Man Plows Down, Kills Suspect Who Threatened To Rape His Daughters

[matcom]

<snip>

TRENTON -- When armed robbers jammed a gun into his face and threatened to rape his two daughters, something snapped, Trenton resident Bob O’Neal said yesterday.

"I just couldn’t take it anymore," O’Neal said. "He put a gun in my face and threatened to rape my kids. I’m not having that."

According to police, O’Neal jumped into his SUV and chased his attackers after they confronted him in front of his Hiltonia home Sunday night and stole about $1,500 in cash.

The chase ended minutes later, on Route 29, after O’Neal allegedly ran over one suspect who fired at him, leaving him dead at the scene.

"I wasn’t trying to kill anybody... I just wanted to get the tag number on the car," a visibly-shaken O’Neal said. "But they intended to kill me," he added.

Police said the bizarre robbery turned fatality began in front of O’Neal’s Cornwall Avenue home around 9 p.m. Sunday.

O’Neal, who is currently undergoing chemotherapy for a liver disorder, said he had returned home from an outing with his two daughters, ages 16 and 17, when he saw an old white Chrysler station wagon pull up and park a few doors down from his home.

Police said the 54-year-old single father of three escorted his daughters into the house and returned to lock up his Dodge Durango a few minutes later.

That’s when he was confronted by the group of guys in the white station wagon.

http://www.trentonian.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1697&dept_id=44551&newsid=13420109

[DS1]

1. 'Sokay with me, boss

Deadly force is authorized to prevent rape anyway.

[MrUnderhill]

2. I might do the same.... but it seems odd that he "had a gun in his face"

yet had time to run to his SUV, get it, and chase them down.


Did the perp have a REALLY slow trigger finger?

[eataTREE]

19. Read the article.

The guys robbed him at gunpoint, then took off in their car. He pursued in his SUV (Brave? Yes. Stupid. Definitely). The perps ran into the highway median, at which point they exited their car in order to shoot at him. That's when he ran one over.

[Richardo]

3. No argument here.

Incremental reduction in scum is a good thing.

[underpants]

5. Hey! they are human beings!

at least they WERE

Yeah no great loss there.

[Bunny]

4. I gotta tell ya, I have no big problems with this.

If anyone threatened me or my daughters, and I had the means to do him bodily harm, I would certainly do it. Even if it required a vehicle to accomplish.

I fully understand the whole vigilante justice thing, I just think that under the circumstances, his behavior seems reasonable to me.

[NashVegas]

7. Fight or Flight

the "fight" portion of that is highly underrated, sometimes.

Still, this was pretty macabre. The kid was ripped into two.

[underpants]

6. **OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER**

Though we in no way condone taking the law into your own hands or vigilante justice.......in this case we are excercising or right to suspend such standards.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. Suspending standards...just like Bush does.

But I guess it's alright because we're liberals.

[MsAnthropy]

8. That line he used is perfect: "I'm not having that."

That says it all.

[SnowGoose]

9. My wife's a psychiatrist, and people hear all sorts of things...

That's why we have due process. We weren't there, we only have the word of the person who ran someone down and killed him. I'm not saying he's lying or crazy, and I'm certainly not saying I couldn't react violently to protect my family ~ I'm just reminding you that there are often two sides to a story.

Again, that's why we have due process.

That having been said, one has no right to be surprised at being killed if they've threatened to kill or rape someones children. Like I said about terrorism: not justified, but not surprising, either.

[Burma Jones]

10. Someone threatens to Rape my Daughter, they're DEAD

I can do the time if I have to.

[StopThief]

54. Exactly!!!

My sentiments exactly.

[DiverDave]

98. Me too.

Fuck with my kids, you die.

[RivetJoint]

11. Well Done, Dad...

[ladjf]

13. Assuming that Dad is telling the whole truth about what happened.

[RivetJoint]

14. I am

No reason not to yet.

[patcox2]

17. There is no dispute over any of the facts that matter to me.

They robbed him right in front of his house. One of them had a gun. They jumped in their car and drove off. He jumped in his car and followed. He rammed their car and forced them to stop. The guy with the gun jumped out and started shooting at him. He ran the criminal scumbag over and killed him. This is all backed up by the evidence (they found his money and credit cards on the guy, their was a gun, their were spent casings). Doesn't matter whether the guy threatened to rape his daughters. The criminal created the situation, created the risk that someone might not like being robbed and might fight back.

Good for him (the victim of the robbery.) I don't even care if he did it on purpose. Thats the only thing he may be lying about, whether he knew he was running the guy over. I have a good suspicion that the cops told him to say he didn't know he was running the guy over. (local rumor is he ran him over twice; if so, double good for him. I think even that is justified. The guy fired a gun at him; he had a right to make absolutely certain that the guy would not be able to fire the gun at him anymore.)

Its all about personal responsibility. If you take a gun, walk up to a stranger and point the gun at him and rob him, you take the risk that the guy is going to have balls and do to you what ought to be done to you, which is kill you. If you don't want to be killed by the people you victimize, don't rob people. Real simple.

[Ganja Ninja]

12. Wow! Pretty gruesome.

Snip: "O’Neal said as the gunman fired those two last shots, he ducked under the steering wheel, and everything after that is kind of a blur.

Seconds later the gunman was dead, his body shorn in half, allegedly by O’Neal’s SUV."

They messed with the wrong dude.

[dr.strangelove]

15. Never let it be said that we liberals are soft on crime

I believe that any citizen has the right to protect him/herself or his/her family from deadly force, with deadly force. A threatened rape, especially one in which a gun is brandished, meets this burden in my mind. Regardless of the use of deadly force, if some man threatens to rape my daughter, he will have to kill me to get to her. If he tries to kill me to get to her, I'm going to kill him first.

Certainly the police should investigate this thoroughly. If this father killed someone who was not guilty of any wrongdoing, he should be punished. If he was protecting his family when he chased the attempted rapists away, and then later killed one of them while shots were fired at him, I do not see any criminal activity on his part.

