The Sad State Of NYC DA's Office

[esmith]

Hamilton Heights bodega worker charged with murder after stabbing man who attacked him behind counter

It appears that the DA office in NYC is more concerned with the rights of perpetrators than victims

 

[The Hammer]

Hamilton Heights bodega worker charged with murder after stabbing man who attacked him behind counter

Sounds like the case should be dropped to a "Voluntary Manslaughter" charge. As opposed to 2nd degree murder.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that they want to politicize the principle of self-defense.
Which is a very serious matter. A very complicated principle of criminal law.

We are speaking of an old man who is clearly at a disadvantage, because of his height and age.
He was clearly harassed and attacked by a much younger and fitter person.
Who was attacking him, hitting him, because of a very futile reason: an altercation because of a declined card.
Since the shopkeeper could not know if this angry person would kill him or not, he thought he had no choice but defending himself with a knife.

So, since there is overwhelming evidence of all this (footage) the jury is supposed to decide whether it was "excess of defense" or not.
But we remain within the criminal law institution of self-defense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds like the case should be dropped to a "Voluntary Manslaughter" charge. As opposed to 2nd degree murder.

There should be no prosecution.
The bad guy is dead.

 

[The Hammer]

There should be no prosecution.
The bad guy is dead.

Unfortunately, it still meets the requirements for voluntary manslaughter, even if I don't agree with it. (Based off the article).

 

[Revoltingest]

Unfortunately, it still meets the requirements for voluntary manslaughter, even if I don't agree with it. (Based off the article).

"Self defense" would be more accurate.
The perp's assault made it less than voluntary for the victim.

 

[sun rise]

Propaganda title to this thread as I expected. It's yet another nothingburger.

 

[The Hammer]

"Self defense" would be more accurate.
The perp's assault made it less than voluntary for the victim.

I don't disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who is Jose Alba? Bodega clerk charged with MURDER after stabbing ex-con in 'self defense'
Excerpted....
Austin Simon, 34, was out on parole and already had 8 prior busts, including for assault, robbery, and assault during a domestic dispute

 

[Revoltingest]

Propaganda title to this thread as I expected. It's yet another nothingburger.

No, the title points out a very real problem.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Sounds like the case should be dropped to a "Voluntary Manslaughter" charge. As opposed to 2nd degree murder.

This is one place where I do have to disagree with the left. When you watch the video of that older worker being being knocked into a shelf, it isn't clear to me that he wasn't about to get killed himself. No charge for him, I believe in self defense

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Austin Simon, 34, was out on parole and already had 8 prior busts, including for assault, robbery, and assault during a domestic dispute

Sounds like we need to charge the judges and parole boards who let him go.

 

[Stevicus]

I've never heard of a "bodega worker."

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Well you know, two areas I agree with the right on, are certain views on self defense and free speech. I believe in many of the other freedoms espoused by the left, such as rights to abortion etc. I don't have a party, except possibly some area of the libertarian party.

Anyway, I don't see how anyone, who watched the footage, could possibly defend the assailant. This seems like the most clear-cut case yet, as far as I can tell. Now details could be added that might change my opinion a bit, but as it stands, this seems like an example where defense is justified

I think an issue is, that in the united states, the state always wants a hand in any dispute - but how it can it justify this if circumstances often prevent its instantaneous intervention? It cannot magically be there instantly, to break apart the scene, that is impossible. And yet, it does not condone, apparently, individual defense by a non-state level civilian. This strikes me as a socially clunky policy.

I figure there must be money involved: if the state cannot reasonably be on hand to intervene, and perform the incarceration, in all circumstances, then somehow there is a funding hemorrhage. Though I don't understand the technical details of why or how that would be, that's what I suspect

 

[The Hammer]

This is one place where I do have to disagree with the left.

I'm the left?

Woah....

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm the left?

Woah....

I didn't accuse you of that, I am criticizing the standard in place. If the standard in place wants to give the assailed worker any kind of charge for this, that strikes me as austerly statist/leftist. Neither of us is making policy, I assume, so I'm not accusing you of anything. But if you do agree with charging the worker, that isn't something I'm going to agree with, without additional details added

 

[The Hammer]

I didn't accuse you of that, I am criticizing the standard in place. If the standard in place wants to give the assailed worker any kind of charge for this, that strikes me as austerly statist/leftist. Neither of us is making policy, I assume, so I'm not accusing you of anything. But if you do agree with charging the worker, that isn't something I'm going to agree with, without additional details added

All I read was the guy stabbed the man repeatedly, killing him, which even if the guy was robbing the store and shoved the man, could be seen as a tad much. The jury might be hard pressed to claim self defense. Which is typically judged as the "minimum amount of force necessary to end confrontation". Typically this does not include death.

I still say self defense (I mentioned that). But the above view is more in line with what I was taught about handling confrontations. (But it's a training I've had).

 

[amorphous_constellation]

All I read was the guy stabbed the man repeatedly, killing him, which even if the guy was robbing the store and shoved the man, could be seen as a tad much. The jury might be hard pressed to claim self defense. Which is typically judged as the "minimum amount of force necessary to end confrontation". Typically this does not include death.

I still say self defense (I mentioned that). But the above view is more in line with what I was taught about handling confrontations. (But it's a training I've had).

In such situations, one can imagine that impulsivity surely does come into play, and it will sometimes involve people that may or may not have had the training to tame the frontal cortex, or the triune part of the brain, or whatever part it is, that wants you to react immediately to danger. As such, I find it hard to believe that it is just, where the law comes down hard on those who react to obvious danger, and so then they cannot easily resist, in the moment, those more primal reactions that will likely surface from the unconscious brain

This would be a good point for any neuroscientists on the board to step in, and tell me if I am on the right track

I think that stripping the situation down to an archetype, I would find it hard to defend the assailant. Say there is a situation where an older man who worked all his life, is assailed behind any retail counter. If the state cannot immediately and instantly be there to de-escalate the situation, then the civilian is surely left to whatever the tools are, within their own arbitrary mental attributes and dexterity

 

[Suave]

Hamilton Heights bodega worker charged with murder after stabbing man who attacked him behind counter

Perhaps New York City as well as any other civility challenged communities should consider mandating bullet proof cashier cages in order to shield store clerks from being attacked by irate customers.

 

[Suave]

I've never heard of a "bodega worker."

Unfortunately, their dangerous job positions are vulnerable to attack by civility challenged people.