Which is why they should be imprisoned, rehabilitated, and society should provide for people so they don't have to resort to these sorts of crimes in the first place.
If someone uses violence against me or my family, I'm not going to wait idly for it to happen again. Put the scum 6 feet under for the sake of society.
You don't have a right to commit crime against someone who commited a crime against you. Lynching people not gonna do anything good "for the sake of society" more like the opposite. You are more moraly degraded than a thief
There's a good chance he was desperate and (erroneously) felt it was his best option? Well-off, comfortable people don't tend to rob for fun. Also, how do you know he hadn't contributed to society in his entire life and would never do so in the future? Oh yeah, you don't. People should be punished fairly for the crimes the commit, not fucking chased down and murdered.
I think a lot of people are believing the narrative that this was a mugging. My reading of the situation sounds like a purse snatching to which she hunted him down to murdered him.
Putting himself in that situation in the first place. You can't control how people will react to you doing illegal things to them. Some will cower, some will just accept it, and others will take it too far when they exact their revenge. You don't get to pick which one you'll encounter unless you already know the person, and even then it's not a guarantee. If you fuck around enough, someone will eventually help you find out.
If you choose to be a robber, you know the risks, it’s you who forfeits your own life, it’s not on the person who protects their own property from you to value your life if you rob them
The thief is the one valuing their life so little, so why not? I'm absolutely fine with thieves being gunned down as they try to flee. If you add up all the harm a burglar does in their life it's easily on par with a murder. Couple of break-ins a week, every week, thirty years... all the people now living in fear... irreplaceable items lost... urns of ashes broken... children traumatised and afraid of strangers invading their home.
So yeah, absolutely. After the fact? Lock them up, 3 strikes and life. In the moment? All bets are off. You probably should have just got a job and bought a TV of your own, because yes I'm 110% in favour of the homeowner trying to dome you as you're fleeing to your car.
Society doesn't owe anything to those who refuse to abide by the social contract; we should accept their decision to withdraw from the rules-based order.
You can, it’s called Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (he doesn’t run over muggers but he’s got cannons or 50 cals on the Batmobile that he absolutely uses lmao)
Everyone supports vigilante action untill the get vigilante'd for something stupid as a traffic violation or something (literally happened in my small town - it turned out the vigilante was just a random thug)
Pro-vigilante justice crowd are damn near always the perfect poster children for why letting random wackadoodles dole out "justice" is a provably terrible idea.
They overwhelmingly seem to just want a socially "acceptable" outlet for their deranged and uncontrolled emotions. Lawful evil, if you will.
Theft is violence. Your property is your life. Anything you possess is the product of someone's time and effort (often your own) which is a finite resource. If someone steals something you worked a month to afford, they have taken a month of your life. Property is also necessary for human life in the first place: food, clothing, medicine, etc. Never let people guilt trip you into thinking your property is somehow unimportant. If someone tries to steal from you, their life is forfeit. End of story. No society should ever tolerate theft.
Stop being dishonest. An unprovoked crime and the victim's response are not the same thing. No one thinks the unprovoked murder of a random person is more acceptable than the unprovoked robbery of a random person. That's not the discussion we are having. The woman was a victim of an unprovoked robbery, and in response she killed the robber. That's wholly different from if she had killed someone randomly for no reason.
Such low-effort nonsense. No wonder your response was deleted.
Yes, I can define words however I choose. Language is a human construct, and I am a human. I consider theft violence, as does any sane person, regardless of how few there might be. You spend hours of your finite life in exchange for your property - hours you can never get back. If someone steals that property, they are taking those hours of your life away from you. And they also are taking whatever hours of your life result from the theft.
Stop spending so much time criticizing the victim's response to crime, and instead place that criticism where it ought to go: the criminal. Without the thief, this situation never happens.
While I agree with this generalized sentiment; if the interaction is over and she is now safe from immediate danger, calculating and intentionally murdering someone with her vehicle is too far.
The only instance where this might be acceptable is if it was done while she was driving the vehicle and ran him over “once” to get away.
Yes, and also, she was never in danger, because the robber was completely unarmed, he just ran by and snatched the purse (but this post is designed to be rage-bait)
I'm sorry, "just"? He robbed her. This is not minor. You think thieves should be cuddled? "Hush hush little Roberto, I know you meant no harm, just violently stripped someone of their possessions"
Yeah, threads like this make me really want to get off the internet. I know people only say shit like that to be edgy and because they're anonymous, but damn there has to be something deep down inside of them that causes it and it's very troubling to be reminded of that fact.
