andythinkpad
Member
You will go to jail for a stupid wallet? How much money is in your wallet?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pregnant woman ran down a fleeing man 'who stole purse from her car' in Walmart
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
You will go to jail for a stupid wallet? How much money is in your wallet?
King Gilga
Member
And I don't have a problem with that, the courts can handle it.
TheStruggler
Report me for trolling ND/TLoU2 threads
you dont have a problem with attempted murder?
King Gilga
Member
In this case not really no.
Hoya Destroyer
Member
She overreacted, but I can understand her anger.
The thief doesnt deserve to die or be perma-crippled etc, but if she got her stuff back and he got something like a broken leg, I'd be fine with that.
The thief doesnt deserve to die or be perma-crippled etc, but if she got her stuff back and he got something like a broken leg, I'd be fine with that.
Theonik
Member
Which is not murder. It is true that private citizens do not get much power over these matters as the state holds the monopoly on murder, and well the use of violence in general. By your reckoning it would indeed have been correct if the police had arrived and unloaded a magazine on him as often happens in these cases.
And I mean, she's charged with a misdemeanor, has her purse back and is likely to get the whole thing overturned in court. As for the quote,
There is more than one interpretation of such. While the biblical quote was intended to warn against the consequences of violence and was indeed pacifism, the sentiment was intended both ways and is in fact used as such, to imply that one gets what one deserves. Moreover, it is with such sentiment that we allow states to even wield such powers in the first place.
They were stopped and she got her purse back. The suspect is still alive.
Now if the intent was to enact revenge or explicitly exact punishment on the suspect one would have a point.
She was not charged with attempted murder nor do her actions qualify to such. In fact even if he had died in the process worse case would have been involuntary manslaughter.
Though she'd have been far more likely to have faced actual sentencing for that.
TheStruggler
Report me for trolling ND/TLoU2 threads
you have issues, i certainly hope you talk to someone about it
King Gilga
Member
Sure thing Mr internet psychologist.
andythinkpad
Member
The court will put your ass in prison that's what.
King Gilga
Member
Why would they? I haven't done anything.
Its not so much her trying to kill him as it would be him throwing his life away for a purse. This was his choice.
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
He threw the keys in her hand and tied her foot to the pedal?
andythinkpad
Member
Haha I get it, so YOU wouldn't do it yourself, but you just want to cheer this woman on to take vigilante to her own hands all the way to jail isn't it? What an internet tough guy.
She assaulted a man who was no longer a threat to her by running him over. She didn't chase him down and tackle him.
Don't equate the two.
Theonik
Member
She chased him down and tackled him. In a 1.5tn steel box.
Which admittedly is more excessive than some would like.
Probably less than ideal. Outcome was pretty good considering those circumstances and I have no qualms with this. She's serving 0-1 years in jail in all likelihood the former. If you like to believe that this is a matter for the law then you should also accept the law in the outcome of this instance.
she put his hands on her purse and told him to run as fast as he could?
lol did dook really get banned for this
I mean, she walked over to the vehicle and he was "rummaging around inside it".
Did he break in or was she stupid enough to leave her belongings in plain sight with the window open/door unlocked?
The article seems to indicate the latter...
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
I'm actually surprised she wasn't charged for attempted murder.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
If I got this right:
Class A1: 1 to 150 days of active, intermediate, or community punishment
Slap on the wrist.
Class A1: 1 to 150 days of active, intermediate, or community punishment
Slap on the wrist.
Theonik
Member
Murder requires clear malicious intent to kill. The common law principle for most crimes is 'Actus reus and mens rea' (a guilty act followed by a guilty mind) this is carried into the US as due process. If she had in fact killed him she would have been charged with manslaughter, either voluntary or involuntary depending again on the individual circumstance. Being provoked by the victim would also tend to reduce the crime to manslaughter in many cases.
TheStruggler
Report me for trolling ND/TLoU2 threads
Im not a psychologist I said you need to speak to someone, if you think that someone using a car as a means with the intent to hurt someone because an item was taken is an ok thing to do.....thats something to see someone about the fact that YOU think that is ok makes me think you are not right in the head
Seductivpancakes
Member
Not to mention it's insanely dangerous to pursue a criminal by yourself. What if he was armed and turned around to pop some shots at the SUV?
What if you were chasing someone on foot and he decided "fuck it, I'm going to turn around and put a bullet in this idiot"
It's not like guns are hard to get in this country.
What if you were chasing someone on foot and he decided "fuck it, I'm going to turn around and put a bullet in this idiot"
It's not like guns are hard to get in this country.
