Armed Robbery Victim in NYC Jail after DISARMING Attacker

the 17-year-old pulled a gun on the man, took the sneakers and walked off.

Rather than calling the police, Phil took things into his own hands. He did a quick u-turn and ran over the teenager attempting to walk away with the sneakers. The thief's arm was severed in the collision

Source: www.sbnation.com...

Is it without our rights to use any force we deem necessary to recover stolen property? It it reasonable to think that in the cited story, that the robber may have gotten away cleanly had he not be DISARMED.

a reply to: centarix

Well he ran him over at full blast from what I saw in the video. Once the criminal has already gotten away, you are not protected by law to run him over with intent to kill at full speed on a public road. You need a badge for that. Guy was an idiot for not just meeting dude in a McDonalds or Starbucks or something anyways.

Both the incident and aftermath videos are on liveleak, severed arm and all. The robber took off pretty fast after he lost it. I have a feeling the sneakers were stolen to begin with.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Once the criminal has already gotten away, you are not protected by law to run him over with intent to kill at full speed on a public road. You need a badge for that.

Yah, way out of line. Following at a discrete distance on the phone to 911, within the law. Running someone down with your car, not.

All over a pair of shoes. How poor is that?

The idea that it is in your rights to run someone over with your car when you are no longer in danger from them is pretty ludicrous.

Sorry you got your shoes stolen, but going that far just to get them back is pretty crazy, also I bet the guy ruined the shoes in this process. Either got ran over with the kid or now has blood all over them.

Why not just follow, from a distance, the kid and call the cops?

So just watched the video, pretty bad IMO. The guy has a right to get his property back, but I don't think he is within his right to then ram him with his car to accomplish that.

a reply to: intrptr

It comes down to philosophy, most of us would agree that had the man in the SUV pulled out his own gun and shot the thief then the thief had it come coming to him, we'd say it's reasonable force as the thief was the one to pull a gun first, hell he even tried to shoot the SUV guy but the gun jammed.

So if it's ok to shoot the thief which would likely kill him, why isn't it ok to ram the thief with an SUV when the results and intents are both the same ?

It feels hypocritical saying it but I think ramming is extreme but shooting is ok, it's kind of messed up really when you think that you can rationalise one act of violence but think another is "extreme" when both for all intents and purposes provided similar results of either a wounded or dead thief

What's also messed up is we think it's silly this happened over a pair of shoes but what would happen if it was something more expensive, say a $20,000 watch would we then say "yeah he deserved it" ? Value should have no effect on our opinion when judging the result of an act, yet it does

a reply to: Discotech

So if it's ok to shoot the thief which would likely kill him, why isn't it ok to ram the thief with an SUV when the results and intents are both the same ?

Because one involves him being in danger at that moment. If he had shot him or hit him with the car while having the gun pulled on him it would be a different story. But to drive away, turn around and run over a guy that is walking away isn't defending your self.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Would you say it would have been ok to chase the guy on foot and beat him black & blue ? Possibly also resulting in death or severe injury ? Most would say that is acceptable, yet again results and intents are the same as ramming with a vehicle but for some reason we can all agree using the vehicle IS extreme. From a philosophical and psychological viewpoint it's actually interesting to see our hypocritical reasoning

a reply to: centarix

I don't know what all the kerfuffle is about.

All he did was disarm him.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: intrptr

It comes down to philosophy...

It does come down to philosophy, but I have a different take. People in New York are pretty much just victims. Criminals have firearms and law abiding citizens have no right to carry without permission from the city. So victims are just forced to "take it" and hope the police can catch the scum later.

Charging the driver of the car with attempted murder? Where's the pending charges for the 17 year old? That's New York for you. Make the victim even more of a victim.

Edit: I also just noticed that the reporter stated the 17 year old's gun jammed. Surely we will see attempted murder charges for the 17 year old...

a reply to: Discotech

So if it's ok to shoot the thief which would likely kill him, why isn't it ok to ram the thief with an SUV when the results and intents are both the same ?

Besides the whole law thing, you mean?

