• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Husband charged with beating wife's would-be rapist to death

Captain Adverse said:
This was not an act of self-defense.

It was an act of retaliation.

In the first instance a person is protected by the affirmative defense their life and limb were in danger.

In the second case, no such defense exists. Instead, the person should be faced with at least some level of Manslaughter charge charge depending on whether it was negligent (car accident), or non-negligent as in this case. It could also be Second Degree Murder if he had come armed with willful intent to cause mayhem leading to a death.

From the video it is clear that the man was coming prepared for mayhem after being called by his wife. She did not call the police, she called her husband. He attacked the person his wife alleged was trying to molest her. Since the facts are not clear and a person is dead, it is right and proper for a criminal trial to ensue.

I think the Prosecutor is bowing to public opinion rather than doing their job in charging him with such lesser offenses.
Click to expand...

I agree. Under NY law you are allowed to use physical force only to end an imminent threat to yourself or another. If the guy's outside the building there's no longer a threat.

That said I can completely understand the anger a person would feel and dare say I'd have a hard time not beating the crap out of someone who had just attempted to attack my wife. Charge him and let the jury look at the circumstances.
 
VanceMack said:
If the evidence plays out to support the story, he should be acquitted. The story could be very sketchy were it not for the presence of the second family member. You could theorize that it was an affair...a lovers triangle, etc. But...a career criminal with corroborating witness testimony...nah.

Maybe they settle out of court...no contest to reduced charges of something like aggravated assault, sentenced to parole, record expunged after 3-5 years with no arrests. Thats something everyone could live with.
Click to expand...

Hey it could have been a love affair and when a cousin witnessed something they shouldn't have, the wife may have had to quickly cover her tracks and called her husband to report an assault. Not saying it's really what happened but stranger things have happenend.
 
X Factor said:
Should anything bad, at all, happen to a potential rapist or child molester or whoever? I don't get hearts hemorrhaging for criminals, with rarely more than a passing mention of the victim, like the victim is now just being unreasonably spiteful. To me, if "Justice" means ya gotta do everything for the perpetrator and feel sorry for him and impact his life as little as possible for his sake then **** that, I'll take vengeance instead.
Click to expand...

Did I miss something here? You're only a criminal upon conviction, until then you're a suspect and innocent until proven guilty. Unless the husband was literally in the room while she was being raped and saw it happen, there is always going to be some degree of reasonable doubt. Even then, you don't have the right to be the executioner.

Also, what about proportional justice? Why should rape equal a death sentence, let alone a killing method so grotesque?

I'm not coddling the alleged rapist or feeling sorry for him. Justice is blind. Vengeance is not justice because it's never meted out with temperance.
 
Dragonfly said:
Husband charged with beating wife's would-be rapist to death - CNN.com



Would you charge this guy with a crime?

More importantly, would you convict him of a crime, and what sentence would you impose?

Would you send this guy to jail?
Click to expand...

I'm not big on vigilante justice or citizens taking criminal justice into their own hands. The story seems to be missing some key facts:

1. The perpetrator was in the apartment and attempted to rape the woman, yet the woman was able to call her husband and the perpetrator was out in the hallway when the husband arrived home. Where's the eminent danger? Where's the self-defense circumstances?

2. Why didn't the wife, the other woman in the apartment, or the husband call the police to attend the scene? How long did it take the husband to get to the apartment after first being notified and wouldn't the police have been able to arrive sooner?

3. How did the husband know the man in the hall was the perpetrator? Did the wife and the husband know this man? Had he harassed the wife previously?

Based on the little that was presented in the attached article, I believe the husband should be charged with some level of homicide and if I was on a jury, based on the facts as presented, I'd convict.
 
americanwoman said:
Hey it could have been a love affair and when a cousin witnessed something they shouldn't have, the wife may have had to quickly cover her tracks and called her husband to report an assault. Not saying it's really what happened but stranger things have happenend.
Click to expand...
Yep. It could be. But...based on what we see and with the alleged rapists history, it is more likely that it was as reported.
 
Dragonfly said:
Husband charged with beating wife's would-be rapist to death - CNN.com



Would you charge this guy with a crime?


