Killed Via Chokehold

[MattyBlayze]

I agree with this Matty, it still doesn't change the fact he chased after them and initiated the attack, but it definitely strengthens the car owners case regarding the manslaughter charge outcome, and should serve as a sentence reduction.

 

All we know these bushes were by a wall so he couldn't get anywhere, but that's pure speculation, although it shows the possibility of the unknowns.

But regardless, this is a case of manslaughter, intentional or not.

 

Well, see, I'm not so sure it is that, and that's why I found this so intriguing when I originally posted (and what one of my earlier posts mentions).

 

If the guys were fighting, yes, you are correct, its manslaughter.

 

If the guy was attacked, and could somehow prove that he felt his life was threatened, according to what I understand of NJ state law (and while I live here, I'm no lawyer), the guy was within his rights and needs not worry about anything.

 

If, however, (and what isn't being speculated enough, IMO) the guy had some sort of martial arts training, he should have known the devestating effects of the choke, and then I would think he could be tried for murder.

 

Another thing that isn't being mentioned enough in this discussion, IMO, is that this story is all very one-sided. Montalvo KOd one guy - who obviously was incapable of reciting details of the event - and choked the other to vegetation/death, so this might have gone down completely differently than what we are told.

 

Its really fascinating, and I don't think its cut-and-dry one way or another.

[Driven]

That's a whole lot of bullshit and strengthens absolutely nothing. The only thing we know is that he chased the guys and knocked the first guy out, obviously proving that he was eager to fight

 

He should have been eager to fight. They just stole from him. This isn't even a debatable point.

 

Now, just a tiny bit of common sense here. How many 42 year old men could chase down two kids right out of high school (and at least one of them was an athlete) if they didn't want to be caught? Did the second kid keep running, or turn around and fight? If he keeps running, there's no story. Even a former track star at 42 isn't going to catch him. But he didn't keep running, did he? He attacked the guy. We know that he couldn't have kept running because he was caught.

 

Only one guy is dead here. Not the guy who got knocked out, but the second one. If the victim wanted to kill the kid who was knocked out, it wouldn't be too hard, would it? He wouldn't even be able to defend himself.

[Grasman]

in some countries you steal you lose a finger or the hand you steal with. Every country has its rule for a reason. to keep M***er F***ers in check.

Yes, and those countries are barbaric countries.

Aren't we attacking those countries for being barbaric, "threatening our FREEDOM" LOL, and forcing democracy down their throat?

Because chopping fingers, hands, stoning women etc.. is BAAAAD.

You don't like the law in your country, move.

I did

move to spaceand create your own law.

Well, this is a bit ignorant.

if you steal you should know you are taking a big risk and the outcome can be the results you don't expect.

Well, if you look at someone funny, you are taking a risk, and the outcome can be the results you don't expect.

if you fart, you are taking a risk, and the outcome can be the results you don't expect.

 

so what,, because there are psychopaths willing to perpetrate shit like that and other idiots justifying it, doesn't mean it is right or should be condoned.

[Driven]

I should add that I think charges should be brought against the victim if he knowingly inflicted injuries to the kid who died which led to his death. If the guy's a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu white belt with one stripe, then he knows better. We just don't know the details, though.

 

I also don't buy the argument that the thieves were acting in self-defense. Their actions led to this justifiable confrontation. If a thief breaks into another's house to steal from them, I likewise don't feel they have the right to shoot the homeowner in self-defense if the homeowner attacks the thief with a bat.

[Guest]

I definitely don't agree with anyone stealing anything, but the consequences must fit the action, if they out-proportionate the action, it should be dealt with.

thieves should be dealt with. seems this guy took justice in his own hands seems right to him.

[Guest]

In one of the articles, one of the fathers says he believed the 42 year old used a weapon. Pretty sure that would change things if that was the case.

 

Also, I am not for taking justice into your own hands. Just the self defense portion. If he did in fact take justice into his own hands he is in the wrong.

[Grasman]

Well, see, I'm not so sure it is that, and that's why I found this so intriguing when I originally posted (and what one of my earlier posts mentions).

 

If the guys were fighting, yes, you are correct, its manslaughter.

 

If the guy was attacked, and could somehow prove that he felt his life was threatened, according to what I understand of NJ state law (and while I live here, I'm no lawyer), the guy was within his rights and needs not worry about anything.

 

If, however, (and what isn't being speculated enough, IMO) the guy had some sort of martial arts training, he should have known the devestating effects of the choke, and then I would think he could be tried for murder.

 

Another thing that isn't being mentioned enough in this discussion, IMO, is that this story is all very one-sided. Montalvo KOd one guy - who obviously was incapable of reciting details of the event - and choked the other to vegetation/death, so this might have gone down completely differently than what we are told.

