Evan Gargiulo: Presents Defense of Self Defense Against Allegations of the Homicide of a Taxicab Driver
[Note: Persons accused of a crime in the United States are presumed innocent until proven guilty.]
I have read a crime story in The Washington Post . The story of the accused, Evan Gargiulo, presents many questions to a reader.
Mr. Gargiulo is [accused of allegedly killing] alleged to have killed a taxicab driver, Mazhar Nazir, in a fare dispute ( according to Mr. Gargiulo). Mr. Gargiulo argues through his attorney that Mr. Nazir was shot as Mr. Gargiulo was protecting himself from Mr. Nazir.
According to the prosecutor, Mr. Gargiulo took a cab from downtown D.C. to Reston, VA (which is approximately a 21 mile distance). Because cabs charge by the mile, the fare was going to be rather high.
The story Mr. Gargiulo presents seems incomplete. I had to consider the decision of Mr. Gargiulo to stop first at his apartment ($75 fare) to retrieve his car keys (another set to replace those Mr. Gariulo states were stolen) and a gun. Then, Mr. Gargiulo had Mr. Nazir drive him with his car keys and his gun to his friend’s apartment in Tysons Corner. When they got there the fare increased to $130. It was in Tysons Corner that Mr. Gargiulo discovered that he did not have any money to pay the fare. The dispute ultimately led to Mr. Nazir being shot. The question is what went on during that dispute.
Perplexing questions that this case presents
- If Mr. Nazir presented a threat, why did he lend Mr. Gargiulo his cellphone to call his friend?
- Why did Mr. Gargiulo have Mr. Nazir driving such long distances?
- A wetsuit does not usually have pockets and is tight fitting. So, would not Mr. Gargiulo know that he had a roll of cash in the wet suit?
- If the Mr. Gargiulo’s story is true, why did Mr. Gargiulo stop to get a gun?
- How come Mr. Gargiulo did not report his wallet, car keys, and cellphone stolen while he was in D.C.? How did he carry these items in his wetsuit? [The Penn State college newspaper, The Daily Collegian, states that Mr. Gargiulo carried a bag that held the items he claims were stolen].
- How come Mr. Gargiulo did not discover that he did not have any money when he went to his apartment?
- Why did Mr. Gargiulo park his car at his friend’s home and not his own?
I cannot presume to know the answers to these questions. That is the job of the grand jury and, if the case goes to trial, the petit jury. A potential problem is the lack of witnesses. As the case is presented in the Post, only two people have knowledge of what occurred that night in the cab: Mr. Gargiulo and Mr. Nazir (deceased).
The situation is distressing as it appears that Mr. Nazir lost his life for $130.
UPDATE 11/18:
The Post reported that the prosecutor offered the state’s version of events, which possibly adds details to the questions posed above.
[Note: These details come from the prosecutor. Mr. Gargiulo could offer evidence which rebut these statements.]
- Mr. Gargiulo told police that he wore a scuba wetsuit to a nightclub’s Halloween party. Mr. Gargiulo carried his wallet, keys, and cellphone in a separate bag, which he said was stolen.
- Mr. Gargiulo told police that he thought he had $200 in his wetsuit.
- Mr. Gargiulo told Fairfax police that once he got to his Reston, VA apartment, he saw his gun and decided to take it. He did this because he felt vulnerable after having his wallet and cellphone stolen.
- Mr. Gargiulo reported the items (wallet, cellphone, and car keys) stolen to D.C police later [November 1 or November 2 (article is unclear on this point)].
The new facts present additional questions to a reader:
- How did Mr. Gargiulo carry his gun?
- How long was Mr. Gargiulo in his apartment?
- Why did Mr. Gargiulo not negotiate with Mr. Nazir over payment of the $130 fare just like he did at the club?
- Why would Mr. Gargiulo feel vulnerable with a taxi driver he negotiated with in D.C. to take him all the way to Reston, VA (near Washington Dulles airport)?
- Why would Mr. Gargiulo need a gun in Reston, VA?
- The loss of a wallet, cellphone, and car keys is distressing. Why did Mr. Gargiulo wait so long to report them as stolen. A stolen cellphone is a mobile credit card, which allows the thief to run up a tab on the owner’s account. A wallet usually contains a person’s identification, cash, credit cards, and other dear items. Usually it is upsetting even to misplace one’s wallet in one’s own home. Car keys: a loss will require the car to get new locks (a potentially expensive proposition).
This is a premeditated murder and mr garguilo is a psycho path who enjoys to inflict pain and fanatsizes killing ….why could not he just run ..why shoot someone..why stop for a gun …..why make him drive all the way to tysons corner back whne he knew he did not have money……why not call the police when he shot him immeadetly and tell them teh story that teh cab driver attacked him….why hide…it was a tipster who made this psycho paths arrest possible…he is a cold blooded killer….i think his parents should also be held accomplices and tried with him…..coz when he told his parenst …even then police was not informed about it …..they are equally reponsible for it…..it was teh police after checking phone records called his parents and then the whole story was revealed….
jason
November 15, 2008 at 8:12 am
Absolutly a homicide …no doubt he murdered an innocent man…..he should be put to death by lethal injection….
john
November 15, 2008 at 8:22 am
One thing that everyone seems to ignore is that Evan was at this club. I’m certain he drank. That meant the murder was alcohol related. Alcohol will take an ordinary situation (coming up short for a taxi fare) and explode it into a lot of wild drama. Without the alcohol, Evan would have just had the driver go by an ATM or write a check or something.
Remember: alcohol and drug abuse is chemically induced stupidity.
Frank McEvoy
November 29, 2008 at 12:57 am
I went through college and ROTC with Evan. Whatever I say will be taken as bias to his defense; however, I must in good conscience put forth my own insights.
Everyone in the United States of America is innocent until proved guilty in our court of law. By calling him a murderer, writers undercut one of our fundamental principles upon which we at least say we hold our State. Let the court decide justice–be it in favor of self defense or murder.
This man was commissioned the rank of Second Lieutenant in the United States Army. He is accountable for each and every action he makes in public or private, leading soldiers or following orders, choosing self defense or senselessly killing Nazir. Evan is accountable to UCMJ, Federal and State Law and the families and his own conscience. Undoubtedly people with their own opinions will second guess Evan’s actions in public forums, but consider that in combat operations in theater, such actions could easily have saved his soldiers’ lives. The Army trains it’s leaders to make those tough, split-second decisions and will always scrutinize their actions should anyone call it into question.
As a former MP, Evan knows the proper escalation of force as well as how and when it should be applied. Keen to threat and making the best decision at the time, to the best of his judgment at that moment, Evan shot in what he claims to be self defense. As an aside to any not in the military community, current rules of engagement always provide soldiers the rights to self defense if they feel their life is in danger–this is the minimum required for self defense in a contemporary operating environment.
I know Evan to be of good nature with a propensity for talking fast–could miscommunication have escalated the situation? Could there have been a threatening item removed? Could there have been other circumstances? Could–Let the jury hand down the verdict instead of stating “he should be put down by lethal injection” please.
Verb
December 1, 2008 at 8:04 pm
This man may be young in his years, but he is very mature in what he wants in life, and acts according to his own ideas on who is worth his respect and who is worth to die. His swimming, high grades, great job immediately out of school and military training probably made him feel like he is ‘better’ and more ‘valuable’ member of society, unlike an uneducated cab driver who is vulnerable to his passengers? He thought he could get away with murder, he was obviously trained well by ROTC: to kill a breathing, living human being who was just doing his job, with one shot, professionally. Let’s get real – this is what military training is about, they train you so you can kill as if someone deserves it. The key word is “as if”. Before anyone threatens you, you are trained to kill in advance – for a country that has not had invasion on its capital cities and mainland by troops of another country (like Germany in Europe, or Japan in Asia, or England in India and many other countries), you learn how to kill. He was a ‘good’ student, he obviously liked his gun, enjoyed using it, and probably was always ready to go and kill. He just needed to wait a bit longer, to go to a “war zone:, or become a guard in a prison, where his curiosity about killing breathing living humans could be treated even with medals and like bravery and service to the country. Stupid boy, he did it in this situation. With times changed (may be 60-70 years ago he could be let go), he actually might serve some time. He is alive, but so little compassion for a dead person shown by Evan’s friends and family. It shows once again that Evan was never asked to take full responsibility for his own actions. Thank God times have changed – otherwise he would go free, and kill others who are not as “smart” and “worthy” as him.
Alex
December 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Verb,
Could Evan have been put on medication recently?
Dismayed
December 14, 2008 at 10:03 pm
first, jason, when a thought comes in your head, keep it there. the world will be better off.
i went to high school with evan. he was a good man. obviously something happened here that was not supposed to happen. and you know what, he will deal with the consequences. because in case all of you have forgotten……
HE TURNED HIMSELF IN!!!!!!
he voluntarily went to the police station and said, “i shot this man”. what more do you want him to do? he made a horrible mistake, a man is dead. another man will most likely spend his life in prison. for ANY of you to presume that you know what happened or that you know what went on in evan’s head is insane (that means you alex). seriously alex, you need some therapy. they don’t teach you to kill in rotc you moron, and your cultural analysis is like something out of james bond movie. how would you feel if your kid shot a man and is now on trial for murder? all that crap about him feeling like he is a better an more valuable member of society is think is a more accurate picture of yourself if you think about it. do us all a favor and keep your thoughts to yourself.
travis
December 28, 2008 at 4:34 pm
well i went to school with him as well and though he may have turned himself in the point remains that he ended this mans life and this was no accident he made a decision to take a loaded 9mm handgun out of his apartment obviuosly with the intent to use it. He may have been a nice kid then but he still brought a gun to school in his car then too what for? who needs a gun in hillsborough the cops partically don’t need them.
john
January 22, 2009 at 12:25 pm
hey all of u morons, the friends of evan, he killed my uncle mazhar nazir, and he did that as thinking himself a lieutenant, something superior to a cab driver, which he can never be. why can’t you guys admitt this. who will bring mazhar nazir back ? nobody can…. so u guys better stop hurting our feelings after hurting and hunting him… please !
khayam mangat
February 27, 2009 at 4:49 am
>> Mr. Gargiulo is accused of allegedly killing a taxicab driver
He’s not accused of “allegedly” killing him. He’s accused of killing him.