Let this play our people.

More importantly, would you convict him of a crime, and what sentence would you impose?



Would you send this guy to jail?
Click to expand...

I think the police had to cuff him and take him in until they confirm the facts as is yet then let him go if the evidence supports the story.

I think the rapist deserved it yet what if we found out his wife was having a consensual affair or some other story (doubt it after looking at this guys rap sheet) yet the police cannot just say oh --- it was okay. They have to follow procedures yet if it is as seems I do not blame the husband and sounds like the most likely criminal got justice.
 
Dragonfly said:
Husband charged with beating wife's would-be rapist to death - CNN.com

Would you charge this guy with a crime?

More importantly, would you convict him of a crime, and what sentence would you impose?

Would you send this guy to jail?
Click to expand...

The cousin came to her aide and attempted to help fight off the assault, according to a law enforcement source. The wife was able to break free of the suspect and used a cell phone to call her husband. Mamadou Diallo raced home, took the elevator to the sixth floor and found Earl Nash, 43, in the hallway. Police say Diallo then attacked Nash and beat him severely.




The assault was over and the assailant was outside the apartment when he arrived. Sounds like heat of passion manslaughter at the least. He can't even legitimately call it self-defense or defense of a third party if that description is accurate.

Vigilantism is a threat to ordered society regardless of whether the bad guy deserved it in some karmic moral sense.
 
X Factor said:
Can you conceive of any punishment being too "soft"? For criminal coddlers there's no such thing and any punishment is too harsh and screw the victim for being so mean and vengeful.
Click to expand...
Of course I can conceive of a punishment being too soft but then I'm real person rather than a strawman.
 
Dragonfly said:
Husband charged with beating wife's would-be rapist to death - CNN.com



Would you charge this guy with a crime?

More importantly, would you convict him of a crime, and what sentence would you impose?

Would you send this guy to jail?
Click to expand...

They are charging him with: two counts of assault, criminal possession of a weapon and harassment.

Not that stiff a penalty. I would charge him with assault and that is it and then take hime out and buy him a beer.

The scumbag that was kileed?

19 prior arrests including robbery, assault and arson

Glad he is dead.
 
Northern Light said:
Did I miss something here? You're only a criminal upon conviction, until then you're a suspect and innocent until proven guilty. Unless the husband was literally in the room while she was being raped and saw it happen, there is always going to be some degree of reasonable doubt. Even then, you don't have the right to be the executioner.

Also, what about proportional justice? Why should rape equal a death sentence, let alone a killing method so grotesque?

I'm not coddling the alleged rapist or feeling sorry for him. Justice is blind. Vengeance is not justice because it's never meted out with temperance.
Click to expand...

Well, you're doing a lot more than coddling criminals by saying is that there's "always going to be some degree of reasonable doubt" in every criminal case. What you're saying then is that the prosecution will never be able to fulfill it's burden of proof convict anyone of anything ever. So if the criminal justice system's not going to be able to do anything, you bet folks will be taking the law into their own hands. Why shouldn't they?
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Well, you're doing a lot more than coddling criminals by saying is that there's "always going to be some degree of reasonable doubt" in every criminal case. What you're saying then is that the prosecution will never be able to fulfill it's burden of proof convict anyone of anything ever. So if the criminal justice system's not going to be able to do anything, you bet folks will be taking the law into their own hands. Why shouldn't they?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The whole point of the justice system is to pit reasonable doubt against evidence and then let a jury decide which has the more convincing value. You're getting defensive because you think I'm implying innocence, when I'm not.

The justice system didn't even have access to the suspect for due process because he was killed. You're arguing against a situation that didn't even have the chance to take place. :shrug:

If the suspect was so clearly guilty that the person's vengeance was justified, then chances are a court would've convicted him anyway.

I am 100% against vigilante justice. You can't support the Constitution while supporting vengeance like this in the same breath. The two are not compatible.
 
I'd need to look at the details carefully and consider the matter, but if I were on the jury I expect you'd have a hard time getting me to vote guilty.


Letter of the law be darned.
 
