Cab driver shoots thief after being robbed

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob, you should read the articles. The cabbie shot the thug while the thug was running away... the threat was gone. That is what the controversy is about here.

I was not commenting on what happened, but what was allegedly said. There is no situation I can think of where "shooting to scare" is appropriate.

 

[drgrant]

Regardless of the law, I think the cabbie did a good thing.
(idiotic statement he made aside) I personally think it is dumb that the law will
prosecute someone for a heat of the moment response to what would be considered
a violent assault. All that happens is if the BG gets away they will do it again to
someone else.. and the next person might not be so lucky.

This reminds me of an incident I heard about awhile ago.... where a camera
store was robbed, and the victim of the robbery was shot in he head, but
for some reason, the bullet didn't penetrate his skull... the perp ran away
and the vicitm chased after him (and I believe shot at him) with a handgun he
retrieved from a briefcase.... you mean to tell me we should throw the victim in
jail?!?!? what kind of crap is that?

I'm not saying that such a response is always the best idea, either. The
victim has to do whatever they feel is or is not appropriate- and at least
have the presence of mind not to endanger an uninvolved party.

While I obey the laws (in the interest of wanting to not be in jail) the law
here is certainly wrong... so mark another one on that poll, too. Things
would be a lot simpler if more victims fought back. I think the pool of criminals
would shrink considerably... as I believe there is an entire class of criminals out there
that use a threat of violence but wouldn't follow through if they knew there was a
good probability of someone calling their BS.

I'm not suggesting full blown vigilantism.... but at least allowing victims to
respond to an attack is appropriate. Another problem with the damned
laws is that they completely trump human instinct.

Example: A woman is jogging in the park and is overtaken by a man, and
he rapes her. After he is done doing his deed he goes to leave the
area, and the victim gets a revolver from her fanny pack thats on the ground
nearby and shoots the guy in the back and kills him. Are you really going to
BLAME her? (the concept of blaming the victim is sick in and of itself.)

I think another reason we see these actions is that there is this ever
present lack of faith in the system. We know, for a fact, that a large
majority of the time the perpetrator of the violent crime will get away with whatever
it is they did.

The "law" does not do itself any favors when a violent criminal is caught and
goes through our revolving door justice system in a year or two. That kind
of absurdity wreaks havoc on the integrity of the system as a whole... after
awhile it looks like a JOKE- and then eventually people start treating it
that way, including the citizens it's supposed to protect.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Sounds like Florida, Texas, and the several other states where Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are the law.

Sounds like good places to live if you are not a criminal.

Jose, I agree with your commentary on this issue... but is important to note
that in many cases his defense wouldn't fly under either of those
statutes. EG- stand your ground removes the -victims- obligation to
attempt retreat (before using deadly force) but depending on circumstances
involved it doesn't grant them ability to shoot a fleeing perpetrator.

That being said, the states that do have these laws on the books are more
likely to vindicate a self-defender than those that don't. Part of it is
because of the law but the other part of it is because the mindset
changes... prosecutors in gun friendly states are less likely to even try
to put the screws to someone when something looks like self defense.

-Mike

 

[highlander]

obedience of the law is liberty,tell that to the blacks in the south in the 60"s when they BROKE the law to change it.
People follow the law because it is the MORAL thing to do not because it's the "law". We have all kinds of laws that prohibit
certain types of behavior but it doesn't stop some people from
continuing said behavior because they are criminals and have no moral compass.

 

[drgrant]

Sounds like a chaotic world. I'm no softie but that kind of world would surely be going backwards...

I agree that full blown vigilantism could be chaotic... but I don't think that's
what any of us are talking about here.

I know something that certainly is chaotic though... and that is violent
criminals being allowed to do whatever they want to people.

Actually, if we put it this way the net amount of violence resulting from one
criminal might even be LESS if they were killed off earlier in the victim
chain. If a mugger with a knife gets shot by the third person he robs, isn't
that a lot better than him robbing 20 people and then finally getting
caught? (and then getting rolled over by our crappy legal system, and being
allowed to rob more people a short time thereafter... )

Just food for thought.....


-Mike

 

[Jose]

Jose, I agree with your commentary on this issue... but is important to note
that in many cases his defense wouldn't fly under either of those
statutes. EG- stand your ground removes the -victims- obligation to
attempt retreat (before using deadly force) but depending on circumstances
involved it doesn't grant them ability to shoot a fleeing perpetrator.

