May 9, 2001

6:31 AM

Vigilantism Taken To The ExtremeMan guns down "career larcenist" as he's ransacking his car. No one in the neighborhood is crying for the criminal, who had 47 arrests. They're going to be character witness for the killer, who's charged with 2nd degree murder. Should I feel guilty that I'm not terribly sorry New York is minus one thug this morning?
posted by darren (60 comments total)

Vicenty's neighbors were shocked by the violence but stood by their friend. "Maybe he just snapped."

Or maybe some jerkoff was breaking into his car for the second time and he didn't want to be victimized again. More power to him.
posted by Hankins at 6:46 AM on May 9, 2001

"Should I feel guilty"

No, you should feel afraid that you've become numbed to the seriousness of premeditated murder. Protection of things does not warrant destruction of a human life.
posted by Outlawyr at 6:49 AM on May 9, 2001

It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't kill him. Six shots is a bit too much. Unfortunately if he didn't kill him the "victim" would have sued him.

The judge won't go easy on this guy. They don't want to encourage this sort of behaivior.

If the victims are watching this guy why aren't the cops?
posted by chainring at 6:54 AM on May 9, 2001

Jeroff? Jerkoff? I'd like to see you grow up in the mean streets on NYC and not become a street thug! "another victim of the modern age"

I would have just shot the bastard in the kneecaps.
posted by tiaka at 6:57 AM on May 9, 2001

> Protection of things does not warrant destruction of a
> human life.

Why not? What's so valuable about human life (in contrast to, say, lobster life or penguin life?)
posted by jfuller at 7:04 AM on May 9, 2001

Whacking the guy is probably a little harsh; they might have been better served by just getting a few of the local boys together and whupping the dude's ass. A couple of ass-whuppings later, their career larcenist decides to either cut it out or move to less painful feeding grounds.

The shame is that the shooter is probably a good man pushed too far; his life is screwed, since they'll make an example of him. Although... the next guy that decides to bust into cars in that neighborhood will certainly think twice.
posted by UncleFes at 7:10 AM on May 9, 2001

I'm not sure I'd characterize an unarmed man who breaks into parked cars in the middle of the night to support a drug habit as a "thug".

Like you'd want your neighbour running around the building in the dead of night with a loaded rifle just to go confront some burglar out in the street. No thanks.
posted by xiffix at 7:15 AM on May 9, 2001

Is murder still a crime in New York, or am I missing something here? Anyone who is pushed to the brink of murder by two car break-ins does not qualify as "mild-mannered" in my book.
posted by rcade at 7:21 AM on May 9, 2001

As I have stated on mefi before, I believe that a person has a right to own a gun and a right to protect himself.

That being said, this guy is an idiot.

The taking of a life in self-defense is a tragic thing. Some people cannot handle the thought of ever doing this, and therefore should not ever own a gun for defensive purposes. But the operative word(s) are "self-defense". This man's life was not in danger, he has no excuse for executing a man for breaking into his car. The punishment does not fit the crime.

All of the neighbors who are flocking to this man's defense are as guilty as him for this mind-set.

Why is it that in NYC, where it is illegal to own a handgun, everybody dreams of killing anybody who "wrongs" them, or becoming an apologist for this behavior. And in the un-enlightened south, almost everybody owns a gun, they would never think of doing something like this?

Perhaps there is something to the addage that gun-control advocates fear guns not because they really believe that guns are evil, but because they realize that they are incapable of controlling themselves from going into a murderous rage.
posted by gunr at 7:22 AM on May 9, 2001

The shame is that the shooter is probably a good man pushed too far; his life is screwed, since they'll make an example of him.

Maybe the "thug" was a good man pushed too far by poverty. And his life is over.

Although... the next guy that decides to bust into cars in that neighborhood will certainly think twice.

The next guy will take his own gun.
posted by MarkC at 7:24 AM on May 9, 2001

Vendetta, anyone? If he wanted to be a sniper, he should have moved to Sarajevo.
posted by holgate at 7:28 AM on May 9, 2001

The Paul Begala award for hilariously excessive regional stereotyping is awarded to gunr. Guns don't kill people; New Yorkers do.
posted by rcade at 7:31 AM on May 9, 2001

Some of you think car burglary warrants immediate execution in the street by an old crank with a rifle?
posted by pracowity at 7:34 AM on May 9, 2001

This wacko was a school bus driver?

Killing someone because they broke into your car reeks of asinine and insane.
posted by owillis at 7:35 AM on May 9, 2001

what ever happened to good old fashioned baseball bats?
posted by roboto at 7:39 AM on May 9, 2001

Sarajevo? A sniper? Cool-o. Anyone know where I can sign up?
posted by tiaka at 7:40 AM on May 9, 2001

Pray that you never get your car confused with a similar-looking one in that neighborhood.
posted by harmful at 7:44 AM on May 9, 2001

The Paul Begala award for hilariously excessive regional stereotyping is awarded to gunr.

ouch ;-P
posted by gunr at 7:54 AM on May 9, 2001

Still, I will soon own a handgun (My father will not allow them in his house, and the pistol club I go to has a waiting list for its storage space) when I move out, and I have never contemplated using any gun on a person.

