Posted on 04/02/2023 10:31:08 AM PDT by grundle
BTW, Bragg decided not to press charges on Diarra after all.
“Bragg decided not to press charges on Diarra after all.”
Wonder how many “deals” were involved with that one. DA’s have been known to drop cases when they don’t have enough evidence or when it isn’t worth the cost. Remains to be seen if they will go after the thief anyway.
Bragg is highly in the news right now with the Trump case so he may be trying to not get into a stand your ground case. They are always controversial and I get the feeling he has decided he may get his name in the news too much so he’s cleaning house.
wy69
“The charges against Diarra for defending himself against an attacker come after a similar incident last year.”
And that’s the point of Diarra’s engagement. If Diarra took the gun away from the thief, the thief is no longer a threat just standing there with nothing. And the article didn’t say there was further aggression.
As for your use of the words presume and assume, presume is used when you suppose based on probability, while assume is used when you suppose without enough evidence. Just my point about the article.
wy69
“It certainly wouldn’t be the first time this scenario played out for real.”
And probably not the last. But that was my observation to begin with. If the evidence in the article, the one the people get, is not satisfactory, and it isn’t, the it comes down to both or nobody being guilty of illegally using a firearm as they both did. And the funny thing to me is the article is taking no “side” to the incident but I believe it’s another gun control attack by the left by not reporting the facts completely. It’s a term used in the military called “talk around.” But it gets a message out there.
wy69
“And that’s the point of Diarra’s engagement. If Diarra took the gun away from the thief, the thief is no longer a threat just standing there with nothing. And the article didn’t say there was further aggression.”
Do you know a single thing about the law, guns, self-defense, or anything related to this matter?
Here’s what happened: Rhodie was attempting to burglarize cars in a paid parking garage in Manhattan. Diarra, a parking lot attendant, made him leave. Rhodie pulled a gun from his bag and shot Diarra twice, trying to kill him. Diarra managed, even after being shot twice, to turn the gun toward Rhodie, who was possibly still holding onto it, and shot him.
Rhodie is charged with attempted murder, assault, criminal possession of a weapon, and burglary. No, Bragg didn’t drop these charges. It’s about as open-and-shut of a case as you can get.
The charges against Diarra were dropped (or were never made).
“the article didn’t say there was further aggression”
Next, you’ll say Diarra was supposed to follow the Biden rule of firing warning shots. Please tell me your posts on this thread are all just a bad April fool’s joke.
There doesn’t need to be “further aggression”. When someone attempts to murder you with a gun, you’ve been shot, and you manage to somehow get the gun away from the person trying to kill you, you make sure that person cannot continue.
If a perp is fleeing and you shoot him in the back, it probably will not be viewed as self-defense by law enforcement. When someone is fighting you for control of a gun, lethal force is probably justified, especially when they just tried to kill you with it.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg Backs Down, Won’t Pursue Charges Against Man Who Shot Robber in Self-Defense
Yuk yuk😃
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg Backs Down, Won’t Pursue Charges Against Man Who Shot Robber in Self-Defense
Yuk yuk😃
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg Backs Down, Won’t Pursue Charges Against Man Who Shot Robber in Self-Defense
Yuk yuk😃
“Do you know a single thing about the law, guns, self-defense, or anything related to this matter?”
Yes, quite a bit and more than most. But the one thing I do know is that you are assuming what you want to see to justify the shooting by Diarra. He shot an unarmed man, criminal or not, that was never identified as going after Diarra after Diarra gained enough control of the gun to turn it on the thief.
“Diarra managed, even after being shot twice, to turn the gun toward Rhodie, who was possibly still holding onto it, and shot him.”
By using the word “possibly,” you are reading into the article. It never said that so you are assuming something that was not identified.
The charges against Diarra were dropped (or were never made).
The charges against Diarra were put on the back burner until further investigation can reveal the facts of the actions.
“On Sunday evening, the Manhattan district attorney’s office confirmed to FOX 5 NY that they would not be prosecuting Moussa Diarra, 57, at this time.
“We are declining to prosecute Moussa Diarra pending further investigation.”
https://www.fox5ny.com/news/west-31st-street-garage-worker-shot-district-attorney-drops-charges
So he was not exonerated from the act, just during pending investigation. Notice the words in the areticle “at this time.” So the final determination has not been reached
concerning Diarra’s part of the shootings yet.
“Next, you’ll say Diarra was supposed to follow the Biden rule of firing warning shots.”