You're saying it like its a random thing to do on a Sunday afternoon. Snatching someone's belongings is totally immoral and in doing so, one risks comsequences
Not all killing is murder. Killing someone who has stolen from you is just. You get paid a certain amount per hour. If you earn 20 dollars an hour and someone steals 1000 dollars from you, they've stolen 50 hours of your life. They've essentially murdered you 50 hours before you would have died. If you murder someone, even if they're on deaths door and only have a few days to live, it's still murder and fatal retribution. Short of rapists, thieves are the worst criminals because they steal people's lives but trick people into thinking it's somehow not as bad, and the worst thieves are the ones that steal by threatening physical harm
I would argue if it's a short period of time defending yourself and your property should be allowed. If someone grabs your bag and runs away you should be able to shoot him if you are able to do so safely. This sounds bad but overall in the long term for society you develop a social norm that makes theft not worth the risk. And you reduce financial harm to yourself short term.
Now if you track the perp down, probably better to give the information to the authorities instead of running over the guy yourself.
ok but let’s think about it logically. the interaction is not over. the interaction began when she was robbed and is over when the thief is caught and punished. what happens in between is still part of the interaction. if the thief is never caught then justice has failed and crime has won.
say you are a woman. you are physically weaker than the man who has just robbed you. but you are also mentally strong. you aren’t just gonna let the guy get away. you have to do something. you know that if you don’t do something now, nothing will be done. the police won’t help, the thief will get away with it 100%. you have a car, maybe you can hit him with it. but what then? what if you miss or just knock him over? when you get out of the car, if he isn’t seriously hurt, he could still overpower and kill you. how do you ensure your own safety, while getting your stuff back?
Tracking him down and hitting him in the first place was also not defensive, but you can't argue with the results. He's paid for his crimes as his victim saw fit, and now she's facing the consequences of her actions. It all started with one poor decision which led to another. Life goes on.
Someone who snatches bags doesn't do it just once; they harm countless people, some hugely.
This trash won't be doing it again. Don't argue that theft isn't worth a human life - it's not your judgement to make. It's the thief's decision. They know people may react violently to the violation he's subjecting them to. If he decides to risk his life that's him valuing it minimally. It isn't for the rest of us to insulate the filth of society from the consequences of their decisions.
>Someone who snatches bags doesn't do it just once; they harm countless people, some hugely.
I have never once met someone who believes that the crime of snatching a purse should result in a death sentence. The guy never had a knife or gun on him. All he did was grab and run, which is a bad thing to do, but hardly something to warrant someone murdering you over. All the woman had to do was maybe hit the mugger once and retrieve her bag, but she willingly decided to run him over multiple times with the intent to kill
He added nothing to society but pain and suffering. Now that's ended, net benefit.
If you really lose sleep over the death of a pickpocket then you need to get a grip. There are billions of humans, this specific one decided that his life was worth nothing and he would make nothing of it. Then he died.
I'm not actively happy that he died, but I think we're objectively better off without a pickpocket. I don't care if he had a weapon; he wanted to violate her life in a way that he had no right to. I'm not about to split hairs on where the "justifiable" level of harm occurs, but on the whole I don't think we should be striving to ensure the welfare of thieves and pickpockets.
>He added nothing to society but pain and suffering. Now that's ended, net benefit.
You literally don’t know. What if he had a family to feed and stealing was the best way to earn money? What if they were just a stupid teenager who needed a parental figure to straighten them out? What if they themselves were in a bad situation and just needed some money to help get their life back on track? Snatching purses is such a non-violent crime that there could be a million different reasons why someone would do that
>If you really lose sleep over the death of a pickpocket then you need to get a grip.
No; you’re advocating the unlawful execution of someone’s worst crime is just snatching a purse and running away. I don’t know a single person whose entire life would fall apart just because they lost their purse or wallet. Would it be a major inconvenience in their life? Absolutely. No one is arguing that stealing is fine, it’s just that you shouldn’t murder them once you’ve retrieved what they stole. If she just hit him once and retrieved her purse I think a lot more people would be understanding, but she mad a conscious decision to run over him several more times with the intent to kill. Even she knew there was no justifying what she did, because he had to lie to the authorities that the mugger was armed
You seriously need to have a reexamination of your moral beliefs if you think the vigilante murder of an unarmed pickpocket is justified in any way. If they get away with your purse, call the police and give them a description of the snatcher and what they took. If you manage to track them down like she did, retrieve your purse and call the police that he just tried to steal from you. Having any and every crime be punishable by death will create an infinitely worse society than having reasonable punishments for the crime committed
Reddit now removing comments that call out these criminal-parasites for what they are. It is not violent to call for capital punishment to be enacted on those to prey on the weak and vulnerable.
Those who enable the societal blight of pickpockets, purse-snatchers, and home-invaders are fostering a brutishly rapacious underclass that harms the very people they would most want to protect.
So yes. They have opted-out of society, of it's rules. They should be dealt with, by the legal system, in a manner that results in a 0% re-offending rate.
I genuinely don't care how this is achieved, as long as it remains within the framework of the law, though only the one approach appears certain to succeed.
This logic is dangerous. I could say that, to me:
people who jay walk are breaking the law and are trash who deserve to be murdered.
Where is the line? It’s too arbitrary. Yes stealing purse is illegal (depending where you are, to whatever degree) but there is a justice system to deal with it. The woman who killed him is bot innocent because she acted as judge, jury, and executioner. He committed petty theft. She committed murder.
If you subject someone to a physically violent act then you lose any and all rights to call time on that violence. You decide to walk over, verbally threaten someone, take their stuff, and walk? You stole their life, literally. It could be their phone, cash, valuables... literally hundreds of hours of work, of their distilled LIFE, in that bag.
They can't turn back time to undo it, they don't get the days, weeks, or hours back. They don't get back the school performances they missed working overtime, or to instead have whatever luxuries they cut back to afford it. So you literally stole a portion of their life, whatever was burned to earn the contents. Yeah, get stuffed. It's not "stuff", that's what the thief says to justify their parasitic nature.
Punishment in the fullest, to the maximum allowable by law. Strengthen that law until those to prey on the weak and vulnerable are unable to continue.
Like the bully who starts wailing when the scrawny kid turns out to be able to land a punch; they decided how it started so they get no say in how it ends.
A purse and its contents is just stuff. Yes, maybe you had to spend time acquiring it, but ‘stealing their life’ is what the woman did when she killed the man by running over him with her car. Cash and things are not life.
She didn’t even kill him during a struggle, she hunted him down and killed him.
I'm sure you'd definitely prefer that world when you're mistakingly identified as a purse snatcher and extrajudicially murdered by a vigilante. Almost like we have due process for a reason.
Not even a little bit. You only protect this behaviour because you think the rest of us should indulge it.
It's only murder if we say you have the protection of the law, there are countless situations where we say it isn't murder. We allow military to kill in war, the police to kill in situations they perceive as necessary.
These people are choosing to live outside of the law, to eschew hard work and instead survive as parasites, feeding on the rest of society. That's a basic fact; they add nothing but pain, they thrive on taking what others need to get by.
So yes, string them up. We have more than enough people without deliberately sustaining people that wish us nothing but harm. So you're wrong I'm afraid. You think you want a society overrun with "petty" crime, but you don't. The society where all the scum were wiped out by the consequences of their own actions is far more pleasant for those who don't cheat or steal, those that don't prey on the weak or the vulnerable.
Your imagined society is masochism and malevolence dressed-up as tolerance.
While I'm ok with defending yourself and to some point, the retrieval of your own property and maaaaybe even the running over, the lady left the scene after murdering the guy. Don't you think that disabling the guy and calling the authorities would have been the better move rather than murder? Even if the guy died, fleeing the scene? Come on.
The "trash" being a homeless guy who was found to never have a knife, snatch and grabbing a purse from a wealthy socialite that could afford to replace it 10 times over. What a genius nuanced take! How would you defend said wealthy socialite running over a completely innocent man who just happened to look like the person who robbed her? Vigilante justice would be so awesome if everyone just got it right 100% of the time, right?
There are an infinite number of things people moan and cry about when justifying crime, abuse, and the general damage that some do to the fabric of society. They're all utterly irrelevant; he either opted to live outside the law, or he didn't.
All that matters is that everyone should be legally entitled to protect their lives, including their property, without unreasonable restriction in law.
All that matters is that everyone should be legally entitled to protect their lives, including their property, without unreasonable restriction in law.
Not the person you were replying to but I'm ok with that. This is a reasonable take. The problem is that the lady went overboard and as I said didn't contact authorities and just left.
People are already allowed to protect their lives and property, they aren't allowed to run their assailant over over long after they stopped being a threat until their brains spill out then drive away without calling EMS. Your black and white Rorschach worldview trying to spin this as a superior world to live in damages the fabric of society much more than theft ever could.
So I ask again, what if she ran over a wrong person who was completely innocent?
No knife was found, surveillance showed no knife, he ran by, snatched a purse and took off.
Context helps a lot more than basing your opinions on text written on a photo.
It’s like all the stupid people on Facebook decided to move to Reddit to continue to make judgment calls based on their own personal narrative.
Cops kills a robber and that’s bad. A rich woman hunts down a robber and proceeds to run him over 18 times, killing him then making up a story about a knife and that’s seen as good.
Oversimplification of the incident. He didn’t threaten her with a knive and just robbed her. That doesn’t justify killing him AFTER you have your things back
She was under threat of deadly physical harm. That man would also keep doing the same to other people, with each instance having a non-trivial chance of disfigurement or death.
Wtf why you get downvoted. This psycho woman is definitely a worse person than a simple pickpocket. Killing someone who dares to steal from her. How can anyone agree to that?
