What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Man Beaten to Death After Stealing Car With Kids Inside, Police Say (1 Viewer)

Gary Coal Man said:
Why do you view community members banding together to ensure the safety of the children in that community as wrong?
Click to expand...
Community members banding together is fine. Do it in a manner that doesn't overstep the law. The thief was a year away from getting the senior discount at Denny's and was on the ground, not fighting.

Where do you draw the line? Is it stealing a car with kids in it the line to beat someone to death? What about just stealing the car, no kids inside? If the guy would have caught him, would beating him to death be warranted? 

Really it comes down to due process. We are all given that right. The father and this mob denied Hood due process and delivered their own sentence and punishment. I don't care what the geographic norm is in that area. There are pockets of ignorance all over this country. 

 
KCitons said:
Community members banding together is fine. Do it in a manner that doesn't overstep the law. The thief was a year away from getting the senior discount at Denny's and was on the ground, not fighting.

Where do you draw the line? Is it stealing a car with kids in it the line to beat someone to death? What about just stealing the car, no kids inside? If the guy would have caught him, would beating him to death be warranted? 

Really it comes down to due process. We are all given that right. The father and this mob denied Hood due process and delivered their own sentence and punishment. I don't care what the geographic norm is in that area. There are pockets of ignorance all over this country. 
Click to expand...
Everything you wrote is great in theory, but real life doesn’t always work out that way due to human nature.

Say, hypothetically, I walk into my seven year old daughter’s room late at night and find a strange man curled up in her bed.  It could be a molester or it could be a Robert Downey Jr. situation of a druggie who was so out of his mind that he found his way into my daughter’s bed, but was otherwise harmless.  Upon finding the strange adult man in my young daughter’s bed in the middle of the night should I inquire about the man’s intent and only attack upon finding he had bad intentions or should I physically intervene immediately?  Human nature, as a dad, is to physically intervene immediately.  If I go a little too far in that physical attack I’m not going to feel bad about it because I never would have attacked the intruder but for him being in my daughter’s room. The intruder put himself in that position.

Hood put himself in a position where a crowd had good reason to believe he was abducting three young children from that community.  Even if Hood’s intent was only to steal a car he put himself in a position where child abductor was a reasonable perception of him.  What Hood was going to do with those children was unknown, but to that crowd in that moment murder or rape were within the realm of possibility and that fired them up to help subdue him.

From there mob mentality took over.  Individual responsibility for what happened to Hood was diffused throughout the crowd, and people didn’t appreciate the cumulative effect of their individual blows leading to Hood’s death.  That’s the danger of mob violence.  But for Hood’s own actions, however, he’s not in a position where the mob mentality of human nature would have manifested itself.

Sure, the District Attorney can go ahead and charge the father for taking it too far in the Heat of Passion or members of the crowd for taking it too far in aiding him, but the prosecutor is going to have a hell of a time getting a conviction for an unsympathetic “victim”.

And I don’t see the father or crowd as ignorant.  I see them as just reacting.  Someone with full knowledge of the law may still have acted in a similar fashion under the circumstances.  

 
Gary Coal Man said:
Everything you wrote is great in theory, but real life doesn’t always work out that way due to human nature.

Say, hypothetically, I walk into my seven year old daughter’s room late at night and find a strange man curled up in her bed.  It could be a molester or it could be a Robert Downey Jr. situation of a druggie who was so out of his mind that he found his way into my daughter’s bed, but was otherwise harmless.  Upon finding the strange adult man in my young daughter’s bed in the middle of the night should I inquire about the man’s intent and only attack upon finding he had bad intentions or should I physically intervene immediately?  Human nature, as a dad, is to physically intervene immediately.  If I go a little too far in that physical attack I’m not going to feel bad about it because I never would have attacked the intruder but for him being in my daughter’s room. The intruder put himself in that position.

Hood put himself in a position where a crowd had good reason to believe he was abducting three young children from that community.  Even if Hood’s intent was only to steal a car he put himself in a position where child abductor was a reasonable perception of him.  What Hood was going to do with those children was unknown, but to that crowd in that moment murder or rape were within the realm of possibility and that fired them up to help subdue him.

From there mob mentality took over.  Individual responsibility for what happened to Hood was diffused throughout the crowd, and people didn’t appreciate the cumulative effect of their individual blows leading to Hood’s death.  That’s the danger of mob violence.  But for Hood’s own actions, however, he’s not in a position where the mob mentality of human nature would have manifested itself.

Sure, the District Attorney can go ahead and charge the father for taking it too far in the Heat of Passion or members of the crowd for taking it too far in aiding him, but the prosecutor is going to have a hell of a time getting a conviction for an unsympathetic “victim”.

