New York City man beats his wife’s would-be rapist to death

A 61 year old New York man beats a man to death who broke into his home and assaults his wife and her sister – and what is our civilized modern response? Arrest the man for man slaughter.

Here is more on this story from dailymail.co.uk:

“The New York City man who beat his wife’s would-be rapist to death was released from custody on Tuesday evening to a chorus of cheers.

Mamadou Diallo was hailed by members of the Guinean community and his family as he left the Bronx Criminal Court after the judge freed him on his own recognizance.

The 61-year-old was arrested on Monday night and charged with manslaughter after he battered Earl Nash to death with a tire iron inside his Bronx apartment building elevator.

Diallo was outside his building when his wife, 51, called and said a man had broken in, dropped his pants and said, ‘I’m going to rape you.’

Diallo ran inside, caught up with the attacker identified as Nash, 43, and fractured his skull with the steel lever as Nash tried to fight back with his belt, the NY Daily News reported.

Nash died at Lincoln Hospital from ‘severe trauma to his head and body’ about three hours later, according to police.”

You can read their full story here – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617884/Husband-charged-manslaughter-beating-man-broke-apartment-tried-rape-wife.html

It is utterly amazing to me how little common sense our modern society has. In times past this man would have been given a medal for this – today we call him a criminal.

Man’s God given right to defend and avenge his family

The family was instituted by God before other institutions like civil governments or the church.  There are certain natural rights that cannot be taken away or canceled by other governing authorities.  The right to self-defense and the right to avenge the blood of a family member can never be canceled.

Most people, even non-Christians recognize these natural rights.  That is why there is about a 90% chance that when this man goes to trial a jury will acquit him of all charges because we all know these are natural instinctual rights that we all believe we have.

Biblical principles that show the right of self-defense and avenging of family:

Principle #1 – The penalty for murder is death

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” – Genesis 9:6 (KJV)

Killing another person for unjust reasons is a crime worthy of death.

Principle # 2 – The penalty for rape of a man’s wife is death

“25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.” – Deuteronomy 22:25 (KJV)

If a man rapes a another‘s man’s wife (a betrothed woman was also considered his wife) then he had committed a crime worth of death.

Principle #3 – Violating the security of a man’s home is a crime worthy of death

“2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” – Exodus 22:2-3 (KJV)

Why was it ok to kill a thief at night but not during the day? It is was because at night you could not tell what he was there to do.  Was he there to harm you or your family? You did not know so you could rightly kill him. But during the day you could clearly see if he was simply trying to steal something verses harm you or your family.

The point of this passage was – you cannot kill a man for simply breaking into your home and stealing something.  But you CAN kill a man for breaking into your home if you think his intent is to do you or your family harm or he has already done you or your family harm.

Principle #4 – Family members may avenge the blood of their family

“The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.” – Numbers 35:19 (KJV)

Principle #5 – Fighting for you family is not optional, it is a responsibility

“…fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.” – Nehemiah 14:4 (KJV)

“No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.” – Mark 3:27 (KJV)

In Nehemiah we see him commanding the people of Jerusalem to defend themselves against those who would harm them or their families.

Christ tells us the only way a man can enter a person’s home to do wrong is if he binds the strong man – this would be husband or man of the house.  The man of the house is expected to protect his home.

The rage of a man whose wife has been taken by another

One other thing I want to mention that I think is related to what happened with this man and his wife’s rapist. God has naturally built into man a natural burning anger and vengeance against a man that would violate his wife.  Whether that man is raping his wife or his wife is having consensual sex with another man this instinctual and primal “rage” is the same.

The passage below from Proverbs tells us about this natural instinct God has put in men:

“28 Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? 29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.

30 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; 31 But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.

32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. 33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance. 35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.” – Proverbs 6:28-35 (KJV)

Now while this passage above is talking about adultery and not rape the principle is the same.  The key phrase is “therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance”.  As men we are designed to want to kill any man who violates our wife whether with her consent or without her consent.

John Gill says this about Proverbs 6:34:

“therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance;

when he has an opportunity of avenging himself; whenever he finds the adulterer in his house, or catches him and his wife in bed together, he spares not to take away his life, and sometimes the life of both of them; instances of this nature history furnishes us with: or he will spare no cost and pains to prosecute him before a civil magistrate, and bring him to public justice; prayers and entreaties, bribes and gifts, wilt be of no avail, as follows.”