[northzax]

27. There is a qualified difference between using deadly force

to protect against an immediate threat, and chasing someone down after the fact and killing them, sorry. that is no longer protecting yourself from an immediate threat of deadly force.

You have a gun on me, I have the right to shoot back, but once you leave, I don't have the right to go hunt you down and kill you, that's called vigilante justice, and it has no place in a civilized society. As much as I sympathise with this father, the entire reason we say "justice is blind" is to remove the passion and emotion from justice. You don't get to kill someone after they threaten you and run away.

[dr.strangelove]

84. Actually, you do

As citizens we have every right to detain someone who commits a crime against us. When I was pick-pocketed, I chased the kid down and through him to the ground and detained him, without deadly force mind you, until the police responded to my cell phone call.

This father was the victim of an assault with a deadly weapon, and possible battery if there was any aggressive contact. Even the mere threat of rape with a firearm is a severe felony in all 50 states. Being the victim of a crime, he has every right to pursue the perpetrator to assist the police in an eventual arrest. Many citizens choose not to pursue this right and allow the police to handle law enforcement, but all citizens are allowed to chase criminals. All citizens may use non-deadly force to subdue a criminal using non-deadly force. All citizens may use deadly force is they encounter it while acting within the scope of law. An investigation is in order, however if this man was merely trying to detain, or obtain the plate umber of the armed perp, he was within his rights.

You may have chosen not to assist in the capture of this attempted rapist, but it is not vigilante justice to do so.

[northzax]

90. the powers of citizen's arrest do not extend to the use of force

or forcible restraint. You can detain someone, but chasing them miles down the freeway? that is outside the pale. Car chases almost always end in someone dying, usually a bystander. He detained him by pinning him between his SUV and the ground. twice. that is vigilante justice.

[dr.strangelove]

94. You are not correct

The power of a citizen's arrest includes the right to chase without limits on distance. Should there be some maximum distance? Is half a mile okay, but 2 miles is not? No, there is no maximum distance.

I also think your assertion that chasing someone in a car almost always results in someone dying is not based in fact, but merely an opinion based on TV news reports of car chases (which only show sensational crashes). I would argue that the VAST majority of car chases do not involve the death of anyone, including a bystander.

My understanding is that this man chased the perpetrator of a crime. The perpetrator fled in another vehicle. When he caught up with the perpetrator, the perpetrator exited his vehicle with a gun and began firing at the citizen chasing him. Once deadly force was used against him, i.e. gunfire directed at him, he was within his rights to use his car to protect himself.

[VelmaD]

95. You left out the part...

where the guy rammed the perps with his car...twice...before they started shooting at him.

[Uzybone]

96. So what?

was he supposed to honk his horn and make a pull over sign at the perps? Geez.

[VelmaD]

97. I just think it's an important thing to note...

the perp didn't just pull over, get out of his car, and start shooting for no reason.

[dr.strangelove]

99. I don't think that is what happened

I understand that he was shot at over 6 times by the perp he killed. Including twice right before killing him.

[VelmaD]

100. I just re-read the article again and...

it doesn't say anything about them firing any shots until after the 2nd time the guy rammed them.

[Runcible Spoon]

105. that is an important distinction.

there was no intent to physically harm him until he rammed them. Just robbery and threats.

[dr.strangelove]

106. And . . .

Ramming another car is fine with me. If the police use non-deadly force to get a perpetrator's vehicle off the road, so can a citizen. Ramming is not deadly force. These perpetrators were being chased after the commission of a crime. ANYTHING the police can do, a citizen can do, except arrest and charge someone. Any citizen can undertake these activities. A citizen does not have the immunity of a police officer, so he may face liability for damage caused during a chase. This is similar to a bounty hunter or privite investigator engaging a bailey or suspect. The police do not have additional rights, just more protection in case something goes wrong.

In this case, he is within his rights. He said he was attemotign to get their plate and they fired at him, but even if he was trying to disable their vehicle, he was within his rights.

The use of deadly force did not take place until the passangers left the car. When two cars are used against each other, the level of force is equal. Once one leaves the car but employs a gun, it rises to deadly force and the citizen may use his car as a weapon.

I have no problem with this.

[Runcible Spoon]

108. ramming absolutely IS considered deadly force!

do a quick google search. Here's an example:

http://www.pursuitwatch.org/stories/pit.htm

"Ramming a vehicle is considered deadly force and banned by most police departments" Because it is so dangerous, police rarely use this technique any more.

More importantly, in New Jersey law, there is "Civil Duty to Retreat": "A deadly force is not justifiable when an opportunity to retreat with complete safety is known by the defender to be at hand. The use of such force is not justifiable if the defender knew that it could have been avoided with complete safety to himself by retreating. Where these conditions are present, the defender has a duty to retreat, and his use of a deadly force under these circumstances cannot be justified as an act of self defense"
http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm

Duty to retreat in this situation would have been just staying home or going somewhere safe, like a police station. Regardless of whatever visceral reactions you may have to this incident, he killed that kid unlawfully. Should he be above the law?

[dr.strangelove]

128. You are citing bad law

You are right, NJ is in the minority of jurisdictions that still impose a duty to retreat. But the law you are citing has been amended by several courts and the legislature. I practice law in New Jersey. The duty to flee has been eroded during the past ten years. The website you are citing is Ken Vercammen's site. I don't know if you know Ken, but I'm sure he will be surprised to hear his site is citing old law. I don't know Ken very well, but I have met him several times. I will call him to let him know about the error on his site.

The law you are citing ignores several recent decisions by the NJ Supreme Court. The recent change started with the NJ Supreme Court's decision in State of New Jersey v. Gartland, (1997) the court held that the duty to retreat was not constitutional in matters involving domestic violence (the case before them) and requested the legislature review the duty to retreat as it may never be valid. In response the legislature passed Senate Bill 271, which invalidates the duty to retreat whenever someone is attacked in their home. Since then the court have further eroded the law. At least two trial courts, (I don't know the cases off the top of my head but an associate here probably knows them and I'll get them later) have since extended that ruling and statute to apply outside the home if the person attacked is defending their family's lives. NJ law holds that rape is a use of deadly force, so this person defending his family from rape may not have a duty to defend. It is certainly a case we would take up. While the NJ Supreme Court has not ruled on the trial court's position yet, the recent past indicates their position is that of the majority of jurisdictions, i.e. that the duty to retreat is not constitutionally valid.