And I don’t see the father or crowd as ignorant.  I see them as just reacting.  Someone with full knowledge of the law may still have acted in a similar fashion under the circumstances.  
Click to expand...
It's not a theory. It's the Constitution and the criminal justice system. To brush it off as otherwise is acting as though certain people are above the law. Hood had left the car and fled. The kids were no longer in danger. Therefor the use of deadly force to protect a life was no longer necessary. 

Let's use your example. You find a man in your daughters bedroom. I would justify your shooting him in your house. But, if he jumped out the window and you caught him a block away, had bystanders hold him down, and you shot him, it would not be justified. The threat against your daughter and you had passed when he fled your house. You don't know his intentions, which is why we have a criminal justice and court system that affords all citizens due process. We find the truth and sentence accordingly. 

Your justification of street law in Philly is akin to cop law where fellow officers cover up unlawful acts of other officers. I don't condone either. Right and wrong is pretty well defined in this country. Regardless of who you are. Operate outside of those guidelines and I expect the system to take over and do what it was designed to do.

You never answered the question of where we draw the line? How do yo determine intent without the action being carried out? I worked a lot of years catching shoplifters. The key thing we had to prove in court was intent. That happened when the person left the store with the merchandise. Even if they removed the item from the packaging and concealed it in their pocket, they still needed to leave the building. Why? Because they could remove it from their pocket and leave it in the store. What was Hood's intent? To steal the car, or kidnap three kids?

 
I think you're both right. Mob justice predates legal codes, for sure. Both have their historical and evolutionary place. In fact, a lot of our justice system is written with these tendencies in mind; when are they best acquiesced to (trial by jury) and when best abandoned (due process and habeus corpus).

You're both just putting primacy on each as a development qua development. I don't think you'll both be able to settle up, as it were.

 
No, the perp didn't deserve to get beaten to death, but when you steal a car and kidnap three kids, this kind of thing can happen. What if this guy was on a suicide mission and was going to drive the car into traffic and kill himself and the kids?  We have no idea what his intentions were, but considering he stole a car and kidnapped three kids, I am guessing not good.  The world is a better place without him.  Again, not saying a death sentence was justified, just that I don't feel bad at all for the perp. 

 
Ghost Rider said:
No, the perp didn't deserve to get beaten to death, but when you steal a car and kidnap three kids, this kind of thing can happen. What if this guy was on a suicide mission and was going to drive the car into traffic and kill himself and the kids?  We have no idea what his intentions were, but considering he stole a car and kidnapped three kids, I am guessing not good.  The world is a better place without him.  Again, not saying a death sentence was justified, just that I don't feel bad at all for the perp. 
Click to expand...
Are we going to allow the mob to decide what the intent was? And the sentence? 

How do you justify it when Hood fled, leaving the vehicle and kids behind, and was beaten to death a half a block away. (while laying on the ground and not fighting back or trying to flee?

 
rockaction said:
I think you're both right. Mob justice predates legal codes, for sure. Both have their historical and evolutionary place. In fact, a lot of our justice system is written with these tendencies in mind; when are they best acquiesced to (trial by jury) and when best abandoned (due process and habeus corpus).

You're both just putting primacy on each as a development qua development. I don't think you'll both be able to settle up, as it were.
Click to expand...
What if Hood hadn't died. Instead, he spends months in a hospital (perhaps in a coma). Would that be considered his punishment? Would the dad and mob have been satisfied if he wasn't given any other penalty such as jail time?

 
KCitons said:
Are we going to allow the mob to decide what the intent was? And the sentence? 

How do you justify it when Hood fled, leaving the vehicle and kids behind, and was beaten to death a half a block away. (while laying on the ground and not fighting back or trying to flee?
Click to expand...
Considering I said in the post you quoted that a death sentence was not justified, I would suggest you read my entire post again and re-evaluate your response. 

 
Ghost Rider said:
Considering I said in the post you quoted that a death sentence was not justified, I would suggest you read my entire post again and re-evaluate your response. 
Click to expand...


Ghost Rider said:
No, the perp didn't deserve to get beaten to death, but when you steal a car and kidnap three kids, this kind of thing can happen. What if this guy was on a suicide mission and was going to drive the car into traffic and kill himself and the kids?  We have no idea what his intentions were, but considering he stole a car and kidnapped three kids, I am guessing not good.  The world is a better place without him.  Again, not saying a death sentence was justified, just that I don't feel bad at all for the perp. 
Click to expand...
I read it. And highlighted the areas that go against your comment of justification.

The guy was a half a block away from the car and the kids. The threat was over. 