AlexFlame116
Member
Oh no. Is this Matthew? I'm sure Jesus was thinking of this when he said that.
No he wasn't. That is definitely not what he meant.
Coriolanus
Banned
Hmmm, there'd be room to push it as second degree murder, had it happened.
This is something I was wondering about. Someone earlier in the thread said it wouldn't matter if you were assaulting someone in such a way to have a high chance of killing them- which is the case?
Might as well have. Oops is that victim blaming?
Theonik
Member
It depends. It is pretty unlikely you would be able to prove intention to kill and malice aforethought in court in this kind of case which are the main distinctions between murder and manslaughter. You also run the risk that jury would be sympathetic to the assailant in this case and might be tempted to acquit if you tried to push for second degree murder rather than a lesser offence.
It would be the combination of circumstances, provacation, confusion, and likely lack of murderous intent.
She chased him down and tackled him in the only way she could. It's his fault not stealing from a person capable of chasing him down in less lethal manner.
You guys who empathise with the victim more than the theif are psychopaths, and I'm scared to be alone with any of you, because you would definitely murder someone who stole from you.
Glorious.
I don't want this woman to be punished for trying to get her purse back. I think the better system would be one which reimburses victims in order to prevent reactions like this; but from an ethical standpoint I'm entirely on the woman's side.
Glorious.
I don't want this woman to be punished for trying to get her purse back. I think the better system would be one which reimburses victims in order to prevent reactions like this; but from an ethical standpoint I'm entirely on the woman's side.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
The amount of victim blaming in this thread is rather comical really.
Coriolanus
Banned
Hence "there'd be room". Going along the lines of a foreseeable killing happening as a result of an act intended to cause serious bodily harm. Which quite fits throwing a car at someone. Dolus eventualis and allathat.
I never mention jury in these discussions because jury gon jury.
This line of reasoning is faulty because it can just as easily be argued if all she had was a gun. Which would make no goddamn sense.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Which victim are you talking about ? The one whose purse was rummaged through without any physical harm or the one who almost got crushed to death by a truck ?
Wouldn't a pregnant women being mugged be the perfect opportunity where a gun would be used in self defense?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
While I agree with your train of thought, the pregnant woman was not being mugged in this case at least. She came out of Walmart, saw the guy rummaging trough her SUV and the guy bolted as soon as he saw her, there was never any harm or any kind of threat to the woman.
The most harm to the woman was from her own actions by jumping in the SUV, driving through parking lanes and hitting the brake hard after running over the guy, she could have injured herself, her unborn child or any innocent bystandar ... besides the one guy she did clearly injure.
prag16
Banned
I mean, what she did was obviously stupid. But I can't bring myself to feel TOO badly for people robbing pregnant women in Walmart parking lots..
This type of comment is used very frequently in Trump topics (to the point that it has lost all meaning) and most of the time it's not really fitting there, let alone here.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
you should rethink what money and these things you look at.. at this very time really are. they are a creation and your mind has accepted them in such a way that you are r'seady to hurt others over them, possibly kill them. thats interesting dont you think?
Ninja Scooter
Member
if the thief was running away? No. That would be murder/manslaughter.
Shotgun Kiss
Member
Personally, I think if somebody has stolen something from you, and you harm them in an attempt to get it back, that's fair game, so long as you don't use more force than is necessary to retrieve what was stolen (as otherwise it becomes revenge, which isn't OK).
The only option this woman had to get her purse back was to do what she did.
Why should she have to stand back and let the thief have her stuff? Better they be the victim than her.
The only option this woman had to get her purse back was to do what she did.
Why should she have to stand back and let the thief have her stuff? Better they be the victim than her.
How do you feel about Sharia law?
Ninja Scooter
Member
Lmao @ running over a person with an SUV somehow not being "excessive force". Some straight up out of touch edge lords up in here.
How so, if she had a gun and used it to stop him it would be fine too long as she doesn't end up executing him. She basically used the only option she could to get her stuff back and certainly wasn't attempting to murder him, otherwise she would have run over him again to finish him off. Sure he could have died during the process but that wasn't the intention and it's not like she had any other choice if she wanted to stop him, it's completely on him.
Randolph Freelander
Member
The failed humanity is about the people in the article and this very thread stating that the response was understandable and appropriate. We like to at least pretend we're civilized. Obviously, quite a number of us are not.
It is quite frankly horrifying that so many would justify her actions. It's literally mind boggling.
Randolph Freelander
Member
If the options are letting someone get away with a purse or using potentially lethal force to retrieve it from someone posing no threat to you, you actually don't have an option. Not in any civilized country.
It's a freaking purse. Sometimes, you just have to take that loss.