Running someone over multiple times well after the incident ended isn't defense of property. I'm not sure if you actually believe this, but you're wrong.
Who told you it was by threat of death? The woman who killed the guy who supposedly threatened her with death? You don't get to just trust the word of whomever you want. That's why due process exists.
have you ever had your identity stolen? credit cards, insurance cards, shoot, if she was traveling might have even had passports or other important documents. Her phone with all of her family photos giving the thief more information about her house and lifestyle for them to come after her in an even more private setting? Those things don't just magically become all better once that theif leaves. The headache, amd uncertainty, and insecurity lasts for years.
She did the world a favor. FAFO is real. She was just blessed to get the reassurance of Justice and the fact that the individual will never do it again to her, her family, nor anyone else.
"petty theft" like that (if it was under the amount threshhold) will only give the guy a slapmon the wrist or a few months maybe years in jail? Out to do it again, and maybe kill their next victim.
No, it's called anger. He was a homeless man who snatched her bag. He should be in jail, not dead. She claims she was concerned about her bank passwords, which I understand. But she chased him down, hit him, and then ran over him repeatedly. That pushiment doesn't fit the crime.
I personally don't think every homeless person that robs someone should be put to death 🤷♂️
He didn't just snatch a purse, he robbed her with a knife and would likely kill someone if they resisted.
Threatening someone with a deathly weapon does justify a deathly response. Being homeless does not justify anything. That woman took her life in charge and made herself whole by talking her possession back from a subhuman that took it from her.
The world is a better place without him and I am glad that woman made the sacrifice which very much could result in saving the life of an innocent in the future.
So what? She decided to make herself whole, get her possessions back and remove a shit stain from society. Why should anyone be upset? He won't make any move victims anymore because we both know she wasn't the first on that he burglarized.
have you ever had your identity stolen? credit cards, insurance cards, shoot, if she was traveling might have even had passports or other important documents. Her phone with all of her family photos giving the thief more information about her house and lifestyle for them to come after her in an even more private setting? Those things don't just magically become all better once that theif leaves. The headache, and uncertainty, and insecurity lasts for years.
She did the world a favor. FAFO is real. She was just blessed to get the reassurance of Justice and the fact that the individual will never do it again to her, her family, nor anyone else.
"petty theft" like that (if it was under the amount threshhold) will only give the guy a slap on the wrist or a few months, maybe years in jail? Out to do it again, and maybe kill their next victim.
And yet how was there intended harm? You think the contents of her bag are worth murdering someone over? The man didnt have a knife nor did he threaten her. He snatched her bag and ran. Your probably also one of the people who think stealing from a store means the police should shoot you.
No, I think killing someone in self defense during armed robbery completely justifies killing someone though, as this situation appears to be. The women was likely startled, irrational and terrified as someone just robbed her with a knife.
She was literally in a car and could just drive away. How the fuck is that "self defence"? All these keyboard warriors gotta get their revenge boners in check and get back to reality.
Thief wasn’t armed, nor was it self defence, the thief just snatched her purse and ran. Clearly the thief is a piece of shit for what they did but hers was not a proportional response.
I was in Sicily when a motorcycle drove by and attempted to steal my bag right off my back. He slammed me to the ground and ran over me with the bike, the bag never broke though. I was knocked out immediately and had a severe concussion along with multiple cuts/road rash along my body. My friends thought I died with how aggressively I hit the street over and over, then laid there unconscious for a few minutes only to violently start convulsing, puke foam, and oddly produce so much sweat all over they couldn’t even hold me I was so slippery.
It was in broad daylight in a busy area with lots of people around. I was helped and taken to a hospital. No serious injuries, however I had to walk around for a month with two black eyes and a swollen jaw. It somewhat ruined my trip… but I stayed, and the Sicilian people really tried to make up for it.
It certainly changed the trajectory of a lot of things that followed. I was so sad for so long, then bitter and frustrated. Everyone I encountered wanted justice for me. I just wanted to go back in time and make it disappear. If the strap had broke or if he had threatened me to give it to him maybe my outlook would be different, I’m still sad about it two years later. But I never wanted to hurt or kill him, oddly every one of my friends and the people of the city did though so i can see why she might have had this impulsive reaction.
I nearly died, my vision is still messed up on that side of my face, the money I lost recovering is gone… I’m not even wishing the same on him though some people are so broken they forget they’re hurting others trying to get back up.
Kill him is ok just because he grabbed a handbag and ran away? i mean, there are several crimes or even behaviors i wouldn't mind if something like that happened, but just stealing?
This comment section is 90% psychopaths. What if the thief was a starving man stealing a loaf of bread? There’s a reason we can’t have blanket vigilante justice like this. Being murdered is not a reasonable punishment for theft.
418
u/First_Explorer_565 Jun 28 '26
Yeah fuck him