How did the mob determine Hood's intentions?

What are you using to determine that the world is a better place without Hood? Does this justify killing anyone that has a lengthy criminal history? The world would be better without them as well.

 
KCitons said:
How did the mob determine Hood's intentions?

What are you using to determine that the world is a better place without Hood? Does this justify killing anyone that has a lengthy criminal history? The world would be better without them as well.
Click to expand...
It was impossible to determine Hood's true intentions, but, again, considering he had just kidnapped three small children, there is no way they were pure. 

The world is better without any kidnapper of small children.  Simple. 

No, it does not justify killing him the way they did (as I said).  

The world might be better off without the killers of the perp as well.  The mother at the very least should be brought up on charges for leaving her small children unattended in her car.  

 
Ghost Rider said:
It was impossible to determine Hood's true intentions, but, again, considering he had just kidnapped three small children, there is no way they were pure. 

The world is better without any kidnapper of small children.  Simple. 

No, it does not justify killing him the way they did (as I said).  

The world might be better off without the killers of the perp as well.  The mother at the very least should be brought up on charges for leaving her small children unattended in her car.  
Click to expand...
The only facts we have is that Hood stole the car. We don't know that he intended to kidnap the children. That's why we have police and a court system. 

I'll ask again. Where do we draw the line? What if Hood had stole the car with no kids inside? It sounds like the mob still would have given him a beat down. 

 
CARS STOLEN WITH CHILDREN ALONE INSIDE

In 2018, KidsAndCars.org documented nearly 200 children who were victims of being left alone inside a vehicle that was stolen.
Click to expand...


Although the victims of these types of incidents typically survive, it is incredibly traumatizing for everyone involved.
Click to expand...


Thieves watch for vehicles to be left unattended with the keys inside. Most of the time, they don’t even realize that there is a child inside until after they have already stolen the vehicle. What usually happens next is the children are abandoned on the side of the road or inside the stolen vehicle
Click to expand...

 
KCitons said:
The only facts we have is that Hood stole the car. We don't know that he intended to kidnap the children. That's why we have police and a court system. 

I'll ask again. Where do we draw the line? What if Hood had stole the car with no kids inside? It sounds like the mob still would have given him a beat down. 
Click to expand...
Okay, saying, "we don't know that he intended to kidnap the children," is like saying about a bank robber-turned-murderer, "we don't know that he intended to kill the teller."   Whether he intended to do or not, he did it.  

Let's put it this way: if Hood had not gotten stuck in traffic, which is the reason the father and others were able to catch him and drag him from the car and essentially beat him to death, do you think Hood would have thought, "oops, there are kids in the car; I'd better bring it back"?  

 
Ghost Rider said:
Let's put it this way: if Hood had not gotten stuck in traffic, which is the reason the father and others were able to catch him and drag him from the car and essentially beat him to death, do you think Hood would have thought, "oops, there are kids in the car; I'd better bring it back"?  
Click to expand...
Why go this route when no one can possibly know the answer? He may have left the children by the side of the road. he may have abandoned the vehicle. No one will ever know.

 
Ghost Rider said:
Okay, saying, "we don't know that he intended to kidnap the children," is like saying about a bank robber-turned-murderer, "we don't know that he intended to kill the teller."   Whether he intended to do or not, he did it.  

Let's put it this way: if Hood had not gotten stuck in traffic, which is the reason the father and others were able to catch him and drag him from the car and essentially beat him to death, do you think Hood would have thought, "oops, there are kids in the car; I'd better bring it back"?  
Click to expand...


KCitons said:
CARS STOLEN WITH CHILDREN ALONE INSIDE
Click to expand...
Did you read what I posted from that site?

You're stating worse case scenario. I can apply that to a lot of things. It won't justify my actions. The way we determine Hood's intent, within the guidelines of the law, is to have the police involved. Not the mob. 

The threat to the kids was over. The beat down happened a half a block away. How do you justify that?

 
DallasDMac said:
Why go this route when no one can possibly know the answer? He may have left the children by the side of the road. he may have abandoned the vehicle. No one will ever know.
Click to expand...
Or he may have escalated the situation and ditched the car and killed the kids.  Like you said, we will never know, but I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a kidnapper of three kids 5 and under.  

KCitons said:
Did you read what I posted from that site?

You're stating worse case scenario. I can apply that to a lot of things. It won't justify my actions. The way we determine Hood's intent, within the guidelines of the law, is to have the police involved. Not the mob. 

The threat to the kids was over. The beat down happened a half a block away. How do you justify that?
Click to expand...
I did, and it seemed like unfounded generalizations rather than actual numbers.  "Most of the time" and "what usually happens" sounds like conjuring up generalizations instead of giving us actual facts and numbers. 

