Guy Arrested for beating armed robber

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wait a second, the finest legal minds on THR have declared, and with ample supporting references, that the force used against Rodney King was justified. This kid was ARRESTING the criminal, who resisted. End of story.

right?

Whatever the kid did earlier, is irrelevant. Period. He was victimized, reversed the situation, and subdued the assailant.

Anyone who ever, EVER posted in other threads saying not to 'second guess' you know who because 'they weren't there' and 'it's complicated situation', had better step up REAL quick here and prove themselves. I hope.

For everyone else, think about how YOU would be written up if YOU had to defend yourself. You the good guy, is victimized, turns it around, then attempts to LEGALLY ARREST the assailant. This is a GOOD THING, it is a CIVIC DUTY, it prevents the assailant from VICTIMIZING YOUR NEIGHBORS. The assailant struggles, the man who TRIED TO DO YOU HARM. Yet if you use force on him, YOU will be the one punished.

In Canada the law says 'reasonable' force may be used, but the safe bet is called 'proportional' force. Either way when a man tries to kill you, which is what POINTING A GUN AT YOU is, anything short of killing him back is both reasonable and proportional, actually it's technically rather restrained. How can anyone here POSSIBLY know that the assailant was not physically resisting the legal arrest? What are the odds he didn't try to get away? You use an impact weapon you use an impact weapon, *** does it matter if it's a baton or a butt. Except to people who think they're better than the rest, and XYZ's don't have the same basic rights.

This is ****ING WRONG. I'm glad so many people here know that, but mournful that so many can't see past the stupid labels. "Well he's an XYZ so he's different from me and basic truths no longer apply."
 
igpoobah said
What is this, the second story this week about the victim getting charged with a gun crime after taking the perp's weapon and using it against them. That is BS!

If the assault charge is valid, then that makes the weapons charge valid. I don't see where that would be so hard to understand.
 
"Yes it probably is, and the guy leads a shadey lifestyle, so is being treated differently.
I guess if he was selling a used car or piece of furniture and it went south, all would be okay, but since it was drugs, he should have let himself die, commiting one illegal activity makes his right to self defense null and void"

Where did I imply that?

Self defense is one thing...stopping a threat and then proceeding to pistol whip the perpetrator with a little help from his friends is another. Never mind the missing revolver.

Anyway, the reason I suggested that it COULD be drug related is that it is not uncommon in my area for drug dealers to cry foul when they get burned, alleging home invasion, etc. Criminals do tend to exhibit behavior that is more violent than most victims of violent crime as a reaction to an attack.
 
if after you disarm someone you are so brainless that your idea of a plan is to hide the gun. bearing in mind your not legally able tp posses one then you get to ride in the back of the cop car. the stupidity of some criminals is amazing. gotta go take one back to jail after lunch. he got released by mistake and i spent all nite convincing him that doesn't constitute a pardon. course hes a college kid so hes not been slapped about much by the real world yet.
 
So, we've ruled out the possibility of any real struggle preceding the beating. We've also established the kid didn't act alone.
All by reading the article. :rolleyes:
Face it, the kid got carried away. While the burglar/dealer/whatever did indeed overstep his bounds coming after the kid with a gun, the beating, especially with assistance, is unjustified.
Has anyone got any more good solid defenses?
And none of this "I don't know how that happened" or "I fell" stuff.
He's already being charged meaning that just won't cut it.
 
Though, I will say, the charge of unlawful possession is crap, unless he failed to hand the gun over.
If they have no gun, how do they prove he possessed one?
Maybe it was fake (which would explain why no one got shot.)

your attorney will need to work MUCH harder to convince the jury that the BG posed enough of a threat after being disarmed that you STILL had to hit him. Yes, that can be the case, but usually not.
If you, unarmed, disarm a gunman, it is usually the case that you are in a struggle, and unless he is disabled as well as disarmed, you are still in danger.

I don't understand why beating an unarmed fleeing person on the head with a gun is self-defense?
Nothing in the article said he was unarmed while fleeing.


So, we've ruled out the possibility of any real struggle preceding the beating. … All by reading the article.
Which article are you reading?
The one in the first post says that Atkins acted in self defense, and tackled the robber, and beat him.
Tackling a fleeing robber would usually mean a struggle, and we don’t know when or how Atkins disarmed him.
It could have been in the struggle, preceding the beating.
 