As for whether NJ would consider ramming a vehicle the use of deadly force, there is no holding in NJ that ramming is deadly force as a matter of law. Therefore the court would need to listen to expert testimony on the subject and make a decision based on the facts of the case whether the first two rams were deadly force. Since no death resulted from the first two rams, I am sure I could get dozens of auto engineers and police procedural experts to testify that it was not deadly force in these circumstances. Once the perp used the gun, after the second ram, the use of deadly force was justified to kill him.

It is clear we do not agree on this. I am confident he will not be convicted of a homicide. I am sure he violated several traffic and criminal safety laws, which I am sure he will plead guilty to, but I doubt he will be charged with homicide. If he is charged, I believe he will negotiate a plea that does not involve homicide. If not, this would be a great case to try. Most jurors in the state would be very receptive to this man's case.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

129. He was not in his home

He chose to chase after them. He was not defending his family's lives at that point. The use of deadly force is allowed ONLY if it is required for the IMMEDIATE safety of that person or of the persons being protected. Since the group had already left, there was no "immediate" situation.
For every witness you produced affirming your position that it wasn't deadly force, the prosecution will have one saying that it was. If he was using deadly force against the car, those inside the car had the right to defend themselves. One crime does not negate all of your civil rights because you are innocent until proven guilty. Thus whether or not ramming is considered deadly force is the critical issue. Again, the prosecution would be able to match your list of experts.
I do not believe that this man will be charged with homicide, simply because apparently, America is OK with vigilante justice. I don't think it was murder, probably more along the lines of manslaughter 1. Will the jury be sympathetic? Absolutely. Does that change the seriousness of the crime? No. There is a reason we have laws and courts. Vigilante justice is wrong. Period.

[dr.strangelove]

131. We just do not agree, but here are my closing points

-He chose to chase after them. He was not defending his family's lives at that point.

I think you are incorrect. From a legal standpoint, the protection of one's life, or the life of one's family, does not have a distance component. When the need to protect stops is very much a question for a jury. Which is another question I would enjoy presenting to a jury, in this case.

The term "immediate" is much broader than you argue. These men approached him right outside his home, which again is why the duty to retreat does not apply under NJ law. The perpetrator died a few minutes after the threat was made, on Route 29 which is less than 2 miles from the man's home. He did not chase these people for hours across many miles. He chased them for about 3-4 minutes and for less than 2 miles.

-For every witness you produced affirming your position that it wasn't deadly force, the prosecution will have one saying that it was.

Well, I again find it unlikely the prosecution will even bring a homicide charge, if any charge is brought.

Also, from a legal standpoint, if there is a battle of the experts, it favors the defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If the defense can put an expert to refute every point the prosecution makes, the prosecution has probably not satisfied the burden of proof. I find the defense usually prevails in a battle of the experts' case. Usually the prosecution needs to win on the facts, if the prosecution is relying on experts to establish the use of deadly force, I don't like their chances. I was a A.D.A. for some time, I would not want to bring that charge.

-If he was using deadly force against the car, those inside the car had the right to defend themselves. One crime does not negate all of your civil rights because you are innocent until proven guilty.

this is simply an incorrect legal statement. The use of deadly force is not permitted if you are the instigator of an altercation a gun. Once you begin the use of deadly force, the law prohibits you from legally employing deadly force in defense against the person you used deadly force on, even if they employ deadly force in return. So in this case yes, one act (Not a crime until conviction) does remove one's civil rights, in this case the right to use deadly force in response to deadly force.

The reason this man will not be charged with a homicide is because he did not commit a homicide. Manslaughter involves recklessly causing death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life. There is no case law suggesting ramming a car off the road is extreme indifference to human life. I believe there is no way these facts will make up a manslaughter charge.

As for whether or not a jury is sympathetic changing the seriousness of the crime, of course it does. An act is only a crime if a jury of your peers finds that it was. If there is no conviction, the jury certainly changes the seriousness of the crime, since there was no crime absent the conviction.

The reason we have laws and courts is to ensure that no one person, such as you or me, decides whether an act is a crime. It takes, in the case of a NJ felony charge, 12 people, out of a pool of about 75-100.

Vigilante justice is wrong. This was not vigilante justice. This was self defense.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

133. Here:

The reason we have laws and courts is to ensure that no one person, such as you or me, decides whether an act is a crime. It takes, in the case of a NJ felony charge, 12 people, out of a pool of about 75-100.

Exactly. This man did not have the right to decide the criminal's fate.

Immediate means at that very moment, not if the guy decides to get in his car and follow them. It doesn't matter that it was 2 miles away. They were gone and he chose to continue. If he had killed them at his home, as they threatened him, it would be a different story. However this was not the case. He chose to follow. Since he instigated that, it was not self defense.


Thank you for civil discourse, and yes, we just don't agree.

[dr.strangelove]

134. Chasing a perpetrator is not a criminal act

I already addressed this, but here goes again. When any citizen encounters a criminal act, you have the right to apprehend the perpetrator using non-deadly force, unless deadly force was directed to you. Once the perpetrators threatened his life, his daughters' lives, to rape his daughters and stole $1500 and other items from him, they were perpetrators. This man had the right to chase them. We are all allowed the same rights as law enforcement officers to chase down a perpetrator of alleged criminal activity. If you witness a pickpocket, you are allowed to chase down the perpetrator (I've done it). There is NOTHING illegal about chasing someone down. It is simply allowed. Here the man was chasing down perpetrators. His choice may have been foolhardy (chasing armed men is best left for those trained to do it, but it is not illegal)

If during a legal activity, such as chasing down a perpetrator, you are met with deadly force in response to your completely legal activity, you are allowed to respond with deadly force.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

135. It all comes down to whether ramming is deadly force

Sure, you are allowed to chase after a pickpocket, but you are not allowed to beat the living hell out of him or break his neck when you catch him. The man claimed he only chased after them to get the tag number. Fine. But he then proceeded to engage in what could be argued to be deadly force.

