Cabbie shoots fleeing thief in the back

Status
Not open for further replies.

Erebus

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
1,374
Location
North Central MA
<LINK>

The skinny is the thief jumped in his cab, robbed him at knife-point, got out, and was running away when he shot him in the back.

Cabdriver charged with shooting alleged robber
Lawyer says client feared for his life
By John R. Ellement, Globe Staff | January 30, 2007

LAWRENCE -- Bienvenido Rodriguez admits disarming the safety on his gun and firing at the man who allegedly robbed him at knifepoint, but he never meant to shoot anyone, according to a police report.

As a result of his actions, the 42-year-old taxi driver, who friends say is an immigrant success story with an even temper, was transformed from a victim to a perpetrator of a violent crime, authorities said.

Police reports said Rodriguez admitted to detectives that he fired at Herman Irene as the alleged robber ran away from him, but that he insisted he never meant to hit him.

"He only meant to scare him and did not think he hit him, since when he shot the gun off he was aiming high," the report said.

Rodriguez's lawyer said yesterday that her client feared for his life, but Lawrence Police Chief John Romero said Rodriguez went too far.

"When a guy is fleeing, he no longer poses a threat to you," and a person cannot legally use deadly force as their attacker runs away, he said.

Rodriguez, who immigrated from the Dominican Republic 22 years ago and is a naturalized citizen, was working his usual overnight shift early Sunday, driving a minivan for Liberty Car Services of Lawrence, according to court records and interviews.

Rodriguez already had one fare on board and was heading to Haverhill when he stopped to pick up Irene on Springfield Street in Lawrence.

When the van drove into the darkness of a highway overpass on Parker Street in Lawrence, Irene allegedly pulled a knife, forced Rodriguez to pull over, and robbed him of the cash stuck into the car's visor, according to court records and Rodriguez's lawyer. The other passenger witnessed the exchange and called police on his cellphone, records show.

Irene got out of the van and started running, and Rodriguez reached for the licensed .40 caliber Smith and Wesson pistol he carried, released the safety, and fired one shot into Irene's back, authorities alleged.

Rodriguez pleaded not guilty in Lawrence District Court to charges of assault with intent to murder and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and was ordered held on $10,000 cash bail by Judge Kevin J. Gaffney.

Irene, 36, of Lawrence, was recovering yesterday at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, where he was arraigned and charged with armed robbery, according to Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett's office. Bail was set at $10,000 cash. Irene also faces attempted murder charges from a prior domestic violence case, prosecutors said.

Rodriguez's lawyer, Pamela F. Saia, said he should not have been charged. "He was the victim of a crime," she said. "Mr. Rodriguez is scared to death. . . . He was completely afraid he was going to be killed."

About 10 people, including at least one of his teenage sons and his mother, were in court on Rodriguez's behalf yesterday.

Saia said Rodriguez has built a successful life through hard work. He owns a two-family house in Methuen, owns a car repair shop in Methuen, and works every night driving a cab in the Lawrence area.

She said Rodriguez purchased the weapon about a year ago and took a class to learn how to use it properly. Sunday at 1:45 a.m. was the first time he fired the handgun, she said.

Rodriguez has been associated with Liberty for three years, according to Maria Romero, office manager. Speaking on behalf of owner Juan Hernandez, Romero said that Rodriguez has a job waiting for him.
 
The circumstances don't make it right. Once the threat is gone, force cannot be used, and in fact the former perpetrator now becomes a victim and has the right to self defense. This is a sad situation. This guy may mess up everything he has worked for because he let his emotions take over in a crucial moment.
 
I don't think any lawyer would be able to successfully justify their client shooting someone in the back. If they're running away, you just have to let them go. Fear and anger got to poor Mr. Rodriguez for a moment, but a moment is all it takes. It's a shame, but I have to agree with "bad shoot". :(
 
I can't say for certain how I feel about this, but once you threaten someone with a brandished lethal implement with evident willingness to use it, it is not unreasonable to say that you have shown yourself to be sufficiently dangerous to society at large for someone to use potentially lethal force against you. Could it not be argued that it is your duty to detain someone that is such a threat to society as is someone who threatens bodily harm for money? Good Samaritan laws already give you protection when you try to help a dying person by performing CPR on them--one could argue that this case isn't all that different.

