Posted on 04/02/2023 10:31:08 AM PDT by grundle
NO photograph of the intended thief, the intended murderer, and the actual assailant Charles Rodie are being allowed on-line about New York City DA Alvin Bragg’s murder charge against his victim, Moussa Diarra a white man.
Apparently, we are not going to be allowed to know to the protected one’s race.
And they wonder way we cling to our 2nd amendment so fiercely…
This is a case the NRA should take, if they had any sense.
“Diarra proceeded to turn the firearm on the potential thief and shot him in the chest.”
They may get him in this one. As there was only one gun involved, and it was not in the hands of the thief, then the savior law in most states doesn’t apply, stand your ground. The thief had no weapon to assault Diarra with and nothing within the article indicating an immediate threat to life and property, but he shot the thief in the chest according to the article. He may have trouble with this one in such an anti gun state as New York. And without some other information other than this, Diarra was wrong as the law deals with facts not what ifs.
wy69
Insanity reigns supreme in this 3rd world country...
Your democrat party voting neighbors want you, I and everyone like us imprisoned or dead.
You’re dumb.
The people have dumbed down as to the exact text of the second amendment.
Self-defense is NOT permitted in the People’s Republic of NY, citizen.
Glad we left that socialist hell hole.
It’s only gotten worse since we left.
Live free or die, baby.
Yep. You're not allowed to protect yourself by wrestling the weapon away from your assailant, after he's shot you twice, then using it on him, in order to keep him from injuring you further.
Same situation that occurred with Jose Alba, the NY City bodega clerk who was attacked by a black man over a bag of chips, and defended himself by stabbing the attacker to death, while also fighting off the perp’s girlfriend, who was stabbing Alba. Alba was charged, but eventually released after public outcry. However, the girlfriend was never charged for stabbing Alba, as Bragg said she was defending her boyfriend.
I’m going to suppose the DA’s theory is that once the victim got the gun he was no longer in danger.
So the victim was shot twice? How do we know the suspect was not attempting to disarm the victim before he shot the suspect?
*Of course, because there was no possible way that the shooter wouldn't grapple with the attendant again, in order to get his gun back, and finish the job.
*For the morons who can't figure out that this was sarcasm.
“*Of course, because there was no possible way that the shooter wouldn’t grapple with the attendant again, in order to get his gun back, and finish the job.”
Except for two things, the article didn’t mentioned if he did go after the gun after he had been relived of it and it didn’t mention anything about the interchange other than the guy shot the thief in the chest after the gun was taken away. No time frame, no mention of a rush to attack or back away since he had already been shot, and no mention as to the injuries from the first shots before the chest shot other than they were there.
So guessing the thief would go after the gun is just a guess with no proof of it happening or appearing to possibly happen. That information needs to be displayed at the trial to fill out assumptions and guesses because of the way the stand your ground is written in New York.
The main question there isn’t whether the person could in fact have retreated with complete personal safety. The question is whether the person knew that they could safely retreat. And the reality is that Diarra had the gun and the thief had been shot at least twice during the grappling. So the possibility of retreat goes to both players. And again, none of that was mentioned in the article.
[And the reality is that Diarra had the gun and the thief had been shot at least twice during the grappling. ]
It's quite a common scenario and certainly not the first time a suspect fought to regain control of his/a weapon. In fact cops have done this, bad guys, good guys etc...
And where is the video? A New York City parking garage with no video?
“You’re dumb.”
Snappy comeback. You waste my time unless you want to discuss the topic and having knowledge of the law might make it easier for you to do that. But at this point I have no idea whether you know or understand the law as written in New York and trolling won’t replace that. So if you continue on the current act, I won’t bother to answer you. I appreciate exchange, but not trying to get a rise out a person you know nothing about with insinuations of questionable intelligence especially when the word you used, “dumb,” is defined in Oxford’s Dictionary as “temporarily unable or unwilling to speak.” Have a good day.
.
wy69
Ya got the players mix up.
Newspapers notoriously leave out pertinent info when publishing articles, and it's usually the info pertaining to the perp, and their actions. You wrongly said the thief had been shot twice. It was the victim that had been hit twice...once in the stomach, and another in the ear. If you, the victim took a bullet in the stomach, and one grazing your ear, could you have retreated safely? Was Diarra in any shape to be able to do that? You have no clue, nor does anyone else. All I know is that NY State Penal law says that if you have an egress to leave the scene, you must use it, but Diarra's physical condition may have made it impossible for him to do that. It's possible that the only way he could guarantee not being attacked again, was to use the amount of force necessary to disable his assailant, and he did that. It was self-defense, not attempted murder.
The article leaves a lot out. As usual. According to the article, the victims was shot in the ear and stomach. Did the suspect not shoot the victim twice? Or are we supposed to believe one shot hit the victims ear and his stomach?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.