Store owner attacks shoplifting teen with hammer [Archive]

spaceboots06

Jul 11, 2009, 01:24 AM

First of all, what kind of name is "Bunkless Bovian"!?!

A Brooklyn bodega owner who shattered the skull of a teen he thought was robbing him was sentenced to five years in jail this morning.

Salah Ahmed battered Bunkless Bovian with a hammer after the Brownsville store owner, who was sleeping at the back of the deli, woke up and saw Bovian fighting with a worker.

Ahmed had faced up to 25 years in prison on the first-degree assault charge.

"This court is mindful that this defendant's entire life basically changed in the space of 15 seconds," said Supreme Court judge John Ingram.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07102009/news/regionalnews/brooklyn/brooklyn_bodega_owner_gets_5_years_in_pr_178608.htm

http://www.ny1.com/Content/Top_Stories/102103/brooklyn-deli-owner-gets-five-years-in-prison-for-assault/Default.aspx

I think that, although not the correct way to deal with a shoplifter, the store owner's actions were partially justified. He should not have to serve five years in prision for smashing a thug/theif teen's skull into pieces.

CorvusCamenarum

Jul 11, 2009, 02:13 AM

It's amazing that we now live in a country where criminals get more sympathy than their victims.

rhett7660

Jul 11, 2009, 03:14 AM

Isn't that the freaking truth....... :confused:

velocityg4

Jul 11, 2009, 08:09 AM

Here is a bit more in depth article
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/04/15/2009-04-15_charged_in_attack_with_hammer_on_teen_deli_owner_points_to_recent_bodega_murders.html

It's too bad he is going to prison. Given the article Ahmed woke up to his nephew calling out for help. His nephew was being attacked by Bunkless Bovian and a few other teens. Ahmed used the hammer to defend his nephew.

"When I heard about [the shooting]... it made me think, 'Thank God I defended my nephew the way I did.'"
Ahmed was taking a nap in a back room when he glanced at a video monitor and saw the fight between his nephew and a group who had been teasing him over a cupcake he accused one of trying to steal.
"I heard my nephew calling out, 'Help me!'" Ahmed said. "I had no phone or nothing, so I said, 'Let me go defend my family, defend my business.'"

I guess the jury felt he should have waited five or ten minutes for the police to arrive while his nephew got the tar kicked out of him. The jury members should each get five years for this. While the Judge and DA should lose their appointments and go to jail for ever allowing this to go to trial.

opinioncircle

Jul 11, 2009, 09:46 AM

It's amazing that we now live in a country where criminals get more sympathy than their victims.

You could switch country for world, and you still would be correct...

spaceboots06

Jul 11, 2009, 12:35 PM

You could switch country for world, and you still would be correct...

I think that's the worst part. I think two eyes for an eye should be socially acceptable. Just think about it; that kid who shoplifted would have probably done it again if he received a small fine. Now that he can barely form sentences, do you think he's going to do that again? Nope.

Heilage

Jul 11, 2009, 12:49 PM

CorvusCamenarum

Jul 11, 2009, 01:02 PM

Here is a bit more in depth article
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/04/15/2009-04-15_charged_in_attack_with_hammer_on_teen_deli_owner_points_to_recent_bodega_murders.html

It's too bad he is going to prison. Given the article Ahmed woke up to his nephew calling out for help. His nephew was being attacked by Bunkless Bovian and a few other teens. Ahmed used the hammer to defend his nephew.

I guess the jury felt he should have waited five or ten minutes for the police to arrive while his nephew got the tar kicked out of him. The jury members should each get five years for this. While the Judge and DA should lose their appointments and go to jail for ever allowing this to go to trial.

The article says he's only been indicted, not yet convicted. One can only hope the jury will do the right thing and let him go. I'm not up to speed on how self-defense works in NY. One needs to remember, however, that the police are not there to protect you, but to clean up the mess afterwards.

KingYaba

Jul 11, 2009, 03:06 PM

Bovian and two of his pals started punching the store clerk on April 13, 2008, after the worker made a joke about his attacker's mom, witnesses said during the trial.

I'd love to hear this joke.

spaceboots06

Jul 11, 2009, 03:10 PM

Bovian and two of his pals started punching the store clerk on April 13, 2008, after the worker made a joke about his attacker's mom, witnesses said during the trial.

I'd love to hear this joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_9g6hzYdYo

Well, this did happen in Brownsville, Brooklyn so the first joke would make sense, I guess.

paddy

Jul 12, 2009, 05:21 AM

I think that's the worst part. I think two eyes for an eye should be socially acceptable. Just think about it; that kid who shoplifted would have probably done it again if he received a small fine. Now that he can barely form sentences, do you think he's going to do that again? Nope.

