Jump to content
CMJeepster

Article: MMA Fighter May Face Charges After Fighting Off Four Home Invaders, Killing One in the Process

Recommended Posts

"MMA Fighter May Face Charges After Fighting Off Four Home Invaders, Killing One in the Process

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mma-fighter-may-face-charges-fighting-off-four-153200150--mma.html

 

Despite his years of training mixed martial arts, Joe Torrez is yet to get his big break inside the cage.

 

The 27-year-old MMA fighter sports a subpar 1-5 professional record, but while his training has often failed him inside the cage, it saved his life a couple of hours into 2014 when four men evidently forced their way into his home in Las Cruces, New Mexico, with intent to harm Torrez, his fiancée, his two-year old son, and a few other guests.

 

That was about 15 minutes after one of the suspects allegedly called Torrez' home threatening, "I'll kill you and your family ... I'll go to your house."

According to Torrez' lawyer, C.J. McElhinney, one of the attackers brought a street made shank along for the ride, while another grabbed a knife from the kitchen.

 

Unfortunately for them, their weapons proved to be ineffective against Torrez' MMA training. He quickly dispatched them, killing one of the attackers, severely breaking another's jaw, while the remaining two tucked their tails between their legs and ran for dear life.

 

Those two were rounded up shortly after by authorities, and all three surviving suspects will face aggravated battery and aggravated robbery charges.

 

"Rather than let himself be a victim, Joe fought back, and he fought back for his life," McElhinney said during a 30-minute interview with MMALockup. "In the ensuing struggle, regrettably, one of those intruders lost his life, and another suffered what can be described as a severely broken jaw."

 

"Joe was in great shape, he'd been training for a fight. I think his MMA training -- without a doubt -- was the edge in that fight. Being able to defend yourself and having that confidence is a huge advantage in any kind of fight, and I don't think they were prepared for what came in response."

 

However, instead of being commended for his valiant efforts while defending his family, charges might be coming at Torrez depending on the outcome of an investigation being conducted by the Dona Ana County sheriff's office.

 

For now, Torres remains a free man, and he's wisely decided to move his family away from Las Cruces.

 

"Joe is holding up remarkable well. After this all happened -- I've known Joe for a long time -- I could tell that Joe had been though a very traumatic experience. I could just tell from his demeanor, his bearing, he was shaken up … I advised him that he needed to leave the area because these people are going to be looking for retribution. He took that advice, so he has left the state. He's at a safe place with his family. Now he's just very nervous, very fearful that he's going to have to defend himself against an unjust charge, an unfounded charge, so that's weighing heavily on his mind."

 

Hopefully, reasonable minds prevail, and Torres doesn't end up getting punished for doing what most of us hope we'll have the courage, strength, and ability to do if we ever find ourselves and our loved ones in similar situation."

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

I've got a major problem with this.  He and his family were threatened.  He defended himself and his family.  Now they think he might need charges brought up against him?  Give me a friggin' break!  The intruders obviously had bodily harm in mind since they brought a weapon with them.  What was he supposed to do, wait for them to tap out?  4 on 1?  The guy should be commended for surviving let alone getting rid of one of these scumbags.  Unreal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice no mention of being arrested or charged. This could just be overzealous PR work or headline clickbait. Given that the dead guy got stabbed, it is entirely possible that after disarming the guy he went after him. Which is a no-no if that was the only source of a threat of lethal force. Just because the initial circumstances seem justified doesn't mean they didn't change somewhere along the way. 

 

Someone comes smashing through your front door armed and threatening you, shooting them is fine, even if it kills them. However, if they are running away with a gunshot wound and appear to no longer be armed, plugging them on the front lawn and killing them while they flee isn't kosher. No matter how jacked up on adrenalin you may be, it won't sit well with the law pretty much anywhere. The difference between someplace like NJ and NM is that he wasn't arrested and charged immediately. He's been given the benefit of the doubt to the extent that he is free and able to leave the state. It doesn't mean you don't interview everyone and ask if things went down in a manner that is justified by law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There appears to be some reason these guys did what they did. What, if anything, did Torres do to give these thugs a reason to threaten and assault him? That's not stated in the article. I think Torres did the right thing but why did these thugs do this to begin with?

 

I'm not familiar with New Mexico criminal procedure but in some states the prosecutor brings all cases where a death has occurred to the Grand Jury leaving them with the decision to acquit or indict. This is often done no matter how clear cut the justification is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comes as no surprise to me, as it is in New Mexico.

 

One would be tempted to believe NM is somewhat like states that border it such as Arizona or Texas when it comes to self defense.  The assumption is of course entirely wrong.  New Mexico is a very blue state and would be more comfortable politically in the North East rather than the south west.  NM has no strong castle law at all, meaning you're more protected for self defense in NJ than in NM!   Retreat is not required, however the statute is vague and commonly misinterpreted by activist courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...