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/proverbs-6-34.html

Under God’s law not only could the man laying with the wife be killed, but also a man’s wife as well:

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.” – Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

If a husband found another man lying with his wife and in his rage and vengeance killed them both he would be justified in doing so and nothing would have happened to him during Biblical times.

Today we put husbands in prison for this.  In Biblical times the husbands vengeance in this matter would have served as a warning to both men and women.

To men – do not ever touch another’s man’s wife, it could cost you your life.

To women – not only could adultery lead to divorce, it could cost you your life.

Conclusion

Under God’s law Mamadou Diallo was right to be “hailed” as he was by his community rather than being arrested by the police. What he did to that attacker of his family should serve as a warning to all who would violate the sanctity of another man’s home or violate another’s man’s wife.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “New York City man beats his wife’s would-be rapist to death

  1. Though I agree with you over the whole subject I can see where it would be in the best interest of the cities police force to arrest the husband until the full story is investigated and checks out. Not only for the safety of others, but for his own safety as well. As you said, I seriously doubt he will be convicted of a crime, but the police cannot simply say, we are taking you in for no reason, they have to bring some type of charge for justification (manslaughter). Also, though it is a hassle for this man to have to go to court, we can hope that the results can also be used as a lesson for those who would commit the crime of rape. If you are caught the victims husband can kill you and get of with little more than the hassle of a trial, whereas you will end up dead.

  2. Snapper,

    I see what you are saying but the police could have simply brought him down for questioning. You don’t have to charge someone to bring them in for questioning. Even though he would most likely get off at trial we need to send a message in these cases as a society by not having trials at all in these cases. If there are multiple witnesses as there were in this case a brief investigation should close the matter with no need for charges to be made unless there evidence found for foul play.

    When I say foul play – I mean this. Maybe a wife has a lover and she tires of him and wants him dead so she sets up a situation where she appears to be being raped by him so her husband will kill him. Then the wife should go to jail. Or perhaps a couple does not like one of their neighbors so they make it appear(by tearing her clothes) that he was trying to rape her and the man kills him.

    So I am all for the police investigating to look for these kinds of situations. But if it is discovered that a true attempted rape of a man’s wife occurred – I don’t care if he chased the perpetrator two miles down the street and then beat his head in, the husband is justified in doing so in my opinion.

  3. Yeah, I didn’t consider just questioning, but your also right about the foul play angle. I’m just going to say that any time a human life is taken and it’s not painfully obvious that it was justified or accidental we can expect an arrest. Really hoping that he gets off the hook though, you never know in this day and age. Justice seems to take on a lot of different meanings, not all of them right.

  4. Thank you first of all for acknowledging and praising men’s God-given instincts to protect their families. In a society where masculinity is being mocked or treated like it doesn’t exist (no difference between genders), it is important to remember that that is in fact not the case and that that desire should not be suppressed but is in fact an innate part of being a man.

    I’m guessing this man will be found not-guilty both for acting in defense of his wife and by self-defense as it looks like he and Nash fought each other and he didn’t just run in and whack him on the head. But, without knowing NY laws on the matter, it could be that they felt he used more force than the situation justified. Tire iron vs belt is not exactly a fair fight and it wouldn’t surprise me if a state like NY had very lax self-defense laws (I really haven’t researched the subject though) to the extent that once Nash was down, the man no longer had a legal right to finish him off (not saying that’s what happened, just speculating). The Bible does command us to obey the governing authorities as well so if there is a law like that in NY, Diallo would be Biblically required to obey it. There is a difference between God saying that we CAN do something and the government saying we can’t, and the Bible saying we MUST do something and the government saying we can’t. In the latter, we must obey God vs government (pretty sure everybody here will agree with that). In the former situation, I believe we are required to sacrifice what we see as allowable in order to obey God by obeying the government. Just as I believe women are allowed by God to wear pants, should their husbands require otherwise, I believe women should choose to not wear pants and obey their husbands instead. In fact, doing otherwise would be sin (again, pretty sure most people here would agree with that).

    Your take on Deuteronomy 22:22 is very interesting. I hadn’t considered God saying that “they shall both of them die” was synonymous with saying that the husband could kill them at will. I had considered it to be more of an execution, but I could be wrong.