Goshin said:
I'd need to look at the details carefully and consider the matter, but if I were on the jury I expect you'd have a hard time getting me to vote guilty.


Letter of the law be darned.
Click to expand...

Ok but no double standards, if you are ok with this then you need to be ok with the cops offing citizens left and right.
 
Dragonfly said:
Husband charged with beating wife's would-be rapist to death - CNN.com



Would you charge this guy with a crime?

More importantly, would you convict him of a crime, and what sentence would you impose?

Would you send this guy to jail?
Click to expand...

A normal person would call the police IMO. She called her husband who then came to the location and beat someone to death. Was he allowed to use force to beat the man out of his flat? Yes, he was. But the ME will have to find out whether or not the death happened as a result of one or two hits that knocked the man out or whether the man was knocked out and then struck repeatedly while unable to defend himself (and no longer being a threat).

If he beat the man repeatedly after the danger was over and the man was incapable of defending himself then yes, he deserves to be prosecuted and jailed for his crimes.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nope, wouldn't charge em. And if I were on the jury I'd vote not guilty in a heart beat. Dismiss all charges if I were the judge.
Click to expand...
What if the sequence of events were exactly the same except that the person he beat to death in the hallway turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by (maybe having heard the commotion and looking to help) who happened to have a similar appearance to the attacker?

It’s a perfectly possible error and one major problem with this kind of vigilante “justice”.
 
HonestJoe said:
What if the sequence of events were exactly the same except that the person he beat to death in the hallway turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by (maybe having heard the commotion and looking to help) who happened to have a similar appearance to the attacker?

It’s a perfectly possible error and one major problem with this kind of vigilante “justice”.
Click to expand...

Is that what happened? If not then no need to even charge the man. If so, then fine, charge em. :shrug: But I'm guessing since the only thing the man is being charged with is assault, criminal possession of a weapon and harassment that isn't the case. And those charges are quite frankly trumped up charges. Assault in order to defend ones wife from rape is not a prosecutable offense. And "Criminal possession of a weapon"? It was a freaking tire iron. And harassment? It's not harassment to kill your wife's rapist. I MIGHT be able to understand assault as a charge, but the other two? BS charges meant to try and get the person to agree to a plea deal in the form of intimidation so that they can claim that "justice was done" and get a win for their resume's.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Is that what happened? If not then no need to even charge the man. If so, then fine, charge em.
Click to expand...
In this case apparently not but these cases don’t exist in a vacuum. There’s such a thing as precedent and more general social morals. You’re not saying that it’s only perfectly legal and acceptable for this man to beat this attacker to death because he believed he’d tried to rape his wife, the implication is that it should be legal and acceptable for anyone to execute someone else because they believe that person committed some similarly serious crime. This completely ignores the perfectly possible situation (indeed, the situation that does happen), where the person is mistaken, misinformed or simply blinded by grief and anger.

Kal'Stang said:
Assault in order to defend ones wife from rape is not a prosecutable offense.
Click to expand...
If he’d actually been defending his wife (or indeed anyone else) from immediate threat you’d have a point, though even then only for a use of force necessary to end the threat, not to intentionally kill the attacker. It’s not clear that was the case here.
 
HonestJoe said:
In this case apparently not but these cases don’t exist in a vacuum. There’s such a thing as precedent and more general social morals. You’re not saying that it’s only perfectly legal and acceptable for this man to beat this attacker to death because he believed he’d tried to rape his wife, the implication is that it should be legal and acceptable for anyone to execute someone else because they believe that person committed some similarly serious crime. This completely ignores the perfectly possible situation (indeed, the situation that does happen), where the person is mistaken, misinformed or simply blinded by grief and anger.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't ignore it. You even quoted the part where I said "if so, then fine, charge em" that addressed the point you brought up here exactly.

And yes, it should be, and is, perfectly legal to kill someone else when they are committing a serious crime. It's called Self Defense or Defense of Another.

HonestJoe said:
If he’d actually been defending his wife (or indeed anyone else) from immediate threat you’d have a point, though even then only for a use of force necessary to end the threat, not to intentionally kill the attacker. It’s not clear that was the case here.
Click to expand...