Dave
April 16, 2009 at 10:56 pm
[I do not wish to break the chain of comments, but I will make a brief comment.]
Dave,
In that sentence I tried to capture the situation that Mr. Gargiulo is accused without a connotation that he is guilty. I know the result was not 100% grammatically correct, but it captured the meaning I wanted to convey.
With your comment, I have reconsidered the sentence so that it remains faithful to my thoughts. I amended the sentence to read that he “is alleged to have killed….”
Alex W.
April 17, 2009 at 10:17 pm
yarrrrr we know he killed him. Mr.Mazhar Nazir is my mother’s brother. We have seen his dead body and have burried him. SDo we know that garguilo has killed him. there’s nothing like accusing or something like that.
KHAYAM MANGAT
May 23, 2009 at 8:22 am
Khayam Mangat, is your solution to this issue to kill Evan Gargiulo?
This is a great time of sadness for all involved, but do you really feel that killing another person will help your family or benefit you. In either case, it is not our call to make as the judge and jury will decide.
I can understand anger in the death of a family member, however, I do recommend seeking support to really assist you instead of greeting every as ‘morons’.
As far as Evan’s ego at the time of the event, I cannot say. He had pride as any man should, but I would not say that Evan felt as if he was above any other person because of his job, education and rank he held.
To my knowledge, Evan was not on any medication at the moment. Illegal drugs are not probable due to testing incurred in both of his previous career fields.
Verb
June 16, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Alex W – The question “Why would Mr. Gargulio need a gun in Reston, VA?” is irrelevant. Law-abiding citizens are afforded the right to own guns without providing a necessity as laid forth by the second amendment and upheld by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. Your question is misleading as it falsly implies that anyone owning a gun in Reston, VA does so abnormally.
Alex – Your mindless rant about ROTC belies your ignorance. I graduated with Evan and went through the same ROTC training. I’m not a murderer. I’ve never fired a weapon at another human being. I don’t dream about killing. You’re confusing the actions of the indivual with the nature of the military. If a soldier commits a crime it is not because he is a soldier that he does so. It is because he is a criminal. Correlation does not imply causation. Furthermore, I assure you ROTC does not train how to fire 9mm handguns. The only weapon I ever fired in ROTC was the standard M16/M4 rifle. As far as the value of human life is concerned, I sat through more classes in ROTC that dealt with the prevention of civilian deaths and the proper escalation of force to include waiting to be fired upon before engaging the enemy that from my experience there I can claim with absolute certainty your idea of ROTC training is categorically false. You obviously have strong feelings on the nature of the military and the US government, and as such you’ve allowed them to cloud your judgement of reality. This is a singular case about the actions of one man, not about the institutional brain-washing you fantasize is as work.
To the family, I’m sorry for your loss. Any time that a family buries one of their own is a tragedy and my heart goes out you. I also understand your desire for justice, and I also hope that justice is served. I’ll wait for the verdict from the jury to pass judgement on Evan’s guilt or innocence, but I can with confidence say that he was not the kind of man to think himself better than others or superior because he was smart or a lieutenant in the Army. Just as family and friends describe Mr Nazir as being a nice guy who always tried to help, I remember Evan being a nice guy in much the same way.
Mike
August 22, 2009 at 2:36 am
Mike: I am not sure why the second amendment would apply in this situation as not only is it legal to own guns in Virginia, an owner may wear it openly in most circumstances.
The question is directed at the timing at which the gun was retrieved and also at the need of a gun in an affluent, suburban Reston, VA.
Alex W.
August 27, 2009 at 7:29 pm
You’re clearly failing to grasp the concept. The 2nd Amendment does apply if your basis for questioning his possession of a gun is the perceived need for one in Reston, VA.
Believe me, I agree that the timing of his retrieval of the gun is questionable.
However, your continued insistence that one does not “need” a gun in Reston, VA belies an ignorant belief about gun ownership. It has nothing to do with necessity. I don’t need a gun where I live, it’s perfectly safe. Yet I own one. I have a right to own one. If someone questioned me saying “but you don’t need a gun,” it would be pointless because that’s not the reason I have a gun in the first place.
Mike
October 11, 2009 at 4:34 am
I do not question his possession of a gun. This I addressed in the first paragraph in the comment above.
I guess the question could be seen as a back door criticism of legal ability to own firearms. But such a criticism would be a waste of time in a jurisdiction where the right to bear arms for self defense is already established and settled.
My question is directed at understanding the situation that went on at the time of the alleged crime. The need for a gun in a safe area is one of the questions that occurred to me as I read the articles. Without the taxi driver being able to testify on his own behalf, his perspective must be considered (as much as reasonably possible).
Alex W.
October 11, 2009 at 12:38 pm