I love these types of people
 

http://www.local6.com/news/2272794/detail.html/


I agree with the other 85% of voters. The guy had the right to do this.

I do not take pity on those who break the law.

_________________________________

Business Owner Chases, Runs Over Robbery Suspects In Hummer
Two Suspects In Critical Condition

A business owner in Phoenix, Arizona took matters into his own hands after a group of men robbed his business, according to a Local 6 News report.

Police say three armed suspects walked into the Mr. Insurance building in Phoenix and demanded money. A fourth suspect was in the getaway car, according to the report.

Investigators said after the suspects left with the store's money, the co-owner jumped into his Hummer and chased after the suspects.

Police said that the man, identified only as Peter, followed the suspects through a neighborhood and eventually caught up with them. He then rolled his Hummer over their car.

Two of the suspects were taken to the hospital in critical condition.

The two other suspects managed to get away but police later caught them as well.

It is not known if Peter will face charges.

Prretty funny but i dont agree with any charges on the guy he protected his own stuff nothing wrong with that i just feel sorry for the robbers.:(

funny...
maybe a little excessive driving over the entire car like that... perhaps across the hood would have been just as effective without the injuries....

but hey they took his stuff... so he took it back... sounds fair...

just 'cuz they stole his stuff, doesn't give him the right to put them in the hospital in critical condition. There are more constructive things to do with your life than rot in jail for attempted vehicular manslaughter.

Nah, I figure it was their felony. If one of them died as a result, the others would be charged with murder. :D That's the way it should work.

And if the victim gets hurt, the thieves get charged with that, too. :lol: They're thieves. Fuck'em. Fuck'em hard, then put 'em in a high security prison with guys who will rape'em and rape'em and rape'em.

You might get the impression I'm not fond of thieves. You'd be right. :)

If you just have to charge the victim for something, let it be something like "illegal parking".

I think he was morally justified, the legal right will be up to the judge. I hope he doesn't do any time, I like that people kill robbers.

hmmph... and there was no threat to his life nor his property... Had this happened in California they would have had charged the driver with attempted murder.

Yup, ditto with Massachusetts. This is why neither of those states is known to have a clue in the area of criminal justice. The southwest, OTOH, doesn't put up with that shit.

Seems excessive. If he was chasing them in his car, he easily could have gotten thier license plate number, phoned the police and let them do thier jobs. If the car wasnt stolen, then it would have been very simple to find these robbers.

Vigilanteism should only be used if the police fail to do their jobs. The polce weren't even give a chance. Anything that he gets charged with, I would most likely fully support.

This wasn't vigilantism. This was the victim himself, chasing the thieves leaving the scene with his property, trying to escape from the scene. Totally different situation than someone who is not the victim, or do you refuse to defend yourself when attacked?

I don't think it's okay to do things like that, but I'm not going to say it doesn't appeal to me. If this were to happen in a movie, I'd be on the edge of my seat rooting for the guy.

But life isn't a movie. This kind of behavior should be discouraged. If only because, should victims start become more agressive towards criminals, they are probably going to start considering them a treath, and take them out first.

Ah yes, a sheep. God-forbid you should defend yourself.

If I was in this man's situation, I would call the police, yes.
If you think that makes me a sheep, then so be it. At least my car wouldn't be damaged.

You do realise you don't always have to get into a fight to win, do you?

i agree with titsmurf, does that make me a sheep too? once the theives left the place of business, the victims life was no longer in danger. obviously, they needed to be stopped just so that they don't/can't do it again, but he committed a crime greater than what they did. they put themselves into a situation where they knew htey could be hurt, but after leaving, he chose to chase them, rather than call the cops, and hurt them. if it weren't for them, the situation wouldn't have existed, but it was his choice to take it that far.

that most certainly WAS vigilantism and it's discouraged for a very good reason! C'mon denim, don't you remember kindergarten and the "don't hit back" rule? How is it that 5 year olds can manage to play nice w/ eachother, yet adults have a harder (and more deadly) time of it??? Why don't we follow the same rules we inflict upon our children?