Gee, instead of just banning guns, why don't we educate people about them? Cars are just as deadly, and probably kill many more people each year both accidentally or on purpose... but you don't see any talk of banning them!

I can just see it now... "Hey, I got an idea... to make sure crack fiends don't break into cars in new york and get their worthless, drugged-up asses killed, let's ban automobiles!"
posted by SpecialK at 8:05 AM on May 9, 2001

Oh wait, sorry, I forgot... it's tough to educate people about things, it's easy just to put an unenforceable ban on them and leave it at that. My apologies, won't happen again. [/sarcasm]
posted by SpecialK at 8:06 AM on May 9, 2001

Is murder still a crime in New York?

I think it's either classified as a hobby or a vocation, depending on whether or not you get paid for it.
posted by darren at 8:25 AM on May 9, 2001

Racade: Did my last post put me in the running for the Begala award? :-)
posted by darren at 8:28 AM on May 9, 2001

Let us think back to the days of the Bernard Goetz trial.

This guy may yet get off.

He really stepped over the edge. One of the earlier posts made mention of a serious ass whipping. I think that would have been a better idea. Kick his ass as many times as is necessary for him to get the hint.

I believe that thug is an appropriate term for a drug addict who repeatedly breaks into cars.
posted by a3matrix at 8:36 AM on May 9, 2001

Why not first degree murder? Is it because he shot the guy in non-critical places enough times to be fatal? (torso) Oh, it was in the heat of the moment, and was accidental in part. My ass.

Anyway, I'm sure he could have just brandished the weapon, or just snuck up behind him -- at most fire into the air toward the Atlantic. I think it would be great fun to pull a gun on a petty criminal, say something badass and comical.
posted by mblandi at 8:39 AM on May 9, 2001

Cars are just as deadly, and probably kill many more people each year both accidentally or on purpose... but you don't see any talk of banning them!

Err, don't you think that's because cars are useful?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:42 AM on May 9, 2001

cars are useful

if you're paranoid about getting hit, you don't drive a car. if you're paranoid about someone harming you or your possessions you get a gun. if there's never a reason to be paranoid, there should never be a reason to have protection. note: using a gun and carrying a gun are pretty different things but they create the same effect.
posted by wantwit at 8:48 AM on May 9, 2001

Karma at work here folks.

What goes around, comes around.

Man I love when I see that phrase come true
posted by Qambient at 9:07 AM on May 9, 2001

The binoculars AND the rifle could actually build a good Murder-1 case for the DA. I mean, he was obviously waiting for the "thug". And SIX shots? Come on...
What do you guys think, plea bargain or trial? Jury selection could be kinda tricky...
posted by matteo at 9:09 AM on May 9, 2001

More power to the bus driver! If he hadn't killed that thief, he was going to die anyway, since that type of job carries that degree of risk. I personally may not have shot him if I caught him breaking into my car, but I shed no tears for him.

"you-a break-a into-a my car, I kill-a you."

Hey, there's one person who won't be breaking into cars in NYC. Hopefully the jury is comprised of car owners, who will send a message to all thieves-wanna be: you break into other people's cars, you die, & we don't care. I like it!
posted by Rastafari at 9:11 AM on May 9, 2001

Obviously, if the guy had been arrested 47 times and had still not gotten the message would he ever? I bet he got the message this time. And I bet the neighbors will appreciate the fact that their cars are that much safer now.
posted by da5id at 9:33 AM on May 9, 2001

Haw! Haw! Haw! Nothing makes me more light-hearted and skippy than premeditated murder against a petty career criminal! That surely does send a message: Americans, you can die at any time at the hands of another disgruntled citizen, and others will laugh at you! Rest in peace knowing that now, because you are dead, the neighbors don't have to worry about their cars.

Jesus Christ, people. I don't get some of you at all.
posted by Skot at 9:36 AM on May 9, 2001

jfuller:
> Protection of things does not warrant destruction of a
> human life.

Why not? What's so valuable about human life (in contrast to, say, lobster life or penguin life?)

