Support NeoGAF

[dlauv]

Oh, no law major here either but just the term "predatory crime" implies the crime involves the guy attempting physical harm on the victim.

No. It can imply theft or burglary, but the target is premeditated rather than opportunistically chosen.

Source: Google. I hope I'm not spreading misinformation.

The word predatory itself here actually means "seeking to exploit or oppress others." It never explicitly implies physical harm, nor does the English suggest explicitly the specificity of target. The Law, on the other hand, does.

 

[Aske]

The thing is we already have mechanisms in place. Several forms of insurance, from home to auto comprehensive policies, cover theft from automobiles. The second part is we have laws that specify when you are able to use lethal force. There's really not much ground to cover here.

Those mechanisms fail those who need them most. Private insurance isn't the answer: the onus is then on potential victims to pay to protect themselves. Many would rather take their chances and defend themselves physically, which leads to situations like this.

From an ethical and social standpoint, I'd say it's unreasonable to tell people how to respond to crime and criminals without providing an alternative course of action. Maybe that's a police force that citizens can rely on to catch petty criminals and return stolen property; but having victim services provide financial compensation as well as psychological counseling, etc sounds much more practical; and far easier to implement.

Don't pretend the current system works though. It works for some. But the financially disadvantaged suffer disproportionately when they're victimised, and I can absolutely empathise with those of them who want to fight back against criminals under their own power. I agree that this is unacceptable in a civilised society; but I'd argue that letting victims twist in the wind after we legally hamstring them to prevent them standing up for themselves is also unacceptable in a civilised society.

 

[King Gilga]

Yes, you do risk that some crazy person will overreact. But we're talking about a proportional response. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that running someone over with a car for stealing a purse is not a proportional response and thus logically and morally incorrect.

I can't really say what the proportional response it. The depends on the individual person, their disposition, and how much they covet the stolen property, and what they think their options are.

 

[Clockwork5]

Throw her in jail. That is cold blooded attempted murder.

 

[Carnby]

identiy theft is one of the worst crimes one person must deal with.

having id stolen is a pain in the ass of trying to recover and save your identity from fraudsters

I can imagine it. I bet she screamed "Come back here with my identity!!!!" Before running over the thief.

 

[Nipo]

Wouldnt a single person on the jury not making up their mind result in a dead locked jury if a unanimous decision was needed to convict?

Jury instructions would be a very long legalistic version of "if you think she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt vote guilty, otherwise vote not guilty" So as a juror if you don't think the state proved its case you vote not guilty. If you can't make up your mind as to whether she is guilty she would be default not guilty. The system is set up so even if you don't make a decision you've made a decision.

 

[shawnbuddy]

I can't really say what the proportional response it. The depends on the individual person, their disposition, and how much they covet the stolen property, and what they think their options are.

Nope. In a functioning society proportion can't be purely relative and decided by the individual. It's not OK for people to go around taking brutal revenge for small slights because that's in line with their personal outlook on life. Instead we've collectively decided on a few frameworks, like human life being more valuable than the contents of a purse, and it not being proportional to attempt to kill someone for taking a purse.

 

[.JayZii]

Nope. In a functioning society proportion can't be purely relative and decided by the individual. It's not OK for people to go around taking brutal revenge for small slights because that's in line with their personal outlook on life. Instead we've collectively decided on a few frameworks, like human life being more valuable than the contents of a purse, and it not being proportional to attempt to kill someone for taking a purse.

What if I have a bug-out bag and some weapons that I've been dying to use?

 

[Theonik]

Nope. In a functioning society proportion can't be purely relative and decided by the individual. It's not OK for people to go around taking brutal revenge for small slights because that's in line with their personal outlook on life. Instead we've collectively decided on a few frameworks, like human life being more valuable than the contents of a purse, and it not being proportional to attempt to kill someone for taking a purse.

That's untrue. In reality we assign a very low value to human life overall both in our legal system and in the enforcement of our laws. Otherwise lethal force would never be justified including by law enforcement but as bank robbers would tell you that is not the case!

In truth the legal system is designed to protect property primarily and to give the state exclusivity over the use of violence that is in turn used to protect property primarily.

 

[bitbydeath]

Throw her in jail. That is cold blooded attempted murder.

Self-defence, victims have the right to it.

 

[Ozigizo]

Self-defence, victims have the right to it.

Defence against a man running away?

Try again.

 

[MIMIC]

Self-defence, victims have the right to it.

IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!

 

[Freshmaker]

So I guess I am the only one that agrees with her methods. Fuck thiefs.

Stealing a purse is just like stealing a life.

 

[bitbydeath]

Defence against a man running away?

Try again.

