She did risk the baby by reckless driving and also by confronting the thief, even while he didn't show any earlier signs of agression. Getting tried (also succeeding) to get hit by a car can get your emotions high.So again, REQUIRED level of force NECESSARY. What could she have done herself in this situation that was a lesser amount of force that would have allowed her to retrieve her property and minimize risk to herself or baby?
"Me being five months pregnant, I chased a little ways then come back, jumped in the car, threw it in gear and come across the curb and ran him over. I was not going to let him get away with it,
So I guess I am the only one that agrees with her methods. Fuck thiefs.
I'd do the same. You try steal from me I will recover my property at any cost.
Sweet. And then you go to jail for murder. You can't kill someone cause they ran off with your purse/wallet. Cause that's what happened here. She didn't shoot him in the middle of an attempted burglary. She drove into him when he took off with her purse.
Sweet. And then you go to jail for murder. You can't kill someone cause they ran off with your purse/wallet. Cause that's what happened here. She didn't shoot him in the middle of an attempted burglary. She drove into him when he took off with her purse.
1. she was not in imminent danger
2. the theft already took place
3. she got in her car and ran after him and then hit him
4. she's NOT FUCKING JUDGE DREDD
wtf is wrong with you people?
πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνταιSweet. And then you go to jail for murder. You can't kill someone cause they ran off with your purse/wallet. Cause that's what happened here. She didn't shoot him in the middle of an attempted burglary. She drove into him when he took off with her purse.
πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται
Hey I did say that the method she chose to retrieve her belongings was very stupid and potentially dangerous to her, her unborn child, and random bystanders and other innocent vehicles earlier.
I mean, you could have just said that in English.
Then why defend it?
πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται
Live by the sword die by the sword.I mean, you could have just said that in English.
I'd do the same. You try steal from me you sign your death warrant.
πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται
edgyπάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται
Live by the sword die by the sword.
Should the robber's mother come run down that pregnant woman with her SUV?Live by the sword die by the sword.
This isn't punishment. This is using whatever force is necessary to stop a crime in progress. If he survives it would of be wrong to kill them.Why is it that most sane legal systems aren't issuing capital punishment for PETTY THEFT then?
This isn't punishment. This is using whatever force is necessary to stop a crime in progress. If he survives it would of be wrong to kill them.
Live by the sword die by the sword.
Live by the sword die by the sword.
It sounds cooler when you have to google translate it tho.
I may have a problem with the method but I don't have a problem with the concept.
This isn't punishment. This is using whatever force is necessary to stop a crime in progress. If he survives it would of be wrong to kill them.
A private citizen is only allowed to use deadly force when trying to make an arrest if the suspect, in fact, committed a felony
In situations where a private person uses non-deadly force to arrest a suspect, the use of non-deadly force is justified if: 1) a felony was in fact committed, 2) the defendant reasonably believed that the person he was arresting committed it and, 3) the defendant used no more force than reasonably appeared necessary to bring about the arrest.
This isn't punishment. This is using whatever force is necessary to stop a crime in progress. If he survives it would of be wrong to kill them.
Exactly.If she had chased him down and stopped him without damn near killing him or potentially hurting someone, I wouldn't be complaining. She tried to kill him. It went beyond trying to get her property back and went into full on vigilantism and vindictiveness.
Peach Trees is lovely this time of year.What city are you from?
Megacity 1 or Megacity 2?
Eh. Crime has already taken place. This is just running someone over. Either way, it's not your damn job to carry out vigilante justice.This isn't punishment. This is using whatever force is necessary to stop a crime in progress. If he survives it would of be wrong to kill them.
Which. Is. Illegal.
Police officers exist for this purpose, you don't get to take the law into your own hands.
Jesus Christ y'all are scary.
Do you think police officers are some kind of omnipotent force with instant response times?
This isn't punishment. This is using whatever force is necessary to stop a crime in progress. If he survives it would of be wrong to kill them.
Do you think police officers are some kind of omnipotent force with instant response times?
Do you think police officers are some kind of omnipotent force with instant response times?
If you're going to quote Jesus in the context of crime, how about quoting Jesus actually talking about crime. Spoiler alert: don't resist the thief.
And in your example, she's the one with the sword, not him.
Do you think police officers are some kind of omnipotent force with instant response times?
This sounds like something the Punisher would say.Do you think police officers are some kind of omnipotent force with instant response times?
If you're going to quote Jesus in the context of crime, how about quoting Jesus actually talking about crime. Spoiler alert: don't resist the thief.
And in your example, she's the one with the sword, not him.
I don't know what point you are trying to prove here. He could well have survived. The force might be considered justified if indeed the suspect had been stopped and she does not seek to intentionally kill the guy or apply additional force at the guy.https://nationalparalegal.edu/publi...asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/UseofForce.asp
I guess she was only using non-deadly force to arrest the suspect. By running him over.
I am not quoting Jesus. I'm quotingIf you're going to quote Jesus in the context of crime, how about quoting Jesus actually talking about crime. Spoiler alert: don't resist the thief.
And in your example, she's the one with the sword, not him.
I don't know what point you are trying to prove here. He could well have survived. The force might be considered justified if indeed the suspect had been stopped and she does not seek to intentionally kill the guy or apply additional force at the guy.
I am not quoting Jesus. I'm quoting Homer's Iliad. Nice try though.
I don't know what point you are trying to prove here. He could well have survived. The force might be considered justified if indeed the suspect had been stopped and she does not seek to intentionally kill the guy or apply additional force at the guy.
The cops could've pull
I like that people assume cops would actually try to get her purse.
lmao sure they would've. The robbery crime clearance rate in america is only like what 20%?
If this woman wanted her purse back she had no choice but to do it herself.
And I applaud her for doing so, just not the method she used to do it. The thief knew what he was getting into and I have zero pity for him. Though I have zero interest in seeing him dead or maimed either, unless he's also a motorcycle thief.
Im with her