The way it reads to me is that the kid got the gun, the guy decided to tear ass outta Dodge, and then the kid (and presumably his buddies) gave chase. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way it sure seems like it went down, doesn't it?
Or maybe the friend(s) showed up and then the would-be assailant decided he had better places to be. Either way, once the threat has removed itself, that's that. Everybody made it out without getting hurt. Chasing the guy is probably the last thing I'd do.
Glummer said:
If they have no gun, how do they prove he possessed one?
Maybe it was fake (which would explain why no one got shot.)
Then where did the "pistol-whipping" claims come in? You think they can't examine bruises, lacerations, etc. and say "Yep, this guy got smacked around with the butt of a gun, or something pretty similar."
 
I think he is in trouble cause the gun is missing. His parole agent is bending him over backwards to get the gun.
I disagree. It appears that Michael Atkins did not report an assault with a deadly weapon against his person as well as an attempted armed robbery to the police. While he thought the attack would go unreported, Ernesto Guerrero, his attacker, reported Michael Atkins' attack on himself. Thus, Michael Atkins was arrested. Why Michael Atkins failed to report the attack is unclear. However, he was arrested later, when he reported to his probation officer, not at the scene. Apparently, he was not questioned at the scene either. How else would it be that the gun he beat Guerrero with is missing?

Whatever the kid did earlier, is irrelevant. Period.
True. It is what he did during the attack and afterwards that affects whether he is arrested. The first person to make the phone call is designated the victim. Their name goes into the victim box on the report, and the police proceed from there.

How can anyone here POSSIBLY know that the assailant was not physically resisting the legal arrest?
If Michael Atkins had tried to legally arrest Guerrero, he would have given a report as well as the firearm to the police, having notified them and waited for their arrival. It does not seem he did this. It appears that he beat Guerrero with his own gun after Guerrero tried to rob him. Then Atkins ran off with the gun. Guerrero was taken to Cozad Community Hospital where a report was made, and police notified. He was later arrested, as was Atkins. Nope, I don't think Michael Atkins was trying to make a citizen's arrest. If he was, he failed miserably.

If they have no gun, how do they prove he possessed one?
By the accusation of Ernesto Guerrero, who was the first to report the incident to the police. By being the first to report, Ernesto Guerrero had the luxury of becoming the victim who had his gun stolen.

Is it right? No, not really, but the first person to file a complaint becomes the perceived victim to the police. If Michael Atkins had stayed at the scene, surrendered the gun to the police, or even had he, being a felon, given the gun to a friend to hand to the police while he stayed at the scene to make a report of the crime committed against him, he likely would not have been arrested. Even if he had, in fear of his life, taken the firearm several blocks away, hidden it for later recovery by the police, and called the police, and waited for them to arrive to take his report and directed them to the gun, he would likely be a free man.

It seems to me, that Michael Atkins beat Ernesto Guerrero with his own gun, and then sauntered away like a thug. He then hid the weapon, thinking nobody would report a thing because they were all criminals. He was wrong. Guerrero was taken to the hospital as a victim of an assault, a medical report was done in the ER, police were summoned due to standard protocol. When they arrived, Guerrero spilled the beans. Michael Atkins apparently did nothing to mitigate that unfortunate circumstance, and unfortunately he became the attacker on two documents. As a result, he was arrested and charged.

This is exactly why you should notify police if you have to draw your gun, even if you do not use it. The other guy may report the incident, and he can influence the outcome by coloring the first report in his favor. After that you are on the defensive legally.

As I said before, in this case, it's really a question of whether a conviction can be obtained.
 
I think it would depend wen he takes the gun. If he takes the gun away, then the guy runs, he chases him down, and beats him, then maybe press charges. Though I think criminals deserve what they get.

However, if he tackled him, took the gun, then started beating him, I don't think that's wrong. Disarming someone while grappling by no means indicates the danger is over. He is still defending himself in that situation. You don't disarm someone and then stand up and be like "Fights over, bro." Because if he doesn't think so, he's close enough to hurt you.
 
One of my buddies was involved in a fight with two guys illegally dumping in his Auto Garage's business dumpster. He confronted them, they decided to attack him and he beat them both to a pulp and tossed them in the dumpster.