I don’t say it in a situation that has not been determined yet. It is just one of the possiblities. If he had a chance to use warning shots, and it was in the act of stopping the thief from further aggression, then that will be taken into consideration on the prosecution. The stand your ground law covers that. But “if’s” are not facts, they are assumptions until proven. And there was nothing in the article concerning the scenario you are displaying based upon the article.
“When someone is fighting you for control of a gun, lethal force is probably justified, especially when they just tried to kill you with it.”
Don’t disagree with that. But the term used in the article was turned the gun on the thief and shot him in the chest. What does that mean? Did they both have a hand on the gun, or did Diarra control it standing a few feet from the thief who was attacking him without the gun? But if Diarra had control of the gun, and the thief was not attacking him at the time Diarra fired, with Diarra turning the gun on him as the article said, then that’s illegal use of force. Thief in that scenario was not a threat. And without further investigation and the if’s taken out, then you’ve got facts. But not until.
Don’t assume, wait for the investigation.
wy69
👍🏻
““On Sunday evening, the Manhattan district attorney’s office confirmed to FOX 5 NY that they would not be prosecuting Moussa Diarra, 57, at this time.
“We are declining to prosecute Moussa Diarra pending further investigation.”
https://www.fox5ny.com/news/west-31st-street-garage-worker-shot-district-attorney-drops-charges
This article was written day before yesterday, and I’ve seen nothing to change it since.
Don’t count your chickens...the investigation is under way with no witnesses to determine how a gun was used by both to determine guilt and they both were shot according to the original article by the other one. Bragg has to point a finger at someone to keep his credibility and the thief appears to be the most guilty. That’s his job. ( And in my mind this is not a good time for him to be considered less than creditable with the Trump case on the horizon) But Diarra is still up for grabs as far as I know.
wy69
There is no "Evidence" in the article. It's a poorly written article which lacked lots of details, which we established way back on this thread. There is no evidence in the article. Gezzz. But you're still hanging on every word of this garbage. Putting this POS article down, thinking outside the box, you were told the likely, most reasonable scenario. And now they've opted not to pursue charges...No surprise here. And you say you were some kind of military cop? Even for the military, that's hard to believe.
You have an odd legal theory you’re applying here. I’d call it presumption of guilt. Further investigation is going to find nothing more on this guy. It’s pretty open and shut. Except he deserves a reward for stopping the bad guy. He’s a hero. That’s why Bragg would like to prosecute him. It just wasn’t easy or convenient.
“You have an odd legal theory you’re applying here.”
Not so odd if you get a chance to read the “rules” of each of the states that have one of the laws in place that might fall under stand your ground:
Castle Doctrine - 8 states
Other self defense laws - 1 state (Vermont)
Duty to retreat - 14 States (including New York)
Stand Your Ground - the remaining 27 states
But the consistency in all of them is that it is legal to protect yourself, but not become a vigilante or get pissed because the guy got you shot and blast away when you can turn the gun on the thief. And no where in the article is that entertained either way, defense or attack. So we don’t know if Diarra broke the law by firing on him with control of the gun to do so.
If he had legitimate defense or active need for such, like thief continuing the attack bodily, then he was not incorrect. However, depending on the articles definition of turn will determine that. I haven’t seen it. So until the further investigation they say they are putting on the back burner is complete, it is in question.
Like I said, thief is already in the blender. Diarra is supposed to be investigated for his part, one we don’t totally know. But the question to me is that his part hasn’t been determined and the article is no help to do so. And this is what the media feeds us. But there is as much chance he attempted to execute the thief just as much as thief did him whether through anger or vindictiveness. Let the investigation prove something legally. And since no one was there besides the two of them, how do you get the truth and how much does it soil the stand your ground law that supports citizens to protect themselves?
You may see this case raise an ugly head in the future. There are many others that have been “used” like I feel this one will like Kyle Rittenhouse, Breanna Taylor, Trayvon Marshall, Michael Brown, and George Floyd. All have been brought up continually. And most of them were mishandled but were used like a seasoned hooker to angle an agenda item for someone. So how important is it to get the truth...all of it? This is how the left attacks gun ownership. If a person is guilty, then prosecute them. If the person isn’t, then stop spreading lies to gain from the citizens.
wy69
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/35.15
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-35-20/
Pretty wide range of situations in which deadly force is authorized by law.
The present situation falls easily within the law.
You appear to be fixated on novel legal theories that have not been applied in court. Or, maybe they have, by attorneys like Bragg, who is NOT a model to follow.
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.