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

I'm all over the shop in this one.
1. If your willing to threaten the lives of others, you enter into a contract with your own exhistance. I feel sorry for the robber in that his life had come to such a wall he thought gun violence was the only way out.
2. Americans are nuts about freedom, that's nice, but if freedom cannot be had with-out the threat/"safety" of having a glock at your side, then what freedom is it you hope toward?
3. Violence seems to breed violence, man is a miserable race, an unpredicdable miserable race for rats. Sometimes you might rob a guy like Julio Dias;

Julio Diaz has a daily routine. Every night, the 31-year-old social worker ends his hour-long subway commute to the Bronx one stop early, just so he can eat at his favorite diner.

But one night last month, as Diaz stepped off the No. 6 train and onto a nearly empty platform, his evening took an unexpected turn.

He was walking toward the stairs when a teenage boy approached and pulled out a knife.

"He wants my money, so I just gave him my wallet and told him, 'Here you go,'" Diaz says.

As the teen began to walk away, Diaz told him, "Hey, wait a minute. You forgot something. If you're going to be robbing people for the rest of the night, you might as well take my coat to keep you warm."

The would-be robber looked at his would-be victim, "like what's going on here?" Diaz says. "He asked me, 'Why are you doing this?'"

Diaz replied: "If you're willing to risk your freedom for a few dollars, then I guess you must really need the money. I mean, all I wanted to do was get dinner and if you really want to join me ... hey, you're more than welcome.

A Victim Treats His Mugger

4. Sometimes you hold up a guy who is so frightened at what might happen next he makes you his new hood ornament. We are an unpredicctable messy lot, there is no right or wrong in this situation - it's just sad that people are so dense in the noggin. I know I ask the impossible, but if the entire planet could stop being pricks to each other we'd only need guns on our arms to impress the ladies (of which I sadly have a pair of bingo wings).

NOTE TO SELF: DON'T THREATEN PEOPLE'S LIVES, NOR BREAK THE LAW, IF I DON'T WANT REPERCUSSIONS.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


The bleeding hearts of the world continue, listen, this is the year 2014. Ok? 2014. It is high time the human race got their # together. Robbing, raping, killing, etc. These are archaic tendencies of barbarians and idiots. If one less idiot is roaming the planet willing to pistol whip another human being, it is nothing but a blessing.

Anyone who feels any empathy for CRIMINALS is a complete idiot. Everyone wants to blame everything except for the individual. ''He played too many video games'' ''He is from a broken home'' ''He was picked last for gym class'' - Listen, none of that # matters. Ok, what matters is someone attacked another person first, with intent to harm them for personal benefit. We call that BAD where I come from. And BAD PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE.

Had Mr. Pistol Whip not been trying to rob and beat another man to death he would still be walking the street alive and well.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Finally, Stoddard flung his wallet toward a fence, and Crouch ran after it. While Crouch was distracted, Stoddard climbed into his tow truck and ran over his assailant. Crouch died from his injuries a few hours later.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Why didn't he drive away?

Because he was assaulted, he had the right to take that man's life? With a ton or more of metal behind him?

IMO he's being charged for the use of excessive force. I don't see any reason that he needed to kill him, if he was able to get back into his truck an drive the thing.

~Tenth

yeah, that would have pissed me off, too.

why didn't the chump get out of the way?

he should say he was just trying to break his legs.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

The issue is right there. The perpetrator ran after the wallet so was no longer threatening the victim. When the victim got into the vehicle and ran over the prep their rolls became reversed and the perpetrator became the victim while the victim is now the perpetrator. Clear as daylight.

yeah, nation of sheep.

how many lives did this guy potentially save?

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I agree, this man should be charged.

The assailant was running away. The victim got in his truck and should have drove away not deliberately run over him. That was no longer self-defense.

spacedog1973

Most criminals don't get off hurting others. What a ridiculous thing to say.

You've said this at least twice.
The attacker bashed him in the head with a gun
Maybe he didn't enjoy it but he still did it.
Stoddard was assaulted so what difference does your above generalization make here?
Most victims don't get the chance to neutralize the threat to them either.

reply to post by Common Good

really -really believe what this guy did was what he had to do.
(until contradictory evidence comes out- this guy IMO was in survival mode)

survival mode overrides all other emotions & thoughts. speaking for myself, i am not a well trained law enforcement officer, or a well trained soldier. i am a non athletic middle aged man. if someone threatens my life, then "survival mode" kicks in. i don't know what my limit would be. it may be what the tow truck driver did. no one really knows how they would respond to a situation like this until they are put there.

i can't make a judgement on this case. i need more information. i would need a map of the area, photos would be helpful & a time line of the events beginning with the tow truck driver's last customer.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Finally, Stoddard flung his wallet toward a fence, and Crouch ran after it. While Crouch was distracted, Stoddard climbed into his tow truck and ran over his assailant. Crouch died from his injuries a few hours later.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Why didn't he drive away?

Because he was assaulted, he had the right to take that man's life? With a ton or more of metal behind him?

Yes...absolutely and without any question! And he shouldn't be charged with anything, let alone excessive force. If you want to charge him with something, charge him with AWESOME! Violence only understands one thing...violence. Our liberal mentality these days only breeds more violence. The sheep keep running from the wolf so the wolf continues its attack. If the sheep fought back and injured or killed the wolf...it would be over. And on top of that...survival of the fittest and in this case, the acceptable. If you take a gun and attack someone for some lame reason, you need to be removed from society. And why not make that a permanent removal in the simplest manner possible.