 

Its really fascinating, and I don't think its cut-and-dry one way or another.

I find your points here very interesting and i agree with you for most part.

 

It is very possible he gets off the hook via NJ law.

 

My main point in this discussion is more general, about something being ok by law, often has nothing to do with it being morally justified in any way.

 

While i admire many things about US law, i cannot accept any ones right to kill anyone else in any other situation than a direct threat endangerment of your life or others. (don't know if this came out right), not speculative threats, " i killed him because he was maybe going to kill me" scenario.

 

Puha, haven't written so many post in ages, i'm too old for this

[Guest]

Yes, and those countries are barbaric countries.

Aren't we attacking those countries for being barbaric, "threatening our FREEDOM" LOL, and forcing democracy down their throat?

Because chopping fingers, hands, stoning women etc.. is BAAAAD.

 

I did

 

Well, this is a bit ignorant.

 

Well, if you look at someone funny, you are taking a risk, and the outcome can be the results you don't expect.

if you fart, you are taking a risk, and the outcome can be the results you don't expect.

 

so what,, because there are psychopaths willing to perpetrate shit like that and other idiots justifying it, doesn't mean it is right or should be condoned.

is it right for you to say something is wrong. no that's just your opinion. whether you think it was right or wrong the world isn't going to stop and heed to your cause. shit happen and people keep moving. that's how life is my friend. don't take it to heart. all this will be old news and be forgotten about. the moral of this story is you see a car and want to steal it. just put your hands in your pocket and walk away. its not worth it.

[Guest]

In one of the articles, one of the fathers says he believed the 42 year old used a weapon. Pretty sure that would change things if that was the case.

 

Also, I am not for taking justice into your own hands. Just the self defense portion. If he did in fact take justice into his own hands he is in the wrong.

thats not for you to decide whats wrong or right. if you want to have that power go study law and become a judge.

[Grasman]

I should add that I think charges should be brought against the victim if he knowingly inflicted injuries to the kid who died which led to his death. If the guy's a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu white belt with one stripe, then he knows better. We just don't know the details, though.

 

I also don't buy the argument that the thieves were acting in self-defense. Their actions led to this justifiable confrontation. If a thief breaks into another's house to steal from them, I likewise don't feel they have the right to shoot the homeowner in self-defense if the homeowner attacks the thief with a bat.

This confrontation was justified had it been non violent.

had he called the cops and followed them, he would have done everything correctly.

As soon as he attacks them (if he initiated it), his actions are at the very least, partly unjust.

 

The boys fucked up, were dealt with, by someone who fucked up while dealing with it, and should be prosecuted.

 

There will be a lot more facts at the trial than we can speculate with here, so the Jury/Court should be able to bring out a just verdict, guilty or innocent.

[Guest]

Well if he went in front of a judge and told them he took justice into his own hands, I am pretty sure that would hurt his case of self defense. And it isn't for you to decide if it is right. If you want to have that power go study law and become a judge.

[Grasman]

thats not for you to decide whats wrong or right. if you want to have that power go study law and become a judge.

It's not really judges that decide whats right or wrong.

Your constitution is the basis of what is wright and wrong under US laws, but the US has also signed international human rights agreements it has to adhere to.

Politicians make laws that are not allowed to contradict the constitution etc...

The judges just interpret the law and make decisions based on that.

[Guest]

He should have been eager to fight. They just stole from him. This isn't even a debatable point.

No Driven, he obviously shouldn't have. It's pretty clear how him being eager to fight caused him more trouble than it resolved.

 

Now, just a tiny bit of common sense here. How many 42 year old men could chase down two kids right out of high school (and at least one of them was an athlete) if they didn't want to be caught? Did the second kid keep running, or turn around and fight? If he keeps running, there's no story. Even a former track star at 42 isn't going to catch him. But he didn't keep running, did he? He attacked the guy. We know that he couldn't have kept running because he was caught.

How many 42 year old men could subdue two kids right out of high school (and at least one an athlete)? It's the same thing. Maybe that one guy just wanted to be knocked out and the other one just wanted to be killed who knows? The guy that stopped running could've done a lot of things, he could've tried to hide, or help his friend. So enough with your "common sense" because it's nothing but baseless assumptions.

[Guest]

I'm just imagining him chasing these kids thinking of pure revenge.....self-defense is out of the question and when you choke somebody and do that much damage, it is very much personal

 

obviously I'm missing a large portion of the story but a 42 year old man choking a 19 year old to death doesn't seem right to me. I don't know how he plans on proving he was threatened by these boys. I guess his property was threatened..probably good enough to kill in the states

[Grasman]

is it right for you to say something is wrong. no that's just your opinion. whether you think it was right or wrong the world isn't going to stop and heed to your cause. shit happen and people keep moving. that's how life is my friend. don't take it to heart. all this will be old news and be forgotten about. the moral of this story is you see a car and want to steal it. just put your hands in your pocket and walk away. its not worth it.

