Previous Post
Next Post

“Through the app Wallapop, gunman Zachary Sam and seller Philippe Pierre, 39, had arranged to meet up at 1 p.m. Friday in Canarsie,” reports. “But when Pierre showed up, asking $490 for a pair of Air Jordan 8 Retro sneakers, the teen crook pulled out a gun and demanded the kicks for free [ED: ?] inside Pierre’s gray Honda Pilot.” All Hell broke loose . . .

Pierre stepped on the gas pedal, but Sam, who lives nearby, jumped out of his car at the intersection of East 86th Street and Avenue M, sources said.

Instead of speeding off, Pierre turned his car around and drove after Sam, crashing into him in front of a fence.

The alleged robber’s arm was ripped off when he was pinned against the fence . . .

“I saw a kid under a car,” said Alex Saint Fleur, a bus driver who lives across the street.

“The guy ran him over. He got out, the driver said, ‘He’s trying to rob me. He’s trying to rob me.’”

“I saw the gun on the floor,” Fleur added. “The arm was on the floor near the gun.”

The cops arrested Mr. Pierre and charged him with attempted murder. He claims self-defense. The disarmed robber (sorry) survived. He’ll be charged with armed (there it is again) robbery.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Yeah, you probably shouldn’t run people down and claim self-defense if they were running away at the time.

    Still, if I were on that jury I don’t think I would be willing to convict the driver for anything more serious than the ‘victim’.

    • The whole charging after someone, is a bit hard to chalk up to “self defense”, but there also ought to be a built in bias in the law, modeled on the old “justifiable anger” clause that got people off despite blowing away guys caught with their wife etc. Or, say, justifiable fear/justifiable irrationality. In the immediate aftermath of a life threatening encounter initiated by the other guy, one shouldn’t be judged very harshly for even a bit of overreaction. What the driver did, was very different than if he did the same thing a week in arrears.

  2. That’s not self defense. The robber was out of the car and the threat was gone. This was out and out revenge. Now time to start talking about how if he didn’t have access to that dangerous SUV at that moment, this teen would still have his arm.

    • In Texas this would have been legal. Here we have the right of Fresh Pursuit, meaning we can legally chase someone down and use force to restore stolen property. Deadly force is specifically referenced and made legal. The type of tool you use to exercise the right of a justified deadly force response is not specified. You get to be creative.

      • You better take a look at your laws before you try and exercise that right. Hint: this happened during daytime hours.

        And yes, that’s an important distinction in Texas law!

        • Air Jordan 8 Retro are going on ebay for around $200 or less with the “Buy it now” option.

          Was he ONLY selling shoes? Or was this a “Buy these shoes for $490 and get ‘x’ ounce(s) of [drug] for free” type thing?

      • It may be legal in the letter of the law, but I don’t think there have been any previous cases to set precedent in court. You’ll be at the mercy of the jury. Good luck with that.

      • Yes the guy was in retaliation because he was robbed of his shoes and had a gun pulled on him he was in advance to getting his shoes back that was robbed from him at gunpoint yes he was and had chance to leave but he also had the chance to get his sneakers back I would have done the same thing or put a bullet in his head soon as I could that’s why texas has the law that we do

    • Ah but a gun can reach a long way. The thug may have done or said something that made our hapless victim feel the only immediate or long term recourse to protect himself and family was to terminate the threat with extreme prejudice. A man versed in jurisprudence would be the best resource for the upcoming journey through the judicial process.

  3. This is why we need registration, imposed safety features, and mandatory training for cars. Deny car ownership / driving rights for people who screw up.

    We need less cars. Otherwise we’ll have arms ripped off all over the place. Something must be done. For the children.




    • I blame it on the shoes. For the children.

      They need to be regulated. No more than seven grommets for shoelaces in NY. And no high-tops because- well, they go up, or something.

  4. Only in america does the tax payer have to pay for surgery to put an arm back on some thug so that he can keep robbing people at gun point.

    let him go without an arm. He has shown that he doesn’t deserve it.

  5. Ahhh…..the rarely used suv disarming technique of the french shoe sellers!
    Yes……stay calm and floor it!
    If it happened the way it says then no tears for the bad guy will fall today.

  6. I’ve long been of the idea that if you attack someone without provocation, whatever they do in retaliation is fair game. You pull a gun on them and they run you over? W ell, don’t rob people.

    • If in self-defense, then yes. That is where that whole “Duty to retreat” nonsense that the anti’s speak of falls flat. The only “duty” is for the thug not to attack you in the first place. If they do, you are perfectly within your rights to blow their head off. If they don’t want their head getting blown off, then don’t attack people.

      However, if they as a threat decide to flee (say you scare them off by pulling a gun of your own), and you shoot them from behind while they run away, that is basically then taking the law into your own hands and declaring yourself as judge and jury (and executioner).

      The anti’s often will try to claim that people owning guns is “barbaric” because we have the court system which is civilized, but in saying that, they are confusing using a gun in self-defense, which is not a case of taking the law into one’s hands, and using the gun for revenge purposes, which is.