Now, the cabbie would have had to order the robber to freeze for the logic to hold.

What did Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes II have to say about this type of stuff? "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." The opinion in which that statement was made is interesting, because he states that the defendant could not be blamed for shooting his assailant while the latter was down because the heat of the moment was still on. http://http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=256&invol=335
 
Well not make an excuse for the Cabbie, but, being robbed at knifepoint is a very traumatic experience I am sure (I've been robbed at gunpoint). Anyhow, Can someone traumitized and victimized be completely at fault being overcome with rage and emotion? Besides, when is the next robbery victim going to have his throat cut if a guy like this gets away? I know what the Cabbie did was against the law, but IMO it was a morally good shoot!
 
I'm a realist. I understand how the law and courts (and the masses) view a situation like this at the present time, still it makes me absolutely sick when somebody commits a violent, life threatening, act against someone else and then gets ANY sympathy if it goes bad for them somehow.

And now the participating, productive, member of society (the cabbie) is going to pay even more.

:barf:
 
I don't think any lawyer would be able to successfully justify their client shooting someone in the back.
Then that lawyer did not get the right expert witness.

Depending on the cabbie's story, if the perp pointed his gun at the victim as he fled, it is quite possible that the resonse to that valid threat would result in a shot in the back. Not saying that's what happened here, just that we do not have all the facts to pass judgment.
 
Are the LEO in that state allowed to fire on an armed fleeing felon?

Good point. I suspect that if an LEO had done the shooting it would have been found to be justified.

As worse, this guy should be found guilty and sent home with probation.

Bob
 
Are the LEO in that state allowed to fire on an armed fleeing felon?
After Garner vs. Tennessee put limits on shooting fleeing felons, most if not all state courts and department policies put strict restrictions on when a police officer can shoot an armed fleeing felon. Generally, the criteria for shooting an armed fleeing felon is that his escape would constitute a grave and deadly danger to the public.

There is no real definitive set of standards to describe a grave and deadly future danger to the public. So, it will be defined by the district attorney, court decisions, and public opinion. Public opinion is the most unpredictable and not one I would want to hang my hat on when deciding whether to shoot a fleeing felon or not. Public opinion will have a heavy influence on the district attorney when he tries to decide if such a shooting is justifiable.

Pilgrim
 
Somehow this isnt right. The thief took his money at knifepoint and the victim is being prosecuted. What is to stop people from mugging people anymore and the justice system letting them go?

I would like to know if the thief has a criminal record. I think it is shameful that you cannot defend your property. If he loses the fare money that is one thing but will his company replace his tips? Thats money he needs to eat.

Just somehow this isnt right.
 
The thief took his money at knifepoint and the victim is being prosecuted.
No the perpetrators of these seperate crimes are both being prosecuted.
You can not shoot someone just because they piss you off.

I understand the reaction and sympathize with him and cannot say that it is impossible that I would react the same way given the proper circumstances, but I also would not have a problem finding him guilty, if no other info comes out
 
The law should be changed so that you have 2 minutes to defend yourself or track down the perp and use force. That way when scum trieds to kill you then run away, you don't have to go "oh, oh well", you can go "lets see you run faster than a bullet for 2 minutes."

Good for this guy. Too bad everyone is so pro life they can't see some people deserve to die.
 
there was this movie "once upon the time in the west"

Where the evil railroad owner said "I told you to scare them"
and the bad guy said "people scare better when they're dead".


He only meant to scare him

The cabbie should have kept his mouth shut, it is up to us to know what the law is because not all cops are not going to be sympathetic ...

I have been a cab driver and ran into some real skells working at night, one idiot was telling me he could rob me, he just got out of prison blah blah blah
I had my hand on my .357 the whole time.

The lawyer should be told that the cabbies English is real bad and what he meant to say was that it looked like the skell was turning around with a weapon and he was scared of him

Some people though, I suspect this cab driver was one, only focus on the shooting part of CCW , imo the legal part is as important
 
The law should be changed so that you have 2 minutes to defend yourself or track down the perp and use force. That way when scum trieds to kill you then run away, you don't have to go "oh, oh well", you can go "lets see you run faster than a bullet for 2 minutes."

