Manhattan garage employee charged with attempted murder for shooting thief who shot him

[DrScholl]

You lied in your post, Matty. What you didn't post is that the alleged thief was also charged with attempted murder.

Diarra tried to grab for the weapon, and it went off — leaving him shot in the stomach and grazed in the ear by a bullet before he turned the firearm on the would-be thief and shot him in the chest, sources said.

Technically an attempted murder charge is not out of line here since shooting thief wasn't really self-defense after disarming him. Nobody is reading the article and just basing everything on the thread title which is what almost everyone on this board does.

But none of this has anything to do with the fact that Trump broke the law and that he was indicted by a grand jury, not the DA.

The garage worker had been hit in the stomach by a bullet and grazed in the ear before he fired on the alleged thief.

You’re telling me in the heat of this moment —  getting hit by a bullet and faced with a belligerent thief who pulled a gun right in front of him— that the garage worker was supposed to say to himself,” oh, I just disarmed him. No need for self-defense now. Let me now lie here on the pavement, bloody and helpless, with the thief in front of me”

That’s a smart take you’re giving us brah

So by your logic this somehow means Trump is innocent? Makes a lot of sense.

That aside the charges make sense because shooting the alleged thief after he was disarmed was more like revenge than self-defense. But a jury will decide whether or not to convict.

This is a nonsense take dude. Give it up.

The thief pulled on a gun on him, in the context of being asked if he stole something. So the thief threatened him. And then the garage worker gets hit by 2 bullets, maybe from the scuffle of taking away the weapon. So the garage worker was also wounded.  So altogether, the worker  knows the thief wants to hurt him, and he’s now  wounded, in a position where he wouldn’t be able to easily defend himself if the thief decides to continue trying to hurt him with another weapon or his fists.. And even furthermore …  in that situation (the pain of a gunshot wound, the fear of dealing with a criminal at gunpoint), people  react in the heat of the moment. You can’t expect people to stop and think of nuances of “self-defense” or not

Considering all of the above, it was self-defense

Shooting someone after they are disarmed is not self-defense unless they have another weapon. Again, I can see how the law would not apply self-defense, but that's up to a jury to decide. The fact that the alleged thief was charged with attempted murder totally negates your argument anyway.

Give up your defense of Trump. That's the real problem with this thread. You don't give a damn about the garage employee. This is all about your sick obsession with Trump. An obsession sick enough where people are actually sending racist death threats to the DA. That's what this is really about.

How is he supposed to know the thief didn’t have another weapon? How is he supposed to know the thief, who pulled the gun on him, wouldn’t try to attack him with his fists and / or stomp him? The garage worker had been shot in the stomach, so he was vulnerable. In the heat of the moment, you don’t get time to think, “well the thief might be disarmed. Maybe it’s not self-defense anymore”

You’re talking about “jury to decide” like that’s so easy. By the time the case gets to a jury, the garage worker would have had felony charges pending for more than a year, he would have to hire attorney, he would have to make numerous court appearances: his life and reputation would have already taken damage. He shouldn’t be facing charges at all

That's very much speculation and under the law that's not a great defense.

Let’s think about what you’re saying

1). It’s speculation to think that the thief might have had another weapon

2). It’s not speculation to think that the thief had no other weapons

You're the one who stated that the thief could have had another weapon. I based my comments only on the facts that the article stated which are the thief was disarmed. The article didn't state that the police found any other weapons on the thief.

But how was the garage worker, at the time, supposed to know? He had just been struck by a bullet on the stomach, he was fearful for his life. How was he supposed to know the thief didn’t have another weapon? He couldn’t have known. Hence, he acted in self defense

In the law there is a thing called precedent. If you label this self-defense then it leaves the door open for other incidents to be labeled self-defense. Now every case is decided on a case by case basis, but precedent still matters. When the threat is neutralized you can't claim self-defense. Again, what I'm stating is based off the facts presented in the article. The article doesn't even say that the victim stated that he feared the thief had another weapon.

[lfromnj]

Can one of you two cut the quoted posts or argue in pm.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes Bragg is an idiot who'll likely drop charges after massive pressure like what happened with the bodega worker. He's a lousy DA overall and no one is defending him except our resident knee-jerk contrarian. He also stonewalled charges against Trump and the indictment didn't happen until much later by a grand jury, not him. Hopefully he's not so much of a worthless DA he botches the case.

I'm sick of you calling me names. It's totally not necessary. But I'll get you together in direct messages because it's not the place for it. It's not a matter of be defending the DA, but acknowledging the fact that the guy shot the assailant after he was disarmed. I'm the problem when there are people in this thread who said they would acquit if the guy was shot while handcuffed, but you won't address them.