[dr.strangelove]

137. Not "all comes down to" but it is an issue

With regard to allowable force in detaining a perpetrator, it is not the extreme that you described, but it is an elevated level of force.

You are not allowed to run up and shoulder tackle a person on the street. It would be considered an assault. However, if the person was fleeing from pickpocketing someone, tackling would not be a chargeable criminal offense.

Once someone engages in allegedly criminal activity, the force a citizen is allowed to employ in detaining that person is much greater than one can employ normally. Of course if you are wrong in your selection of the person, i.e. you tackle a bystander, you are held to the normal standard and probably will be charged if you recklessly or intentionally attack someone who was not involved in the alleged criminal activity.

I think you overstate the force employed in this case. Ramming someone's car is not the same as beating the hell out of a person or breaking their neck.

The amount of force this person used is certainly an issue, as it is in any detainment. However the amount of force does not change form law enforcement officer to private citizen. If a law enforcement officer can tackle, so can a citizen. If a law enforcement officer can ram a car, so can a citizen. The law enforcement officer enjoys some immunity if he is incorrect or injures an innocent person, but the level of force does not change from cop to private citizen.

In the case of ramming a car, it is a method police employ to detain people. This section of Route 29 is rural. The ramming took place when no other cars were around, so the chance of damage to others was minimal. The last two rams took place in the grassy median in the road, where no other cars were.

I believe his actions were reasonable. He was within his rights as a citizen to prevent the perpetrators from escaping before law enforcement could arrive. His actions led to the arrest of two and a warrant for the third. The fourth died after shooting at this man. I don;t believe any criminal activity took place.

[okieinpain]

148. I understand the technical parts of your argument. but you f**k with my

family and your ass is grass.

[lpbk2713]

16. If he was undergoing chemo he was stressed out enough already.

And threatening to harm a single parent's kids was a real bad move. I can't say I feel bad for the lowlifes and what happened to them. I believe they chose the wrong individual to try to impress.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Well, vigilante justice is just plain wrong. If this guy doesn't do

at least 20 hours of community service, there is something wrong with the system.

[Phillycat]

23. Heh. I agree.

Maybe even 30!

[el_gato]

26. boo fuckin' hoo

If you can't protect your own family what good are you?

The cops don't give a shit about you. Thier only job is to
provide slaves to the prison/industrial complex and make
sure the natives don't act up when they get restless.

[Phillycat]

36. Um. I think this poster was joking.

The "20 hours of community service" for manslaughter didn't tip you off? :)

[UpsideDownFlag]

79. if someone threatened to rape my sister....

(since i'm not old enough to have a daughter, this is my closest comparison)...

I would absolutely have long hard thoughts about making it look like an accident happened to him. or maybe that he was a mugging gone bad.

[UpsideDownFlag]

81. oh, i just noticed the 20 hours of comm. service! that's great! nt

[okieinpain]

153. no he is the consenquence of trying to rob someone, sorry I just don't

agree with you. this is why crime is so high, because these kids thing that the average person is not going to respond.

[BiggJawn]

20. Bet the "word" gets out about Hiltonia...

And the crime rate there plummets.

But then, how smart can you be to try and report your "getaway car" as stolen AFTER you've abandoned it at a crime scene. That one NEVER works!

[Devil Dog Dem]

21. Good for him! One fewer scumbag with a gun on the streets today.

I'll chip in for any legal defense this guy might need.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. It was wrong. Way way wrong.

It wasn't as though he did it to protect them from rape because the guys had already left in their car. The thing that would seem most appropriate would be to report it to the police and make sure his daughters are safe. Young males say stupid ass things all the time. The girls were no longer in danger of being raped. If he was so concerned about them, why didn't he stay with them or escort them to the police station rather than leaving them alone?

Two of the suspects are 19 and 15. Kids at those ages do stupid things. Should they be arrested and serve time? Absolutely. Should they pay with their lives for some stupid shit they did? No.

[Jack_Dawson]

24. Disagree

Unless you've walked in his shoes, you can't judge. I applaud the fact the world has fewer dirtbags this morning.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. They're KIDS

Those are someone's freaking kids you are talking about. These aren't hardened criminals. They are KIDS. Vigilante justice is just wrong. What if someone thinks an abortion doctor is a "dirtbag" should that person be allowed to kill them? That person would be able to say that there were less dirtbags in the world.

There is a reason we have courts.

[el_gato]

29. the justice system is corrupt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. Ok, so now it's alright to kill kids?

I don't know if the suspect killed was a kid, but there was a 15 year old kid there who could have as easily been killed. I see people on this board complain all the time (Rightfully so) that the United States is one of the last nations to condone the killing of children. How is this different?

[StopThief]

44. It is OK to kill ANYONE that robs you and threatens. . .

to rape your daughters.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. At the time it is happening in self defense? Yes. This was not the case

He chased after them. It is against the law to do that. Period.

[Devil Dog Dem]

69. How it against the law to chase after people who assaulted + robbed you?

Pray tell

[SemiCharmedQuark]

75. It's against the law to kill them.

Robbery is not a crime punishable by death, and even if it were, there are courts in place to handle it.

[Devil Dog Dem]

82. First, it wasn't a simple robbery. It was assault . . .

Putting a gun in someone's face and threatening them and/or their family members with bodily harm is assault.

Second, according to the story, the victim chased the assailants (which was legal and proper) and one assailant started shooting at the victim. He then got down below the dash and rammed into the assailant killing him. Even if he rammed him intentionally (which isn't clear, but I'll stipulate that it is more than a possibility) it was legally justified as self defense when the assailant was shooting at the victim. The fact that he COULD have theoretically turned the car around and driven away is not sufficient to remove the self-defense element. The only question is: was it reasonable for him to ram the man who was standing there shooting at him trying to kill him? Based on the facts as they have been reported, I say the answer is yes.