You know he did the crime already right?
This isn't GTA where everythings OK cause you left the scene.

 

[cameron]

You know he did the crime already right?
This isn't GTA where everythings OK cause you left the scene.

That's not self defense.

 

[Vamphuntr]

You know he did the crime already right?
This isn't GTA where everythings OK cause you left the scene.

? Self defense is when your life or the life of someone is threatened. If the guy is running away your life is no longer in danger. He's not a danger to anyone either as he was only pilfering cars in the first place. It's both hilarious and terrifying to think some of you can get away with murder because you simply think so.

 

[RustyNails]

Vigilante Justice is never a good idea, but theives are scum, and I dont feel sorry for scum.

 

[ISOM]

You know he did the crime already right?
This isn't GTA where everythings OK cause you left the scene.

A crime is different from self defense.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

You know he did the crime already right?
This isn't GTA where everythings OK cause you left the scene.

lol.

"I mean, there was a possibility that after he stole my purse, he could have came back around and then murdered me in the parking lot! I didn't have a choice but to run him down in my car as he was fleeing!"

I would say it's surprising how some of you people think, but I live in a country that justifies murder of 12 year old children by police, so I guess this thread is pretty tame in comparison.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

lol.

"I mean, there was a possibility that after he stole my purse, he could have came back around and then murdered me in the parking lot! I didn't have a choice but to run him down in my car as he was fleeing!"

I would say it's surprising how some of you people think, but I live in a country that justifies murder of 12 year old children by police, so I guess this thread is pretty tame in comparison.

The truth is she was angry and dude and didn't want him to get away with it. I think any comparisons to racial injustices are ridiculous. But at the end of the day the penalty for stealing can't be death that's some puritan shit.

She gets sympathy points because a lot of people thinks little of the well being of theives.

All in all she gotta be charged at minimum with vehicular assault. She can ask for leniency based off the circumstances and it'll be up to a judge or jury. But charges gotta happen.

What happens when people start running over suspected purse theives? Trick question! Cause technically that's what dude is until he goes to court.

 

[bitbydeath]

That's not self defense.

I would also self-defend for my belongings, she was not in a state to run after him which is what most would do in that same situation.

 

[adamsapple]

You know he did the crime already right?
This isn't GTA where everythings OK cause you left the scene.

You're right, this isn't GTA. You're not supposed to run people over or drive recklessly in a Walmart's parking and putting other bystander's life at risk.

I would also self-defend for my belongings, she was not in a state to run after him which is what most would do in that same situation.

What belongings ? The guy even dropped the purse before running away. He wasn't stealing the woman's car or anything nor was he posing any active threat to her.

There's self defense and then there's purposefully chasing someone and enacting excessive force.

 

[nephilimdj]

Most likely get automotive manslaughter or whatever its called in that state, often can be a slap on the wrist

That's not self defense.

Laws are weird when comes to crimes like this, if someone upsets you, often judges will let the case go.
If you run over a dude on a bike, and the bike rider threatens and swears, you can legally do a "hit and run" aka leave the scene.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

The truth is she was angry and dude and didn't want him to get away with it. I think any comparisons to racial injustices are ridiculous. But at the end of the day the penalty for stealing can't be death that's some puritan shit.

She gets sympathy points because a lot of people thinks little of the well being of theives.

All in all she gotta be charged at minimum with vehicular assault. She can ask for leniency based off the circumstances and it'll be up to a judge or jury. But charges gotta happen.

What happens when people start running over suspected purse theives? Trick question! Cause technically that's what dude is until he goes to court.

My primary point was that in a situation where it should have been really easy to fucking care, nobody did, so I don't expect people to care about this guy either, and this thread reinforces that. I probably could have used a better example, but my point stands.

The act of a crime doesn't automatically make your fucking life forfeit, and even within the law, the act is disproportionate to the retribution. People should realize this, but oh man, her PURSE was stolen! I guess we should hang him up in the public square!

 

[Aselith]

That's the risk you take when you rob someone.

Its like that katana guy vs those home invaders, no one deserves to be sliced and diced like that but that's the risk they took.

Hell my dad gave me a sword when I moved out for home invaders too keep under my bed. That's too paranoid for my blood tho I stashed it in some closet years ago. I don't think I could stomach that shit.

Uh no, home invaders are an active threat so that's QUITE A BIT different

 

[bitbydeath]

You're right, this isn't GTA. You're not supposed to run people over or drive recklessly in a Walmart's parking and putting other bystander's life at risk.



What belongings ? The guy even dropped the purse before running away. He wasn't stealing the woman's car or anything nor was he posing any active threat to her.

There's self defense and then there's purposefully chasing someone and enacting excessive force.