He might not have even meant to "hit them back," as you put it. It says he caught up to them, then rolled his hummer over their car. I suspect it would take a bit of momentum to get a 2000 lb piece of steel to slide over a 3-4 foot obstacle. I think he'll get off if facing attempted manslaughter charges by doing so.

Re: I love these types of people
 

Depends on the law. Some are written to break.

Screw those guys. In another report, I read that these guys committed armed robbery. If you pull a gun on someone, you get what's coming to you.

Nothing more than vigilantism - this guy isn't heroic, he's nothing more than a criminal now.

Good, then you won't be taking pity on the driver of the hummer either I assume.

And I agree with titsmurf too - Baaaa

I skipped kindergarden. What's your point?

Sorry denim, usually I tend to agree with you, and I really would like to here. Believe me, I would. While I may privately applaud this guy standing up and protecting his own...in the end it <b>is</b> vigilantism. I want to stand on the side of the little guy who's had enough of a broken system where the victim has fewer rights than the offender. I really do. But if we all suddenly started our own enforcement of the laws (and that is vigilantism) then what we are left with is anarchy. So in the end I'm left silently cheering this guy while publicly denouncing his actions as rash and dangerous.

And in my not so humble opinion, that's exactly what is wrong with Kalifornia.

I can't agree. Given that the cops can't protect us, rather all they can do is come around with chalk, we have to protect ourselves when we're on the spot.

Cops can't be everywhere. When something happens, and you're there in the roll as "victim", and you don't do anything about it, that puts you in the catagory the thieves or whatever want: sheep. Or you can fight back.

Which makes more sense, to freely give up what they demand, or refuse and fight them? Seems to me that if you do the former, then you have anarchy.

It used to work, too. These days, as you said, the (alledged) offender has more rights than his (alledged) victim. That's what's changed.

If the outcome of this story was "he shot them as they were leaving", I would still support him. They robbed him. With weapons. If someone were to threaten me with a weapon I would make them dead.

No doubt he went a tad bit far, but lets not forget he was the victem to begin with. I am with denim on this one.

i think it is far from fair for us to say what he should or should not do when it wasn't us who were violated.

four men came in and robbed him.... he was bewildered. he followed them, easy enough to accept, and when he got close enough he took the only action he could think of; he hit them.

did they get hurt? yes. did they deserve what they got exactly? maybe not. but they threw away their rights to being a free human by violating an innocent man and stealing his belongings. they willingly decided to be bullies. the willingly decided to prey on the weak to get easy money.

they fucked up. they deserve what they got and more power to the victem.

vigilantism? I would say that to be if it were the victem's friend who ran them down. the victem just did what his instincts told him to do.

i am a pacifist, believe it or not, but i will defend myself and my pets and family. I will never willingly hurt another person or animal unless it is in self defense, but believe you me: you attack me, I will have no problem ending your life.

you cannot fuck with people and hope to get away with it.

i think it'd be imature, but if the guy chooses he has every right to end them now.

what, that we hold ALL our citizens accountable for their actions?!? "Gee, I was kinda pissed, and decided to KILL the two people. you know, i figured their lives were worth the couple hundred bucks they lifted from my shop..." is NOT appropriate behavior. what's so hard about that?!!? YOURE NOT ALLOWED TO KILL OR MAIM OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. When it all boils down to it, that's what you're looking at. no matter what, KILLING IS WRONG. This should be a basic law of humanity. do not kill your fellow man. This flows over into attempted killings as well.

Maybe if more people reacted the way that this guy did, these scumbags would think twice about trying score some "easy money" by sticking a place up.

We had an incident like this recently where the person chasing the robbers lost control of their vehicle, killing several children walking home from school.

If you take matters into your own hands, you best be able to prove you were threatened.

This guy should know better than to emabark on a chase like this through city streets. He endangered the lives of innocent people, and is at the very least guilty of public endangerment.

I think the co-owner was in the wrong here. Now before you jump all over me for saying that, let me say this as well. Had the co-owner had a gun in the store and shot the bastards while they were in the store robbing him, I would be the first in line to congratulate him.

