Bronx homeowner chases would-be intruder down, beats him to death: cops

Bronx homeowner chases would-be intruder down, beats him to death

But it does demonstrate crime doesnt pay


A Bronx homeowner chased down a man trying to break into his house — and beat him to death in an alley, police said Friday.


The homeowner noticed a man prowling his property on East 223rd Street near Bronxwood Avenue in Wakefield just before midnight Thursday, the NYPD said.


When he confronted the would-be thief, the man fled.


The 54-year-old homeowner took off after him, chasing the man down a nearby alley, police said. He grabbed a metal object and swung it at the man, striking him in the head and knocking him out.


The man was taken to Montefiore Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, cops said.


The homeowner was taken into custody and is expected to be charged with the man’s death, according to police sources.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/20/bronx-homeowner-chases-would-be-intruder-down-beats-him-to-death-cops/

 

I agree that incident is not self defense.

 

Yeah, that's not allowed in even the most conservative of states under the castle laws.

 

A single strike killed him? That is very unlucky for the homeowner.

 

Would have been better if he could have had a gun for protection and shot him when he was breaking in, but then liberal NYC would still give more credence to the criminal over the home owner.

 

But it was instant justice and the world is the better for it. The perp cannot strike at someone else.

The homeowner is a martyr for justice.

 

not self defense, was it a head shot? Usually one blow doesn't kill someone, he must have been pretty pissed off.

I would have been satisfied with driving the guy off my property, I assume he'll be charged, and likely convicted if charged properly.

 

The homeowner is no martyr.

 

Only police are allowed to kill people that are running from them.

He will definitely be charged as he should be

 

Of course he is. He rid the world of a criminal.

 

Sounds like manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

 

The punishment does not fit the crime.

 

One strike? Criminal Negligence, but not murder. We don't know if the criminal squared up and was read to fight back. The way the story is written is PRO-CRIMINAL.

"beat him to death"... when I read that I think multiple blows and beating a man while he is down. That clearly did not happen.

 

Committing crimes entails a degree of assumed risk, some times you win, but it sucks when you do not. The robber rolled the dice and lost, the final result was initiated by his own actions, not the homeowner's. Let the home owner walk.

 

Dude could have had a great career in MMA.

 

All depends on if the DA decides to charge him. In nearby Mobile County, Alabama a few years ago (which means probably 10 or 15), a rural area was having a lot of problem with break-ins. One man came home to his house being burglarized. The burglar sees him, jumps in his car, and starts driving away. The homeowner grabs the deer rifle out of his gunrack in his truck, and shoots the burglar in the back of his head (killing him instantly) as the burglar is driving away. No charges pressed by the DA. That's rural Alabama, and I have no problem with it. That said, I bet this guy gets prosecuted much worse than the burglar would if the burglar had done the killing.

 

Hitting him once might have just prudent self defense depending on the state of mind of the homeowner trying to make a citizens arrest and the demeanor of the felon.

Hitting him after he was out and killing him would be 2nd degree murder IMO.

 

LoL..... I see what you did there. +1 for wit.

 

My guess is that's your fantasy, and you are projecting it on us.

Also, properly speaking, it wouldn't be felony murder. Felony murder is murder that is committed while in the process of doing another crime. The homeowner was not doing another crime. Now, if the burglar had a partner, he could be tried for felony murder. This would probably be described as 2nd degree murder due to "depraved indifference" or more likely some form of manslaughter.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-second-degree-murder-laws.html

https://www.ny-criminal-defense-lawyer.com/manslaughter-first-degree/

 

Yep you nailed it. I purposely leave my door wide open at night and hide behind the curtains with a loaded .45 just praying somebody accidentally wanders in so I can open up on them. Unfortunately nobody has obliged thus far but I did nail a couple stray cats (actual pre-shoot photo provided below).

 

He hit the guy once, correct? Thats simple assault. However, he used a metal instument. Depending on the instrument, thats generally assault with an improvised weapon. Murder 1 requires proof of planning the attack and intent to kill. Murder 2 requires intent to kill. Unless the chase was lengthy, theres not evidense of planning. And since he hit the guy once, theres not evidense of intent to kill (unless the weapon was a deadly weapon like a hatchet or something).

Based on the evidense available in this thread (unless I've missed something) the jury will likely find him guilty of assault and manslaughter- the unlawful but unintentional causing of another's death.

An additional attack after the victim had been knocked unconscious would indicate intent to kill and make this an easy murder 2. But that doesnt appear to have been the case.

 

There is no objective evidence that the dead guy was in fact a robber. The homeowner was probably on edge because of an incident where a guy entered an 82 year-old woman's unlocked door and assaulted her. Maybe the victim was just looking for his stray cat or an object that he lost in the neighborhood. There are many reasons why he might have been where he was. In any case, the dead guy had not committed a crime that would have fused the homeowner to chase him down and kill him. The homeowner is guilty of first degree murder, just like he would be if he had mugged someone walking down the street. Hang him.

 

Manslaughter at the worst. He didn’t intend to murder him. There was no premeditation. It was a fit of rage and an assault. The guy dying from one blow was just luck.

 

The homeowner committed murder.

 

You can just as easily say the homeowner was trying to catch the person who was trying to break into his house and when they met up the would-be robber decided to fight it out instead of running and the homeowner defended himself. Why are people assuming the homeowner is in the wrong here? Why do some people seem to almost always take the side of the perp?