Cab driver shoots thief after being robbed

S

sksguns

Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
1,658
Likes
11
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Cab driver shoots thief after being robbed
LAWRENCE, Mass. -- A cab driver, who was robbed at knifepoint, was in court on Monday after shooting the thief in the back.

Bienvenido Rodriguez, 42, of Methuen will now face charges of assault with intent to murder.

The alleged robber, Herman Irene, was taken to Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston where he underwent surgery to remove the bullet from his back.

Police reports said that around 1:30 a.m., Rodriguez picked up a customer headed to Haverhill on South Broadway. While on the way, Rodriguez was waved down by Irene, who asked if he could be taken to Lowell Street. Irene said he only had $5, but Rodriguez agreed to drive him anyway. Irene sat in the front seat, while the other passenger remained in the back.

The passenger told police that Rodriguez and Irene argued in Spanish, and there was a brief struggle between the two. Irene than allegedly threatened Rodriguez with a knife and grabbed an unknown amount of money that was being stored on the visor.

Irene left the cab and fled down the street, during which at the same time, Rodriguez grabbed his gun and shot Irene in the back. The passenger in the back of the cab then called police.

Rodriguez will also face charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and discharging a firearm within 100 yards of a street.

Irene is also facing robbery charges.
 
Everyone is guilty....

This makes no sense....

I understand the cabbie was no longer in danger, but I also have to believe he wouldn't have shot the guy if the guy didn't rob him at knife point.....

Well, hopfully the dirtbag who initiated this tragedy learned a lesson and won't be robbing anyone with a knife anymore....

I'm sure he'll step up to a gun....
 
Not good. Personally I think the dirt bag thief got what he deserves. Unfortunately in MA, and probably every state, shooting bad guys in the back when they are running away is frowned upon. I think this poor cabby has a tough row to hoe coming up.
 
My take (and I stress that I know only what I read in the paper this morning) is that this poor fellow did not have adequate training when he went to get his LTC.

It is hardly new, and hardly unique to Massachusetts, that a citizen's use of deadly force is limited to self defense. It does not extend either to retribution or a screwball attempt at a citizen's arrest.
 
RKG said:
My take (and I stress that I know only what I read in the paper this morning) is that this poor fellow did not have adequate training when he went to get his LTC.

It is hardly new, and hardly unique to Massachusetts, that a citizen's use of deadly force is limited to self defense. It does not extend either to retribution or a screwball attempt at a citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...

Or how about the cabbie knew the $5, front seat fare from past nefarious joint dealings?
Something stinks.
 
blindndead said:
DO yo think if he shot him FTF he would be up for the same charges? I think so.[angry]
Click to expand...

Probably so. However, I would much rather defend my actions FTF. A man coming forward with a knife is a real threat and I at least stand a chance of defending my actions. When I took the Art of Concealed Carry class at GOAL one of the most basic things I walked away with was that if I ever had to use legitimate deadly force that I should fully expect to be charged. I would probably be charged, probably sued and probably broke by the end, but I would be alive and with a little luck I might not be in prison.
 
blindndead said:
DO yo think if he shot him FTF he would be up for the same charges? I think so.[angry]
Click to expand...

Well, they still might try to charge him, but it would be a lot
harder for them to say that he didn't act in self defense, that's for
sure.

Regardless of what the law says I hope that they get this guy off
via jury nullification. What he did was "against the law"
but IMO, was far less wrong than what the thief did. (at least
judging from what little we know at this point... )

-Mike
 
Isn't the "discharging a firearm within 100 ft of a road" or "500 ft of a dwelling" intended for hunters or people target shooting too close to roads/buildings? If your in a situation where your in imidiate, unavoidable, threat of death or great bodily injury, the assailent has AOJ, and you have no viable means of escape, aren't you in the right?

This cab driver broke the law on several levels.

1. The threat of death/great bodily injury had ended. The assailent had run away.
2. The cab driver chased the suspect and used deadly force in effect, to stop a robbery(Using deadly force to defend property is not allowed).
3. He shot the suspect in the back. This is not "good" unless the suspect is turning to reach for a weapon(close by) and all of the other factors in the use of deadly force are present or the suspect is turning to assault a family member/known inoccent under the threat of deadly force.

If this cab driver had driven to a safe location and called the Police he would not be in this position. Instead of losing a few hundred dollars(maybe up to a $1000), he is going to have to pay in the $15000-40000 to defend himself in court. And at the end of the day he will most likely lose!

Not sure where I heard this statement, but it goes like this:

"the weapon and every bullet that leaves the barrel has your name, freedom, & financial health on it!"

If your gonna carry for personal protection, ya have to know the law. Knowing when and why you can use deadly force is critical.

Ayoob said in one of his training videos:

"Every time you draw your weapon your walking on thin ice." I'll teach you to walk were the ice is the thickest!"

Living in Mass is just one more reason to know the laws regarding the use of deadly force![thinking]
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately in MA, and probably every state, shooting bad guys in the back when they are running away is frowned upon.
Click to expand...
Not just MA. In most states, shooting at a bad guy who is no longer a threat will get you in a whole world of trouble. This is self defense law 101. If you haven't already, I strongly suggest taking LFI-1.
 
Getting some form of training particuarly on the use of deadly force law is so important. Every time a law abiding gun owner uses deadly force with out good cause it reflects negatively on the rest of us! Even if its with a CLEO. If the CLEO worries that issuing an LTC is gonna cause him a huge pain in the arse, he's gonna think twice.

Even if you can't afford formal training such as LF-1 or something from the Sigarms Academy, buy some DVDor books from reputable authorities on the subject. "In the gravest extreme, and many of Ayoobs DVD's on the topic of deadly force are a wealth of information! I have a DVD of the classroom portion of LF-1. It is kinda "dated" but the info is still solid!

People need to understand that even "pulling" your weapon on someone is a huge gray area! A very dangerous gray area. There is a huge responsibility in carrying a weapon. I know I'm "preeching to the quiar", but we as law abiding citizens can only benifit from solid knowlage of the law and the "judicious" use of deadly force.
 
I Know this guy is wrong by the letter of the law but...
Thieves should not bring knives to gunfights, and hopefully he gets some working stiffs on the jury who will have sympathy for a poor slob who was in his mind defending his livelihood.
Unfortunately these days it seems that the only place most poor slobs find sympathy is in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.
 
He's toast.....but if I were on the jury, I'd vote to not convict. Criminals have to recognize the hazards of their occupation and getting shot is one of them.
He should have called out an insult to him just to try and make the perp turn and defend his pride. As he was coming back, then he should have blasted him.

Massachusetts, making criminals safe, one gun owner at a time.
 
M1911 said:
Why do you say that? The purpose of deadly force is to stop the attack. If the attack has already stopped, what is the justification for deadly force?
Click to expand...

You know the biggest question in my mind.....

This guy was licensed to carry and was carrying....yet he was still unprepared to defend himslef in the robbery as is the evidence that he drew and shot after the robber was fleeing. The cabbie was carrying a gun, the robber pulled a knife and could have stabbed the guy and the fact he was carrying a gun would have been mute if the stab wound was fatal.

How could this guy have been more prepared other than just by carrying? Carrying wouldn't have helped him if the robber had more vicious intentions.
 
M1911 said:
Why do you say that? The purpose of deadly force is to stop the attack. If the attack has already stopped, what is the justification for deadly force?
Click to expand...

In my mind? It should be completely legal to shoot him. It shouldn't matter if it's as he's running away or if I see him walking down the street next Tuesday.

Much like the cattle rustlers of years long past. When you catch them, you hang them.
 
I honestly don't see the use of deadly force being justified when the threat is running away/gone. I'm not saying I wouldn't think that SOB wouldn't deserve something that severe but that's not my call. I hope we all exercise better judgement if God forbid this happens to any of us. If someone was threatened at knifepoint for money or other reason, at that point I would consider it reasonable to use dealy force. Not when the threat has left... with or without your money.
 
