Posted on 04/02/2023 10:31:08 AM PDT by grundle
“Thats complete bs you’re out of danger if you have the weapon. Total bs. Especially when you’re already injured.”
Then display please anything written in the article of further aggression right before the chest shot when Diarra shot the thief and after he took control of the gun.
“Diarra proceeded to turn the firearm on the potential thief and shot him in the chest.”
There is nothing in there to indicate any further aggression. Diarra was identified as the attendant with the gun, which he wrestled from the thief, and “turned it” on him insinuating he had the gun identified and had to turn it on the thief.
I was law enforcement in the military for combat actions and if the combatants had ceased aggression, it was over. The same films were used at that time by the Tampa Police Department. If the individual in front of you is no longer a threat, then you can’t cap him as that is a new criminal act. We need more information than the article is presenting.
wy69
Like you've already alluded to, the article left out a whole lot stuff.
The suspect shoots the victim twice, the victim somehow gains control of the gun. Forget the BS media article for a minute.
Would it not be *reasonable* or possible to expect the suspect to struggled to regain control of the gun from the victim, after the suspect just wounded the victim?
You ignore that he was shot and injured and the criminal was not.
He could have easily retaken the gun from a person who’d been shot.
Your scenario was dumb.
Ignored facts and the entire situation.
“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.”
And that’s where the article disconnects with displayed facts. Both of them were shot, Diarra twice and the thief once. The article does not say the thief attacked him after Diarra got the gun and minimum force is questionable when he shot the thief in the chest with no mention of a further attack. Can the thief be charged with attempted murder, of course because the article did display an attack with the gun by the thief.
So who’s guilty? In my mind without proof of an attack by the thief after Diarra got the gun and his shooting the thief in the chest, after the thief pulled the gun originally before it was taken away, they both are.
wy69
“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.”
And that’s where the article disconnects with displayed facts. Both of them were shot, Diarra twice and the thief once. The article does not say the thief attacked him after Diarra got the gun and minimum force is questionable when he shot the thief in the chest with no mention of a further attack. Can the thief be charged with attempted murder, of course because the article did display an attack with the gun by the thief.
So who’s guilty? In my mind without proof of an attack by the thief after Diarra got the gun and his shooting the thief in the chest, after the thief pulled the gun originally before it was taken away, they both are.
wy69
No reason not to believe he wouldn’t wait for the injured shot guy to black out or let down his guard to go after the weapon, given immediate past deadly behavior.
Many faint giving up to refroup/resume an attack.
The person right there is the one who has to fear their life is still in danger, not me. He made the call. I wouldn’t say it was the wrong one given what I know from the article.
Would it not be *reasonable* or possible to expect the suspect to struggled to regain control of the gun from the victim, after the suspect just shot and wounded the victim twice, who now is wounded and very vulnerable and at a disadvantage?
??
I think he’s going to ignore me. ☺
“garage attendant was hit with an attempted murder charge after confronting an armed thief and wrestling the gun away before opening fire on the suspect”
The thief was shot in the chest after having the gun wrestled away from him.
He wasn’t shot in the back. Although the details are important, a superficial understanding of what happened leads me to believe the shooting of the thief was self-defense.
The big takeaway is to be sure to get a lawyer after shooting anyone for any reason. The charges most likely come from the victim not carefully choosing what words were used to explain the shooting.
Diarra was shot twice first, while he was grappling with his assailant for the gun. You claim they’re both guilty, but you have no idea what condition Diarra was in after being shot, so how you can claim he was guilty of attempted murder because he didn’t run away? You’re making assumptions about things that are unknown. That’s what the media does, and it’s what they want you to do.
“...so how you can claim he was guilty of attempted murder because he didn’t run away?”
From the article:
“Diarra proceeded to turn the firearm on the potential thief and shot him in the chest.”
Without any mention of an attack from the thief, then the attendant opened fire not under duress. And you’re right both ways, if the thief was shot in the chest, he wasn’t trying to escape either. The thief shot Diarra during the wrestling with wild shots, and Diarra shot the thief right in the chest. Of both shootings, only Diarra’s was a controlled shot. But both are guilty as the thief produced the gun and ended up firing shots while wrestling and Diarra wrestled the gun away from the thief and shot him intentionally and at the time without an identified attack.
So more is going to have to be explained until they can prove that the thief was threatening Diarra’s life and limb. At the point of his shooting the thief, there was none identified.
wy69
“...leads me to believe the shooting of the thief was self-defense.”
Don’t read into it. Can only work with the provided facts. There is nothing in the article that says Diarra was being attacked during his part of the shooting. Just that apparently the thief was there and could be shot. And as the article didn’t mention any other weapon, or an attack on Diarra, Diarra just shot him with the only gun between the two while the thief was facing him. And that’s all the article says. Please don’t assume anything other than what you’ve got.
wy69
“I wouldn’t say it was the wrong one given what I know from the article.”
However, if you go just by the article, there is nothing to indicate any of the scenarios people have been trying to assert, only their assumptions.
If you break down the article by what it says, Darria the security guard saw the thief moving from car to car, got the person identified as thief in all this outside to question him what he was doing, thief illegally possessed and pulled the gun and a scuffle ensued, gun went off at least twice striking Diarra, Diarra wrestled the gun away and turned it on the thief shooting him in the chest. That’s all ya got.
wy69
“I wouldn’t say it was the wrong one given what I know from the article.”
However, if you go just by the article, there is nothing to indicate any of the scenarios people have been trying to assert, only their assumptions.
If you break down the article by what it says, Darria the security guard saw the thief moving from car to car, got the person identified as thief in all this outside to question him what he was doing, thief illegally possessed and pulled the gun and a scuffle ensued, gun went off at least twice striking Diarra, Diarra wrestled the gun away and turned it on the thief shooting him in the chest. That’s all ya got.
wy69
And you assume he didnt have to shoot him, that somehow the struggle wasnt ongoing when he shot the thief. He got shot twice in the struggle, and the article sounds like that still was ongoing, or could have been, when he got a shot off at the thief.
“Would it not be *reasonable* or possible to expect the suspect to struggled to regain control of the gun from the victim...”
Could be, but it was not identified in the article. Just that by wrestling the gun away from the thief and turning it on the thief, it identifies control of the gun. And as the article didn’t identify the thief going after the gun after he lost control of it, it is an assumption until it is identified.
I started this with the assertion that the article as written was incomplete and didn’t present enough to say other than what I just wrote down. And at this point, it is all we have to go by. I’m not using anything but what was written in the article to create the story path. Is it all there is? For Diarra’s best interest, I hope not.
But by the way the law is written, he’s going to have a problem displaying threat to life and limb once he had wrestled the gun away from the thief and used the gun. We don’t have anything else.
wy69
Your problem is that you’re basing your comments on what you’ve read in the article. That’s your first mistake. You can’t trust the media when it comes to reporting the actual facts. At this point in time, with the media being so untrustworthy, that point should be obvious to anyone with half-a-brain. And, you still refuse to respond to the issue of the possibility that Diarra may have been in no condition, after being shot twice, to leave the scene. That’s an unknown factor. Until information is cleared up by the police and the D.A.’s office, the only person I believe so far, who is guilty of attempted murder, is the perp who attacked the garage attendant in the first place. The rest of the story is yet to be told in a court of law.
Look, we've already established the article is severely lacking. So screw this article.
I'm just telling you a possibly scenario, the scenario below has happened to lots of people, cops, good guys, bad guys, etc.
The victim has been shot twice and somehow gains control of the gun. The suspect knowing the victim is now wounded, continues to struggle to regain control of the gun, when the victim shoots the suspect in the chest.
Is this scenario not possible? It certainly wouldn't be the first time this scenario played out for real.
“Please don’t assume anything other than what you’ve got.”
You’re not assuming?
I am presuming... innocence.
Also, if someone is robbed at gunpoint, assaulted, and shot, and manages to get the gun away from the perp, I think that person deserves a little extra presumption of innocence.
I don’t know why you would presume or assume this person is guilty without more substantial evidence than is provided here.
“that’s all the article says”
No, it isn’t. It also says, “Diarra proceeded to turn the firearm on the potential thief and shot him in the chest.”
Further, a similar situation in the same jurisdiction played out similarly.
From the article: “The charges against Diarra for defending himself against an attacker come after a similar incident last year. In July, Manhattan bodega clerk Jose Alba was charged with murder after a confrontation in the store with an angry customer who attacked him behind his counter. Alba stabbed and killed the attacker in self-defense but found himself at the Rikers Island jail charged with murder. Alba spent six days in jail until District Attorney Alvin Bragg dropped the murder charge amid intense public pressure.”
Bragg seems to prefer violent criminals to walk free and to charge innocent people... like President Trump.
Also from the article: “Moussa Diarra, 57, is also charged with assault and criminal possession of a weapon”.
It appears that Diarra was working (he was a parking garage attendant) and had every right to be there and question the perp (who apparently didn’t belong there because he is also charged with burglary). The perp pulled a gun from his bag and shot Diarra twice. Diarra struggled with the perp and managed to turn the gun toward him and fire it. For that, the DA is also claiming Diarra was unlawfully in possession of a firearm. That’s total insanity.
Even far-left folks see through the injustice here. You’re on the wrong side of all of it, top to bottom.
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.