ktla.com/news/local-news/suspect-dies-after-being-pursued-by-man-he-robbed-at-gunpoint-in-los-angeles/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1D1bEF0SBQRVkEgBKIqKtS6uMjA8syI4-5YLJdTd7ibOLdqi7Aj3AwWH0_aem_q9ggKVpzOMyPInoAicMKnw
Suspect dies after being pursued by man he robbed at gunpoint in Los Angeles
NewsCar accident now being investigated as homicide… that’s a big one
I think it's very likely if this is decided by a jury the robbery victim will be acquitted.
This is what happens when you can’t depend on the LAPD
Same said about the kid who murdered the person robbing their car in dtla
CA allows force to defend property but not retrieving it.
I hope the kid didn't make any incriminating statements. It'll come down to the robbers testifying they robbed him and that they believe he was chasing them...unless he told the cops he was chasing them, which I hope he did not say so his defense lawyer can do the best job in trying to acquit him.
As a jury member, I wouldn't feel comfortable convicting someone of murder or homicide just because they happened to be traveling at a high rate of speed in the same general direction as the people who had robbed him and he happened to clip their vehicle in an unfortunate turn of events without any other evidence...just saying.
Could be felony murder for the dead robber's buddies
Yeah this rings of an aiding and abetting case. If they robbed a liquor store, and the clerk shot and killed one of them, the other would likely go down for homicide for that too. Seems similar with extra steps.
That’s interesting… just wondering about how the whole vigilantism thing would play into it though. A clerk shooting a robber in self defense at the register is different than actively pursuing the thieves while they flee the scene. It adds a layer of culpability to the vigilante. He was no longer in danger.
Imagine if the getaway sedan struck and killed a pedestrian after being rammed instead? I’m not siding with the thugs here by any means just saying it’s not as clear cut as the example you provided.
It’s one thing to commit violence and another to just being pursuing to get your stuff back. Like, it’s not illegal to retrieve stolen property from thieves. So I guess they’ll have to figure out if the clipping was intentional or not.
Like, it’s not illegal to retrieve stolen property from thieves.
Believe it or not, it would (stupidly) be illegal to forcibly take back your property from thieves.
I think in the heat of the moment, pissed off and trying to get back what belongs to you, a jury definitely might convict on the added homicide with robbery charges.
I think of it is they are still evading from the crime. They figure the SUV is calling in the police so they need to get away from them no matter the cost.
Most likely will be charged with felony murder, road rage etc. no imminent danger, maybe not in Texas, but in California he is toast
Except that California, in its infinite wisdom, abolished the felony murder rule circa 2021.
How? I would hope that is the case, but legally speaking, pursuing a car and ramming into it is not self defense.
Yes, but juries have a level of sympathy towards victims that result in acquittals. If it was just about applying law then you might as well eliminate juries and have a panel of judges or lawyers.
A good lawyer reminds the jury that their kid could’ve been walking on that side walk.
Yeah, I would convict for reckless driving if that is the charge, but not for murder/homicide, which is the charge.
A good jury doesn't take into account what could have happened, only what did happen.
Armed robber FAFO'd.
Not guilty.
It’s called jury nullification
Jury nullification
It's certainly not murder either
Murder isn’t a charge. Homicide is and there’s varying degrees of homicide ranging from totally accidental to premeditated. Ramming into someone’s car and killing them could definitely fall into that range
Depends on the state. In CA, Murder is a criminal charge and a type of homicide.
In the United States, the law for murder varies by jurisdiction. In many US jurisdictions there is a hierarchy of acts, known collectively as homicide, of which first-degree murder and felony murder[1] are the most serious, followed by second-degree murder and, in a few states, third-degree murder, which in other states is divided into voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter such as reckless homicide and negligent homicide, which are the least serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime. However, because there are at least 52 relevant jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this is a considerable simplification.
Murder isn’t a charge.
Someone please alert the California Legislature that they've been wrongly calling it "Murder" in the Penal Code!
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=187.&lawCode=PEN
You got those kind of mixed up. Homicide isn’t necessarily a crime, it just means that a person killed another person. Homicide can be a crime—namely manslaughter or murder—depending on the killer’s mental state
I think the victim would not even get charged.. I don’t see the DA pushing this case.. Especially if the decease and the other suspect have a long criminal record.. Having one of the suspects still shooting at the driver of the Mercedes SUV after the car accident, is not going to look good to a jury, nor a case will have strong foundation if the suspect, who was shooting, is on the witness stand..
Ignoring prejudice of the criminal suspects for a moment. By the book, the driver of the Mercedes/victim of the robbery, should be charged at least with vehicular manslaughter.. No matter if the Mercedes SUV driver have a criminal record or not, intent could boil down to stopping the fleeing vehicle, (not the intention of killing the suspects inside).
It will be controversial but possible, if one of the criminal suspect that survived the crash, was charged with manslaughter instead.. (contributing to the reckless behavior) especially if they have criminal records..
That’s not how self defense works
it's not self defense by any means but its also not murder.
That’s not how juries work.
Probably vehicular manslaughter in the end. Still stupid as fuck. I've been burgled and robbed so I get the anger and tye feeling but you can't just become a vigilante. He could have involved another innocent person in his pursuit of retribution.
You can lawyer because that is the best way to describe the situation.
I wonder if the lawyer will use the "fuck around and find out" defense
Cops and the courts could do their job, but we know they won't. This is the result. Soon enough, Batman will happen.
Yeah I don’t think it’s going to be taken well… your life is no longer in danger and you recklessly drive, putting others at risk, and kill someone due to negligent driving.
Famous words of Saul Goodman.
You only need to convince one juror.
Not someone, the violent criminal who robbed you at gunpoint.
It’s not in self defense if you’re chasing them down in your car.
Look, I have no complaints with the outcome of the situation, but you can't argue the victim that got robbed didn't put innocent peoples' lives at risk by starting a car chase.
If someone besides a violent criminal was hurt that would matter more, I think. These people being criminals who just robbed the guy matters. It doesn't legally absolve him, but it makes a prosecution more difficult for the state. If the guy has money, it will be even harder.
You’re not a cop. You are not authorized to chase someone down in a vehicle endangering the public. You’re also not the judicial system. You do not get to decide if someone dies.
That doesn't matter.
To you. Not all jurors will be you.
This is what happens when LAPD doesn’t do its job.
What the fuck arrested citizens supposed to do just lie down and take it except getting robbed as a fact of life in Los Angeles?
Almost all of us have had at least one bike stolen. Cops don’t do shit. Our bikes are vital for commuting.
I understand, not risking your life or property but for some people if you don’t have a bike, you’re about to lose your job. You lose your job you might be homeless. At this point it’s a calculated risk… Yeah, I may die, but I may be homeless that’s not an easy choice.
Had my bike stolen from the first month I moved here in fact!
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Does the robbery victim have a gofundme?
people are fed up with being victims
This is what happens when LAPD doesn’t do shit. It’s not fair. They take us such a huge chunk of our cities budget and do nothing.
Not all of us are rich Angelino that can afford to have our bikes or catalytic converters or whatever stolen. A lot of the things people steal are essential to our livelihood and given the state of housing prices these people to become homeless.
Unless LAPD is following you around 24/7 they can't prevent you from being robbed. Issue is that criminals aren't scared of getting arrested and the police don't care enough to look for someone cause they know they'll be released right away.
This guy was caught and released. What does he go back to doing? stealing cars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JeGI5v3fUU
If we carried a 3-5 year prison sentence for stealing shit like other countries, I think people would think twice before stealing.
It’s the DA and California AG along with the Governor. The police just enforce what they have in play. Vote better next time.
There is an interesting dichotomy of thought in this sub where people cheer when criminals die but fully support things like zero bail or emptying prisons which allows crime to flourish.
I think people are in favor of only emptying prisons or zero bail for low level crime that has no victim
Also zero bail is supposed to mean that people who are unlikely to commit more crimes get let out while they wait for trial, so they don't lose their jobs and homes, and people who are likely to commit more crimes/flee the country/whatever have to stay in jail even if they're rich.
Ok, it isn’t that something a judge can set at their own discretion? Why do we need a blanket law of zero bail? Why not just instruct judges that setting zero bail for non violent, first time offenders is recommended by the state bar?
What blanket law are you talking about? LA Superior Court came up with and implemented the policy. Literally the judges themselves.
Apparently I am terribly misinformed. I remember the zero bail thing being on the ballot. I thought it failed to pass and that the post way above was glad it didn’t pass and railing against people who supported it in the first place.
Ah yeah, you're not misinformed you actually have a good memory. Statewide zero bail was passed by legislature in 2018 as SB10, but struck down by veto referendum Prop 25 in 2020 -- before it was scheduled to be implemented so it never actually took effect.
Independently of that, LA Superior Courts redid their Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols to effectively end cash bail just for LA county and that was implemented within the last couple years. Since this is currently in effect I tend to assume that's what people in the LA sub mean by "zero bail," but what you're talking about also happened.
Thanks for the knowledge! I didn't know that. And here's a link for anyone wanting to read more:
https://abc7.com/zero-bail-police-takes-effect-los-angeles-county-courts/13851402
The county implemented a zero-bail system during the COVID-19 pandemic in an effort to prevent crowding in jails. Then in May, a Los Angeles judge issued a preliminary injunction essentially reinstating the system by ordering an end to cash bail by the Los Angeles police and sheriff's departments.
Bail has created a predatory bail bond industry. Zero bail means either you bail out without having to be rich/get a bail bond or you don’t bail out because the court decides you need to remain in detention prior to trial.
Because judges are smug assholes who think they know better than the rest of us because they have a robe
The problem is that theory is great until they raise the bar of “low level crime” and start letting people out that shouldn’t be let out.
Bingo. back in 2016 Long Beach tried to reclassify carjacking as a nonviolent crime, IIRC.
"But did you die?" will soon become policy.
will soon become
You should check the list of what's considered a "non violent crime" in CA.
It includes stuff like domestic violence, human trafficking, and rape of an unconscious person.
The next time you get upset that Brock Turner got a light sentence after being convicted of rape, remember that in CA his offense is considered "non-violent."
The next time you see someone commit a mass shooting and they have a history of domestic violence - [68% of US mass shooters have a history of domestic violence](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0 - remember that it was considered "non-violent."
I looked it up and it appears you are repeating false talking points from social media posts:
The offenses listed in the Instagram post are exceptions to the zero-bail policy. In other words, they are charges for which people would be required to post bail — not charges for which people would be released with zero bail.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said in a May 24 statement that the zero-bail policy does not apply to serious or violent offenses, including crimes of violence, sexual offenses, domestic violence and offenses involving weapons.
He/she is 100% going to ignore your post and continue to parrot that misinformation
Yep, that person has numerous comments since I left my reply. So they've obviously seen my reply and have chosen to ignore it.
I'm all for giving people a chance to get out of their situation. But I have zero empathy for people who take advantage of that.
well if you are willing to be brazen enough to steal from other hard working people. taking advantage of their empathy isn't much of a step further lol.
That was meant to be for things like smoking marijuana, but even that affects others if you drive high. The rest has only increased crime, to the point where a robbery is no longer worth going after since they’ll let the thief go after a few hours.
And guess what, that means poor people can get robbed and the only time the police might do something is if a rich person gets robbed.
Yeah, kids who smoked some weed and pirated movies don't need to be in jail, ever.
Low value property crimes (tagging, littrring, dumping, etc) can be corrected with community service.
Can you give some examples of low-level crime that has no victims?
Personal use drug possession. Unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of the supply chain it takes to get you those drugs, which is arguably packed with victims.
But less existentially, personal use drug possession.
The supply chain operates the way it does because it is illegal. Decriminalize and it will be as violent as any other pharmaceutical or alcohol company.
Decriminalize and it will be as violent as any other pharmaceutical or alcohol company.
I used to think this way but it's a lot of wishful thinking to believe that decriminalizing drug use in the US or even CA would lead to the elimination of illegal drug trafficking. There is no true way to decriminalize the drug trade supply chain. Narcos and gangs in South America or the opium farms run by the Taliban in Afghanistan aren't going to sign up for some US legal system to pay taxes & make sure their employees have health insurance.
Unless you are manufacturing your own or only use legally obtained pharmaceuticals, drug use usually involves criminal trade & abusive labor at some point in the supply chain.
Edit: even if there was a legalized method, those that offer a system without having to report yourself as a user to a government entity and/or cheaper products will still flood the market.
Not if the government offers places to for people to get high for cheap or free, in a controlled environment, where help getting clean is always offered, with clean needles.
This is the way, but the teetoalers and tough on crime chumps would rather classify the addicts as criminals.
We gotta pay for them either way, I don't see the point in classifying them as criminals for just getting high (robbing and actually committing crimes with a victim is a different story). There's always going to be burnouts that won't conform to societal norms and just want to drop out. Let the unhelpable slowly kill themselves in relative peace and safety, and let the few that want to change use these places as a place to potentially turn around (ie. When they show up and the worker says "good morning here's your kit for today" and they say "no I think I want help" the worker immediately gets to put them in the pipeline for treatment).
I think this omits that stateside production of these substances is necessary for the model to transfer from one example to the next. But I don’t know honestly.
I have friends in the cannibis industry. Its still as violent as before and now there is a lot more cash and risk involved.
IIRC, they still can't use banks, (hence the cash,) going through the regulation can be byzantine (depending on state,) the taxes are very high which encourages staying outside the system, and because it's still illegal federally they can't always just go to the cops. A lot of the profit remains from selling in states where it's still illegal.
Although I'm not in the industry like your friends, things seem better than they were. The price of marijuana has collapsed in legal states, and the cheaper it is the less attractive it becomes for organized crime. For such risk they tend to prefer higher profit margins.
If it were legal federally and there was regulation reform I suspect the remaining violence would evaporate.
That's because it really isn't legal. The state may say it is, but that just means state and lower legal bodies won't do anything about it. It's still federally illegal, so the restrictions that lead to violence are still largely in place.
Buying and selling black market weed.
nah, people don't support that either. "zero victim" has been conflated with "nobody got physically hurt in a robbery, therefore they don't deserve harsh punishment". bring broken windows back
Threads about crime as a whole and threads about specific crimes have VERY different tones
It's almost as if this sub isn't a monolithic entity, but a group of individuals with varying opinions.
What if I told you these were different people
There is a thing where people read headlines and then provide emotional takes as a reaction instead of approaching an issue with nuance and complexity.
Zero bail and prison reform are designed to reduce crime over the long term while to a lesser extent they increase crime in the short term.
If there was a Venn diagram, I doubt that there would be much overlap between those who are pleased about the victims winning and those who want no cash bail.
Unfortunately, the victim may end up being charged for this. Public pressure may be needed to keep the DA from filing charges.
Are you sure those are the same people?
I think the issue of zero bail is more complex than your characterization of it. I read a few articles that explained it much better than I can; I’ve included a link to one below.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-05-19/illinois-bail-reform-works
"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."
-MLK on the white moderate
I don't get offended when conservatives slam California for having "feel good laws," because we absolutely do have nonsensical feel good laws The only people who get offended by this statement are people with superficial leftist beliefs. People who are incredibly detached from the problem but dictate how the problem should be solved.
This how we get Tesla driving politicians in office who claim to be "progressives," and then blames car manufactures for building affordable hybrid cars 10 years ago. No surprise gentrification is popular in her district despite her claiming to make decisions based on what she thinks is best for Latinos and Blacks.
This sub is also against the death penalty. I mean I'm all for these losers losing their life for robbing ppl. They don't give a fuck about the victim so Idgaf about them.
People conflate the death penalty and risk of death way too often.
"Should robbing someone carry the death penalty?" misses the point, like saying "Should reckless driving carry the death penalty?"
Does chain smoking for 50 years deserve the death penalty? Does playing on the train tracks deserve the death penalty?
Just because an activity carries the risk of death doesn't mean it's equivalent to the death penalty.
Hopefully the remaining suspect is the one charged with the murder of his buddy.
Guarantee if the victim had reported it to LAPD, the answer would have been..
"Sorry, we won't do anything about it"
Fuck that, I work for my money & stuff. If we're going to have the wild, wild west when it comes to crime, then being vigilantes is a necessity as well.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
My car got stolen from goddamn LAX and LAPD didn’t do shit until some random dude contacted me on Facebook a year later cause he found it in Mexico and looked up the CA VIN…
I'm surprised LAPD didn't launch an investigation on you for international smuggling...
More stories like this to come.
Fidelio
Bring it! And like this scenario, the more cinematic, the better!
Imo if you're a victim of a crime, you have the right to do what you need to. Fuck instigators
Good. One less scumbag on the streets
Good
Too bad the rest of the people in that car didn’t die too. At least they caught one.
Worst part is that the guy who was robbed is most likely going to be charged with manslaughter because he chased the people who robbed him and rammed their car. Shame he has to go through that. I hope he’s found innocent.
Fuck those criminals.
if they charge him, not sure any jury is going to convict. unlikely they will charge him then.
*laughs in Jury Nullification
How often does that happen?
Bigger issue is that most cases never make it to a jury trial as most people take plea deals regardless.
In this case, I think most people would vote not guilty if it went to a jury and conviction would require majority or complete guilty verdicts depending.
Just claim temporary insanity from being robbed. Enough for me if I was a juror.
Shit, “I’m tired of criminals thinking they can do whatever they want with no repercussions” is good enough for me. I’d nullify the hell out of that jury.
it’ll be bad PR for the DA to pursue charges here, they’ll drop the case and he’ll be a acquitted of any wrongdoing. also, any competent lawyer could build a solid defense case here.
You think Gascon cares?
The article said LAPD is treating it as a homicide.
"You need to accept that we aren't going to do anything about crime and allow robberies against you and your family to just happen."
LAPD, probably
And if you decide to go after the criminals yourself we will prosecute you to the fullest extent possible to maintain our monopoly on violence.
All cops, definitely
User deleted comment
3d
The point at which he escaped imminent danger and chose to pursue the robbers is the point at which he went from victim to offender, legally speaking. I don't disagree with his actions or the outcome, but he is very likely to face charges. The civil suits from mommys whose poor, innocent (if slightly misguided) children really didn't mean no harm and didn't deserve to die or be injured are inevitable. This guy's life is likely to be ruined over this, even if he's the real victim.
If I were on his jury, I’d nullify the hell out of it.
Me as well.
So im not allowed to follow the robbers to try and gather information to report? I have to just allow chuckleheads rob me and accept it as my fate fuck that, and fuck our do nothing law enforcement.
he’ll be fine, seems like he has money so assuming he has a good lawyer. i’d humiliate that criminals family though, they should have raised a better son - now he’s dead 🤣
Hopefully
Heaven forbid the robbers are black and the vigilante is white or you'll have al sharpton on the case
The DA is only taking slam-dunk cases.
User deleted comment
3d
Maybe, but CA has a significantly narrower felony murder statute than most states since the passing of SB 1437 in 2018. This likely could be charged as felony murder, but it heavily depends on the circumstances of the robbery.
I'm not sure that the DA will want to bring charges against the robbery victim, and even if they did I think there's a good chance that a jury would acquit.
The major issue for the robbery victim will be civil suits from the families of the robbers. Regardless of the outcomes of those suits (which I expect will be significant judgements against him, but I could be wrong), in the best case scenario he's looking at spending a lot of time in courtrooms for the next few years.
Mitigating factors don’t come into the charges brought by the police, that’s for the courts to figure out. It’ll probably get thrown out then or at least heavily reduced
You have too much faith in the American legal system
Yes, because that’s what it is. Look up all the different legally defined “types” of homicide
Good riddance. Scum.
I won’t convict the victim, I doubt a jury would
I doubt a jury would
Will never see a jury. If they decide to charge him, they will reduce it down to something that he can plead guilty to without any jail time and that will be that.
Good ol' "take a plea deal" and be fucked for the rest of your life.
Jury Nullification
Did he get his stuff back?
this is going to happen more. LAPD and LA city leaders better come to grips with the reality that the next proverbial riots aren't going to be from BLM it's going to be from regular citizens who are tired of living in fear and the cops and politicians do nothing.
Yep. Or we start a class action suit against LAPD, and certain council offices, as well as Homeless Services
I like this plan.
Ha. That’s not happening.
IMO we’re gonna start seeing more vics not putting up with this crap.
another W for society, great news to start the sunday! one less scum bag in LA :)
Good
Good ! Instant karma
Sorry not sorry
Welcome to LA 🤟🏽
This city protects criminals more than its citizens
They're counting on their votes
We unanimously stand with the victim 🙏💪
Serious question: would auto insurance cover liability and damage to your vehicle if you were the Mercedes driver?
The hero we didn’t know we needed.
If more people retaliated like this, there would be less crime.
Good, maybe they’ll start to think twice about pulling this kind of shit.
so, everything's good then?
is it wrong to wish they all died?
Wow! Good for victim! Victim did social justice and saved the city from wasting meaningless hours trying to send a criminal to jail. Not all heroes wear a cape. :)
Yeah this is what real social justice looks like, not getting people fired for tweets they made in 2011 lol
So basically I can’t chase whoever rob me? If I try to rob innocent people, he/she can’t chase me as well?
Awesome. Good, how can I contribute to this mans defense fund?
One less loser prowling the streets.
I hope this gets thrown out and the victim walks away. Make criminals afraid for once.
This has to be a record for the most passive-voice headline and story ever. Dude chased down and killed a mugger in a motor vehicle and is probably going to catch a homocide charge.
Jury nullification if I was on that jury.
The mugger was gay?
I hope that light pole didn't suffer too much damage.
Good! I hope the victim is ok and his car can get fixed without any hassle
damn thieves can’t even hold people up at gunpoint to rob them anymore without getting killed.
/s
Upgrade their charges to robbery resulting in death
One less piece of shit in our city. Give this man a beer!
Law is pretty clear, once you give chase after threat ends, pretty sure Gascon is gonna throw the book at the original victim. Not that I want to see that happen.
Thieves will press charges
More dead criminals is a good thing
Oh no! Anyway
Gascon: I don’t see a problem here. Everyone gets away with it.
FAFO
FAFO. People are tired of being victims.
Well that’s a damn shame.
Damn shame all 3 of the robbers weren’t killed. Waste of good air
It’s a shame the victim will most likely now be charged with manslaughter and have to go through that BS
Happy ending.
I had to read that headline three times.
Oh darn
did they rob John Wick?
King
“incident is now being investigated as a homicide” WTF
Attention to those who said West Adams/Mid City is safe.
He'll be charged because his life was no longer in danger when he got in his car and chased the getaway vehicle, rammed it, and caused a crash that resulted in death.
Do I understand why he did it? Hell yes I do. He was victimized. I think a good defense attorney could work wonders. I wish him the best.
Gotham City
More like Got-Him city
Votes innocent.
I'll allow it.
Anyway
Whats with all the negative statements about the LAPD? The guy who was robbed didnt even have time to call the cops. Even if they had, depending on where the patrols are, it would have take about 10 minutes to respond.
Yeah...this LAPD bashing goes too far sometimes. Half this city is a ghetto. There's never gonna be enough police.
gotham city vibes
Oh victims going to jail
Basically -
1) Victim gets robbed at a gas station
2) Suspects flee
3) Victim gives chase, clips vehicle, it crashes, one suspect dies
4) Other suspects run off while shooting at victim
5) One suspect is picked up by K9 unit