You live in a dream world you know that? I agree the guy was just defending his nephew, I probably would have done the same, but you think a shoplifting teenager deserves to be brain damaged for the rest of his life? How old are you?

opinioncircle

Jul 12, 2009, 07:24 AM

You live in a dream world you know that? I agree the guy was just defending his nephew, I probably would have done the same, but you think a shoplifting teenager deserves to be brain damaged for the rest of his life? How old are you?

No he definitely doesn't deserve that, but we're just in a situation where the actual victim has to say "I'm sorry", and that can't be right...

skunk

Jul 12, 2009, 07:41 AM

No he definitely doesn't deserve that, but we're just in a situation where the actual victim has to say "I'm sorry", and that can't be right...The deli owner is NOT the victim. Nothing was taken from his store. His nephew got into a fight with some teenagers, that is all. Hitting a random teenager over the head with a hammer is not self-defence.

spaceboots06

Jul 12, 2009, 02:04 PM

You live in a dream world you know that? I agree the guy was just defending his nephew, I probably would have done the same, but you think a shoplifting teenager deserves to be brain damaged for the rest of his life? How old are you?

You think that's air you're breathing?

I'm four and a half. Just like I said before, I think two eyes for an eye is okay.

skunk

Jul 12, 2009, 05:18 PM

Just like I said before, I think two eyes for an eye is okay.What does that actually mean, if anything?

spaceboots06

Jul 12, 2009, 07:39 PM

What does that actually mean, if anything?

It actually means something, unlike 95% of my posts on this forum. :p It means if person A stole an iPhone from person B I think it would be okay for person B to take person A's tricked out Mac Pro.

Just like if Person A stole a snickers bar from person B I think it would be okay for person B to forever incapacitate person A. Well, maybe not forever incapacitate.

.Andy

Jul 12, 2009, 07:49 PM

It actually means something, unlike 95% of my posts on this forum. :p It means if person A stole an iPhone from person B I think it would be okay for person B to take person A's tricked out Mac Pro.

Just like if Person A stole a snickers bar from person B I think it would be okay for person B to forever incapacitate person A. Well, maybe not forever incapacitate.
You're really keen on material items.

bruinsrme

Jul 12, 2009, 07:51 PM

So bashing a teen's head in for trying to steal something is justifiable? I'm sorry, that just doesn't sound right to me. I do agree that a lot of crimes should be punished more harshly (especially here in Norway), but not anything close to that extent.

EDIT: Just read the in-depth stuff. That's just messed up. :(

I bet that punk will think twice about stealing again..

I find it amazing that people defend the crook and not stand up for the person protecting their property.
The perp went all in all. Unfortunately his bluff was called and guess what the store owner had a better hand than the perp.

skunk

Jul 12, 2009, 07:52 PM

Totally Disproportionate Vigilantism Rools.

Nothing was stolen.

Abstract

Jul 12, 2009, 07:58 PM

You should have quoted the rest of his post. I didn't understand any of it, to be honest. :o

I don't think it was wrong to hit those "thugs" if they were assaulting his nephew and attempting to rob the store. I also do not believe that you should have to wait for those kids to start beating your nephew violently before taking action.

However, perhaps he could have tried scaring/threatening those guys first rather than hitting one of the guys in the head immediately. Another option would have been to hit him somewhere else. Hits to the skull could be fatal, and the uncle, as good as his intentions were, should have known that. :o

But no, I wouldn't have let my nephew get beat by those guys. If it escalated to the point where you have to hit the guy in the skull with the hammer, then so be it.

bruinsrme

Jul 12, 2009, 08:03 PM

If I read the article correctly 3 punks vs 1 store clerk.
hmmmm

skunk

Jul 12, 2009, 08:03 PM

I don't think it was wrong to hit those "thugs" if they were assaulting his nephew and attempting to rob the store.By all accounts they were not trying to rob the store, and according to witnesses the nephew made some ill-advised remark about their mothers which set them off in the first place.

J@ffa

Jul 12, 2009, 08:10 PM

paddy

Jul 12, 2009, 08:32 PM

Have any of you banging on about how this is an affront to liberty and so on ever heard of a proportional response? It means that when someone's having a relatively minor fight in your shop, you break up the fight. You don't hit them over the head with a hammer. Much in the same way that if someone's being noisy outside your house, you don't fetch an AK-47 and let rip. If anything, five years is far too lenient.

Don't be silly, Spaceboots is right. If someone tries to steal a snickers off you, it is perfectly justifiable to smash them on the head with a hammer. Two eyes for one eye. :rolleyes:

winterspan

Jul 12, 2009, 08:38 PM

InvalidUserID

Jul 12, 2009, 09:10 PM

Brownsville.

Can't blame the guy for reacting the way he did.

mgguy

Jul 12, 2009, 09:18 PM

If three teenagers were beating up my wife, I would hit them in the head with a hammer, unless I had a gun to shoot them with, and then I would do that. The idea of a proportional response to violence can get you killed. I guess he could have hit the attacker with his fists, but that would have just provoked them further and they may have used a weapon in an escalated response. If someone is licensed to carry a firearm and they are physically attacked and robbed on the street, aren't they allowed to use it in self defense? No one likes the idea of smashing in someone's head with a hammer, but in the fear of the moment that that could also happen to you or someone else who is being beaten up, it is understandable that you would reach for the nearest object to fight back with.

spaceboots06

Jul 12, 2009, 09:56 PM

Totally Disproportionate Vigilantism Rools.

