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

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 the robber had succeeded in stealing his property after assaulting him.

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

So the robber had the right to be assaulting him in the first place? what about stealing his wallet? He had a gun, did he have the right to use it on Soddard?

tothetenthpower
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.

Leaving the criminal to get away with assault and robbery only to do it again another day. Would the next person have been so lucky not to get shot?

While I dont want to go round hurting people I do not need written laws and men in suits to tell me how I can and cant protect myself. I would have wanted this guy dead too and I wouldnt regret it for a second. No prison sentence would change my mind

Thirteen pages of posts about a story with very few details. And everyone is right! How can anyone speculate whether Corey Stoddard was right or wrong given the lack of details. Laughs! Carry on.

what is the old adage

its better to be judged by 12
than carried by 6

reply to post by Freenrgy2

Freenrgy2
I know it doesn't sound logical, but in a court of law you will lose every time with actions like this.

I think this is the crux of the argument here. We're arguing what some would LIKE to do vs what would be LEGAL to do in the truck driver's position.

I mean, if we're honest with ourselves, most of us would want to get some kind of revenge or pay the guy back. But the law does not permit revenge killings. Only if you're in a position of immediate danger are you in the LEGAL position to take such action. And chasing a guy in a truck - there's only one person whose life is in immediate danger in that scenario. And it's not the driver.

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo

Silicis n Volvo
So the robber had the right to be assaulting him in the first place? what about stealing his wallet? He had a gun, did he have the right to use it on Soddard?

No, of course not. But that is to be handled in a court of law. That's what our justice system is all about. You can't just take the law into your own hands LEGALLY and become a vigilante.

tothetenthpower
Leaving the criminal to get away with assault and robbery only to do it again another day.

That's the chances we take in a civilized society. If we were all running around killing people because we think they might hurt someone else, it would truly be anarchy.

I would have wanted this guy dead too and I wouldnt regret it for a second. No prison sentence would change my mind

Easy for you to say now.

And chasing a guy in a truck - there's only one person whose life is in immediate danger in that scenario. And it's not the driver.

I always feel safe from bullets when I hide behind glass.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Nope! Has nothing to do with what id like to do or revenge. It has to do making a criminal out of somone for being put into a life or death situation and stopping/ failing to stop mid step because the attacker lost the upper hand. It sets a precedent that any action is wrong.
He ran once, bashed over head-wrong
He runs over attacker and removes the threat-wrong

Part you can not know, but real possible outcomes.
Run again, shot through truck, or in the back- wrong
gunman comes after the others-wrong
Stay put, attacker comes back to finish you-wrong

Nothing but a crap shoot, no matter how you look at it
Cross your fingers and pray to your god because .. If you live-you loose, die you loose
Your only option is hope the real criminal has mercy on you.


Yet it baffles some people how others can witness someone in trouble and keep walking....not a direct threat to me= not only wrong but criminal
CPR card expired= not only wrong but you'll be sued for all that you ever worked for
not an expert first responder=wrong

don't act....because chances are you'll be wrong and you will be treated just like the criminal until you prove otherwise.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


And there is why you shouldn't live in places/states like this.

DC is a crap hole anyways.

You guys speak as if the laws and the Constitution were made from some kind of Gods, or something. Don't forget that this was made from a bunch of people who tried to generalise stuff in order to be maximally fair. However, there are some gaps, which seem to be for most of the time in favour of the criminals, or so they are interpreted.

The point is, as this site's goal is to deny ignorance, you aren't doing much by blindly obeying the law. Let us not forget that the law must reflect the natural moral senses. Otherwise, it is a form of slavery, if you think about it. Laws must be and are (theoretically) subject to changes, so we shouldn't think they are automatically "correct" (if this is even possible at all).

The whole point of laws is to keep the society secure and to minimalise the violations of somebody's personal space. However, the recent years (and I mean the last few decades) show a decline in the common sense and increase in immoral deeds. Over-kindness to criminals is no good and I personally think death sentences are an absolute MUST for feral offenses such as rape, molestation, serial murders, or any offenses done by an insane person. Our planet should be cleansed of such genetic rubbish, since humans have long ago not been subject of natural selection. Thus, I have no mercy at all for offenders willing to take somebody's life or commit other serious crimes (depending on the conditions).

As for the statement that no one is bigger than the law, I must repeat myself that law is made by humans, and I refuse to conform to this nonsense. Everyone should have the right to question law and even claim to change it when it comes to such debatable cases where there definitely is a discrepancy between laws.

And lastly, concerning the statement that you should not enforce law, I think more drastic measures will be a wake-up call for those who think they can get away with such serious offenses. And since I openly stated that death penalties shouldn't have been removed, I think this man just enforced the correct law. And enforcing the law yourself shouldn't be illegal. Because what's the difference between you and a policeman? The gun and the badge, which makes it even a more difficult task for you.

In conclusion - this guy should be given a medal for giving the worms some human trash to eat.

reply to post by 0001391

"violins and flowers for the poor armed mugger."
a little dramatic dont ya think..where did i say anything about sympathy?..in fact i expressly said i had none
oh and the guy who got ran over was not "in the way" ..regardless i might of run his stupid ass over if i was in the same position.
i said he was wrong for doing it..maybee wrong is not the right word exactly.