Good for this guy. Too bad everyone is so pro life they can't see some people deserve to die.

[sarcasm] Two minutes? What a bunny-hugger! How about you get two weeks to track him down, find out where he lives, kick his door down, and ventilate him with your 30-30? Same thing, right? You're just preventing future crimes that he might commit. [/sarcasm]

Look, whether it's two seconds or two weeks after the robbery, once he's no longer attacking you, you are no longer on DEFENSE.

If you're not on DEFENSE, and you shoot someone, that puts you on the OFFENSE. American jurisprudence, and civilized society in general, looks unkindly on folks going on the offense.

If offensive "justice" is allowed, then it's perfectly fine to go kill the neighbor who you're "pretty sure" is stalking your girlfriend, or selling crack, or looks kinda like this escaped criminal you saw on T.V.


I don't care if the cabbie was a Medal of Honor winner with eight grandchildren and a library named after him. If you shoot someone in the back, barring any _immediate_ reason to believe that he's about to commit murder/rape/arson, then you're letting emotion direct lethal action.

The cabbie either a) was ticked off at being robbed, or b) wanted his money back. You can't kill people because you're ticked off at them, or because you lost money because of them, otherwise bars would have a duel every night, and every stockbroker would wear body armor.

EDIT:
thief jumped in his cab, robbed him at knife-point

So much for "get him to turn around and shoot" or "say he was going to fire at the cabbie as he ran". Once he's 21 feet out and distancing...

-MV
 
you know matthew, your right.

I agree with you, but being an ex cabbie my self I understand why he shot the skell.

Cops here in Reno never even ticketed the fare beaters I had.

Criminals know that most folks just let it go, most cops let it go .

Day in day out you take all kinds of abuse and rudeness and robbery, the criminal got tons of breaks, why can't the cabbie?
 
Day in day out you take all kinds of abuse and rudeness and robbery, the criminal got tons of breaks, why can't the cabbie?

The criminal didn't actually use lethal force, the cabbie did.

Note in the article: criminal is getting charged w/ armed robbery, and also has an attempted murder case from a previous incident pending. Cabbie is charged with "assault with intent to murder", which maybe will get put down to plain assault by the end.


If the courts aren't giving long enough sentences for armed robbery, or the cops aren't catching enough people, that still doesn't justify shooting a man with a knife who's running _away_ from you.

-MV
 
Matthew
Look, whether it's two seconds or two weeks after the robbery, once he's no longer attacking you, you are no longer on DEFENSE.

How about this? When he attacked me, he signed his death warrant. His life no longer belongs to him; I am the only one with any moral right to decide what to do with him.

If you're not on DEFENSE, and you shoot someone, that puts you on the OFFENSE. American jurisprudence, and civilized society in general, looks unkindly on folks going on the offense.
So, after the Japs left Hawaii on Dec. 7, we no longer had any right to go after them? Interesting morality you have there.

If offensive "justice" is allowed, then it's perfectly fine to go kill the neighbor who you're "pretty sure" is stalking your girlfriend, or selling crack, or looks kinda like this escaped criminal you saw on T.V.

As long as it IS a deadly-force-to-defend type of crime, AND you turn out to be right, why not? There was no "pretty sure", or "kinda like" involved here.
 
I hope everyone has satisfied their vigilante cravings in this thread and that they will be able to stay on the high road in the next one.....

Jeff
 
We regularly comment here that laws vary from state to state.

Texas law is quite specific: It doesn't matter if the shot is from in front or behind, IF the good-guy shooter believes the shootee would present an ongoing danger to the community. It has the usual "reasonable and prudent person" caveat, of course.

A knife is a deadly weapon. It strikes me as reasonable to believe that if a person is willing to offer a choice between "Your money or your death," that person would be an ongoing threat to the community. Who's the next victim-to-be?

In Texas, all homicides go to the Grand Jury for review. That's where the circumstance of "reasonable and prudent" is first judged.

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top