Nothing was stolen.

My priority would be to find an ambulance after being hit with a hammer in the head, not continue trying to shiftily take things out of a store. So, it makes sense that nothing was stolen.

By all accounts they were not trying to rob the store, and according to witnesses the nephew made some ill-advised remark about their mothers which set them off in the first place.

You make it sound like you're a first hand witness.

spaceboots06

Jul 12, 2009, 10:07 PM

Sorry, but "self defense" means defense of "SELF", not defense of products in your store. If this was a case of a simple teen shoplifter who's skull was shattered with a hammer, of COURSE the moron should go to jail for years! And the shoplifter should get charged as well!

How can anyone disagree? I am a strong advocate for harsh criminal penalties, *particularly* for violent individuals who commit battery, rape, manslaughter, murder, etc. Violence is rarely the answer to a situation.

At the same time, I respect someone's right to self-defense and defense of others. I also support the so-called 'castle doctrine', and believe that someone's home is their place of safety, and they have every right to shoot an invader/burglar. In this era of routine home invasion murder and rape, you should not hesitate to protect your family.

Property on the other hand is totally different. You cannot shoot someone because they stole your bicycle. Likewise, no one can reasonably argue that petty shoplifting deserves a freakin' hammer to the skull. That is outrageous. This is not sharia law.

Okay. Situation time.

A man is hiding in bushes. It's late at night. Some woman is jogging and the man decides he wants to rape her. He grabs her, pulls her by her hair, bruises her up and starts raping her violently. Somehow the woman manages to pull herself away from the man---who is still chasing her and manages to hit him on the head with some rusty pole which was junk on the floor. This woman is sentenced to life in prison and the entire jury thinks that the woman shouldn't have defended herself like that. Now isn't that ***ed up?

Now, if we change a few words we can see a gigantic similarity.

A teen is standing on a street corner and wants to rob/steal something. He was raised very poorly and has no ethics at all. Some young child is the only person visible in a small corner store; the teen decides he wants to attack this place. The teen enters and looks suspicious. Being a young child, the kid who was watching the store points and shouts at the crime committing teen. The verbal argument advances, and, being a kid, an insult is made about the teen's mother. Punches are thrown and the teen who should have never been there in the first place ends up with a shattered skull.

What a traumatic story.

Axl Rose

Jul 13, 2009, 01:58 AM

This is BS , he was protecting his nephew FFS, if anyone ever attacked one of my family members, theyd have to pull me off of them.

skunk

Jul 13, 2009, 02:53 AM

Chest-beating. It wasn't his wife being raped or beaten, the article says they weren't robbing the store. No need to make up a scenario to justify your willingness to talk a good lynching.

Axl Rose

Jul 13, 2009, 03:00 AM

Chest-beating. It wasn't his wife being raped or beaten, the article says they weren't robbing the store. No need to make up a scenario to justify your willingness to talk a good lynching.

They were attacking his nephew..still family.

Jaffa Cake

Jul 13, 2009, 03:06 AM

Axl Rose

Jul 13, 2009, 03:35 AM

I suppose then that the friends and family of the hammer-battered young man now have total justification to maim the family of the shopkeeper in a similar fashion. An eye for two eyes, right?

That'll teach them.

No because the shopkeeper had reason to defend his nephew, who was attacked for no reason if simply a jab at a mother

Iscariot

Jul 13, 2009, 03:56 AM

img: Death Wish: Hammertime

skunk

Jul 13, 2009, 04:36 AM

Haven't seen that one. Looks good. :)

skunk

Jul 13, 2009, 04:38 AM

No because the shopkeeper had reason to defend his nephew, who was attacked for no reason if simply a jab at a motherHold on a minute: I thought your position was that an attack on one's family was justification for all-out war? Doesn't "a jab at a mother" qualify now? :confused:

Axl Rose

Jul 13, 2009, 05:00 AM

Hold on a minute: I thought your position was that an attack on one's family was justification for all-out war? Doesn't "a jab at a mother" qualify now? :confused:

i meant physical attack

skunk

Jul 13, 2009, 05:02 AM

i meant physical attackSo, Mr Macho, if some random foreign punk insulted your mother you would just let it go, would you?

BoyBach

Jul 13, 2009, 05:07 AM

Axl Rose

Jul 13, 2009, 05:07 AM

So, Mr Macho, if some random foreign punk insulted your mother you would just let it go, would you?
I wouldn't do anything physical, just tell em to f off.

skunk

Jul 13, 2009, 05:09 AM

I wouldn't do anything physical, just tell em to f off.But if they insulted your mother in Spanish, that would be OK because you wouldn't understand, right?