The only crime I see in this case that hasn't been addressed is the crime the DA is committing if he seeks an indictment on this charge of homicide. If he does, he's looking for face time in front of an election?
Any defense attorney worth his pay can win this but it will cost this poor tow-truck driver several years of retirement payments just to defend himself. That's just so wrong!

reply to post by swimmer15


I recently took a conceal carry class and we were told that unless you can show that you tried to avoid a confrontation and retreated/escape before using your weapon, you will be more likely to do jail time. As soon as the victim got back in his truck, the threat was removed and the victim did not exercise escaping. Instead, he took matters into his own hands and became the aggressor.

I'm the adrenaline was in high-gear, but from a legal standpoint, the victim was wrong to pursue an attacker who no longer posed an immediate threat.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Not in the state I reside. Nor the state I was a police officer in.

Sorry to hear you have limited rights when it comes to self defense.

reply to post by macman


The way it was explained to us is because of our litigious society, the courts will look at what a "reasonable person would do" and the lawyers aren't going to get 12 of your buddies for the jury. If you shoot someone, there is a very good chance you're going to go to court and the prosecution is going to want to see if you tried to avoid a confrontation before using your weapon.

And, with your having been a police office, I'm sure you heard that if you do use your weapon, you are to NOT give a statement to the police until you first talk to your lawyer. Reason being that with the increased adrenaline, you simply can't remember all the details immediately after using your weapon and that folks who should have been innocent were found guilty by statements they made to the police.

Wait a minute, I'm confused. I thought guns were illegal in DC? Where did that gun come from? Didn't the attacker know that they were banned there? Hmm something seems fishy here to me because the government tells me daily that we would all be safer with stricter gun laws so I'm confused now.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Oh, I have no doubt that there will be a civil court hearing. That is why I am a member of a concealed carrier lawyer group.

Repeat these words, "I feared for my safety and believed my life was in danger. I would like to contact my attorney. I have nothing further to say until my attorney is present".

My CCW teacher is an FFL attorney and a defense attorney as well. He put on a great course, and I was able to play off his scenarios when I attended the class.

Having investigated these things, I know what most LEOs will look for and what my rights are and what the law allows in my state.

Freenrgy2
reply to post by swimmer15

 

I recently took a conceal carry class and we were told that unless you can show that you tried to avoid a confrontation and retreated/escape before using your weapon, you will be more likely to do jail time. As soon as the victim got back in his truck, the threat was removed and the victim did not exercise escaping. Instead, he took matters into his own hands and became the aggressor.

I'm the adrenaline was in high-gear, but from a legal standpoint, the victim was wrong to pursue an attacker who no longer posed an immediate threat.

Bullets travel at several hundred feet per second and theres the chance that the original victim couldve still been in fear for his life even inside the vehicle. (an obvious scenario is that the attacker now looked uop and may have tried to shoot at him as he was driving, we also dont know the position or orientation of the vehicle and the attacker)

I wouldve done the same thing, and defended myself as a crime of passion, confusion, or however you want to label being in the heat of the moment and fending for my life.

You most assuredly take someone elses life when they beat you with a gun that they themselves arent legally allowed to own in that state and try to rob you with it. You doubly kill that person when youve tried to escape and they beat you some more. I wouldve backed back over him for good measure in all honesty, youll see no sympathy from me if you engage me in a situation such as this.

BTW, do any of you know or ever been around gunshots in a vehicle. This isnt the movies, bullets penetrate alot further and do alot more damage than what you might know.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

apartmentprepper.com...

www.theboxotruth.com...

Sometimes i really think folks live in a fantasy world where movies equate to real life. Just had a situation where an ex-employee tried to break in my truck window on Christmas. He couldnt even shatter the glass with a large hunk of sidewalk concrete, after hitting it at least 3 times. My opinion is the simpleton thought it was like in the movies and it would just shatter. Idiot.

reply to post by phishfriar47


The defense is very simple. There was a shown/known aggressive person, that fired already. It is unknown if the attacker would not have gotten the wallet and then killed the victim.

The victim eliminated the threat and should be commended.

macman
reply to post by phishfriar47

 

The defense is very simple. There was a shown/known aggressive person, that fired already. It is unknown if the attacker would not have gotten the wallet and then killed the victim.

The victim eliminated the threat and should be commended.

Exactly.. The driver had no way of knowing the before nor can he know the after without action. All he knows is its him or me, and that dosent go away until hes completely free from the threat. Nothing criminal about being forced to make that choice.
Had the attacker just left a murder scene and making his get away, there would be no trial and truck driver would no doubt be a hero.

reply to post by macman


So, based on lack of evidence, how can you "commend" anyone?

The only thing we have from the OP's post is that the aggressor ran after the wallet and, "while distracted", the victim got into his truck. There is no mention that he is being fired upon when he ran over his aggressor.

Must be nice to be able to pass off your opinion as justified fact.

He would not be charged with murder if the prosecution felt he did "what a reasonable person would do." It is my opinion that had he done what a reasonable person would have done, no charges would have been filed.