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.
I can see where both sides are coming from, but one thing we can both agree on is regardless of the law, if this loser was dead, it would instantly be a net positive to the population. Emotions aside, he provides nothing but a complete drain on the resources of his community and country. People like this used to be hanged, shot, or were exiled. We are too soft. He will be in and out of the criminal justice system for the rest of his life, until he kills someone or someone kills him. Also looking into the background of the pregnant woman she is clearly trash as well. I imagine this won't be her last run-in with the law either.
She was protecting her property: her car and her purse.
Do you own a gun for protection? What's the difference between hitting him with her vehicle or shooting him if he'd broken into her house? Nothing IMO.
Everyone who owns guns in the US say they have them for protection and to protect what is theirs. Maybe her gun was in her purse and the vehicle was a handier weapon at the time.
What an incredibly bad analogy. You can't shoot someone that doesn't pose an active threat of harm to you. You can't shoot someone running away from you, especially if it's not inside your home (state laws differ when it's actually in your house). Using a car as a deadly weapon in this case, is exactly the same as if she pulled out a revolver and fired at him while he was running away in the parking lot.
He never physically harmed her either. It was strictly retaliation for him stealing her purse and dropping it. Yes, he's a scumbag but at that point it was over. She does not have a right to vigilante justice for a property crime.
What an incredibly bad analogy. You can't shoot someone that doesn't pose an active threat of harm to you. You can't shoot someone running away from you, especially if it's not inside your home (state laws differ when it's actually in your house). Using a car as a deadly weapon in this case, is exactly the same as if she pulled out a revolver and fired at him while he was running away in the parking lot.
He never physically harmed her either. It was strictly retaliation for him stealing her purse and dropping it. Yes, he's a scumbag but at that point it was over. She does not have a right to vigilante justice for a property crime.
^^ This.
Cops aren't even allowed to do that. They catch some petty or not so petty crime, they're not allowed to take out Tasers and nightsticks and beat down perps unless they're resisting arrest or causing harm to others. Given what happens out there, I'm sure there are cops out there who wish they could do so to arrogant pricks who brag about crimes (especially horrendous ones), but if they got their hands up, are unarmed, and surrendered, then at that point, they'd be skirting their own policies.
Cops aren't even allowed to do that. They catch some petty or not so petty crime, they're not allowed to take out Tasers and nightsticks and beat down perps unless they're resisting arrest or causing harm to others. Given what happens out there, I'm sure there are cops out there who wish they could do so to arrogant pricks who brag about crimes (especially horrendous ones), but if they got their hands up, are unarmed, and surrendered, then at that point, they'd be skirting their own policies.
How often have we seen cops being convicted by a jury on this?
You seem to have a bias against the ability or right of someone to proactively defend themselves. I explained in detail why an insurance company would have to defend her and I get radio silence in response.
While it may be true that she'll be charged I honestly can't think any jury would vote to convict her, unless there are lots of prior similar scrapes. Juries, if not judges, properly have little appetite for someone who thinks they can victimize other people and ultimately society by committing petty crimes, secure in the knowledge that they are unlikely to be caught by authorities, and that most victims are either unaware at the time that a crime has been committed or are passive.
You have a strange idea about what "defending themselves" actually means. Shooting or running someone over with your car that is fleeing and poses zero risk to you at that point is not self defense, it is murder or attempted murder. You don't have a right to get pissed off and use deadly force unless the person you attack actually poses a true threat. Revenge and self defense are two very different things.
If I am on the jury, the best a vigilante can hope for is a hung jury and a second trial. I will not acquit someone that decided to take the law into their own hands.
Anyone who acts to stop the commission of a crime and apprehend a criminal should be immune from prosecution and liability.
So, if I shoot someone in the back who was littering I should be immune from prosecution? How about deliberately running over a jay walker in my car? Perhaps, speeders should be shot too. The police should overlook all that right?
Our laws give citizens a right to use deadly force in self defense. Whenever we are justifiably fearful of death or serious bodily injury we may use that force against others. When the only issue is property damage or property loss, we do not have a right to use deadly force.
There was nothing in this situation that should have made that woman fearful of death or serious bodily injury. She ran over that man because of a desire to harm him and because of revenge. We cannot run a justice system that allows people to take matters into their own hands when they feel aggrieved. Eventually, we'll end up with people harming others because of a mistaken identification. We were not meant to be judge, jury, and executioner in these situations.
Cops aren't even allowed to do that. They catch some petty or not so petty crime, they're not allowed to take out Tasers and nightsticks and beat down perps unless they're resisting arrest or causing harm to others.
Ay, there's the rub. Weve gone overboard in protecting the rights of those who would deprive us of ours.
Ay, there's the rub. Weve gone overboard in protecting the rights of those who would deprive us of ours.
Well, that is rather the United States; welcome to it.
A and B. A: It reminds me of the Adam-12 episode, The Trial, where Reed innocently conducts an improper search, finds a pusher of speed, and therefore busts him for it. While the law is anxious to put this guy away for a long time, because it was an improper search, that evidence is tossed out and the guy is found not guilty. Lines sort of by the judge, "You are fortunate to live in a country where the rights apply to the criminal just as they apply to the innocent.". Now that was back in the 70s, so it is nothing new.
B: The above was TV if based on on "true stories". We have had these rights, however, since around 1787, from those protecting against illegal search to protection against torture to not executing someone for anything less than murder (note difference between crimes against individuals and those against the State).
If someone thinks it is wrong or overboard that the government can't apply a version of the thousand cuts for each person he has killed (say as an example), well, I'm not really sorry about that and I rather like the rights one has in this country. If a person is directly facing the death penalty after due process, let it be swift and above all, given the tone seen here, passionless.....though it really gets my blood boiling everytime I see people, especially the government, wanting to bypass rights because "it is common sense", "it is economical (the money could be better spent elsewhere)", "it is the right thing to do", "it will set an example to others", etc..
Be very aware of what the cost will be if the general population takes on the trend of bypassing another's rights because eventually, some government will do the same to the general population.
People really want to turn this country to the old Wild West where you could take justice in your own hands? Do they realize innocent people would get killed and the murder rate would go up ten times what it is now? The people who say if they were on the jury they would vote non guilty are the exact people who should not be on a jury.
So, if I shoot someone in the back who was littering I should be immune from prosecution? How about deliberately running over a jay walker in my car? Perhaps, speeders should be shot too. The police should overlook all that right?
Our laws give citizens a right to use deadly force in self defense. Whenever we are justifiably fearful of death or serious bodily injury we may use that force against others. When the only issue is property damage or property loss, we do not have a right to use deadly force.
There was nothing in this situation that should have made that woman fearful of death or serious bodily injury. She ran over that man because of a desire to harm him and because of revenge. We cannot run a justice system that allows people to take matters into their own hands when they feel aggrieved. Eventually, we'll end up with people harming others because of a mistaken identification. We were not meant to be judge, jury, and executioner in these situations.
A jaywalker, litterer, or speeder may be reducing my quality of life but is rarely a direct threat. A purse snatching can easily degenerate into something that is a real threat.
We disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
People really want to turn this country to the old Wild West where you could take justice in your own hands? Do they realize innocent people would get killed and the murder rate would go up ten times what it is now? The people who say if they were on the jury they would vote non guilty are the exact people who should not be on a jury.
We could well become the Wild West if law enforcement and courts are prevented from doing their jobs, either by starvation of funding or legal rulings that make no sense.
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.