These scenarios are played out in the law sometimes. A situation occurs in which it would be illegal to kill the assailant initially, but the situation escalates with an end result that the assailant dies, and it is perfectly legal.

On a personal note, I say good riddance to the scumbag. And, as Dems, we have bigger fish to fry than shedding tears over this guy. It is crying boohoo when some scumbag gets what is coming to him that makes Dems look like wussies and soft on crime. Save our ammo for real injustices, and pick our battles for things like mandatory sentencing guidelines for petty crimes, or lack of effective counsel in capital trials. Not this shit.

[Squatch]

33. Kids?!?

You have got to be shitting me...

The moment you point a gun at somebody with intent to do harm, and vow to harm their family, as well, you are no longer "a kid".

Screw 'em, good riddance.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

34. OK, so I can expect that you are all for giving children the death penalty

Right?

Great, we're in the company of China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, and Pakistan. God Bless the USA.

[Squatch]

37. No, only the bastard who got what he deserved...

I find no fault with this gentleman, at all. He was protecting his family against "kids" with guns and an oath to rape his children.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

38. Well you obviously DO support the death penalty because many of the

children on death row have been convicted of crimes that were MORE serious than robbery and threats.

[Squatch]

40. Don't put words in my mouth.

I would have even supported this guy if he backed over the carcass of that "kid" a few times.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

43. That is a sick sick point of view.

I sure as hell hope you don't complain when our civil rights get trampled on. After all, if someone feels as strongly as you do, then hey, maybe suspending the law is ok after all.

[Squatch]

45. Guess what...defending your family is a CIVIL RIGHT, which

he exercised...to a happy ending, I might add.

[StopThief]

49. Don't you get it? Only criminals have rights. . .

victims have no rights.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

57. Ok how about this. It violates the law. It is illegal.

Does that work?

[Squatch]

58. Well, by the times the courts act, it might be a little late...

Once again, this man is justified in eliminating a threat to his family.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

59. Ok, so liberals who say stupid things about the president...

The CIA has the right to go to their house and kill them? It eliminates the threat...

[Squatch]

60. What in the fuck are you blathering about?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

61. When someone makes a threat, you don't have the right to preemtively

kill them.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

66. I think you underestimate the population.

Getting in your car and chasing after criminals is a dumb thing to do anyway. Regardless of killing the kid, he could have been killed himself and then what? He's a single parent.

[Squatch]

70. I don't think he was concerned with his own safety...

only that of his family. For that he should be applauded.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

No, chasing down people and killing them because of threats is not a right

That is why we have courts. Had it happened in the heat of the moment, it would be different. But no, they left and he chased them down. He took justice into his own hands.

[Squatch]

52. When a person puts a gun in your face and says

"I'm going to rape your children" I think I'll be inclined to believe him.

Therefore, I will do everything in my power, including chasing the fucker down, to eliminate that threat.

[RetroLounge]

68. Hell Yeah, and I would too.

I have a daughter, and anyone does that here, and they will have GMC Suburban tire tracks on their ass.

and any of you fucking whiners who are defending these "kids" better not be in the street either.

RL

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Runcible Spoon]

103. sick. just sick.

maybe you should cut down on the testosterone enemas.

[RetroLounge]

109. Whatever

:eyes:

RL

[Runcible Spoon]

111. well how the fuck do you expect someone to react?

when you (even hypothetically!) threaten someone with deadly violence for disagreeing with your reactionary bullshit opinion?

[petronius]

83. I agree with you that you can't chase someone down to kill them,

but I'm not sure that exactly describes what happened. (And of course, with only the newspaper, none of us know exactly what happened.)

It appears that he initially followed them to get the plate number, which is risky, but legal. If he had run them down while they were fleeing, it would have been, as you say, a criminal act (albeit understandable). However, if in the course of fleeing they stop and start shooting at him, which they apparently did, then that changes the situation and he is using deadly force to defend himself from an immediate and direct threat, which is legal.

[Pithlet]

126. He was ramming their vehicle

Which was creating a dangerous situation for anyone on that road. He could have killed himself and anyone else who happened to be around at the time.

[Pithlet]

119. He was not protecting his family at that point.

If he had to chase them down on the highway, then his family was in no danger. In fact, he was endangering other innocent bystanders. Once the perps fled the scene, he should have called the cops and let them handle it. No one person is judge, jury, and executioner. I understand the rage that father must have felt. I'm a parent. But, once that situation is over, then he has a responsibility not to act on that rage. If he'd harmed them during the commission of the act, in self defense, then that's fine. But, that's not what happened.

[NashVegas]

39. They're Kids Who Pointed a Gun in Someone's Face

Until you've been in that situation and tested your own fight or flight mechanisms, you just can't really know, can you?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

41. If I did what he did, I would be wrong.

They left and he chose to follow them.

[RivetJoint]

47. They deserved it....

[NashVegas]

50. Fine. That's Your Reality

If everything in the above story is truthful, this guy's reality was that his family was still very much threatened.

I'm not cheering him on, but I understand why he did this. Fight or flight, when threatened, is an inescapable fact of human nature.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. I can understand...

but it doesn't make it right. Here's another example. When that marine shot the iraqi insurgent who had threatened to kill him by actually shooting at him, people were very angry because it was not following the law.

[NashVegas]

62. Different Situation

The marine was fully armed. He was the one in control of that situation (as much as could be possible in a war zone).

We'll never really know if Mr. New Jersey was right. We can't know if the robbers would truly have followed up on their threat and paid a second visit. But we do know that Mr. NJ had a legitimate reason to feel threatened, and we know that the police in the case were unlikely to put a search on the perps as their #1 priority.

At the bottom line, this case, IMO, comes down to one thing: at heart, we are animals. We have drives that cannot always be reasoned away. So who are you going to side with? The animal who will risk the stain of killing to protect his tribe, or the animal who will risk the stain of killing at will in his aggression for material goods?