    • Sorry, nope. The threat of bodily harm was long gone by the time the idiot in the SUV decided to turn around and try to kill the teen in retaliation for steeling a pair of shoes at gun point. The man in the SUV should have simply called the cops in this case, as the immediate threat was no longer present. If I was on the jury, I’d find him guilty based on this video evidence. Retaliation is not self defense.

      • The way I look at it the person defending themselves in any situation has been unexpectedly thrust into a situation where they are in a panic to survive. As a juror I would be hard pressed to find them guilty of anything until that panic had subsided. We POTG preach “shoot until the threat is gone”. In this case the guy’s reaction was fight instead of flight or freeze. The threat who had attacked with a gun was still within close enough range to be a threat with a gun. He simply continued to fight until there was no threat. The bad guy simply brought a gun to a car fight.

        The guy with the gun caused a 100% justified moment of panic. I didn’t see the victim have any opportunity to relax and calm down out of his sudden fight to survive mindset. Without a mountain of evidence to convince me that a reasonable person will overcome that level of adrenaline in the moment I would be hard pressed to find him guilty of anything worse than price gouging.

  7. Let’s give a big hand to the little robber, who will now be able to answer the Zen question: “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”

  8. BTW me and the missus were wondering who “vetted” people who use these new smartphone aps like wallapop. Obviously no one. Like Craigslist. We also buy and sell for a living and jumping in a strange truck strains credulity. Dumbflucks…

      • CineSport autoplays on every page. Thought the site policy was to not have any autoplay adds at all. It doesn’t crash my browser when at home but it is extremely annoying. At work sometimes it cashes when the add is blocked.

  9. I’m all for what the driver did but if you think about it the driver had the thieves contact info and could have called law enforcement. They had to have talked via email or phone before meeting so..

  10. I am glad the teen got charged. But he should have been charged with armed robbery (yeah pun I know) and possibly other chargers.

    As for the driver . . . I am not even a lawyer and I can see major wiggle room to get this guy off. The prosecution handed the defense a victory if they play their cards right. The guy in the SUV is guilty of a crime but not THE crime he is charged with: attempted murder. If you put me on that jury I would vote not guilty with a clear conscious. If the facts are what is laid out in the video it looks like a clear cut case of overzealous prosecution.

        • Depends on the laws of the state. In most cases, you’re correct. However, given the media’s ignorance and inclination towards sensationalism, I would guess that the actual charge laid against him isn’t specifically attempted murder. Attempted vehicular manslaughter just doesn’t drum up the reader count like murder does.

  11. You guys are killing me with the jokes:

    Dis-armed robber
    Shoes cost nearly an arm-and-a-leg and he got them for half-off
    Deal was quite the rip-off

    😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

  12. Craigslist Rule No. 1 – meet in a public, well visited place if possible, during the day. Or, have a gun on your hip if rule No. 1 isn’t feasible.

  13. Wait for it, Obama is set to go on national television, tear ducts fully charged, to emotionally discourage the usage of the dreaded S.U.V. under any and all circumstances, while rolling out yet another executive order banning “assault vehicles” with the public safety in mind. “These vehicles, with their high capacity horsepower and cargo space, are lethal weapons and should be limited in use only to specifically trained military specialists” he will no doubtedly report. “Since the populace cannot identify the innate threat to public safety that these unnecessarily powerful all wheel drive behemoths pose, I regretfully sign my latest over the top executive mandate hearby banning the public at large from obtaining said “Vehicles of mass destruction” under any and all circumstances”. It has been widely rumored that certain retro articles of clothing and footwear made be targeted in the very near future.

  14. Ok, someone has to play responsible gun owner here, for the horrified libtards, who dont understand the gallows humor here.

    Once the threat to grave bodily injury is gone, lethal force is not appropriate to “stop the threat”. You cant run down a kid and drive over him, no more than you can shoot him in the back,
    duh, over frickin’ tennis shoes.
    So what if the hood rats and bangers do it to one another all day long.

    No, of course the driver should have stopped and called 911.

    And waited 4 hours for the NYC cops to show up, if ever, and only at the donut shop.
    And gotten laughed at for being in a stupid place, doing stupid things, with stupid people.
    And cited for driving on the sidewalk.
    And sued for damaging the fence.
    And sued by the kids extended family for pain and suffering for which he will be working for decades to pay off the civil claim.
    And undoubtedly doxxed by some Black Lies Matter or Anonymous wannabe, and have to move his family for death threats.

  15. “Pierre stepped on the gas pedal, but Sam, who lives nearby, jumped out of his car at the intersection of East 86th Street and Avenue M, sources said.”

    More like The kid took 20 seconds to get out of the car, started walking away, then Pierre slowly pulled forward before turning around and running the kid over.

    The threat was over, Pierre was no longer in danger. This was revenge.


    “I saw the gun on the floor,” Fleur added. “The arm was on the floor near the gun.”

    Somebody tell this guy that when it’s outside, it’s called “the ground”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here