I tend to agree about the comparative value of human life, but I don't think the man's car was full of lobsters and penguins, just car junk. Which, I would like to add, is certainly not worth taking a life over, even if many people seem to consider that life less important than a collection of metal and plastic.
posted by jennyb at 9:55 AM on May 9, 2001

there is not a single material possession or amount of $ that i would kill to protect. That is ludicrous. Protecting a person is another matter entirely...

if you are going to go thru the trouble of waiting to ambush someone, do it with a video camera. That way you can get the person busted, and you can sell your footage to Geraldo or Jerry.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:03 AM on May 9, 2001

Yes, I agree with Skot. Their cars may be safer in the short term, but if this kind of behavior is accepted then their neighborhood, nay, their whole society, will be much less safe for them in the long term. If anyone could kill anyone who they thought had wronged them then the rule of law is obviated. This opens us up to a very "slippery slope" here. Why would anyone want that? I would feel much happier if I could walk around in a world where I know that people aren't going to shoot me just because I pissed them off. Just because what the dead guy did was illegal and repetitive does not have any bearing.
posted by donkeymon at 10:04 AM on May 9, 2001

I'm with mblandi. If Vicenty's "perched in his window — binoculars and a loaded rifle nearby — [at] about 2 a.m.", that's premeditation.
posted by whuppy at 10:21 AM on May 9, 2001

Where does the mentality come from that allows someone to justify capital punishment for ANY crime?

"Well, that's the last time he'll park next to a fire hydrant."

As much rage as I feel when my right to property has been violated by someone, I don't honestly want them dead. Punished, yes. Out of my life, of course. But dead?

My question is, if this guy had been arrested 47 times, how come he's out? If he breaks into cars because that's how he gets his kicks, keep him locked up for a good, long time. If he does it because he's desperate for drug money, put him in a mandatory detox program. Shooting the guy six times was just revenge, not justice.
posted by goto11 at 10:25 AM on May 9, 2001

I would feel much happier if I could walk around in a world where I know that people aren't going to shoot me just because I pissed them off.


OTOH, I would feel much happier if more people thought they'd get shot for pissing me off.
posted by whuppy at 10:25 AM on May 9, 2001

   |   |   
-----------
   | X |   
-----------
   |   |   

posted by jon at 10:32 AM on May 9, 2001

O|    |
-----------
   | X |
-----------
   |    |
posted by jbeaumont at 10:33 AM on May 9, 2001

 O |   |   
-----------
 X | X |   
-----------
   |   |   

posted by jon at 10:35 AM on May 9, 2001

O |   |
-----------
X | X | O
-----------
   |   |
posted by jbeaumont at 10:36 AM on May 9, 2001

 O |   | X 
-----------
 X | X | O 
-----------
   |   |   

posted by jon at 10:38 AM on May 9, 2001

Stalemate! Curse your Twernty ways!
posted by jbeaumont at 10:40 AM on May 9, 2001

(Score:2, Ominous)

I'm getting stronger.
posted by jon at 10:43 AM on May 9, 2001

If I am worried about loosing a "thing" via theft or disaster, I consider either a) disposing of the thing in question or b) adopting a new attitude toward the thing.

(Reminds me of the neighbor who yelled at me one morning because I did not call the police when his car alarm woke me up at 2:00 am. All in favor of car alarms that call the owner say "aye".)

After taking the philospher's quiz today, I am clearly commited to stating that any violence against a larcenist is wrong.
posted by Dick Paris at 10:49 AM on May 9, 2001

I think violence against anyone is wrong.

but its quite obvious the people who WE PAY to protect us against the types like the recently deceased aren't doing their JOB. how the hell does someone get arrested 47 times in almost as many years of being alive? You would think that after the 4th, 5th or maybe the 45TH(!) arrest, someone would have the sense and the authority to deem that this man is not capable of being a law abiding citizen.

What are we to do with such as the like?

So far our plan is to give him slaps on the wrists and toss him out into the public and count down till the next misdemeanor he will commit.

I don't know about you, but I find our solution to the problem far more disturbing then what just happened in the news story.
posted by Qambient at 12:03 PM on May 9, 2001

I once said,
"My DVD player is worth an infinite number of human lives."
This was right after someone broke into my house and stole my DVD player.
I would certainly rid myself of my DVD player to save someone, but I have no sympathy for anyone who would take it.
I have a little note in one of my desk drawers, reminding me to wish a painful death on my thieves, and I flip a coin to decide if I should wish death on the weird baby they used to help them break in.
I really wish this guy had not gone and used a gun. I don't feel bad for the thief, but it makes it harder to fend of the people who want to pass laws to control behavior.
The cops told me it was probably Gypsies who broke into my house, and that was the only thing that caused me to smile for a week after that.
If the shooter had any class he would have used a crossbow. (I am so in rare form this week!)
posted by thirteen at 1:13 PM on May 9, 2001

This reminds me of a story. I used to be a cashier at a deli a few years back. One day a group of kids came in, and I noticed one of them stealing some candy. It wasn't the first time the kid did it, so I grabbed him and took him out back. Well, needless to say I beat him within an inch of his life, and threatened to rape him a baseball bat, and well, we never had another problem with HIM shoplifting.
posted by Doug at 1:34 PM on May 9, 2001

