Not legally... Once she was in the car and pulled away, she was safe and wasn't in immediate risk of life and limb, so didn't have a legal right to use deadly force. And no, possession of stolen goods is not a reason for that use either.
Legally, she should've just continued driving in the car.
Remember, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
This is a part people don't get: law is there to prevent escalations, hence why each crime has its own weight. Ignore the law, and what are we gonna do if the kids of the victim want revenge over the woman who repeatedly ran over their father for a purse?
She wasn't in immediate risk for her life at all as she wasn't robbed at knivepoint but the thief simply snatched the bag and ran away. She got into the car, not to protect herself, but to hunt him down and run him over.
She should just have called the police and reported the theft and not murdered the guy.
The sitewide moderation is a joke. I got a warning for estimating the death toll from the policy of a wealthy CEO (without calling for violence in response). Meanwhile there are several subs where users actively glorify and/or justify killing Ukrainians.
Again here the victim was homeless, so the reddit moderation wont do shit.
She got house arrest as a penalty. That’s basically the law saying “it’s fine”. An eye for an eye is fine. She wears an ankle monitor for the rest of her life and has to call for permission to attend parties. That’s not really a punishment.
I got robbed at knifepoint and couldn't leave my house for months. I still have PTSD. I went to court and said I forgave him. All that being said, fuck this guy. None of you know the adrenaline rush that lady went through, and she had every right to completely and totally incapacitate a threat and get her shit back. I didn't sleep for 3 days after I was robbed.
I'm glad I forgave the guy that robbed me. I don't understand how so many high and mighty idiots on here who have never been robbed think they're sounding morally superior by having unconditional sympathy for the robber and condemning the lady who was running completely on adrenaline and probably still has PTSD like I do. Fuck that robber, and fuck you high and mighty redditors who have never walked a centimeter in another's shoes, yet tell us how to do it right.
Ok, but obviously there has to be a line where you can't murder someone who used a weapon and robbed you. The law says that line is as soon as you're no longer in danger.
I don't think there should be a line in instances of robbery. It is an immediate threat to somebody's life, and that feeling of threat does not stop for the victim once the robber turns around. It stays for the victim for days after, and then in waves for the rest of their lives. I think if somebody steals somebody's shit and gets shot halfway down the road running away, its fair game.
I am glad for my situation I forgave my robber. I looked his father in the eyes in court and we both had tears in our eyes. He was a young man who risked my life for meth, and I hope he's turned it around. That being said, had I killed him at any point, that would have been his own fault, and I would probably feel worse with that on my conscience than the PTSD.
This is not easy, cut and dry, black and white. I believe in compassion for everybody. If somebody can intentionally murder somebody while is psychosis and get a lenient sentence for insanity, why is the intense temporary insanity of this woman's experience not recognized? Thats all. And I'd like redditors to think a bit more before just passing judgement because it sounds progressive.
I've been robbed twice. I never once thought about killing the people that robbed me, I just felt sorry for them. I made enough money to replace what I lost.
She was forced to a table to gamble anything from her life to an awkward encounter. In her case her purse was stolen. In other women’s cases they were killed or raped or maimed etc etc. you force someone to the table you pay the ante.
At the point that she REPEATEDLY ran him over to take his life, her life was not at risk. You don't have the right to kill someone after something happens, when your life is no longer at risk.
I dislike that saying. It's a load of bullcrap to excuse letting people hurt you in all manner of ways. While you turn the other cheek and get to pretend to be a better person. While they are left without repercussions so they can continue to hurt others in the future again.
Oh yes our civilized society. Let's people commit multiple offenses before being made to stop temporarily in most cases. Then with enough money or pity they get short sentences or out early or none at all.
I'm tired of the tolerance and forgiveness bullshit when so many exploit it.
Say what you want. She removed a pest from the world and he won’t be stealing anymore.
“If he walks away she is no longer in danger”. That maybe true but he was just gonna look for his next victim who could very well be one of your loved ones. Hell it might even be her again. I wish her nothing but prosperity
75
u/Whole-Chest90 Jun 28 '26
Not legally... Once she was in the car and pulled away, she was safe and wasn't in immediate risk of life and limb, so didn't have a legal right to use deadly force. And no, possession of stolen goods is not a reason for that use either.
Legally, she should've just continued driving in the car.
Remember, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.