I really can't see wtf this has to do with anything mate.

They a stole a watch and a wallet FROM a car.

 

You fart, it stinks, i get pissed off and kill you....

 

The moral of that story is, don't fart around me, it might kill you.

 

But that still has nothing to do with this case.

[Guest]

If his negligence in using TOO MUCH force to defend his property caused this person's death, then he very well should be charged for it.

 

 

Seriously. Who the FUCK thinks this "eye for an eye" shit is remotely justified? There's a reason that the US is one of the ONLY western countries still executing criminals, and it's pretty fucking stupid.

[MattyBlayze]

In one of the articles, one of the fathers says he believed the 42 year old used a weapon. Pretty sure that would change things if that was the case.

 

Also, I am not for taking justice into your own hands. Just the self defense portion. If he did in fact take justice into his own hands he is in the wrong.

 

The kid's father said Montalvo used a bat. There was no evidence to support that claim, though, and one would assume if a bat was used, it would be pretty evident.

[Driven]

This confrontation was justified had it been non violent.

had he called the cops and followed them, he would have done everything correctly.

As soon as he attacks them (if he initiated it), his actions are at the very least, partly unjust.

 

The boys fucked up, were dealt with, by someone who fucked up while dealing with it, and should be prosecuted.

 

There will be a lot more facts at the trial than we can speculate with here, so the Jury/Court should be able to bring out a just verdict, guilty or innocent.

 

Very well-worded post, Grasman. Gotta give you credit for that. You and I are almost on the same page.

 

I think the only area where we differ is that I believe it's reasonable to defend one's property with non-lethal force. Therefore, I believe it was okay to punch the first kid. It seems that things went bad after that, though. It seems like this case would really have the potential to go in different directions depending on the state.

[Driven]

 

How many 42 year old men could subdue two kids right out of high school (and at least one an athlete)? It's the same thing. Maybe that one guy just wanted to be knocked out and the other one just wanted to be killed who knows? The guy that stopped running could've done a lot of things, he could've tried to hide, or help his friend. So enough with your "common sense" because it's nothing but baseless assumptions.

 

Hardly a baseless assumption. Juries often have to draw their own conclusions based on the available evidence and their own common sense. To say that both kids fled and each was subdued at separate times by the same 42 year old man would defy common sense, even if it was supported by the evidence. Unless he was trapped, the second kid had a choice. Run, or fight. He chose to fight. At that point, I believe the only person acting in self-defense was the victim of the theft, not the one who committed the earlier crime.

[Guest]

Damn...would y'all really not feel shitty for killing someone? Yeah beat there ass let the cops take them to jail and they'd probably learn there lesson... Holding the choke until the cops got there is ludacris and he deserves some type of punishment, where I'm from what the kids were doing is a misdemeanor and misdemeanor shouldn't = death

[Guest]

Who the FUCK thinks this "eye for an eye" shit is remotely justified?

The Bible and the people on this forum with a mindset from that time. Actually an eye for an eye would be killing the 42 year old twenty years ago and breaking in the dead boy's car.

[Guest]

I really can't see wtf this has to do with anything mate.

They a stole a watch and a wallet FROM a car.

 

You fart, it stinks, i get pissed off and kill you....

 

The moral of that story is, don't fart around me, it might kill you.

 

But that still has nothing to do with this case.

its plain and simple. don't steal. You want something go find a job. You steal from someone and get killed, no tears shed for you. thats the way of the world. get use to it.

[Guest]

The Bible and the people on this forum with a mindset from that time. Actually an eye for an eye would be killing the 42 year old twenty years ago and breaking in the dead boy's car.

 

 

Aye. Still. You'd think human decency and common sense would be a little more prevalent in this day and age.

[Guest]

its plain and simple. don't steal. You want something go find a job. You steal from someone and get killed, no tears shed for you. thats the way of the world. get use to it.

A lot of people might get claustrophobic trying to get used to the world according to your view.

[Grasman]

its plain and simple. don't steal. You want something go find a job. You steal from someone and get killed, no tears shed for you. thats the way of the world. get use to it.

I have not been without a job for more than 2 months at a time in the last 30 years mate.

 

I have been on this planet for 45 years so far, and your description of the world does not match mine. I have lived in 4 countries in that space of time, so I have "been around" a bit in my life.

But your description of how the way of the world paints a totally different story, and makes me wonder what horrible place you live in. Does your expert knowledge of the world outside of your neighborhood come from TV? Fox news maybe? are you a Christian? or are you just such a baaaad dude? "Fuck anyone who tries to steal anything of mine,, i'll fuckin kill 'em", type of bad ass?