I'll bet you didn't!!! High Five!
posted by thirteen at 1:54 PM on May 9, 2001

(I know you were kidding)
posted by thirteen at 1:54 PM on May 9, 2001

Doug: strange as it sounded, that made me laugh uncontrolably.
posted by jbelshaw at 2:09 PM on May 9, 2001

How about getting suckered punched in the face, needing 10 stiches on the outside of your lip and several more on the inside, and chipped teeth? Then having a disfigured, swollen face for another two weeks while missing work? How did the other guy fare? Not a scratch on him other than a bruised hand from knocking someone out. What would the charge be and how did our "great" judicial system handle this case.......well, to tell you the truth it is still being played out, but I ask, do you take measures into your own hands if you don't like the verdict dealt? Must you deal with justice in your own way? In this case, it sounds to me the guy was looking to kill, but once the criminal has the right to commit crimes and go unpunished you are inviting incidents such as this and I can only grant the car owner took protective measures, into is own hands, and to the extreme. Two wrongs were done. Not punishing one enough and now it looks to me they will be punishing one too much. As for a busted face what should the penalty be?
posted by brent at 4:23 PM on May 9, 2001

Busted face? Personally, I'd take away his cable, and never let him eat pancakes again.
Brent, what are you talking about?
posted by Doug at 5:43 PM on May 9, 2001

> What are we to do with [guys like the dead car burglar]?

The US government should give him the drugs.

He and his pals don't break into cars dozens and dozens of times for fun. They break into cars (or mug tourists or snatch handbags or whatever) because they are desperate for heroin, heroin is illegal, and therefore the cost of heroin is overinflated, all addicts are made criminals, and crime leaders get rich.

Give them a few cents worth of government-manufactured heroin each day and they'll just lie there and be high. Maybe they'll accept treatment. Maybe they won't. But they'll have what they crave, they won't have to hurt anyone to get it, and you'll know exactly who and where they are because they'll have to go to the government to get the free injections. (You wouldn't send an addict away with a baggy that could be sold.)

This would save the government millions and millions and millions of dollars, drive the crime rate way down, eliminate the most lucrative business of domestic and foreign criminals, and open up prison space for people who really need to be locked away. The addicts would remain fairly useless but would probably not be worse off, and daily visits for injections could be used to work on helping and improving them. And all you people worrying about car radios being stolen could sleep in a car-alarmless night.
posted by pracowity at 11:11 PM on May 9, 2001

Pracowity: Have you not even seen the 7 Samurai, or the Magnificent 7, or a Bug's Life?

I'd rather see someone planted than have to pay to get them high. I don't have any problem with drug use, though I do not approve. If someone is unwise enough to become an addict, why should it be my responsibility to placate them. Extortion is so unpleasant. I certainly can see the point about the cost savings, and while it might benefit me, the reality of it is choosing Gore out of fear, when you want Nader. I can't do stuff like that.
posted by thirteen at 8:33 AM on May 10, 2001

> Have you not even seen the 7 Samurai, or the
> Magnificent 7, or a Bug's Life?

I've seen real life.

It seems as if the money is what bothers you, but it would be much cheaper for you if you gave them the drugs. The way things work now, you are forced to pay for their crimes, arrests, trials, and imprisonment. You are also forced to pay for the bad things their dealers do. You are paying for huge police forces at home and abroad that do nothing but fight drug traffic. You are forced to pay for the prisons they throw these guys in. All that would stop -- and the addicts would still be here, but with no reason to be violent -- if you would just give these addicts a few pennies worth of stuff while we work on finding a way to get them off it.

Of course, other people would rather shoot them.
posted by pracowity at 8:59 AM on May 10, 2001

I've seen real life.

ouch.

I may have been clumsy, but I tried to address the cost thing in my last sentence, and except for some beautification I have yet to think of a better way to say it.
posted by thirteen at 9:15 AM on May 10, 2001

I think, pracowity, you're making an important point in your response to 13 that I didn't catch in your first post. I'm not sure if you didn't say it or if I just can't see it, but "while we work on finding a way to get them off it." is the most important part of the plan.

While I agree with 13 in the "I don't want to pay for it" sentiment, I think it's a good step in the right direction.
posted by cCranium at 9:48 AM on May 10, 2001

pracowity: it seems like more people i run into these days are thinking along the same lines as you, i felt this great glimmer of hope for the world when last night my little sister--who is Mormon--said about the same things.

i guess the only problem i see with a system like that are the people that are addicted to the danger and the naughty chic of drug addiction as much as they are to the drugs. How could they be cool if they had to go to a clinic to shoot up?
posted by th3ph17 at 9:48 AM on May 10, 2001

Phil, good point, but I think by the time people are breaking into cars 40-some-odd times, they're significantly less concerned with their image than they were the first time they tried the druge.
posted by cCranium at 11:06 AM on May 10, 2001