[StopThief]

42. They robbed him and threatened. . . .

to rape his daughters. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Hopefully the ones that unfortunately got away will find many VERY freindly prisoners when they go away.

[RetroLounge]

63. "These aren't hardened criminals" BULLSHIT

They put a gun in his face and threatened Rape of his daughters.

That's not hardened enough for you?

The scumbags are dead.

There is a reason we have SUVs.

RL

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squatch]

67. With accessories...

[russian33]

76. If they thought through a robbery with a weapon,

and threw out threats of rape, they aren't kids.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

77. Well according to the article, they obviously didn't think it thorugh

[ZenLefty]

31. The robbers know where he lives.

They know where the daughters live. Maybe the kids were just talking crap when they threatened his daughters with rape, but I don't blame him for not taking that chance. If he lets them go, he lives in fear for the rest of his life, wondering whether they're going to come back and make good on their threat. Even if he decides to move his family (assuming he has the money to do so), it's taking a chance.

Why didn't he stay with his daughters? Can he stay with them 24/7, while a threat prowls the streets? Can he keep them locked up in a vault at the police station? Seems perfectly reasonable to me that he would want to confront this threat and at least get their license plate, while his daughters are at home (one of the safest places they could be). I don't think it's fair to imply that he was unconcerned about his daughters - everything he did was motivated by his concern for their safety.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. If they are that dangerous

They still know where he lives and they are going to be a hell of a lot madder now.

[StopThief]

51. One of 'em isn't.

TaTa.

[RetroLounge]

71. No longer a "they" now is it

too bad he missed the other guy.

RL

[ZenLefty]

74. Well, one is dead and two are in custody.

There's a fourth one at large, whose thoughts may turn to revenge or who may realize he got off lucky and decide to lay low. Bullies target people who don't fight back. Whether #4 is a professional criminal or just a kid in the wrong car on the wrong night, he'll think twice about messing with someone willing to fight back. The father and his daughters may not be safer than they were two days ago, but they're safer than they would be if he just did nothing.

[Pithlet]

125. No one is safer

when people chase after those that have committed a crime against them. In fact, if we just allow this kind of thing to happen without any consequences, we all end up less safe. I also don't like the idea of throwing out due process to satisfy the whims of people who've been victimized. It's not that I don't understand the feelings behind it. A civilized society just doesn't allow it. Life isn't a schoolyard.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. According to his statement, he chased them to get the license

number, then one of them started shooting at him.

The crime was not over and done with. It was on-going. Maybe he deliberately targeted the shooter with his truck, maybe not. Maybe he should have backed off and let them go. But if they were willing to shoot at him, they could have shot at anyone else they came across.

I was more than half serious when I said that vigilante justice is wrong, but this looks on the face of it to be more like an immediate response to an assault rather than the hunting down and killing of a criminal.

That said, it could be the other way around. The kid with the little gun might have been shooting because he was is fear for his life, being chased down the highway by a big damn truck.

We don't know the facts. But I'm not going to automatically condemn this guy for defending himself.

[Devil Dog Dem]

72. Dude, the guy had a gun. He was a violent criminal. Good riddance.

No sympathy for that guy.

[Champ]

85. I do not fault the guy for doing what he did

If Someone threatened to rape my daughter, or girlfriend, hell even a good friend of mine would sure as hell trigger an uncontrollable reaction from me. I think most would if someone threatened to do such a sick act to someone you love. Anyways he states he was just trying to get the tag and ran over the guy who tried to SHOOT AT HIM, it was self-defense not murder. They way I look at it, this 1 guy no longer around likely means a female down the road from now will not get sexually assualted by this man in any way which imo is a good thing.

[Runcible Spoon]

101. I agree. I'm a bit shocked at this macho-man vigilante justice attitude!

what is it about defending poor widdle women that just sets off some men? The kids didn't rape the women. They threatened. BIIIG difference. All this hypothetical babble about "if it had been my sister" is a very illuminating. What if the genders had been reversed? I think it is a tragic incident. Nobody deserves to die for that. Maybe they were "scum", but how far do you want to take this social Darwinism argument? We have a legal system for many reasons, one of which is to prevent this kind of dangerous vigilate revenge, which could have been fatal to bystanders.

[RetroLounge]

110. "but how far do you want to take this "

Apparently just a few miles from his home.

Christ, this victim-rights namby pamby spinless faux liberalism loses elections.

Soft on crime? Not if my tires are inflated correctly.

RL

[Runcible Spoon]

116. well perhaps with W in the White House you'll get your chance.

At teh current rate of things, you could soon go plow down as many "victim-rights namby pamby spinless faux" liberals as you wanted with your gas guzzling SUV and even pop a couple caps into our asses with your "legally" procured gun-show shotgun. Where does this violence and hatred come from?

[belladonna]

107. Just wanted to point this out

They had his credit cards and they obviously knew where he lived. Would you feel comfortable assuming that they're not coming back to rape the daughters? I sure as hell wouldn't.

And as much respect as I have for police officers, reporting the crime doesn't necessarily mean the danger stops then and there. Take it from someone who's been there and done that.

[skygazer]

35. I would probably react the same way

If someone stuck a gun in my face and threatened to rape my daughters, I think it very likely that I would act the same way. That doesn't make it right, and I would know that it was not right.

That's why to me, it makes no sense to make laws based on "how would you feel if it was YOUR family member?" I don't believe in the death penalty - I feel it is wrong for anyone to take the life of another, be it a criminal committing murder, a man chasing down and running over someone who threatened his family or the state executing a criminal. I do consider self defense a valid reason.

That said, though, I can understand how and why a person would do this. Doesn't make it right but it is understandable to me.

[UdoKier]

53. Good for him. Hope he gets off scot-free*

*on the assumption that his version of events is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[UpsideDownFlag]

78. .. I wont tell anyone if he wont....nt

[InvisibleTouch]

80. Good for him! nt

[Champ]

86. They are lucky to have him as a father, I love this quote

"I just couldn’t let this (type of robbery) happen to anyone else," he said tearfully. "Most people would run, but I just don’t have it in me to run... I had to protect my two girls and, I thought they were going to come back to hurt them..."

