Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

madeyoulookatmynuts OP t1_ja8keh0 wrote

I posted this article because although I know the post is very trashy and sensational, this article is beyond comprehension, and I fear indicative of a major systemic shift in our perception of morality, safety, protection, cause and effect in our city.

If I understood correct; one of the brothers attempted to steal shrimp from a local fishery. The workers reacted aggressively by chasing the robber out and used some force to protect the property. The robber then went and got back up and came back with the intention of retaliating to his attempted robbery that went wrong. In other words, a person went to rob a business (morally and criminally wrong), didn't succeed and felt the need to go get revenge because he met resistance.

The workers were left with little recourse as this robber came back with back-up and had to react. Now, I understand the workers should've called the cops, but we know that robberies under $1000 arent really being taken seriously anymore by cops and DA's. So this small business is now more or less on its own to prevent theft.

Did the worker need to stab this guy? IDK, but the workers clearly felt scared at this point since this person escalated things by coming back to retaliate. I understand self-defense laws in our city mean that you have to reasonably make all efforts to flee, but does that apply to protection of property as well?

At this point what is the reasonable expectation of self-defense and property protection. For example, if I'm walking down the street, and some person comes up to me with a knife in their hands and demands my money, do I have to ask if they intend to use the knife to stab me if I don't handover the money before I make a decision to defend myself equitably (meaning do I flee, or if their hitting me do I hit back instead of using a knife myself if I have one?) because it seems like there is this weird interpretation of the law in this case and the bodega one where it wasn't clear if the robbers intended mortal harm as opposed to just a fight? but then is it realistic to expect someone to ask if the would be assailant intends to kill them or just punch them a few times and move on? this is where this is getting weird and really concerning to the average person.

These are split second decisions that may have very real legal consequences. Sure, charges get dropped but this worker has to come up with legal fees, which could wreck the worker for years. So moving forward what is the expectation for the average New Yorker? idk if any lawyers are on the sub but would love to know more.

20

spicytoastaficionado t1_ja8naj7 wrote

>I know the post is very trashy and sensational

The Post is 100% a trashy tabloid, but their sensationalist coverage of the Alba incident played a significant role in Bragg's Office dropping charges in the Jose Alba case.

They had the exclusive with the security camera footage which vindicated him completely and made it a major cover story. The video turned a local crime story into national news.

Given the evidence, the case would have been dismissed anyway, but who knows how long that process would have taken had The Post not leaked the video.

Keep in mind Bragg's Office had the video the entire time and still not only arrested Alba, but wanted to pursue murder charges against him.

34

KaiDaiz t1_ja8pajn wrote

NYP is free, wildly available and quick to cover local stories. NYT, NY Daily, etc local coverage suck and hide behind paywalls. NYP even beat local tv new coverage to breaking stories and followups. Ppl shiet on NYP and rightfully but they do local coverage better than most.

20

PandaJ108 t1_ja9ewmx wrote

To add a bit more. They went into a employee only area in order to find the individual they wanted to attack. Which is why the surviving brother is facing burglary charges of his own.

18

[deleted] t1_ja8wtik wrote

[deleted]

0

madeyoulookatmynuts OP t1_ja8xsou wrote

Sure, that's the smart thing to do, but my question is more around what is the legal expectation regarding the decision you make. If I'm just holding a knife and I ask for your money, I technically didn't say I was going to use the knife to stab you, but you made that assumption based on the context of the situation. Do we as citizens have a legal obligation to get clarification from the person that they intend to do us harm with that knife if we don't give them the money before we decide what is an equitable reaction from us? that's more what I'm concerned about.

10

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_jac7wn9 wrote

That's your upbringing. Some of us were raised that it's better to be killed than to surrender. The crooks know that. They sense it. So they choose their victims carefully.

0