Wow ...

+1.   The husband should be given a friggin medal, not thrown in jail! This just makes me sick to my stomach.

Thats why I love Texas. 

There's a lot that isn't covered in either news story, and likely because they just don't have information.  I think most people would be sympathetic towards a man defending his wife, but the problem is that he went way too far, from the sound of it.  Although it's speculation, my reading of the situation is that the deceased was already leaving the apartment by the time the husband got there, and not in the act of sexual assault (based on what's printed in the article).  The husband was obviously upset, so he started fighting with the deceased.  Since the deceased was just trying to get out of there, he retreated to the elevator.
 
At this point, the husband had some choices to make.  If the deceased was still the aggressor, then he had a right to defend himself.  If the deceased was trying to run, then the husband didn't really have a right to pursue and injure the deceased, unless he had a reasonable belief that he or his wife were still in imminent danger.  On a side-note, if the husband pursued him to make a citizen's arrest, that would likely be fine, but it continued to escalate (no pun intended).
 
When it comes to self-defense laws, as Nereus pointed out to an extent, you have to actively be in the position to be defending someone else or yourself from imminent danger.  You are allowed to use as much force as the assailant is using, so if he pulls out a belt, you cannot pull out a gun instead, except to warn or threaten him away.  Likewise, if the attacker is attempting to withdraw, you do not have a right to continue to go after him.  The law, after all, is designed to encourage de-escalation of a situation.  In legal analyses, you'd be looking at every move parties made during the encounter, as the person labeled as the aggressor can flip in an instant.  Regardless, the aggressor label (not a legal term) really has more to do with the ability to raise a defense later on.  e.g.  You can't throw a beer bottle at a guy, wait for him to break it and come at you, only so you can pull out your gun and shoot him and claim self-defense.  That won't fly.
 
Bringing us back to the elevator, however, the police have video of the entire incident (or at least in the elevator).  You know that the last thing they want to do is arrest a guy who defended his wife from a serial criminal (if you want some cynicism, how about not wanting to do more paperwork).  That suggests something more happened here.  If I had to speculate, my guess is that a tire iron proved to be a bit too forceful for a guy wailing around with a belt, and at some point the husband connected hard enough to put him down and unconscious.  If it stopped there, it probably means that the husband, at worst, is looking at an assault/battery charge w/ a deadly weapon, possibly, or they may not file the enhancement charge given the situation.  It may even just be considered self-defense.
 
My guess?  It probably didn't stop there.  Given the charges, there's probably video showing that after the deceased was put down, the husband continued to wail away at the deceased's head, unabated, which was ultimately the direct and proximate cause of death.
 
In order to charge with murder, you still need to show intent.  I believe that the state would probably have no difficulty proving intent.  The husband knew the guy was potentially sexually assaulting his wife (or at least that he was harming her), and wanted to beat him into the ground.  It may have even been a struggle for a short time, and it's possible the husband was afraid of being seriously harmed or killed at one point, but the end result is that the other guy is on the ground with his head bashed in.  If my guess is correct, and the husband didn't stop after the guy went down, then that's all you really need to show sufficient intent for a murder charge.  However, that's just step 1 when it comes to determining charges.
 
The reason it gets knocked down to manslaughter, is that the defense will likely argue that it was more or less a crime of passion or self-defense, mitigating the husband's intent (crime of passion knocks it down to manslaughter; if pure self-defense, he cannot be convicted, period).  If it was a crime of passion, murder is off the table, but manslaughter is the correct charge.  Barring the elevator video showing an hour or two between the fight and the husband coming back with a tire iron to finish the job, I don't think the DA has a reason to even fight that defense.  Crime of passion does not absolve you charges; it only just knocks down the level of your intent.  Likewise, if you have a claim of imperfect self-defense, meaning at least part of your actions were unreasonable, then you cannot be charged with murder.  Although the prosecution can still charge him with higher counts than manslaughter before trial, I doubt they would do so.  
 
Ultimately, the deciding factor in what happens with the case will likely be whatever happened in the elevator.  It only takes a split second to go from being a hero to a vigilante.