As for the beatdown, I have said several times now that it is not justified.  PAY ATTENTION. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider said:
No, the perp didn't deserve to get beaten to death, but when you steal a car and kidnap three kids, this kind of thing can happen. What if this guy was on a suicide mission and was going to drive the car into traffic and kill himself and the kids?  We have no idea what his intentions were, but considering he stole a car and kidnapped three kids, I am guessing not good.  The world is a better place without him.  Again, not saying a death sentence was justified, just that I don't feel bad at all for the perp. 
Click to expand...
Quoting my first post in this thread with certain things bolded so no one else misses it. 

 
Ghost Rider said:
Or he may have escalated the situation and ditched the car and killed the kids.  Like you said, we will never know, but I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a kidnapper of three kids 5 and under.  

I did, and it seemed like unfounded generalizations rather than actual numbers.  "Most of the time" and "what usually happens" sounds like conjuring up generalizations instead of giving us actual facts and numbers. 

As for the beatdown, I have said several times now that it is not justified.  PAY ATTENTION. 
Click to expand...
He was a half a block away. How could he kill the kids from that distance?

It's not like he was holding the kids at knife point and the father shot him. The threat was over. 

I am paying attention. I'm updating my notebook for the next complaint about police killing an unarmed person. I will expect you to claim that was justified. Since we don't know, and never will, the true intentions of the unarmed person. 

 
KCitons said:
He was a half a block away. How could he kill the kids from that distance?

It's not like he was holding the kids at knife point and the father shot him. The threat was over. 

I am paying attention. I'm updating my notebook for the next complaint about police killing an unarmed person. I will expect you to claim that was justified. Since we don't know, and never will, the true intentions of the unarmed person. 
Click to expand...
Except that I said in my original post TWICE (see the post above your last one) otherwise about the incident that spurned this therad, so it is clear that you are not paying attention.  Have fun. :bye:  

 
Ghost Rider said:
Except that I said in my original post TWICE (see the post above your last one) otherwise about the incident that spurned this therad, so it is clear that you are not paying attention.  Have fun. :bye:  
Click to expand...
And twice you went off on a tangent of what ifs. At best, you're sending a mixed message. 

 
Ghost Rider said:
Or he may have escalated the situation and ditched the car and killed the kids.  Like you said, we will never know, but I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a kidnapper of three kids 5 and under. 
Click to expand...
So the killing wasn't justified. But based on what ifs you are fine with it. Wow. Just... wow.

 
Wrigley said:
Guy would still be alive, if he didn't steal the car.

Sometimes bad things happen to bad people
Click to expand...
Death penalty for car thieves?

He'd still be alive is people didn't overstep the law. 

Bad things are probably going to happen to good people. 

 
Otis said:
All the people in this story are dumb. 

Good day sir. 
Click to expand...
Yes, we know. We also know the obvious in that dumb doesn't equal deserving to die. But here's the question: the immediacy of mob vigilante justice vs. the deliberative bodies in the judicial system.

YOU DECIDE MOAR?

 
I get the primal urges and all that but we are attempting to have a civilized society here. We need to allow our justice system an opportunity in cases like this. 

 
KCitons said:
Are we going to allow the mob to decide what the intent was? And the sentence? 

How do you justify it when Hood fled, leaving the vehicle and kids behind, and was beaten to death a half a block away. (while laying on the ground and not fighting back or trying to flee?
Click to expand...
to be honest, i am going to guess a lot of the people there had to assume Hood had a weapon of some kind, probably a gun if something. i get the law and orderly society, but can't blame people for hitting first. not defending the crowd's actions, but putting myself there i would assume guy had some kind of weapon and would rather hit first than regret it when someone gets shot.

 
KCitons said:
Death penalty for car thieves?

He'd still be alive is people didn't overstep the law. 

Bad things are probably going to happen to good people. 
Click to expand...
According to officials, Hood had at least 24 prior arrests and convictions

Sounds like he's the "bad" guy in this situation

 
Last edited by a moderator:
modogg said:
to be honest, i am going to guess a lot of the people there had to assume Hood had a weapon of some kind, probably a gun if something. i get the law and orderly society, but can't blame people for hitting first. not defending the crowd's actions, but putting myself there i would assume guy had some kind of weapon and would rather hit first than regret it when someone gets shot.
Click to expand...
He didn't carjack the car. The  mom left the keys in it. The bolded is based on nothing. 