Axl Rose

Jul 13, 2009, 05:10 AM

But if they insulted your mother in Spanish, that would be OK because you wouldn't understand, right?

Oh i understand Spanish insults, you see, i grew up around scum.

skunk

Jul 13, 2009, 05:11 AM

Were they racist scum?

Axl Rose

Jul 13, 2009, 05:12 AM

Most were, yes.

skunk

Jul 13, 2009, 05:13 AM

You must have blended right in.

Axl Rose

Jul 13, 2009, 05:14 AM

Not really, no.

Badandy

Jul 13, 2009, 10:50 AM

Not really, no.

You're embarassing yourself. Just drop the issue.

EDIT: I'm one of those guys who believes that you should not be thrown in jail for shooting at a home invader, even if it's ultimately revealed his true intentions were just to rob you. But this case? C'mon, shoplifting happens all the time. You lose a few bucks and you resume business. You don't take a hammer to someone's head. Hell, just weilding the hammer probably would have been enough to get that kid to scram.

Jaffa Cake

Jul 13, 2009, 05:41 PM

That's not fair. You're using logic.I'm sorry, I quite forgot myself. There's no place for logic here in PRSI. :o

Queso

Jul 13, 2009, 06:27 PM

Oh i understand Spanish insults, you see, i grew up around scum.
That's no way to talk about yo mom.

*ducks to avoid hammer blow to forehead*

Wotan31

Jul 14, 2009, 12:51 PM

It's amazing that we now live in a country where criminals get more sympathy than their victims.
Amen. In Maryland, if someone is breaking into your home in the middle of the night, and you shoot the burglarizing bastard, YOU go to jail for assault (or murder). What a backwards world we live in. :(

No1451

Jul 14, 2009, 01:04 PM

The deli owner is NOT the victim. Nothing was taken from his store. His nephew got into a fight with some teenagers, that is all. Hitting a random teenager over the head with a hammer is not self-defence.

3 people assaulting his nephew and you believe he shouldn't have acted? Things like that have a very high chance of escalating and someone getting seriously hurt, I say the one to get put down should be the aggressor.

And no, don't try to argue that he provoked the attack by saying anything about their mothers, that is ******** and you know it. An insult should not result in physical assault.

BoyBach

Jul 14, 2009, 01:18 PM

Things like that have a very high chance of escalating and someone getting seriously hurt...

It did escalate and someone did get hurt.

...I say the one to get put down should be the aggressor.

It was the aggressor who was put down. He'll be spending some time in the Clink for twatting someone over the head with a hammer.

Eraserhead

Jul 14, 2009, 01:33 PM

Amen. In Maryland, if someone is breaking into your home in the middle of the night, and you shoot the burglarizing bastard, YOU go to jail for assault (or murder). What a backwards world we live in. :(

Because burglary is equivalent to murder? Responses have to be proportionate.

No1451

Jul 14, 2009, 01:35 PM

It did escalate and someone did get hurt.

It was the aggressor who was put down. He'll be spending some time in the Clink for twatting someone over the head with a hammer.

He was defending his family member, that doesn't make him the aggressor. If you think it does then I would love to see your reaction if it was your family member being assaulted 3 on 1, lets see you maintain your objectivity then.

Zombie Acorn

Jul 14, 2009, 01:47 PM

If someone shoplifts and attacks my family in my store they would be lucky to get away with just a hammer wound.

Rodimus Prime

Jul 14, 2009, 01:50 PM

Because burglary is equivalent to murder? Responses have to be proportionate.

Not always. You the victcum should ALWAYS be allowed to one up the attacker. They they come at you with assault the victim should be allowed to up the anti and be allowed to kill the attacker.

In the house breaking in. That means they have crossed the line they are now in my house and a danger to me and my family. Who knows how they are going to react if confronted. I sure as hell am not going to say "hey I see you please leave my house" chance are my response will be the end of a bat or a shot from a gun. I will not give the person a chance to hurt me.

If some on is breaking in while I am at home as far as I am concerned that is assault because they did not show any fear to the fact I am home. It is another matter if I come one and they are there. But if I am home at the time they clearly are not afraid of that fact.

Zombie Acorn

Jul 14, 2009, 01:50 PM

Because burglary is equivalent to murder? Responses have to be proportionate.

Criminals are more apt to commit more crimes including assaulting your family, since they are already in your house you know that they are a criminal. People don't fear having their possessions taken when being burglarized and that is not why criminals are often and should be met with deadly force.

If all house intruders ever did was steal items we could trade our guns and weapons in on insurance policies. I for one am not going to look back and ask "what if" when one of my family members dies at the hands of some scumbag.

spaceboots06

Jul 14, 2009, 01:53 PM

Not always. You the victcum should ALWAYS be allowed to one up the attacker. They they come at you with assault the victim should be allowed to up the anti and be allowed to kill the attacker.