Mike, you are, of course correct. I was only responding to the question asking what it would be like to live in a place where victims of violent crime had the ability to use deadly force to stop the crime so long as during the crime the perp had the motive, means, and opportunity to inflict severe bodily harm or death. Certainly once the criminal is fleeing, the elements authorizing deadly force go with him.

An armed stick-up meets all those criteria, and shooting a perp when such crime is in progress is a good shoot in all jurisdictions, grandstanding police chiefs and prosecutors notwithstanding.

And in the case of Florida's Castle Doctrine illegal entry or attempted entry into someone's dwelling or vehicle carries the intent of serious bodily harm or death prima facie. In that case, deadly force is automatically authorized and the user of lawful deadly force is held immune from both criminal and civil liability.

State sanctioned judge, jury, and executioner. Gotta love it!

 

[Lynne]

Example: A woman is jogging in the park and is overtaken by a man, and
he rapes her. After he is done doing his deed he goes to leave the
area, and the victim gets a revolver from her fanny pack thats on the ground
nearby and shoots the guy in the back and kills him. Are you really going to
BLAME her? (the concept of blaming the victim is sick in and of itself.)

Hell no. But then again on that subject matter, I'm definately biased.

 

[MaverickNH]

I didn't notice where anyone had commented on the shot placement - it sounded like a good hit on a running target. He was either a good shot or just made a lucky shot (or unlucky, given the trouble it caused for the shooter).

Either way, it makes you think twice about the Monty Python defense - "Run Away, Run Away!".

 

[dwarven1]

Example: A woman is jogging in the park and is overtaken by a man, and
he rapes her. After he is done doing his deed he goes to leave the
area, and the victim gets a revolver from her fanny pack thats on the ground
nearby and shoots the guy in the back and kills him. Are you really going to
BLAME her? (the concept of blaming the victim is sick in and of itself.)

Me? Hells, no. I'd give her a medal for performing a civic duty - removing a dangerous animal from the park - permanently. But I could easily see Chief Gemme, or those idiots up in Lowell arresting her... and technically, they'd be right, as the threat to her life was gone.

And if I'd been seated on her jury, I'd say two words when we got the case: Jury nullification. No way could I convict on the circumstances you listed.

Actually, if we put it this way the net amount of violence resulting from one criminal might even be LESS if they were killed off earlier in the victim chain. If a mugger with a knife gets shot by the third person he robs, isn't that a lot better than him robbing 20 people and then finally getting caught?

The phrase you're looking for here is "If it saves one life...".

 

[JonJ]

Overdue Update

I was wondering what happened to this case.
http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_089093810

Vigilante cabbie cleared of attempted murder charge

By Jim Patten , Staff Writer
Eagle-Tribune

—
LAWRENCE - A Lawrence cab driver, who took the law into his own hands and shot an alleged robber in the back, has been cleared of attempted murder charges.

Bienvenido Rodriguez shot the man with a semiautomatic handgun after being robbed at knifepoint on Parker Street in January.

Police disagreed with Rodriguez's vigilante action and charged him with attempted murder.

But this week, the Essex County grand jury in Salem declined to indict Rodriguez, 36, of Camden Street, Methuen.

However, the same grand jury indicted the man who was shot.

Herman Irene, 36, of 25 Foster St., Lawrence, faces a charge of armed robbery, said Stephen O'Connell, spokesman for the Essex County district attorney's office.

"There will be no prosecution of Mr. Rodriguez," O'Connell said.

Yesterday, Lawrence police Chief John Romero said Rodriguez would have been facing less serious charges if he had pulled his gun while the robbery was being committed, instead of waiting until Irene was running away and no longer a threat.

Irene was running down Parker Street when Rodriguez drew his .40-caliber Smith &Wesson semiautomatic pistol and fired at him.

The bullet passed through Irene's body narrowly missing his spine and major arteries.

He was taken to Lawrence General Hospital then airlifted to Brigham and Women's Hospital were he underwent surgery.

Police charged Irene with armed robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon.

Rodriguez was charged with armed assault with intent to murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and discharging a firearm within city limits.

Rodriguez told investigators immediately after the shooting that he did not deliberately try to hit Irene and only shot to scare him, police said.

