Skip to comments.First degree murder charge for man suspected of intentionally running over teen
Posted on 05/04/2012 10:11:44 AM PDT by Arkansas Toothpick
LITTLE ROCK, AR The man who police say ran over and killed a teenager who stole his wallet has been charged with 1st degree murder.
The man who was driving the van is 58-year-old Michael Sadler. Little Rock Police say Sadler was cashing a check at the Asher 1 stop near the intersection of Asher and Maple. Thats when, according to police, 14-year-old Michael Stanley stole Sadlers wallet.
Stanley fled on his bicycle and was chased by Sadler. The chase ended near the intersection of 17th and Oak, about 10 blocks away. According to the arrest report, Sadler drove through several yards, ending in a vacant lot. Sadler then ran over the victim and bike with his van.
Alexander Phillips was a witness to the accident. He says he say the boy, who was on his bicycle, trying to escape the driver. The boy was riding up a hill when he fell off the bike.
"I was going to holler at him for coming through and tearing up my grass and I realized what he was doing, said Phillips.
After the boy was run over, Phillips says he saw Sadler assault the boy.
"He pulled him from under the vehicle and then he started hitting him saying 'Where's my billfold? Where's my billfold?'" says Phillips.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox16.com ...
A great example of where a life of crime can lead a teenager. They see the wads of cash and the expensive things that drug dealers and other criminals have but not things like this. This is more representative of what happens to kids involved with crime than the MTV rappers with wads of cash and beautiful women.
Thief fleeing from the scene of his crime gets squashed.
How would a police officer be treated, who killed a fleeing criminal under similar circumstances?
This is all very interesting. Why do I suspect that some of the facts of the case are being concealed?
Jus’ keepin’ it real in da ghetto hood, bro. The little Obamatron won’t be redistributing wealth no mo’.
—Why do I suspect that some of the facts of the case are being concealed?—
Same here. Based on what I read in the article, the prosecution would not want me on the jury. Not that I approve of what the guy in the van did, but based on what is in the article, I believe he had the right to do what he did.
I hope the kid waasn’t another of Obama’s wannabe sons.
Based on the article (hah!) I can see possibly charging the robbery victim with manslaughter. If I were on the jury, the prosecutor would have his work cut out for him ... I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt to crime victims.
Hmmmmm. If both the thief and his killer happen to be members of the same minority, would there be a national story here?
Police walk Michael David Sadler, Sr., to a waiting patrol car after charging him with one count on 1st degree murder.
This case is a loser.
I don’t think that Murder 1 is appropriate in this case. Instead it should be Murder 2, because it was in the heat of anger. Killing someone over what amounts to petty theft is too extreme a response.
Premeditated murder (1) amounts to “planned murder”, that begins unemotionally. But murder 2 takes into account that a rage can last quite a while as long as there is continuity to that rage.
In this case, even “vehicular manslaughter” is a reasonable alternative.
Prove he was trying to murder the boy rather than using the car to stop him from fleeing.
I can’t exactly condone this, but I’m not too broken up about it either.
thats why they got car insurance
A good legal point, but I don’t think it would fly in court. In this case the vehicle would be seen as a deadly weapon used in a misdemeanor citizens arrest against a minor.
Comparatively, if someone snatched your wallet, then you chased after them on foot and shot them to death, it would be prosecuted as unnecessary use of force. It would be 50/50 if a police officer was chasing them, even. But an ordinary citizen, you would almost certainly lose that case.
This is different than if someone snatched your wallet and you immediately shot them.
A lot of legal finesse here.
They should treat it as attempted vehicular manslaughter, like when a drunk driver hits someone.
Even so if I were on the jury, it’d be hung.
he doesn’t really look African...perhaps he’s from the Middle east...
This is actually a very hard case to prosecute, and I suspect that it has already been fouled up more than a little.
To start with, Murder 1 makes no sense in this context, unless it was a bluff to get the defendant to plead guilty for some other charge, which is very common. But the defendant is so angry that he called the bluff. But then again, prosecutors sometimes “throw” cases by overcharging, knowing that a jury will acquit, but without making the prosecutor look weak or bad.
Murder 2, Manslaughter, Vehicular Homicide, and other charges would be a lot more likely to get a conviction. But the prosecutor is probably afraid of being “Trayvon’ed” by the local agitators and media.
Personally, I think this comes under “schoolyard rules” from days of yore. If a student is picked on by a bully and then punches him out, it is a “fair exchange”. But if a student is picked on by a bully and later ambushes said bully, it is a “cheap shot”.
In this case, using a vehicle to chase the a petty thief boy was okay, but not slamming in to him. Too much force, and obviously in the heat of anger.