Lugnut said:
I honestly don't see the use of deadly force being justified when the threat is running away/gone. I'm not saying I wouldn't think that SOB wouldn't deserve something that severe but that's not my call. I hope we all exercise better judgement if God forbid this happens to any of us. If someone was threatened at knifepoint for money or other reason, at that point I would consider it reasonable to use dealy force. Not when the threat has left... with or without your money.
Click to expand...

I guess I just have less sympathy for crooks and criminals who willingly choose to be harmful to society.

I've often written about my view of the world as a sandbox and the "three strikes your out" theory.
 
Martlet, I disagree with you entirely.

I have no sympathy for crooks or criminals. But there is a reason for a judicial system, even as broken a one as ours.
 
M1911 said:
Martlet, I disagree with you entirely.

I have no sympathy for crooks or criminals. But there is a reason for a judicial system, even as broken a one as ours.
Click to expand...

Certainly you have sympathy for crooks or criminals. How else do you justify your belief that it shouldn't be legal to shoot one dead?
 
Martlet said:
I guess I just have less sympathy for crooks and criminals who willingly choose to be harmful to society.

I've often written about my view of the world as a sandbox and the "three strikes your out" theory.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. But let's not confuse sympathy for crooks with the justification of shooting a fleeing crook. I have NO sympathy from crooks- and have ZERO tolerance for those that use knives, guns or any other lethal force to acquire someone elses property. I think it's clear as to when during that altercation the use of lethal force "could" be considered justified.

Could I see myself being so enraged that I'd want to do something from a fleeing attacker? Absolutely. I hope I use better judgement if push came to shove as I do think this is a reasonable law.
 
M1911 said:
Why do you say that? The purpose of deadly force is to stop the attack. If the attack has already stopped, what is the justification for deadly force?
Click to expand...

In the old days, it was considered justifiable to stop a fleeting felon, especially an armed fleeing felon, by shooting them. [grin]

I wonder what changed that. [thinking]
 
Jaxon said:
In the old days, it was considered justifiable to stop a fleeting felon, especially an armed fleeing felon, by shooting them. [grin]

I wonder what changed that. [thinking]
Click to expand...

There were a lot of things that were acceptable in the old days that aren't any longer. I don't think we should go there.
 
Lugnut said:
I understand your point. But let's not confuse sympathy for crooks with the justification of shooting a fleeing crook.
Click to expand...

Isn't sympathy the basis for that justification? That the crook doesn't "deserve" to be shot since the victim was no longer in danger? If not, then what is the basis for the law which requires justification?

Could I see myself being so enraged that I'd want to do something from a fleeing attacker? Absolutely. I hope I use better judgement if push came to shove as I do think this is a reasonable law.
Click to expand...

And in my belief that is one of the reasons crime is what it is. There is no threat of serious punishment. That, and we are releasing people who don't care about serious punishment back onto the streets.

If it were legal to shoot a fleeing attacker, I wouldn't do so because I was "enraged". I'd do so because he's demonstrated that he's a danger to society and doesn't deserve to belong to it.
 

Similar threads

Homeowner Shoots Alleged Portable Generator Thief
Replies
0
Views
152
Reptile
Reptile
Police: Hunter Shoots Man in Head After Mistaking Him for a Turkey
2
Replies
31
Views
714
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Wild dash camera video shows moment armed suspect learns driver has a gun: Victim suffers gunshot wound to chest after opening fire on armed suspect
Replies
11
Views
297
walter62
walter62
Memphis Officer Joseph McKinney was killed this morning in a shootout with a man who had been released without bail ... after being caught with a MG
Replies
19
Views
494
MaverickNH
MaverickNH
Woman Shoots Home Intruder Who Interrupted Taylor Swift Movie
Replies
14
Views
333
Tigerstripe
T
Back
Top Bottom