Romero said yesterday he was not surprised the grand jury did not indict Rodriguez, but said it would be up to Methuen police Chief Joseph Solomon to decide whether to restore Rodriguez's license to carry firearms. Methuen issued the gun license originally.

Solomon said yesterday his department will request all of the reports and other information the Lawrence police and district attorney's office have on the matter and evaluate them before deciding whether to restore Rodriguez's gun license.

"We will review all of the facts and make a decision based on them," Solomon said.



He said the department would even interview Rodriguez, if he wanted to talk to police.

According to police reports, Rodriguez picked up a customer at about 1:30 a.m. Sunday Jan. 28 headed to Haverhill on South Broadway in Lawrence. On the way, Rodriguez was waved down by Irene who asked if he could be taken to Lowell Street. Irene told Rodriguez he had $5, and Rodriguez agreed to drive him. Irene sat in the front seat while the other passenger was in the back seat of the Liberty Cab Co. car.

The passenger told police Rodriguez and Irene argued in Spanish and there was a brief struggle between the two.

Irene allegedly threatened Rodriguez with a knife and grabbed an unknown amount of money that had been stored on the visor.

It wasn't the last time a cab driver would use a gun on a robber in Lawrence. A month after the incident with Rodriguez, another driver working for the same company used a handgun to thwart a robbery. Driver Abel Ventura, however, never fired a shot, and no one was injured in the Feb. 25 incident.

The man who robbed Ventura dropped the knife he had used, and gave back the money he had taken from the taxi driver.

 

[Pilgrim]

Romero said yesterday he was not surprised the grand jury did not indict Rodriguez, but said it would be up to Methuen police Chief Joseph Solomon to decide whether to restore Rodriguez's license to carry firearms. Methuen issued the gun license originally.

He committed no crime but he's gotta go thru this crap.

Rodriguez would have been facing less serious charges if he had pulled his gun while the robbery was being committed, instead of waiting until Irene was running away and no longer a threat.

it's a crime to defend yourself now?

 

[Scrivener]

it's a crime to defend yourself now?

Defend himself from WHAT? Someone running away? Once again, from your own post:

Rodriguez would have been facing less serious charges if he had pulled his gun while the robbery was being committed, instead of waiting until Irene was running away and no longer a threat.

In short, the robbery was over and, with it, the lawful period in which to use a gun. He's fortunate he wasn't charged.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yesterday, Lawrence police Chief John Romero said Rodriguez would have been facing less serious charges if he had pulled his gun while the robbery was being committed, instead of waiting until Irene was running away and no longer a threat.

Interesting, but unfortunately not surprising. The Lawrence police chief has stated that he would have filed charges against someone who pulled a gun when being faced with a knifepoint robbery. Amazing.

 

[Admin]

Gotta love the logic huh Rob...

 

[Garys]

Gotta love the logic huh Rob...

You know Derek, the can't blame George Bush, lack of federal/state money to hire people, lack of programs to help people, and so on if citizens were able to defend themselves. People defending themselves is bad for business.

Gary

 

[Martlet]

Defend himself from WHAT? Someone running away? Once again, from your own post:



In short, the robbery was over and, with it, the lawful period in which to use a gun. He's fortunate he wasn't charged.

The post went over your head, counselor.

 

[RKG]

In short, the robbery was over and, with it, the lawful period in which to use a gun. He's fortunate he wasn't charged.

Indeed, what is really unusual is that the Grand Jury No-Billed. In my experience, this doesn't happen unless the presenting ADA winks.

 

[KMaurer]

it's a crime to defend yourself now?

Defend himself from WHAT? Someone running away? Once again, from your own post:

Rodriguez would have been facing less serious charges if he had pulled his gun while the robbery was being committed, instead of waiting until Irene was running away and no longer a threat.

Try this:

Rodriguez would have been facing less serious charges if he had pulled his gun while the robbery was being committed, instead of waiting until Irene was running away and no longer a threat.

"Less serious charges" == "Charges"

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

The post went over your head, counselor.

Only in your presumptuous opinion. Perhaps you missed THIS:

He committed no crime but he's gotta go thru this crap.

 

[Martlet]

Only in your presumptuous opinion. Perhaps you missed THIS:

Really? Maybe you missed THIS

Romero said yesterday he was not surprised the grand jury did not indict Rodriguez

 

[JonJ]

I'm beginning to regret posting the update.
Everyone, STFU already!