[VelmaD]

87. I would buy the dad's story...

that he was trying to get their license plate number except for one little detail...he says he rammed their truck. If he was just chasing them to get their license plate number why did he ram them? They didn't start shooting at him until after he rammed them...twice.

[Champ]

91. That could've been his only intent when he left the house

But the fact that he just got robbed and the rape threats sinking in probaly sent him off when he got near their truck.

[VelmaD]

92. And this is why he shouldn't have chased them...

he was not in a fit mental state for good decision making.

[LoZoccolo]

88. Completely justified and uncontroversial.

He was shot at. If someone's shooting at you, you can kill them. This is not controversial.

[Cuban_Liberal]

89. Good job, old man!

:thumbsup:

[makhno]

93. Well done

The scumbags took their chances, they paid the price.

[Runcible Spoon]

102. I can't fucking believe some of the shit on this thread!

How many of you have posted that you are anti-death penalty? I bet more than a few. And not just because there are flaws in the justice system, but because it is inherently wrong to make someone pay for a crime with his/her life! The kids robbed them. They did NOT rape the daughters. They did NOT physically harm anyone. What was that man thinking, putting the his life and the lives of others on the road at risk because he just HAD to exact his macho revenge? Are you people really advocating vigilante justice?

[RetroLounge]

114. "I can't fucking believe some of the shit on this thread"

Can you read? The punks were FIRING THEIR GUNS AT HIM.

I would call that self-defense.

They did NOT physically harm anyone? Yeah, only because their bullets missed. What part of that gets by your understanding?

I am advocating giving this guy a fucking medal and helping pay for his legal defense.

RL

[Runcible Spoon]

118. ummm read the fucking article!

they didn't shoot at him until..here it comes...pay attention...AFTER he rammed them with his SUV, which is deadly force! Now would you like me to PM you my address so you can come plow my ass over?

[Pithlet]

120. They are advocating vigilante justice.

No one person should be judge, jury and executioner. Not to mention that vigilante justice endangers bystanders, as well as innocent people mistaken for the guilty party. I can't believe it is being defended to the level it is here, either. This wasn't self defense, which IS justifiable.

[Runcible Spoon]

123. Thank you for weighing in, Pithlet. Apparently disregarding

the law in lieu of vigilante justice seems to be the dominant discourse here. I would watch your ass though, since REtrolounge feels that: "any of you fucking whiners who are defending these "kids" better not be in the street either"

[GoddessOfGuinness]

104. It was wrong; but I'd probably react the same way...

We have a justice system. It's not flawless, but it's designed to protect people from KKK-type vigilantes.

Given the circumstances, I hope the man receives a speedy trial and does not have to serve time.

[Runcible Spoon]

112. "Civil Duty to Retreat" - this man used deadly force illegally

"A deadly force is not justifiable when an opportunity to retreat with complete safety is known by the defender to be at hand. The use of such force is not justifiable if the defender knew that it could have been avoided with complete safety to himself by retreating. Where these conditions are present, the defender has a duty to retreat, and his use of a deadly force under these circumstances cannot be justified as an act of self defense"

http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm

Regardless of how you viscerally feel about this incident, this man killed another human being unlawfully.

[RetroLounge]

115. Yawn

:eyes:

RL

[Runcible Spoon]

117. I'm glad this is boring for you.

Nice rebuttal.

[Pithlet]

121. Would you be yawning

if someone, in their rage, mistook you or a loved one for the guilty party? Or, you were run down and killed because you were in the way? You find allowing people to be judge, jury and executioner rolled into one to be no big deal?

[Champ]

127. If that is the law he broke it

It will be interesting to see how this plays out for this man.

[Endangered Specie]

113. Aww Gee, Couldn't a happened to a nicer guy.

</sarcasm>

[Reverend_Smitty]

122. This thing happened literally 1 block from the house that I grew up in...

my old neighborhood has gone downhill in the last 10 years or so...what a crazy story

[snoochie]

124. Good for him.

:thumbsup:

[radwriter0555]

130. I highly doubt the perps threatened to rape his daughters...

but it sure makes for an excellent defense for vigilante justice.

Men who choose to attempt to use the act of sex as violence rarely use the word "rape' to describe it, since that demeans THEM.

[Phillycat]

132. I can't believe this is still being debated.

The man protected his family, and I applaud him for it. Next time your life and the well-being of your children is threatened, you let me know how nobly you react. :eyes:

PS. This warms my heart. I always wished I had a daddy to protect me. These girls have a hero for a father.

[dr.strangelove]

138. Wow - I agree with janesez - maybe I should think this over

I usually disagree with you, so please forgive my sarcasm.
I think you are right. If anyone came near my daughter, he would have to kill me to get to her. If he tried to hurt them, I would chase him down too.

The debate has mostly been legal garbage about using deadly force after they ran away, which is an interesting legal debate. But in the real world, this man is a hero. He should be admired.

[Phillycat]

139. You usually disagree with me?

have we ever posted about the same topic? I'm sorry, I don't know your username. What have we disagreed about?

[dr.strangelove]

140. I have posted after you

I can't recall the topics, I'll check the archives later. I know I have disagreed with you before on a few topics. I used to be mjf3, but changed to dr.strangelove. I only remember disagreeing with you due to your avitar. I'm one of those yankee fans, so I remember all you red sox DUers.

[Phillycat]

142. Okay, Yankees/Red Sox, I buy.

Although I was not rude about that ever, so I don't know why you would have a bad feeling toward me. Huh. Usually I know when/why I have enmity with someone. I don't know you at all. Well, since you can't remember what we've argued about, it hardly seems worth continuing to hate me, does it?

[dr.strangelove]

149. I'm sorry - wrong message

I was joking. I did not mean to imply I feel any bad will towards you. In fact, I usually enjoy reading your posts. I recall disagreeing with you a few times, mostly after the ALCS and the yankees collapse, but I never was angry. Sorry if that post implied I was anything but joking with you.

