Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Michigan my friend did the same thing. Somebody robbed him in his care, pistol whip him. After the robber got out and tried to run my friend mowed him down with the car...
Of course he was charged but he beat the case because in Michigan, you can use all means to stop a fleeing Felony suspect as long as you dont know the suspects identity, which is the case with this story posted
"Two horrible people"??? What planet are you on? So a person who puts an ad on craigslist to sell something, meets the person who answered the ad, and gets a gun stuck in his face demanding the loot is in your warped view "a horrible person"? If you ever had a gun stuck in your face demanding money, maybe you would change your tune. That would make you a horrible person, wouldn't it?
I'm on the planet where two wrongs don't make a right. Trying to KILL someone - someone who did not actually do the driver any physical harm, btw - by running him over with a car is the action of a horrible person. Two horrible people - the thief and the attempted murderer.
And I honestly don't care if anyone agrees with me.
"Two horrible people"??? What planet are you on? So a person who puts an ad on craigslist to sell something, meets the person who answered the ad, and gets a gun stuck in his face demanding the loot is in your warped view "a horrible person"?
Nothing horrible about him at that point. He didn't become a horrible person until he chose to run over another human, a sleaze ball low life, but a human nonetheless who still retain certain rights even as a sleaze ball low life thief.
Nothing horrible about him at that point. He didn't become a horrible person until he chose to run over another human, a sleaze ball low life, but a human nonetheless who still retain certain rights even as a sleaze ball low life thief.
In some states the accused would walk. His right to steal without risking being killed may apply in NY, certainly not the great state of Texas.
Well lets hope they can't save the kids arm and her survives and every time he looks down where that arm used to be he thinks about what a pos he is. I'm sure the kid had just changed his life around between the time he exited the car and got run over. If I was on the jury for the driver I would let him walk. Send a message to the ******* criminals out there that we aren't going to take it.
The driver is going to jail. You just can't do that; his life was not in danger when he ran the criminal over with his car.
Exactly. That is psycho behavior.
Obviously, he did not use proper Craigslist etiquette. Meet in a public place. How about the patio at Starbucks. Why on earth would you make the exchange in a car.
The kid deserves to be punished for pulling a gun on someone, but losing an arm is not the proper recourse for the crime.
Sad for everyone involved.
Driver is probably going to jail and will be taken away from his kids for losing his temper. That is not setting a good example for your kids. He walked away with his life then lost it in a fit of rage.
The driver used lethal force in an attempt to retrieve property.
Which, for better or for worse, is legal in many states. I doubt New York is one of them. In fairness to the driver though, the robber was armed with a gun. Therefore, the force was not disproportionate. Murder 2 is a huge over charge.
What if the driver had run over a beautiful 500 pound tiger instead of an armed robber? And the tiger had just taken a small bite out of the driver's arm? How big a bite would it have to have been to justify the driver's behavior?
The kid deserves to be punished for pulling a gun on someone, but losing an arm is not the proper recourse for the crime.
It's an imbalanced punishment. To balance it out, cut off the other arm. But it would still be imbalanced, unless you also cut off the legs. Any crime with a gun deserves an extremely severe punishment, but that punishment should be balanced, for aesthetic reasons.
In any case, with our prisons overflowing, it makes sense that people who commit crimes with guns should lose both arms as their punishment. That makes it harder for them to pull the trigger. But if he loses both legs too, he can't wear the loot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