In the house breaking in. That means they have crossed the line they are now in my house and a danger to me and my family. Who knows how they are going to react if confronted. I sure as hell am not going to say "hey I see you please leave my house" chance are my response will be the end of a bat or a shot from a gun. I will not give the person a chance to hurt me.

If some on is breaking in while I am at home as far as I am concerned that is assault because they did not show any fear to the fact I am home. It is another matter if I come one and they are there. But if I am home at the time they clearly are not afraid of that fact.

I agree completely. If someone is coming at you with a knife you don't run to get another knife, you run to get a baseball bat. If someone's coming at you with a baseball bat you run to get something more powerful. You don't enter a confrontation with something equivalent to what the other person has--- you get something better and stronger.

If all house intruders ever did was steal items we could trade our guns and weapons in on insurance policies. I for one am not going to look back and ask "what if" when one of my family members dies at the hands of some scumbag.

+1

Eraserhead

Jul 14, 2009, 01:54 PM

If all house intruders ever did was steal items we could trade our guns and weapons in on insurance policies. I for one am not going to look back and ask "what if" when one of my family members dies at the hands of some scumbag.

Noone is going to use a gun or weapon if they don't have to when robbing you.

After all if they do they are *far* more likely to go to jail - and for a longer sentence too.

BoyBach

Jul 14, 2009, 02:00 PM

He was defending his family member, that doesn't make him the aggressor. If you think it does then I would love to see your reaction if it was your family member being assaulted 3 on 1, lets see you maintain your objectivity then.

I didn't mention anything about objectivity. I would also (attempt to) kick the **** out of somebody if they were attacking a family member. But if I hit somebody over the head with a hammer I would expect to spend some time at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Them's the rules and if you don't like them, don't try to knock a hole in some poor sod's head with a hammer.

Zombie Acorn

Jul 14, 2009, 02:03 PM

Noone is going to use a gun or weapon if they don't have to when robbing you.

After all if they do they are *far* more likely to go to jail - and for a longer sentence too.

They don't have to carry a weapon to kill my kid or take them hostage to get away from the police/me. Even if it was a small chance, that isn't one I would be willing to take. I do not understand the mindset of someone who is willing to break into my house and steal my possessions, nor do I want to.

uberamd

Jul 14, 2009, 02:07 PM

Back in the olden days if someone was stealing from you, you just shot them. Simpler times.

BoyBach

Jul 14, 2009, 02:07 PM

I agree completely. If someone is coming at you with a knife you don't run to get another knife, you run to get a baseball bat. If someone's coming at you with a baseball bat you run to get something more powerful. You don't enter a confrontation with something equivalent to what the other person has--- you get something better and stronger.

Oooh, I like this game.

He comes at me with a knife, so I get a golf club, so he gets a crowbar, so I get sword, so he gets a pistol, so I get a rifle, so he gets a tank, so I get helicopter, so he gets anti-aircraft missile system, so I get battle cruiser, so he gets a nuclear submarine...

Who'd have thought that getting mugged is actually a real-life game of Top Trumps™.

spaceboots06

Jul 14, 2009, 02:11 PM

Oooh, I like this game.

He comes at me with a knife, so I get a golf club, so he gets a crowbar, so I get sword, so he gets a pistol, so I get a rifle, so he gets a tank, so I get helicopter, so he gets anti-aircraft missile system, so I get battle cruiser, so he gets a nuclear submarine...

Who'd have thought that getting mugged is actually a real-life game of Top Trumps™.

I don't know from the point of view from a civilian but a soldier in Iraq would prefer to take on a threat using something stronger than what the threat has. I would rather have a 12" knife when fighting someone with a 6" one. Not a similar 6" one.

No1451

Jul 14, 2009, 02:16 PM

I didn't mention anything about objectivity. I would also (attempt to) kick the **** out of somebody if they were attacking a family member. But if I hit somebody over the head with a hammer I would expect to spend some time at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Them's the rules and if you don't like them, don't try to knock a hole in some poor sod's head with a hammer.

Which was the exact point of this thread: the rules are FLAWED. There's nothing moral or just about sending someone to jail for defending a life.

The issue is that self defence is just self defence, in a situation like this he was unable to defend himself. I mean, how many of us could fend off 3 guys? I know I would get the **** kicked out of me. Defending another's life should be allowable, this notion that violence against an aggressor(whoever their target is) is wrong is laughable and an insult to justice.

skunk

Jul 14, 2009, 02:17 PM

They they come at you with assault the victim should be allowed to up the anti and be allowed to kill the attacker.What a lovely and positive lesson to teach your children. "Listen, son, if anybody punches you, don't hesitate, just kill them." What a lunatic world you want to construct! No wonder the USA is both such a violent and such a fearful place.