Sorry Nordic your way of thinking, is why the country is in the state its in now, imagine if it was your wife if you got one, or daughter, some man broke into your house would you honestly let them walk away? If you have any ounce of integrity you would make sure that would be that perps last possible victim. The laws being twisted by lawyers to create victims, let the guilty and those with bad intentions prosper... smh
 

 
It's not Nordic's fault the way the laws are written. He's just trying to point out the specifics of the law. We don't agree with it, but the lawmakers seem to be on the side of the criminals these days. Sad indeed that he went to jail for it.

 
Different laws in different states. What I wrote above is how the relevant laws apply in NYC, and (imo) it's totally ridiculous in this situation. 
 
Personally, I feel that as soon as you start infringing on others rights in such a manner - whether it be burglary, rape, mugging, whatever - you automatically forfeit your own rights under law and as a human being. Period.
 
I really don't care if the husband continued flailing away at the guys head with a tire iron after he was down (not saying that's what happened, but), because I would very likely do the same, as would pretty much ANY husband or father when confronted with that situation. If I got out of the elevator at my Brooklyn apartment and (God forbid) my wife was there naked and beaten on the floor and the would-be rapist was standing right there, there is no way in hell I would be able to control what I'd do to that person - no. freaking. way. , and there is NO WAY IN HELL I could let them walk away. How the hell could anyone live with themselves if they just stood back and let the guy walk away? Yet that is what NY law says you must do. Seriously. Screw that. Jail time would be better, at least you could live with yourself and hold your head up high that you took the piece of crap out of the world, and probably saved other potential victims in the future. I would kill myself if I just stood back and let the rapist walk past just because some spineless politically correct progressive legislative body decided that would make them more appealing to the democrat-majority voters of NYC - and that's what ridiculous laws like this are REALLY all about. 
 
Almost makes me look at Trump favorably. Almost.
 
 

atfrico

XrayMan
 
It's not Nordic's fault the way the laws are written. He's just trying to point out the specifics of the law. We don't agree with it, but the lawmakers seem to be on the side of the criminals these days. Sad indeed that he went to jail for it.

Ok granted, but is he a lawyer? I am sure i can google the criminal law and pretty much says do not kill unless you are defending yourself (motive or cause)

I posted applicable NYC laws above.

RushXTC
Guess New York is as strict as Cali, Because that would have happened exactly like that over here too.
 
What has this country come down to? No one can protect themselves without fearing their freedom being taken away from them, Unless you live in AZ or TX that is...

ikr? Stupid progressive politically correct bs. Same as that young girl shot dead in CA in front of her father, by an illegal immigrant who had already been deported back to Mexico 5 times, yes 5 times, had multiple felonies, and the Sheriffs dept just lets the guy walk and this innocent girl dies as a result, because of the same stupid progressive politically correct bs. So sick of this.
 

This is why sentences is low in many countries. (oops, politics! sorry :P)
 
No one is entitled to rape anyone. No one is entitled to kill anyone. I bet a swedish court would probably lower the sentence after a VERY careful evaluation. Along the line extenuating circumstances.

It appears that the man saved us all a big headache and some cash to boot.

Give him his freedom and give him a cigar!

donta1979
Yup, say hello to being pc and embracing the agenda and where it gets us as a society...

This. (redacted, but we know who it is) make criminals 'victims'.....and the victims are, you guessed it, the criminals.
 
Idiots.
 

Hey guys condemning Nordic's "way of thinking". He was stating the law and how it applies here. As cool as he is Nordic didn't draft, then propose, snd then pass the law. As having a good understandinf of the law he was giving his best interpretation of it. That is all.

This is what happens when ideology gets in the way of justice.

Go watch the movie felon. The idea is they dont want people to break the law to stop others from breaking the law. Vigilantes go to prison. They expect u to call the police and not do anything risky til they arrive to handle the situation properly with their policy of shoot to kill. Cause shooting out someones legs and arresting them leaves open the possibility of being sued for disability from them not walking.