I'm soooooo sick of this sympathy for the thief, the robber, the assailant, etc. Tough crap if you try to injure someone and get killed for your actions. The actions will eventually stop and the violence (or at least the violent) will disappear.

This article sheds some light on things -

www.washingtonpost.com... f-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

It's makes a bit more sense why he was charged now.
Crouch had a pellet gun but it must've looked real enough to cause 3 people to run so they were going on assumption this was a real pistol. It's amazing how different sources can spin stories based on what they include in an article.

I'll try to follow this case and post the outcome in thread.

Won't allow page links. hmm.
It does say Crouch was near a corner of the fence.
That speaks of intentionally running him over rather than trying to get out through the gate.
The first article was so lacking in detail I had no idea it was during the day and that 2 other people were there.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Your link doesn't work. Let's try this.

LINK

I don't really see any new details or information in the WP article that would change anyone's mind...

Asktheanimals
This article sheds some light on things -
www.washingtonpost.com... f-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

It's makes a bit more sense why he was charged now.
Crouch had a pellet gun but it must've looked real enough to cause 3 people to run so they were going on assumption this was a real pistol. It's amazing how different sources can spin stories based on what they include in an article.

I'll try to follow this case and post the outcome in thread.

sorry, no go on the wapo link. (for me)

the guy was an idiot to bring a pellet gun to a demolition derby.

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Your link doesn't work. Let's try this.

LINK

I don't really see any new details or information in the WP article that would change anyone's mind...

I saw one new detail in that story. There are on-site witnesses reported that we did not know about previously. A customer and a yard worker. The customer fled, and hid behind a car, and is the one that called police to the scene.

So, if the tow truck driver had not ran over the assailant (who still had the weapon on him), he was clear to attack the hiding customer in the same fashion or even kill him. I see this as the threat was still in effect in that yard, and the driver was attempting to neutralize the threat and save the others in the scene.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


The law is not just.

Simply put, if a person assaults you and tries to rob you, or attempts to kill you, then everything that happens after that initiating act, is on them. Violators of the most basic right a person has to go about their daily business unmolested, should not be protected by the law, because they have made a choice to live outside it. A response from an otherwise innocent citizen, to that stimulus, should not be treated as a crime if it results in the death of, or serious harm coming to, the offender.

That the law says otherwise does not have any bearing what so ever on the rights and wrongs of the situation.

In this case, if the chump thief did not want to end up dead the hard way, he should not have picked a career that involves the victimisation of innocent people. The law should recognise that he died by his own misadventure, rather than having been the victim of barbarity, uninvited, and unwarranted.

reply to post by Krakatoa

Krakatoa
So, if the tow truck driver had not ran over the assailant (who still had the weapon on him), he was clear to attack the hiding customer in the same fashion or even kill him. I see this as the threat was still in effect in that yard, and the driver was attempting to neutralize the threat and save the others in the scene.

You have a good imagination. But the WP story suggests none of that.

Besides, ATA said the new article made MORE sense that the truck driver was charged with murder...

Anyway... I'll be eager to see how this one comes out.

He is charged with murder because he killed the guy after the danger to his own life had passed when the guy went after his wallet when he threw it.

I don't understand why people can't figure these things out, and it makes it obvious why the gubmint doesn't want you to have fire-arms if you can't.

He was no longer defending himself, he was getting even.

reply to post by Krakatoa


That would tend to change things a bit if there were others inside the yard with the bad guy and the driver had the same choice of run or fight.

I have two questions on that? Did the driver know those others were still there and hence, know he was facing that circumstance to decide on....and where were the people while this driver was being pistol whipped half to death for his wallet? I guess hiding and watching the guy get killed right there on the spot would have been preferable to doing more than...well..hiding.

I'm glad some people can kill others by omission of action and live with that afterward. I sure can't. Given that new information, at least with one? It's a lucky thing the driver survived and no thanks to others who watched.

It still doesn't change anything for the overkill of defense turned to murder ..unless he both knew and considered others as a factor. If not? We're still at the "fight or flight" moment and he chose to fight in what had become a 1 sided end of matters at that stage.

Interesting... According to this article, there were TWO robbers and they were fleeing and on the street when Stoddard ran up on the sidewalk to hit Crouch.

When Crouch tried to flee, police allege that Stoddard got into his truck, drove toward Crouch and hit him with the vehicle.

Read more: www.wjla.com...

Surely, we need more details to know for sure.

And this was at 1PM in the afternoon???

The tow truck driver, 35-year-old Corey D. Stoddard of NE, was robbed just before 1 p.m. in the 1300 block of Kenilworth Avenue NE, right by a gas station.

Police say after the robbery, Stoddard got into his tow truck and drove in the direction of his alleged robber, striking him with a tow crane.

Source

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Wrabbit2000
We're still at the "fight or flight" moment and he chose to fight in what had become a 1 sided end of matters at that stage.

If you're in a tow truck, chasing someone down the street, that's NOT a fight or flight situation...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You may want to refresh with the number of messages I went into much more detail, earlier in this thread on that point.

At some moment, he sat in the tow truck. He turned the key. It started. He then realized he could, perhaps for the first time in the incident...escape. At THAT MOMENT..he had 2 very simple and very instinctual choices for a basic decision.

Fight or Flight.

He appears to have chosen poorly. A courtroom will establish the rest. I anxiously await hearing more when the people are under oath. (If he doesn't plead guilty first, of course...which is likely given how it goes these days)