Why do you care so much about this guy? She did a service to the community, chances of him re-offending are cut substantially.

That's a better lesson than any jail could ever provide.

 

[adamsapple]

Why do you care so much about this guy? She did a service to the community, chances of him re-offending are cut substantially.

That's a better lesson than any jail could ever provide.

Check my post history if you want to in this topic, no one cares for the guy, i've posted multiple times how a good simple ass whooping would be well deserved for him.

I'm just baffled how many people in this topic are willing to give the woman a free pass for damn near murdering someone. Petty theft and assault with a deadly weapon are offences in two completely different categories.

Worse comes to worse, she could have seriously endangered her life, her unborn child's life or any innocent bystander who could accidentally have been walking across the same parking space at that time.

So, no. I don't care for the guy. However I'm also not keen on giving the woman a free pass.

 

[shawnbuddy]

That's untrue. In reality we assign a very low value to human life overall both in our legal system and in the enforcement of our laws. Otherwise lethal force would never be justified including by law enforcement but as bank robbers would tell you that is not the case!

In truth the legal system is designed to protect property primarily and to give the state exclusivity over the use of violence that is in turn used to protect property primarily.

Horseshit. Police do not, as a general rule, execute nonviolent or fleeing people to protect property. Bank robbery is usually a violent gun crime in which money is taken by real or threatened force. Robbers that die in a shootout with police while robbing a bank are a far different story than killing purse snatchers that are running away. Cases in which police, say, shoot someone in the back to prevent a property crime are very controversial, even if they often get away with it because juries refuse to convict officers.

 

[SlaughterX]

What sucks is that in spite of being a victim of theft, she can also be charged with "misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon." Yeah, the other guy may have deserved it, but it is still trying to run a guy over with your vehicle.

Who knows if this will be justified in court or not. As pointed out right above me, it is a shame that the victim could get in more trouble than the guy who tried to rob her."

Honestly the charge is kinda BS when you can hit someone with a bottle and get charged with felony aggravated battery. Bet he wish I had taken her keys too.

Ftr, I've never hit someone with a bottle... but one of my friends has, and they caught that F for it.

Also I'd be disappointed if there isn't a Baby Driver pun somewhere in this thread.

 

[Theonik]

Horseshit. Police do not, as a general rule, execute nonviolent or fleeing people to protect property. Bank robbery is usually a violent gun crime in which money is taken by real or threatened force. Robbers that die in a shootout with police while robbing a bank are a far different story than killing purse snatchers that are running away. Cases in which police, say, shoot someone in the back to prevent a property crime are very controversial, even if they often get away with it because juries refuse to convict officers.

If a life is more valuable than property as a matter of principle then there would be no exceptions to this. That isn't the case and the fact police can actually get away with literal murder proves that consensus. That reality is also what enables war, hunger, poverty and the majority of humanity's vice to continue on existing.

 

[SigSig]

The lengths people are willing to go to justify this, lol
She ran down a guy who was running away and who posed no threat whatsoever with an SUV, embracing the possibility to kill him.
Seeing this thread, it's really no wonder the US has the problems they are dealing with right now.

 

[nekkid]

I don't feel sorry for either of them, to be honest.

 

[CrayToes]

This thread is fucking depressing. The lack of compassion for human life is sickening.

 

[Iorv3th]

This thread is fucking depressing. The lack of compassion for human life is sickening.

If she hadn't done anything the guy would have gotten away scott free. The police do not care about thieves and will not pursue cases of theft. Only if you have an alarm and they catch someone in the act. Otherwise they aren't going to pursue these people and the thieves know it.

She did not end up killing the guy.

Until the police start doing something to these guys you can expect this stuff to happen.

 

[old manatee]

Throw her in jail. That is cold blooded attempted murder.

How is it cold-blooded if a pregnant woman is just going about her shopping, and all of a sudden she is put into fight or flight mode by some creepy hobgoblin who pops out of her car? It's literally the opposite of cold-blooded.

 

[LastGamer84]

Any lawyer worth his salt is going to play the pregnant hormone angle, which will give the jury the excuse they need to let her off/give her a lighter sentence. Sexist? Maybe but no jury is going to send a pregnant woman to jail for doing what some of them wish they could do in that situation.

Is it right? That's a matter of opinion.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Risk her baby to actively get into a collision.

What a hero.

Reminds me of that other story of where some other hero follows an armed robbber out of the shop that was getting robbed.

He shoots the robber in the back of the head as he was fleeing.

What a hero!

 

[Mechanized]

Regardless of the outcome, this never would have happened if the dude wasn't stealing. Can't have much sympathy for him.