No bad feelings here at all.

[Phillycat]

151. Fabulous!

:hi:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

143. Vigilantes are not heroes.

Not the people that formed lynch mobs and not the people that went after Emmett Till and not this guy either. I cannot believe that everyone is willing to take this guy's word at face value. Would he still be a hero if the men had not threatened his daughers? Nobody saw or heard them do this. His daughters were inside the house and didn't even hear it.

Vigilantes are not heroes because it opens the door to all sorts of violence in the name of "justice". Anti Choicers believe that doctors that perform abortions are scum and dirtbags and that the world is better off without them. Many of these same comments were said about this group. Anti Choicers believe that they HAVE to protect the "unborn". So they go and blow up clinics and shoot doctors. They get cheered on by their own. Here they are villified. Yet, you cannot argue against vigilante justice if you switch sides when it suits you. That is the real world.

[Phillycat]

144. My opinion is my opinion.

Must be very frustrating to you.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

146. No, I welcome other opinions

You couldn't believe people would have the opposing view and you called him a hero and then rolled your eyes at those who disagreed. I have done nothing that is different to that. So if by saying what I think I am being intolerant of others' opinions, then pot, meet kettle.
The other poster said that this guy should be a hero. It is MY opinion that he is a vigilante and therefore a criminal. This is not just "legal garbage", it's my valid opinion.

[Phillycat]

147. Wow. You are really worked up about this.

You inferred a lot in my post that isn't there. I am definitely not going to continue with this with you, you have worked yourself up into a foaming frenzy. See ya.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

150. Well the title of your post was "I can't believe this is still being

debated"

You then put this :eyes:
Then you said that those girls had a hero for a father.

So, I don't really think I just pulled it out of thin air. I actually am not in a frenzy, I am just perplexed by the situation. But anyway, hopefully we can move on to other matters. Take care.

[Phillycat]

152. You too.

:hi:

[dr.strangelove]

154. HE IS NOT A VIGILANTE

He did not form a lynch mob, and your analogy of this action to the murder of Emmett Till is both misplaced and offensive. Emmett Till's killing had a greater impact on the civil right's movement than the Brown decision. To relate the racially motivated murder of an innocent child to this activity is in poor taste.

I'm not sure I understand your criticism of "taking this guy's word at face value." Are you suggesting that he should not be believed. hat gives you this feeling. Are you suggesting that a statement has been made on behalf of the perpetrators and you are taking that at face value? I'm not aware a statement has been made.

As for why his word should be taken at face value, its because that is all we have at this point. I think I have stated in 2 or 3 posts that an investigation will continue on this. If he is found to have committed some criminal act, he will be charged. However, it is fairly difficult to debate someone's activity unless you agree on what happened. Since you seem to base your opinion on the fact that all the known circumstances, which primarily came form this man, were not true, I don't think debate with you is possible.

I can answer some of your questions.

-Would he still be a hero if the men had not threatened his daughters?
A hero can be defined as a person who undertakes a feat of courage, including risking harm, for the benefit of others.

The fact that he was protecting his daughters probably elevates him to hero status. He did not need to chase the men, I believe he did it to be sure they never hurt his daughters. That indeed makes him a hero. You seem to believe he went after the men with the intent to kill them. I'm not sure the known facts support that concept. There were four of them, yet he stopped his chase after the only known armed man was killed. He did not proceed to chase the others. If he wanted to kill them all, he certainly could have tried to.

Vigilantes are not heroes. He was not a vigilante.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post is all about. It does not make much sense to me. I can see you are trying to tie in a conservative criminal act like harming a medical service provider, to make it seem like I am "flip-flopping" on an issue, but this is poor logic. If you want to go into that in more detail, I'll try to address it, but the end of that post made no sense.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

155. No, to celebrate the death of ANYONE is in poor taste

I listed it because it is an example of vigilante justice, what I feel this man did.

Now. Here is your definition of "hero" A hero can be defined as a person who undertakes a feat of courage, including risking harm, for the benefit of others.

Here is the point very very clearly: "the benefit of others" is objective. To each group it means something different. To the anti-choicers it means getting rid of a doctor that performs abortions. To the racist assholes it meant getting rid of an innocent kid. THAT is why we have laws so that you can't go and kill whoever seems to offend you.

Now, here's the thing. One of those kids was fifteen years old. I suspect that this rape comment was not made in all seriousness but just some idiots trying to sound brave. Did the father know that? no. And they could have meant it. The point is, we don't know and this man chose to enact justice anyway and now some kid is dead. And here's the bottom line: people aren't disposable and they aren't things to "get rid of". This kid had hopes and dreams and family and everything else all of us have. He fucked up but he is still a human being. It really disturbs me to see people treat life, in any form, so casually. What disturbs me more than the actual event is the way the article was written to portray him as a hero and the responses that it received. People aren't saying "Well, he did what he had to do, but may that man rest in peace." Nope. They're celebrating and making jokes and rejoicing over someone's death. Even REAGAN was shown more respect, a man responsible for countless numbers of lost lives. People would say something bad about Reagan and everyone would say "nono, that's low class, he is a human. I may not like his actions, but Im not happy to see him dead." Why is this kid different?

[American Tragedy]

136. I abhor vigilante justice and killing in general

And I suppose this can't strictly be defined as self-defense.

That having been said, assuming events occurred as described here, I can't help but feel a good deal of sympathy for the guy.

[Nevernose]

141. It was wrong, but I'd have done he same damned thing

I have my own little girl, and if someone -- even just a couple of teenagers screwing around -- ever threatened to rape her, I would kill them dead in a heartbeat. If I couldn't find the guys on the road, I would have followed them to their house and slit their throats while they slept.

Legal? No.
Moral? No.
But I can certaqinly understand the emotions that drove this father to do what he did.

[okieinpain]

145. glad he's OK. can't blame the guy. I would probably do the same thing.