Also, the video shows Hood on the ground. I don't see anything in his hand. They could have held him until the police arrived. This is really just a case of street justice. If that's what we want, I just want to know. Ammo's on sale this week. 

 
Wrigley said:
According to officials, Hood had at least 24 prior arrests and convictions

Sounds like he's the "bad" guy in this situation
Click to expand...
Convictions for what? 

What if they are all for shoplifting and drug charges? You know, non violent crimes. 

 
KCitons said:
He didn't carjack the car. The  mom left the keys in it. The bolded is based on nothing. 

Also, the video shows Hood on the ground. I don't see anything in his hand. They could have held him until the police arrived. This is really just a case of street justice. If that's what we want, I just want to know. Ammo's on sale this week. 
Click to expand...
bolded is based on that section of the city. lot goes into the context and environment. Much better chance the guy has a weapon than he doesn't

 
modogg said:
bolded is based on that section of the city. lot goes into the context and environment. Much better chance the guy has a weapon than he doesn't
Click to expand...
Does the same apply to police when they shoot someone with a cell phone in their hand?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
Does the same apply to police when they shoot someone with a cell phone in their hand?
Click to expand...
it has happened. i expect more from the police than i do citizens hanging out on a summer night. 

i don't have a side for this one, just wanted to add some context to the discussion. 

 
KCitons said:
He would have been punished according to the law. Which is why I expect charges to be filed against the the mob and the father pending investigation of the incident. 
Click to expand...
i can see myself falling into the black hole already, but how can you possibly say the bolded above if the guy has had 24 prior arrests and convictions and is on the street stealing a car? Law seems to have avoided this guy for sometime

 
KCitons said:
Which is why I expect charges to be filed against the the mob and the father pending investigation of the incident. 
Click to expand...
District Attorneys aren’t typically in the practice of bringing charges for cases that will be wildly unpopular in that district and will likely lose due to an unsympathetic jury.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
modogg said:
i can see myself falling into the black hole already, but how can you possibly say the bolded above if the guy has had 24 prior arrests and convictions and is on the street stealing a car? Law seems to have avoided this guy for sometime
Click to expand...
He was 54 years old. Do you have a link to his criminal record?

Since you seem to side with street justice, let me propose this "what if" scenario:

Mr Crip is stand on a corner selling drugs. Mr Blood believes that area is Blood turf. So, Mr Blood does a drive by and shoots at Mr Crip, missing him. But, his intent was to kill Mr Crip. An hour later, Mr Crip sees Mr Blood standing on another corner. Mr Crip shoots Mr Blood and kills him. 

Should Mr Crip be charged with murder? Or should we chalk it up to street justice?

 
Wrigley said:
Is kidnapping a non violent crime?

Point is, he was obviously a pillar of the community
Click to expand...
You sidestepped the questions. Is 24 misdemeanor non violent convictions worse that 1 or 2 violent convictions? How do you determine that sliding scale?

You don't know if he intended to kidnap the kids. At this point, nobody (even the police) have used the term kidnapping. They have been calling this a car theft. 

Is car theft a violent crime? (not carjacking, car theft)

Looking at news reports, there have been an increase in the number of car thefts in Philly. Police were cautioning the public. Which makes the mother look even dumber.

 
KCitons said:
Can the same be applied to police shootings? 
Click to expand...
No, because there’s extreme media and public attention to police shootings.  Thus more scrutiny of the DA’s decisions in those cases.  As a result, many DAs would rather let a jury decide to absolve themselves from even more scrutiny.

That’s not true in this case where there will be no media or widespread public scrutiny for the DA not bringing charges.

 
Wrigley said:
Guy would still be alive, if he didn't steal the car.

Sometimes bad things happen to bad people
Click to expand...
If I'm understanding this statement, Hood committing a crime would have solved this.

Did the mom commit a crime before Hood? If she wouldn't have left her kids in the car, or the car running, this wouldn't have happened. Not that this excuses Hoods crime. But, based on your statement it's part of the chain of events.

 
Gary Coal Man said:
No, because there’s extreme media and public attention to police shootings.  Thus more scrutiny of the DA’s decisions in those cases.  As a result, many DAs would rather let a jury decide to absolve themselves from even more scrutiny.

That’s not true in this case where there will be no media or widespread public scrutiny for the DA not bringing charges.
Click to expand...
And this makes things right?

I guess I'm old fashioned. Laws are laws. I don't care who you are. They apply to everyone equally. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Goldminer1
Teens: Are they worse, or am I old?
2
Replies
87
Views
2K
snellman
snellman
Raybenz19
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
2
Replies
87
Views
2K
3C's
3C's
A
Near death experience?
Replies
16
Views
567
foxco
foxco

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top