Zombie Acorn

Jul 14, 2009, 02:23 PM

What a lovely and positive lesson to teach your children. "Listen, son, if anybody punches you, don't hesitate, just kill them." What a lunatic world you want to construct! No wonder the USA is both such a violent and such a fearful place.

Your statement issn't parallel to the quoted remark. They were talking about someone burglarizing your house and then attacking you, not kids fighting on a playground.

And actually when I grew up my parents did teach me that if I was attacked to fight back in self defense.

dukebound85

Jul 14, 2009, 02:23 PM

Totally Disproportionate Vigilantism Rools.

Nothing was stolen.

nothing was stolen because he was attacked with a hammer before he could......

why do people side with criminals? i am forever baffled by this

they willingly went in to commit a crime, doesnt go as planned and get hurt as a result and its the owner of the property's fault for preventing a crime being committed against him? it's not as if the owner went out with the intent to hit people with a hammer.......only when people try to commit a crime against him did he do so

people who think the criminal is the victim need to rethink their position

skunk

Jul 14, 2009, 02:23 PM

Which was the exact point of this thread: the rules are FLAWED. There's nothing moral or just about sending someone to jail for defending a life.Of course there is. The rules are made by and large to enable people to live together without every situation escalating into a bloodbath.

The issue is that self defence is just self defence, in a situation like this he was unable to defend himself. I mean, how many of us could fend off 3 guys? I know I would get the **** kicked out of me. Defending another's life should be allowable, this notion that violence against an aggressor(whoever their target is) is wrong is laughable and an insult to justice.You know nothing about the situation: was the nephew in mortal danger? Did he deserve a good walloping for first accusing the teenagers of shoplifting - which they apparently did not do - and then trading insults with them? This whole sorry episode was about a CUPCAKE. Was it worth it?

uberamd

Jul 14, 2009, 02:25 PM

What a lovely and positive lesson to teach your children. "Listen, son, if anybody punches you, don't hesitate, just kill them." What a lunatic world you want to construct! No wonder the USA is both such a violent and such a fearful place.

Uh, when I take walks around my neighborhood in the US I don't feel afraid, or in any kind of danger. You watch too much TV.

dukebound85

Jul 14, 2009, 02:29 PM

If criminals do not want bad things to happen to them, do not commit crimes!

it is really a simple concept

if the punishments/risks were light, how does that deter crime?

iShater

Jul 14, 2009, 02:30 PM

It looks like the situation got out of hand quickly. The guy woke up to see 3 guys beating up on his nephew who was asking for help, he probably didn't think properly when he attacked.

I think he over reacted, threatening them would have been enough, even smacking the guy on an arm or something to get them out. But the head? not unless they were trying to maim/kill him.

Home invasion is a different story, considering how many people get hurt when burglars enter a house with people in it (or murdered like the case in Florida), I think a tough response to a burglar is justified.

No1451

Jul 14, 2009, 02:37 PM

You know nothing about the situation: was the nephew in mortal danger? Did he deserve a good walloping for first accusing the teenagers of shoplifting - which they apparently did not do - and then trading insults with them? This whole sorry episode was about a CUPCAKE. Was it worth it?

He very well might have been, 3 guys beating on him? As for deserving it, that is just laughable: since when is an accusation of shoplifting a just cause to attack someone?

BoyBach

Jul 14, 2009, 02:37 PM

Which was the exact point of this thread: the rules are FLAWED.

In your opinion it's flawed. I happen to agree with the jury's decision. I don't believe that hitting somebody over the head with a hammer because you suspect them of shoplifting is reasonable.

No1451

Jul 14, 2009, 02:49 PM

In your opinion it's flawed. I happen to agree with the jury's decision. I don't believe that hitting somebody over the head with a hammer because you suspect them of shoplifting is reasonable.

Did you not read the article? After the accusation the 3 guys were assaulting the nephew.

Bovian and two of his pals started punching the store clerk on April 13, 2008, after the worker made a joke about his attacker's mom, witnesses said during the trial.

Eraserhead

Jul 14, 2009, 03:00 PM

They don't have to carry a weapon to kill my kid or take them hostage to get away from the police/me.

And if they do that they are highly likely to go to jail forever. If they just rob you you might not bother to go to the police at all (if you aren't insured) and even if you do go to the police, they are unlikely to be caught - and even if they are they will get a much shorter jail sentence.

Even if it was a small chance, that isn't one I would be willing to take.

The Russians could drop a nuke on your house too.

I do not understand the mindset of someone who is willing to break into my house and steal my possessions, nor do I want to.

OK, here's generally why they do it:

a) They are a drug addict and they need money for their next fix - they are too poor/addicted to earn the money legitimately.
b) They are too poor to be able to afford to feed/house themselves and their family successfully, so they rob you so that they can.

spaceboots06

Jul 14, 2009, 03:17 PM

a) They are a drug addict and they need money for their next fix - they are too poor/addicted to earn the money legitimately.
b) They are too poor to be able to afford to feed/house themselves and their family successfully, so they rob you so that they can.

