when the thief is leaving the scene is less clear-cut - which is why we have judges, juries, and trials.

Personally, I don't feel (based on my own ethics) that this was justifiable as self-defense because the SUV driver was not under immediate threat when he caused harm to the other guy. However, I do agree that the circumstances had a lot of mitigating factors involved

This guy Pierre is damn lucky he only ended up hurting/maiming that worthless piece of crap that mugged him, instead of some innocent bystanders, when he hit the gas pedal on his SUV.