However he made a willful act to chase them down. This is no longer protecting himself, but has now become public endangerment and is proven by him putting 2 people in the hospital.

Yesterday, in Oklahoma City, there was an attempted robery of a jewlery store. During the robery, the crook became distracted, the owner pulled out a gun and started shooting the crook. The crook shot and wounded the owner before the crook crawled into another room and died. Kudos to the owner, he was threatened as the crook had a gun. He protected himself. Chasing after someone is not protecting yourself.

I'm for pressing charges. He endangered the lives of innocent people by starting a car chase through a residential area. I don't know about Phoenix, AZ, but in my town, it's impossible to drive over the speed limit on back roads without risking running over kids. Police action should be left to the police, vigilante justice should take place only when the police have failed. A wad of cash doesn't entitle anyone to risk lives and nearly crush two people to death.

You fall into the falacy of black & white thinking, Cheerios. The real world is in grays.

Exactly.

This is very arguable.

What if a stray bullet hit children outside the store? :rolleyes:

Now, what I could agree with, really, is to charge him with some kind of endangerment IFF he was speeding and/or ignoring traffic laws. Even then, I'd not charge him with attacking the thieves, just with some kind of moving violation. Separate it into two issues: burglary and traffic violation. That should satisfy almost everyone.


Yay, a combined reply! Now if only there was an automated way to do this. "If immediately previous post was from the same person, merge this and previous post."

I agree with hrdware here. As long as he was in danger, I would have no problem with him doing whatever he could to protect himself. As soon as they left though, he was no longer in danger and should have let the police handle it from there.

I believe in due process of law. This was self-seving justice at it's finest, but I wouldn't expect many here to understand what that means, especially in the face of due process.

I think the idea of bizarre, shocking punishments to "teach a lesson" is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning I see in threads like this. Think about it, how many people are going to "think twice" about robbing a store after hearing about this? Not many, man. I doubt the robbers will reconsider robbing again because someone ran over their vehicle in a hummer. Most people aren't going to chase you around and run over your vehicle like that.

You have something of a point. That just backs up my position, though. As far as I'm concerned Hamerabi(sp??) had it right.

And if I were to catch the asshole(s) who broke into my car last month, I'd try everything I could to recover my property.

Haha, this is funny because later on in the thread you hound someone about black and white thinking.

THOSE PEOPLE DIDN'T MURDER OR HARM THEIR ACCOMPLICES AND SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED WITH THEIR INJURY OR DEATH. They should, however, be charged with crimes they committed.

I don't know if there are laws about vigilante justice (I'm guessing there are), but these robbers were punished without due process of law. If you think this fits the crime, then do you think they should be tried by the courts?

Bullshit, he chased them down and ran over their vehicle. Self-defense is disabling your opponent enough to escape, not an excuse to kill or commit other crimes.

I agree.

Me too, but I do not agree or support the person in this case.

Right, great excuse to pass up cops for vigilante justice, completely ignoring our constitutional right to due process of law.

Further, this was not protection.

Then be prepared to face the consequences. I'd rather be threatened with a gun than to murder them and give away my freedom in prison.

Lets not forget what he did at the end of the chase.

Incorrect. If this was right, I believe, he would have to be arrested and have the right to a fair and speedy trial by peers. Due process, foo.

Where has the justice gone?

Believe you me: that isn't self-defense.

OH COME ON CHEERIO, WHEN YOU ARE VICTIMIZED YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT. NOBODY NEEDS STINKY ROBBERS, WE SHOULD TIE THOSE PEOPLE UP AND BLEED THEM OUT OF THEIR SPINES WITH RUSTY SAFETY PINS, THIS IS TOTALLY JUST. WHEN YOU COMMIT CRIMES YOU TIE YOURSELF UP AND PUT SAFETY PINS IN YOUR OWN SPINE AND STUFF, YA KNOW? Heh. :)

If I were going to rob a store knowing it was likely the owner would chase me down and fuck with me, I'd most likely disable or murder him. Simple as that. If I'm going to commit a crime, I'm going to do what I can to get away with it.