A couple of months later, one of the guys died of a brain infection related to the beating my buddy gave him. Fortunately, it was exacerbated by a problem with the perps use of crack cocaine, and the death was attributed to that factor.

The DA paid my buddy a visit and told him in very simple language that if the guy hadn't had a crack problem that he would have him up on charges (I forget which charge, exactly: maybe vol. man.) and would most assuredly have prosecuted him.

This after he was set upon by two guys and he was alone, defending his own property rights, and unarmed.
*for anyone who needs a reference for this, just pm me and I'll give you the DA's office number.*

Even when you're not a convicted felon, no gun is involved, and you're on your own property minding your business, you can get in dire legal trouble.

Atkins is no surprise to me. Knowing this though, I would still not hesitate to defend myself or end a threat to another innocent person and let the legal chips fall where they may.
What is legal and lawful isn't always what is right to do. The spirit of the law often gets lost in it's writing and execution.
 
Yeah, I mean, c'mon, after someone tries robbing me, and I've disarmed him, I'm gonna sit him down with me, have some coffee and cake and we'll both happily talk about world issues and I'll give him his gun back, too, since he deserves it after trying to rob me.
 
The general idea that the victim is up on charges is bothersome to me. I realize what some of you are saying about the letter of the law, but there is too fine a line here. He should get warned or get his hand slapped for doing it, but to go from self defense to a felony when he didn't even permanently injure the guy is BS. The law is not right if it allows that. No other complications, I wouldn't convict as a jury member.

Now with the other aspects of this story, I agree that this doesn't appear to be a cut and dried incident.
 
I can't believe what i'm seeing on here.

I agree that there is probably something else going on, what with the missing gun. But, that point is largely irrelevant, as simply based on the article, the charges ARE JUSTIFIED. Just because someone is the initial aggressor doesn't give you the legal right to beat them to oblivion AFTER they stop being a threat. Pistol whipping is probably the best example of crossing the line from self defense to assault, as your attorney will need to work MUCH harder to convince the jury that the BG posed enough of a threat after being disarmed that you STILL had to hit him. Yes, that can be the case, but usually not.

I'd be willing to bet that MOST of you saying that he went too far have never been robbed or threatened at gunpoint. Looking down the barrel of a gun knowing that at any second your life is going to be over is a life changing experience. He should've been beat to death. People like that have no place in society.
 
Does being threatened at knifepoint count for anything?

Also, Wheelgunslinger, that basically sums it up. Sometimes, injuries sustained in a fight can lead to more trouble than expected.
 
Well, I'm convinced.

I'd be willing to bet that MOST of you saying that he went too far have never been robbed or threatened at gunpoint. Looking down the barrel of a gun knowing that at any second your life is going to be over is a life changing experience. He should've been beat to death. People like that have no place in society.
H23gsr is offline Report Post

I have been held up at gun point 4 times in my life, and the last one I disarmed because she was so sloshed she had no clue what she was doing. I had ample opportunity to beat the tar out of her...but I didn't.

John 8:7
 
People who are soft on criminals get what they deserve. This is exactly the attitude that has caused an epidimic of home invasion in England. You people still think that you owe a criminal attacker a fair fight.
 
OK, I hate to advise it again, but please read the stickies at the top of the Legal Forum.

If you do not like our present criminal justice system, then endeavor to change it. Educate the rest of us, and enlist our assistance so we can help you. Griping and stating opinions on the internet does little to effect the change you desire.

If you are comfortable with the present system, be glad. People in the United States are still innocent until proven guilty of violating the law. Michael Atkins is not guilty simply because he was arrested. A judge or jury will determine that, or he may opt to plea bargain.

Our laws are written for all to read at their leisure so that they may follow them. If they fail to follow the law, they may then be apprehended by the police, charged with a crime, and a judge and/or jury may determine their guilt. As citizens, we are free to seek change in our present system, but not to violate the law without consequences.

It is true that Michael Atkins found himself in a predicament that gave him little choice but to respond. He did have choices afterwards though. He is being charged because of the choices he made afterwards, not before.
 
Professor K good stuff. The critics don't seem to offer an ALTERNATIVE PLAN, at all. By default what you wrote is basically what they're suggesting.

Funny thing, if this guy had pulled a gun on a cop or a daycare worker or a politician they like the same posters would have a different position about proper treatment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top