If you want to stop being attacked for making bad posts than stop making bad posts. There's been many times in the past you made posts that were blatantly incorrect and based on false premises and debunked by people knowledgeable in the field (like when you claimed not renewing someone's employment contract is legally different from firing them) and no one has a right for such claims to go unchallenged.

[LBJer]

You lied in your post, Matty. What you didn't post is that the alleged thief was also charged with attempted murder.

Diarra tried to grab for the weapon, and it went off — leaving him shot in the stomach and grazed in the ear by a bullet before he turned the firearm on the would-be thief and shot him in the chest, sources said.

Technically an attempted murder charge is not out of line here since shooting thief wasn't really self-defense after disarming him. Nobody is reading the article and just basing everything on the thread title which is what almost everyone on this board does.

But none of this has anything to do with the fact that Trump broke the law and that he was indicted by a grand jury, not the DA.

The garage worker had been hit in the stomach by a bullet and grazed in the ear before he fired on the alleged thief.

You’re telling me in the heat of this moment —  getting hit by a bullet and faced with a belligerent thief who pulled a gun right in front of him— that the garage worker was supposed to say to himself,” oh, I just disarmed him. No need for self-defense now. Let me now lie here on the pavement, bloody and helpless, with the thief in front of me”

That’s a smart take you’re giving us brah

So by your logic this somehow means Trump is innocent? Makes a lot of sense.

That aside the charges make sense because shooting the alleged thief after he was disarmed was more like revenge than self-defense. But a jury will decide whether or not to convict.

I think unless we're mistaken about the facts of the case, getting 12 people to vote to convict will be very problematic.  Morally speaking, if you try to murder someone, you can hardly complain if they decide to do the same to you if the tables are turned.

That will depend on the actual details of the case  - which we do not have.

If there is video evidence that shows the two men still struggling, while the gun repeatedly fires, then no, no jury is going to convict. On the other hand, if there is video evidence that shows the alleged thief cuffed and on the ground, while the standing guard shoots him, then that's a whole different thing.

I still wouldn't vote to convict in the latter scenario. 

If a person is cuffed and you shoot them that is outright murder. Maybe you'd want revenge, but that would definitely constitute murder.

Morally, I don't consider it murder, and that's why I wouldn't vote to convict.  I'm not going to vote to convict someone I don't believe deserves to go to prison.  Killing a loved one suffering in horrible pain at their request is legally murder, but I wouldn't vote to convict a person who did that either.

[LBJer]

Another thing is that you can't say for sure that "a jury will decide" because most criminal cases never get to a jury anyway. 

[Alben Barkley]

Aaaaand here come the attempts to muddy the waters! And "whatabout" everything away like good Russians!

I don't care if Alvin Bragg is a scumbag who has unfairly charged innocent people (like most prosecutors, frankly).

This does NOT change the FACT that Donald Trump is NOT an innocent person who, if there was any justice in the universe, would have faced the music for his countless crimes LONG ago.

I don't care if Alvin Bragg is Satan; as Churchill said of Stalin: "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

The evidence against Trump is strong and damning. If it wasn't, you could directly refute it rather than attempt to "whatabout" and misdirect to other irrelevant cases as if it means anything whatsoever. Unfortunately, you and Trump's attorneys are about to learn the hard way that, even if that s--t works with the Fox News crowd, it does NOT work so well in the justice system! Where any attempt to say "But your honor, the prosecuting attorney is a big meanie who did X, Y, and Z in some other irrelevant cases!" will AT BEST get you laughed out of the courtroom!

[LBJer]

https://abc7ny.com/nyc-parking-garage-shooting-attendant-murder-charges-dropped/13073071/

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/west-31st-street-garage-worker-shot-district-attorney-drops-charges

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You lied in your post, Matty. What you didn't post is that the alleged thief was also charged with attempted murder.

Diarra tried to grab for the weapon, and it went off — leaving him shot in the stomach and grazed in the ear by a bullet before he turned the firearm on the would-be thief and shot him in the chest, sources said.

Technically an attempted murder charge is not out of line here since shooting thief wasn't really self-defense after disarming him. Nobody is reading the article and just basing everything on the thread title which is what almost everyone on this board does.

But none of this has anything to do with the fact that Trump broke the law and that he was indicted by a grand jury, not the DA.

The garage worker had been hit in the stomach by a bullet and grazed in the ear before he fired on the alleged thief.

You’re telling me in the heat of this moment —  getting hit by a bullet and faced with a belligerent thief who pulled a gun right in front of him— that the garage worker was supposed to say to himself,” oh, I just disarmed him. No need for self-defense now. Let me now lie here on the pavement, bloody and helpless, with the thief in front of me”

That’s a smart take you’re giving us brah

So by your logic this somehow means Trump is innocent? Makes a lot of sense.