Actually, now that I think about it some more, I'd probably find a store with a more reasonable owner to rob.

Second, this completely ignores due process. What the fuck?

I probably would be too.

Everyone please re-read the bolded text.

That is not what happened here.

True, they only attacked with guns. That's enough for me. If they did it with something less likely to be a problem, I'd not feel quite the same way, though I'd still not suggest charging the victim with more than "illegal parking" or some such.



This was by the victim as the crime was in progress. They were still trying to get away with the loot. They were red-handed. It's not the same thing as someone coming by later and trying to reconstruct the situation.



Tough shit on them.

You ever been mugged or stolen from?

It's so easy to second-guess the guy on the spot from behind your computer, far away from danger. Try it when it's in your face, and you're the victim.

It's just too bad this didn't happen in Texas. It wouldn't be an issue then, and they might offer the victim a medal.

Charging the owner and the robbers are two separate events.

How do you justify charging someone for crimes they did not commit? How is it relevant that they used firearms? If their accomplices had died, it would be a direct result of Peter crushing their vehicle. Peter must accept responsibility. Being attacked is no excuse for murder or other violent crimes.

In the face of this, how do you justify charging a civil offense for something that was clearly criminal and critically injured others?

In reply to the bolded text, the article clearly states:

Both the suspects and Peter committed criminal acts. Chasing others, critically injuring them and destroying their property over stolen money is not self-defense. It may be closer to "eye for an eye", but it still bypasses due process for vigilantism.

They had already left. That doesn't make it less of a crime or self-defense. It doesn't justify skipping due process to send a message of vengeance before justice.

Irrelevant, but yes.

Agreed, to a large extent. They're separate, but related.

That's the way it works. The law differentiates between "robbery" and "armed robbery".


The law also says that injury in commission of a felony is part of the felony. It doesn't matter who causes the injury. Rather, it matters that the injury wouldn't have happened w/o the felony. Given the injury, the (accused) felons are charged with the additional crimes, such as "murder" in the case of ANY death, including that of one of their own.

I don't agree that it was clearly criminal, obviously. :)


Begging the question, you're using the issue under discussion, that "Peter committed a criminal act", as a factor in your argument. You might want to change your structure there.


I disagree. We're really starting to go in circles here.

Some of this depends on the laws of the particular state the action happened in. In Texas, this wouldn't have been a problem. In California or Massachusetts (where I live), he'd be clearly in the wrong. I don't know the situation in Arizona.

And this all neglects that they're calling some aspect of this a "Hate Crime" because one of the parties was black, the other white. I don't know which was which.

I was questioning charging the robbers for the injury or their accomplices when it was clearly not their responsibility. Please address this. If you're going to quote what I say, at least understand what I'm talking about first.

My friend with special training and knowledge in law enforcement informs: "There is a felony murder rule which states that if an innocent party is injured or killed during the commission of certain felonies as a DIRECT RESULT of the crime or actions of the crimincal the death is considered murder. An example would be if during a carjacking, the carjacker drove away at the speed limit and accidently ran over a child who darted into the street after a ball. Had the carjacker not been involved in the commission of a felony and had he not otherwise been at fault, no crime would have been committed in running over the child. However, since he was involved in the commission of a specified felony, any innocent party who dies as a direct result of his actions (heart attacks from fear do not count) is considered to have been murdered under the felony murder rule. Injuries do not count in this case, only deaths. Injuries might be aggravating factors, but these must involve innocent parties."

You argued that this was self-defense or "right" and therfore not worth charging. I had explained how this is not true. Address these points.

My friend also had this to say: "It was not self-defense. The moment the man pursued the robbers they were no longer a threat to him and he became the aggressor. This is not to say that he was wrong to do so, it's within his rights to pursue them to effect a lawful arrest, and he may use whatever force is reasonable to effect the arrest. However, in this situation it seems his use of force was probably unreasonable and he should be charged with a crime."