I think a druggie would prefer to do something else being well aware of the consequences. I don't agree with A.

I do agree with B though and if I could add my own I would say some people do it for money alone. There was this show on the Discovery channel a while back (don't know if they still air it) where these two wealthy white guys who were former burglars would try to help people secure their homes.

Wotan31

Jul 14, 2009, 06:35 PM

Because burglary is equivalent to murder? Responses have to be proportionate.
LMAO! Some guy (or several of them) smashing their way into your home at night and you're supposed to read their minds and find out their intentions?? You can't be serious. Let me guess, you want me to first sit him down, ask him a serious of questions, find out why he's here, frisk him to see if he's armed or not, then talk about his feelings and why he's committing this crime? :rolleyes:

Pray tell, how are you to determine whether they are there to steal your TV, or if they are there to rape your wife and kill you? Some situations call for shooting first and asking questions later. TFB for the guy who gets shot, he should have thought about that before breaking into your home.

That's why I'll never live in the People's Republic of Maryland or any other state with idiotic laws that favor the criminals.

Eraserhead

Jul 15, 2009, 03:11 AM

LMAO! Some guy (or several of them) smashing their way into your home at night and you're supposed to read their minds and find out their intentions?? You can't be serious. Let me guess, you want me to first sit him down, ask him a serious of questions, find out why he's here, frisk him to see if he's armed or not, then talk about his feelings and why he's committing this crime?

No, its just pretty obvious that he doesn't want to kidnap you.

CorvusCamenarum

Jul 15, 2009, 05:12 AM

Pray tell, how are you to determine whether they are there to steal your TV, or if they are there to rape your wife and kill you? Some situations call for shooting first and asking questions later. TFB for the guy who gets shot, he should have thought about that before breaking into your home.

What you fail to grasp is that British criminals are so polite that they call ahead to make appointments. It's only us barbaric Americans that have the temerity to intrude unannounced. :rolleyes:

skunk

Jul 15, 2009, 05:28 AM

What you fail to grasp is that British criminals are so polite that they call ahead to make appointments. It's only us barbaric Americans that have the temerity to intrude unannounced. :rolleyes:The difference probably lies in the expectation of violence. If you get a load of people saying that if anyone has the temerity to break into their house they will shoot them on sight, the average house-breaker will make sure he is suitably equipped to meet the threat. There are all-too-obvious drawbacks to the escalation of response.

Mord

Jul 15, 2009, 06:05 AM

This thread scares me, where on earth does it get to be ok for someone to smash someone's skull with a hammer over something that could so obviously be a complete misunderstanding?

Hell, I was once physically harassed by someone I went to school with while he was working at his father's shop, if his father saw this from the back on the cctv then decided to come at me with a hammer would he be justified?

No.

Vigilantism is never right, the store owner shouldn't have just let his nephew get beaten, he should have had the police called, stepped in and protected his nephew, not by attacking with a *deadly* weapon.

The man is clearly a danger to society.

.Andy

Jul 15, 2009, 06:14 AM

Some guy (or several of them) smashing their way into your home at night

they are there to rape your wife and kill you?
The chances of this occurring wouldn't be less than one in a million. i.e. negligible. To cite them as justification of action is completely irrational.

It is however a great example of how weak fantastic hypotheticals are in an argument.

uberamd

Jul 15, 2009, 09:04 AM

The man is clearly a danger to society.

Were you there? Did you see what happened? Did you witness the events as they happened? What? No... you didn't? Well in that case how the h*** do you have ANY idea what actually went down? Based on what you read online? Heh.

skunk

Jul 15, 2009, 09:26 AM

Were you there? Did you see what happened? Did you witness the events as they happened? What? No... you didn't? Well in that case how the h*** do you have ANY idea what actually went down? Based on what you read online? Heh.What are you basing your argument on? The online information is all any of us has to go on, and based on this information you seem quite happy to propose that it is acceptable to inflict permanent brain damage or death on a teenager who may or may not have taken a cupcake from your shop and taken a swing at your shop assistant when he traded insults with them. In my opinion not only is the shopkeeper himself a danger to society, but anybody who thinks this kind of disproportionate response is justifiable has no idea of balance either.

awmazz

Jul 15, 2009, 11:48 AM

Chest-beating. It wasn't his wife being raped or beaten, the article says they weren't robbing the store.

They were indeed robbing the store. Of income. Male teenage wolf packs scare legitimate custom and business away. All they have to do is walk in and look intimidating. He had every right to tell them to feck off out of the store, and insult their maternal ancestry for their poor upbringing for good measure.

Anyway, Bunkless Bovian should be sentenced to 5 years for having a name like Bunkless Bovian. Which by the way, in itself a justifiable reason to insult his mother.

spaceboots06

Jul 15, 2009, 12:07 PM

Here's a video interview several people and all that fun stuff.

http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?SecID=1000&ArID=80472

"He would never rob nobody."
Nobody never taught you english.