    We do need to do something about our laws though. Nash kidnapped a 17-year-old and held her for 2 days. Complete with sexual assault (which I’m guessing was rape, but the article didn’t confirm), beating, and stabbing. So, IMO, he should not have been on the streets in the first place. It is very unfair for citizens like Diallo and his wife to be forced to deal with situations like this where the assailant was known to clearly belong away from society prior to the assault.

  5. Firstly, practically, if the guy was strong enough to beat him to death (which must have taken some time) he was strong enough to restrain him. This was then an act of hatred not defence.

    Secondly all your biblical references are old testament except one in Mark that’s shockingly misinterpreted.

    Thirdly, for a blog that reports to be all about biblical values how do you justify your position when it goes against the Bible:

    Romans 12:19
    Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord

    Matthew 5:38-42
    38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

  6. @Simon Sawyer

    38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

    In context he is referring to the right cheek that is slapped with a backhand. A classic insult in Jewish society. He is not talking about attempted murder or rape.

  7. Speaking from a police standpoint, this line here:

    “If a husband found another man lying with his wife and in his rage and vengeance killed them both he would be justified in doing so and nothing would have happened to him during Biblical times.”

    applies to current times at least in our state. It would be filed under a crime of passion, and normally the husband wouldn’t be charged or sentenced.

  8. @Simon Sawyer,

    It’s not necessarily the case that he could’ve simply subdued the man without beating him to death. For one thing, Nash didn’t die at the scene. He died at the hospital of his injuries. That leads me to believe that Mr. Diallo really felt as though he had to keep hitting Nash until Nash wouldn’t get up again and keep fighting. It’s also very easy to cause fatal injuries while beating someone enough to subdue them. Granted, we don’t have all of the details, but we know that Nash wasn’t easily deterred. After all, Mrs. Diallo and her sister spent 20 minutes fighting him, and he didn’t give up or leave. Nor did he leave when Mr. Diallo came after him with a tire iron. Instead, he tried to fight back with his belt. Plus, Nash was a much younger and possibly stronger man than Mr. Diallo. I can see why Mr. Diallo, in addition to being furious about the attack on his wife and sister-in-law, might have feared for his own safety.

  9. No one accused of a crime worthy of death was to be put to death but upon the (sworn before God) testimony of two witnesses. Those witnesses must give their testimony under pain and penalty of the crime of which they testify. The alleged rape victim makes complaint; she is not a witness.
    Primary witnesses must be actual, not “expert.” Other witnesses may corroborate or refute the primary witnesses. They must also testify under penalty.
    The husband’s rage is understandable. However, he did not witness the alleged crime. He killed a man on the word of his wife. She did not accuse Nash of raping her. She accused him of saying that he was going to rape her. She would have been justified if she had used necessary and available force to drive off her assailant. If he died as a result of her reasonable use of force, the homicide would have been excusable. If her husband used reasonable, necessary and available force to stop the alleged rapist and to prevent his escape from justice, and he died as a result, the death would have been excusable.
    No individual has the power to avenge wrong. “Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord. I will repay.” One way that the Lord’s vengeance is exacted is through the κτίσις, the governmental institution of men. It is also collective self-defense by the community, by the society, against those who prey upon their fellow man.
    “Taking the law into one’s own hands” is not justifiable. Defense of self and of other (relatively) innocent persons is lawful as long as the force used is reasonable and necessary to stop the wrong and to apprehend the alleged perpetrator. Self-appointed administrators of justice are criminals themselves.
    Infliction of injury or death is accountable before a neutral tribunal. Therefore, for Diallo to be brought before a magistrate pending initial determination by the prosecutor’s office, by an impartial magistrate, and if further proceedings are found warranted, by an impartial jury of Diallo’s peers, first perhaps by a grand jury and then, if that jury finds that a question remains, by a petit (trial) jury of 12.
    If the district attorney (state’s attorney; prosecutor) determines that Diallo did in fact cause the death of Nash, but that Diallo should be excused, or the magistrate determines the same, or the Grand Jury returns a “no true bill,” or the Petit Jury acquits, or ONE petit juror declines to vote “guilty,” Diallo is a free man. In the case of a hung jury, if the prosecutor declines to retry, that’s the end of it.
    We feel cheery of vigilante justice in popular cases, but we really should not want “Superman,” “Batman,” “The Fantastic Four,” Mamadou Diallo or Charles Bronson to be our standard bearers for justice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s