That aside the charges make sense because shooting the alleged thief after he was disarmed was more like revenge than self-defense. But a jury will decide whether or not to convict.

This is a nonsense take dude. Give it up.

The thief pulled on a gun on him, in the context of being asked if he stole something. So the thief threatened him. And then the garage worker gets hit by 2 bullets, maybe from the scuffle of taking away the weapon. So the garage worker was also wounded.  So altogether, the worker  knows the thief wants to hurt him, and he’s now  wounded, in a position where he wouldn’t be able to easily defend himself if the thief decides to continue trying to hurt him with another weapon or his fists.. And even furthermore …  in that situation (the pain of a gunshot wound, the fear of dealing with a criminal at gunpoint), people  react in the heat of the moment. You can’t expect people to stop and think of nuances of “self-defense” or not

Considering all of the above, it was self-defense

Shooting someone after they are disarmed is not self-defense unless they have another weapon. Again, I can see how the law would not apply self-defense, but that's up to a jury to decide. The fact that the alleged thief was charged with attempted murder totally negates your argument anyway.

Give up your defense of Trump. That's the real problem with this thread. You don't give a damn about the garage employee. This is all about your sick obsession with Trump. An obsession sick enough where people are actually sending racist death threats to the DA. That's what this is really about.

How is he supposed to know the thief didn’t have another weapon? How is he supposed to know the thief, who pulled the gun on him, wouldn’t try to attack him with his fists and / or stomp him? The garage worker had been shot in the stomach, so he was vulnerable. In the heat of the moment, you don’t get time to think, “well the thief might be disarmed. Maybe it’s not self-defense anymore”

You’re talking about “jury to decide” like that’s so easy. By the time the case gets to a jury, the garage worker would have had felony charges pending for more than a year, he would have to hire attorney, he would have to make numerous court appearances: his life and reputation would have already taken damage. He shouldn’t be facing charges at all

That's very much speculation and under the law that's not a great defense.

Let’s think about what you’re saying

1). It’s speculation to think that the thief might have had another weapon

2). It’s not speculation to think that the thief had no other weapons

You're the one who stated that the thief could have had another weapon. I based my comments only on the facts that the article stated which are the thief was disarmed. The article didn't state that the police found any other weapons on the thief.

But how was the garage worker, at the time, supposed to know? He had just been struck by a bullet on the stomach, he was fearful for his life. How was he supposed to know the thief didn’t have another weapon? He couldn’t have known. Hence, he acted in self defense

In the law there is a thing called precedent. If you label this self-defense then it leaves the door open for other incidents to be labeled self-defense. Now every case is decided on a case by case basis, but precedent still matters. When the threat is neutralized you can't claim self-defense. Again, what I'm stating is based off the facts presented in the article. The article doesn't even say that the victim stated that he feared the thief had another weapon.

(I don't know if DrScholl will even see this, considering he has me blocked in PMs but talking to him is like talking to a brick wall anyway. It's more for general benefit.)

That's not how precedent works. When people talk about it they usually mean stare decisis which refers to how higher courts can establish binding precedent on lower courts. It can not be set by jury trials, much less a DA's charging decision, although people in online "discourse" do seem to think it can, considering how often whataboutist arguments referring to such previous cases get thrown around....if that were the case then anyone arrested for and charged with shoplifting in San Francisco could just argue that Chesa Boudin set a precedent that no one gets charged for shoplifting and thus shoplifting is no longer an enforceable crime in San Francisco ever again, which is obviously not what would happen.

Also "We need to charge a guy who likely has a good case for self-defense because if not other people could claim self-defense" is a pretty damn bizarre and actually reactionary argument, and kind of runs against the principles of the justice system and "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Yeah that's not an actual established rule in the legal system but there's a reason the legal system in the US and most other developed countries is very very slanted toward the defendant.

https://abc7ny.com/nyc-parking-garage-shooting-attendant-murder-charges-dropped/13073071/

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/west-31st-street-garage-worker-shot-district-attorney-drops-charges

And look, what I predicted earlier in the thread. Just glad it only happened a day in now instead of like with the bodega worker which meant a 63-year old man had to sit in Riker's Island for six days for obvious self-defense.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Speculation" happens in court all the time. What is objected to as not allowed speculation is asking a witness to guess about something they couldn't possibly no, like "What do you think your sister was thinking about when she left?" What matters is how the question is phrased. "Do you think the assailant was carrying another weapon?" is a question that could be objected to (although probably not upheld if the witness was someone with a clear view as to if the assailant could be carrying one), but something like "Based on what you saw do you believe it's possible the assailant was carrying another weapon?" is completely different.