Because chasing after running the thief down after the fact makes it a separate incident. Your proposal he could have shot the guy during the robbery or to prevent the robbery. According to how the law sees it.

Imagine how many people get run over tomorrow for various "crimes" if they don't come out against this?

Theres a drug dealer, wham, a prostitute, my ex, a banker… wham, wham, wham.

(just kidding about my ex, I don't have one of those)

a reply to: Discotech

Me personally? Probably not, but that isn't what happened so it is hard to say.
If he just went back and used physical force to get the shoes back and get him self out of the situation safely I would proably have no issue. But if he came from behind him, cold clocked him and then continued to just beat him senseless, I would be against it.
You have the right to defend your self, not a right to attack.
That is the problem with try to use what if this and what if that, people are going to look at situations different when they happen and with something actually happening, it is hard to give a yes or no.

So how about avoid the what if's and just talk about what actually happened?

a reply to: intrptr

Out of line. But serves the teen just right. From now on, every time he goes swimming in circles, maybe he will be remembered of this. After ALL he DID pull the trigger!!!

Damn kids!!!



What's that famous quote? Play stupid games . . . . . .

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Discotech

Me personally? Probably not, but that isn't what happened so it is hard to say.
If he just went back and used physical force to get the shoes back and get him self out of the situation safely I would proably have no issue. But if he came from behind him, cold clocked him and then continued to just beat him senseless, I would be against it.
You have the right to defend your self, not a right to attack.
That is the problem with try to use what if this and what if that, people are going to look at situations different when they happen and with something actually happening, it is hard to give a yes or no.

So how about avoid the what if's and just talk about what actually happened?

It's tricky, the Colorado incident was similar in that the victim pursued his assailant out of his house and down the street to shoot him.

I think we need a 'giggler's law' to protect retaliatory preemptive assault.

People will probably flame me but I couldn't care...good on that guy for literally disarming him...one less dumb hoodrat pulling guns on people...maybe this guy stopped someone from eating a bullet by a young dumb robber...sick of all the poor pitiful criminal shtick.

What rights do you have to recover your property? I mean, if someone ran up to you with a knife, robbed you, and then ran off with your property, could you go into your house get a gun and go rob him and get your stuff back or would that count as a separate incident and get charged for robbing the robber? I think you'd have to have some sort of allowance for recovering stolen property yourself instead of just trusting the police to recover it for you.

Also, I can see this guy just seeing red. From the description the guy tried to murder him even after he got the shoes but his gun jammed. So if that is to be believed the 17 year old tried to murder him first just because. Not even over the shoes, he already had the shoes, he just thought he'd try to kill the guy. If the kid actually tried to murder him after robbing him of the shoes... well, I can kinda see where you'd temporarily go insane after that.

I suspect he won't be stealing shoes again. Not the usual punishment for theft and probably a start for a law suit. Crime might pay twice.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: AmericanRealist


All over a pair of shoes. How poor is that?

Indeed, pointing a gun at someone over a pair of sneakers.
Tough luck about the arm, don't rob people and you won't piss them off.
I would have done worse than an arm, once my adrenaline is pumping it has to go somewhere.
To expect victims to just blithely sit there and go "oh well, time to call the cops" after somebody points a gun at you is beyond the capacity for many.

originally posted by: roadgravel
I suspect he won't be stealing shoes again. Not the usual punishment for theft and probably a start for a law suit. Crime might pay twice.

It's more evidence of sharia law!

a reply to: greencmp

And I disagreed with it.

If someone is going away from you, you are no longer defending but now attacking.

By running him over he committed a crime, just like the 17 year old committed a crime.
So who has the right to run Phil over with a car?

Nobdoy. Just like he had no right to hit the boy with his car.

I am in no way defending what the boy did but Phil acted just like those trigger happy police officers which take the law into their own hands.

ETA: A 17 year old boy, which probably is hanging with the wrong people, made a wrong choice, got a gun and robbed himself some shoes.
Is it appropriate to run him over with a car after he did not harm anybody?

ETA#2: Phil wasn't in danger anymore, he was in safety. So the reason why he ran the boy over, is a pair of shoes. Who really is the monster in this scenario?