 

[Ripach]

Just glad to see the poor bastard isn't going to Jail. Shame he may still forfeit his RIGHT to carry.

 

[Scrivener]

Just glad to see the poor bastard isn't going to Jail. Shame he may still forfeit his RIGHT to carry.

When said "right" is utterly dependent upon the arbitrary whim of an unelected official, it has long since ceased to be a right.

Sad, but true.

 

[Ripach]

When said "right" is utterly dependent upon the arbitrary whim of an unelected official, it has long since ceased to be a right.

Sad, but true.

Precisely why I highlighted the word right, If it was truly a right (as the framers of the constitution intended) it would not have been revoked and he would not be waiting to see if his "rights" would be restored.

 

[matt1956]

When said "right" is utterly dependent upon the arbitrary whim of an unelected official, it has long since ceased to be a right.

Sad, but true.

**sigh** Unfortunately, our state sees getting a driver's license more of a right then getting a gun license...

Yet all through driver's ed, and everything else... a driver's license is described as a privilege, not a right... yet the U.S. and MA constitution both describe the "Right" of gun ownership...

Yet everyone and anyone can get a driver's license... AND cars kill like what, 10 times the number of people each year then guns... funny how that works.

 

[drgrant]

Yet everyone and anyone can get a driver's license... AND cars kill like what, 10 times the number of people each year then guns... funny how that works.

I always find that point particularly amusing.......

-Convicted felons can get a drivers license. (as long as they're not in
prison, they can drive!)

-Pedophiles and people on probation are allowed to drive motor vehicles.

-DUI convicts can retain a drivers license! (even if it got suspended, most of
them get it back!) And the cops don't show up at their house to take the
car away (cept in a few states) if one does not have a DL, either...

-Old people who can't turn their neck to look behind them to back up and shoddily
trained teenagers can have drivers' licenses.

If the constitution was to reflect modern reality the 2nd amendment would be about
motor vehicles and not firearms. Sad but true. Driving appears to be
more of a "right" than gun ownership is, and cars are just about the nation's
best "deadly weapon" in possession by joe citizen.

Now, if we can convince criminals to run over their enemies with motor
vehicles more often, we'll have this whole "gun control" thing in the bag.


-Mike

 

[matt1956]

Perfect example...

My brother has been convicted of;

DUI (2Xs)
Reckless endangerment in a MV (3X's)
Domestic Abuse (1X)
A & B (2Xs)
Not to mention all the running from the PD in the car...

He is currently serving 9 months in prison (finally)

Yet never used a gun or a weapon (other then the 3,000+ lb car he was driving) during any of these crimes...

He will never get a gun license.

He can get his driver's license 1 year after he gets out and completes some state drivers safety course and pays some fines.


Girl I work with, her Husband, very stupidly mind you, discharged his gun to scare off some coyote in their 1 & 1/2 acre yard (he didn't want to actually kill them), and they have chickens.

Neighbor called PD... PD arrested and charged him... case was dropped by DA and not prosecuted because (in her words) the DA felt no crime was committed because he was protecting his family and live stock from wild animals, yet the PD yanked his license.

He'll never get his license back...

So... do something illegal and you can get back your weapon (car) back after fines... but no guns for you. (not arguing that either, I agree he should never have one)

Do something to protect your property from wild animals (still legal in MA as far as I know) and lose your gun license...

sad

 

[Scrivener]

So... do something illegal and you can get back your weapon (car) back after fines... but no guns for you. (not arguing that either, I agree he should never have one)

Do something to protect your property from wild animals (still legal in MA as far as I know) and loose [sic] your gun license...

Did he even try to get his license back?

Does he know he can still get an FID merely by applying for one?

Or is he too ignorant or gutless to even try? Some people make, or at least exacerbate, the crises they complain of.

 

[matt1956]

From what I understand... again, only getting the wife's side at work so... take the info for what it's worth.

The chief yanked and said don't bother applying again.

He went to the DA and the DA told him to apply anyway in a year or so.

He did so and the Chief called him personally and said he was denied indefinately.

I did tell her to get an attorny and fight it, my guess is that they don't have the money for one or just think it would be pointless.

 

[Scrivener]

Since when do DA's issue LTC's?

Note also that chiefs have no discretion regarding FID cards.

Your co-worker's spouse sounds like an ignorant twit. Why did he get an LTC in the first place?