The guy was still in the vicinity. That means he is still a threat. And you might want to note that the rapist was still alive when police arrived, he didn't die until he was at the hospital. So sounds to me like the guy used more restraint that I would have.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No it doesn't ignore it. You even quoted the part where I said "if so, then fine, charge em" that addressed the point you brought up here exactly.
Click to expand...
I’m not ignoring that. You’re applying it unequally though. You’re saying that someone suspected of rape can be beaten to death and if it turns out the target was innocent, the killer should be processed thought he formal legal process. Shouldn’t the same principle apply to a person suspected of beating an innocent person to death though, and thus be a legitimate target of being beaten to death themselves?

The bottom line is simple. We either have the formal legal process where suspects get their day in court or we have an anarchist free-for-all, where individual citizens are free to play judge, jury and executioner.

Kal'Stang said:
And yes, it should be, and is, perfectly legal to kill someone else when they are committing a serious crime. It's called Self Defense or Defense of Another.
Click to expand...
It is (and should be) legal to take action necessary to prevent or protect from serious crime even if that action could lead to death but if the threat can be neutralised by action short of lethal force, it isn’t (and shouldn’t be) legal to kill the suspect anyway. Legally it shouldn’t make any difference whether the suspect was really a threat or the defender reasonably misidentified them as a threat.

Kal'Stang said:
The guy was still in the vicinity. That means he is still a threat.
Click to expand...
There are insufficient details published to determine what the threat was and what action was necessary to neutralise it at that point. You’re making assumptions you can’t possibly support. Again, this is why we have judges and juries.

Kal'Stang said:
And you might want to note that the rapist was still alive when police arrived, he didn't die until he was at the hospital. So sounds to me like the guy used more restraint that I would have.
Click to expand...
Which just goes to prove you’re thinking only of murderous vengeance rather than any consideration of neutralising an immediate threat. You’d happily beat the suspect to unconsciousness (and thus no threat to anyone) then just keep on going?
 
HonestJoe said:
What if the sequence of events were exactly the same except that the person he beat to death in the hallway turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by (maybe having heard the commotion and looking to help) who happened to have a similar appearance to the attacker?

It’s a perfectly possible error and one major problem with this kind of vigilante “justice”.
Click to expand...

You don't try a case or allow a verdict based on 'what if' or a message sent to others who might do something similar. That's no different than instructing a jury to not worry so much about this case but instead think about the message you will be sending to rapists in the future.

The facts are what they are. It was the right person. He did engage the right person.
 
In this case, no.

It's not like he killed a young trainee street punk. This guy was a strong, well built thug who had a long and violent rap sheet. Both were black. If the killer were white, he'd be charged because the assailant was retreating.

It's a black on black killing of a perp by a victim's husband, enraged by the actions of a lawless thug in a lawless city. The perp was young, strong, and buffed and was no match for an unarmed citizen. There is a certain defense here of comparative ability. That's why cops shoot the big guys first.

Temporary insanity
Comparative ability

Plus, a feeling that justice was done. If I were in a jury I would not convict him.
 
VanceMack said:
You don't try a case or allow a verdict based on 'what if' or a message sent to others who might do something similar.
Click to expand...
I agree. You don't try a case on "lucky" outcomes either. You try a case on actions and motives. He attacked a man with a level of violence that directly led to his death. There are a whole load of questions a court should be asking of him; Why he attacked, why he used that level of force, what information he had about the identity and conduct of that man. Those are the kind of thing that should determine whether his actions were legitimate or not.

VanceMack said:
The facts are what they are. It was the right person. He did engage the right person.
Click to expand...
So getting it right is all that counts, how you reach the decision is irrelevant? If I kill a random stranger on the street because I think they look at me funny but they turn out to be an on-the-run murderer, my attack becomes OK?
 
Bodhisattva said:
They are charging him with: two counts of assault, criminal possession of a weapon and harassment.

Not that stiff a penalty. I would charge him with assault and that is it and then take hime out and buy him a beer.

The scumbag that was kileed?

19 prior arrests including robbery, assault and arson

Glad he is dead.
Click to expand...

Would your answer be the same if he attacked the wrong guy in the hallway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom