http://gothamist.com/2016/05/31/bronx_man_killed_intruder_who_was_a.php
Its tragic, but I hope he beats the charges.
Unless there is information that is not being published, I don’t understand why he was charged with manslaughter in the first place. If for example this was a case where he caught his wife in bed having consensual sex, it would be a different matter, but if the guy was raping the wife or attempting to, it would be self defense. I wonder if the DA’s office is doing this based on the notion that the husband went too far, that he should have stopped when the other guy was down or something, if so that to me is idiotic, when you get a situation like this it would be really stupid to expect someone in a situation like this to be able to say “okay, he is down, I am done”, that is fantasy land, when defending yourself or a loved one emotions are high, adrenalin is high, and you can’t expect people to know what is ‘enough’.
@musicprnt agreed. I hope he gets a good attorney and a fair judge. He should not be punished, unless as you said, there is more to the story.
I believe the problem was the attacker had left the apartment and was in the hallway, it wasn’t a rape in progress. That said, if he really tried to rape the woman I hope the husband gets off.
I’d hate to see this guy prosecuted if the story is true. While the crime was no longer in progress, and the guy was outside the home, I think many men would do the same to someone who raped their wife, DD, sister, etc.
Maybe the law needs to be convinced that this wasn’t a consensual situation and now the wife is protecting her H…now that the other guy is dead.
The charges have been reduced to assault. “Diallo encountered the shirtless man fleeing into an elevator and attacked him with a tire iron, fatally injuring him.” Your right of self-defense or defense of another person does not entitle you to attack a fleeing suspect. Your right to use a reasonable amount of force to subdue someone who has committed a serious felony does not entitle you to beat someone to death. Mr. Diallo’s reactions are perhaps understandable. That is different from being legal. That said, I would not want to be the prosecutor who had to take this one to a jury trial.
Yeah, it looks like they are prosecuting him because he attacked the guy after he left the apartment. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, I don’t know NY State law but in some states the guy might be indeminified in a similar situation, for example it used to be that if someone broke into your home, you confronted them and they started running away you didn’t have the right for example to shoot at them, that has changed in many places. I also wonder if perhaps a variant on temporary insanity might apply, that the husband in a rage after hearing his wife was attacked was not in a state to be responsible for his actions. I suspect that a prosecutor is going to have a hard time with this one, if the wife and daughter testify towards what the guy did in their apartment, I doubt they will get a conviction. Personally I think it is a waste of time and money to prosecute this guy, especially given that the guy who attacked the wife apparently had a record as long as my arm that included violence.
I agree, he definitely should opt for a jury trial, and I cant imagine a jury voting to convict him.
New York laws on when use of force is justified are here:
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN035.15_35.15.html
Thanks, @ucbalumnus. So if I read it right, they busted the guy for using physical force because the perp was not in the apartment when he was beaten up (in the dwelling), and so had no reason to believe he was in physical danger. I don’t know if I agree with that, it is expecting someone who has gotten a frantic phone call from his wife, rushed back inside the building to try and protect his family, the guy was probably in full fight mode, pumped up on adrenalin, and to expect him to sit back and say "oh, the guy has left my apartment, well, that’s okay then’ is a bit idiotic, it is like someone gets attacked, they end up beating the crap out fo the person who attacked them, then claiming they should have stopped, it doesn’t work like that, that is as much fiction to me as the idiots who ask why the cop shot someone when they could have shot the gun out of the perp’s hands, it is unrealistic IMO.
Let’s get a couple of things straight. The penalty for attempted rape, assault with intent to rape, and even rape is NOT death. Even those states that permit you to shoot at a fleeing perpetrator are not going to tolerate you beating him to death. At some point, the perpetrator is incapable of resisting, and you have to stop – no matter how amped up you are on natural adrenaline. The initial charge of manslaughter rather than murder was entirely reasonable under the common law and New York law, since that takes the provocation (the attempted crime) and the understandable heat of passion it caused into account. It’s what we call an excusable killing (excusable due to the infirmities of human nature) rather than a justifiable or legal one. Mr. Diallo is getting a break by being charged only with assault. Assuming a jury would be composed of people willing to honor their oaths to obey and follow the law, he’s not going to beat that charge. The circumstances would be a factor at the time of sentencing, and probation would not be impossible or inappropriate, but, sorry, I don’t think he should walk away without facing some consequences for beating a man to death. He was prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. That’s not how our system works.
^ you are assuming that he meant to kill the guy.
@MichiganGeorgia : No. I am not. Murder requires malice aforethought. That can be express “intent to kill” malice or implied malice. You can research implied malice on your own, if you like. I am assuming only that beating someone to death with a tire iron would permit, if not compel, a reasonable jury to find one or the other.
Like others, I have a hard time believing a full jury would find him guilty even if what he did was technically illegal.
That is where your oath as a juror comes into play. There is no such thing as “technically” illegal but not “really” illegal. Sorry to come across a hard ass (I don’t think I really am), but taking the law into your own hands is never the answer.
We realize that, but we’ve seen situations like this before. Some father killed the guy who killed his child. he wasn’t convicted. And there is still an old-fashioned feeling that men “should” kill the dude that sexually assaults his wife. It’s not legal or right…it’s just sort of a feeling that’s out there.
Yes. And for every one of those cases there are probably 10 in which a person tried to take “justice” into his or her own hands and ended up in prison for committing a crime. (Google Ellie Nesler if you want one example.) A “feeling that’s out there” is just going to get you into trouble. It’s not the wild wild West.
@romanigypsyeyes So the nullification route? Perhaps he could plead out before that?
@AboutTheSame right because every single jury member determines things based solely on the evidence. 
We’re human, not robots. We don’t have the ability to just look at the “facts” even if we want to.
@CaliCash huh?
Yes. You do have the ability to look at the facts. I do not understand your need to put that word in quotes. The facts are what the jurors find. They then apply the law. If they do not do that, they are violating the oath they took at the beginning of the trial. Now, you as a juror will bring your life experiences into the jury room in determining what facts you find are established by the evidence presented at trial. There does not seem to be any dispute here that the victim was beaten to death with a tire iron, and I’m at a loss to understand the apparent willingness to accept vigilante “justice” (and I think that is appropriate to put that in quotes). I’m tired of this conversation. Feel free to believe whatever makes you happy. Goodbye.