That video is disturbing on several levels.

1.) The first man was his grandfather. I think that would make his statements void.

2.) The sister is obviously a crackhead or meth user. You can play basketball and be a criminal at the same time. Mind blowing.

3.) NuNu? Don't even get me started.

4.) Bunkless, if that's even his real name, was an 8th grader. The entire thing happened on Sunday night. I can picture a group of 8th graders who think they're tough drinking a little alcohol and then starting trouble.

Nothing further.

EDIT: Slightly off topic, but wouldn't assault with a weapon be aggravated assault?

Peterkro

Jul 15, 2009, 12:16 PM

Here's a video interview several people and all that fun stuff.

http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?SecID=1000&ArID=80472

Nobody never taught you english.

That video is disturbing on several levels.

1.) The first man was his grandfather. I think that would make his statements void.

2.) The sister is obviously a crackhead or meth user. You can play basketball and be a criminal at the same time. Mind blowing.

3.) NuNu? Don't even get me started.

4.) Bunkless, if that's even his real name, was an 8th grader. The entire thing happened on Sunday night. I can picture a group of 8th graders who think they're tough drinking a little alcohol and then starting trouble.

Nothing further.

EDIT: Slightly off topic, but wouldn't assault with a weapon be aggravated assault?

A case of innocent until proved black apparently.

uberamd

Jul 15, 2009, 12:27 PM

What are you basing your argument on? The online information is all any of us has to go on, and based on this information you seem quite happy to propose that it is acceptable to inflict permanent brain damage or death on a teenager who may or may not have taken a cupcake from your shop and taken a swing at your shop assistant when he traded insults with them. In my opinion not only is the shopkeeper himself a danger to society, but anybody who thinks this kind of disproportionate response is justifiable has no idea of balance either.

What argument? I am not making one because I don't know all of the details and will not pass judgement on someone without all of the facts.

No1451

Jul 15, 2009, 04:34 PM

What are you basing your argument on? The online information is all any of us has to go on, and based on this information you seem quite happy to propose that it is acceptable to inflict permanent brain damage or death on a teenager who may or may not have taken a cupcake from your shop and taken a swing at your shop assistant when he traded insults with them. In my opinion not only is the shopkeeper himself a danger to society, but anybody who thinks this kind of disproportionate response is justifiable has no idea of balance either.

Fact is, the first violent act was made by the guy who got hit with the hammer, if you defend his right to start swinging over some insults then clearly I should remember never to say a bad word to you or else I might deserve an ass-kicking.

skunk

Jul 15, 2009, 06:49 PM

Fact is, the first violent act was made by the guy who got hit with the hammer, if you defend his right to start swinging over some insults then clearly I should remember never to say a bad word to you or else I might deserve an ass-kicking.Could you point me to the bit where I defended his "right" to start swinging? Thanks.

mgguy

Jul 15, 2009, 10:15 PM

... you seem quite happy to propose that it is acceptable to inflict permanent brain damage or death on a teenager who may or may not have taken a cupcake from your shop and taken a swing at your shop assistant when he traded insults with them.

Hitting someone in the face or anywhere on the head can inflict permanent brain damage and even death. The fact that he was a teenager who only maybe took a cupcake should not minimize the damage he could have caused by hitting that guy on the head. Had he not been stopped with a hammer blow, he may have continued to flail away and cause some serious damage. He (the guy hit with the hammer) has to take a major amount of responsibility for his actions, and so far he doesn't seem to want to do that. The guy who starting the hitting may have become even more embolden to use violence in future altercations when he is offended or gets emotional. Perhaps this has taught him and others of his ilk that there is a price to be paid for his violent behavior and they won't resort to it so easily in the future. Sure, it would have been better if he could have been stopped by words of warning, but that isn't how it went down. IMO, the guy with the hammer doesn't deserve jail time for not finding the least harmful way in the fear of the moment to protect his friend against these thugs.

skunk

Jul 16, 2009, 03:32 AM

Hitting someone in the face or anywhere on the head can inflict permanent brain damage and even death.That is just silly. You have no idea where he hit him. Should anyone who takes a swing at anyone else be done for attempted murder?
IMO, the guy with the hammer doesn't deserve jail time for not finding the least harmful way in the fear of the moment to protect his friend against these thugs.So you'd have been OK with him driving a car at the teenagers?

Mord

Jul 16, 2009, 05:05 AM

Were you there? Did you see what happened? Did you witness the events as they happened? What? No... you didn't? Well in that case how the h*** do you have ANY idea what actually went down? Based on what you read online? Heh.

Based on the fact that there's a 15 year old kid in critical condition who may never regain full use of his mind.

The altercation sounds frankly ridiculous, there was a scuffle as a result of a yo momma joke, none of the shop keeping staff are reported to be injured at all and you all seem to be assuming that they were being beaten to a pulp.

I'll reaffirm my comment, you people scare me.