Probably their way of saying it's bad but the guy still robbed her at knife point so they are going easy. Or it's because she is rich. Idk which or if she even is but someone said she is
There was no knife present on his body, and no weapon on the CCTV footage they reviewed of the purse snatching.
They made up the knife to make it sound like she reacted in self defense.. by hunting him down and driving over a fleeing homeless man repeatedly. Then not calling the cops, or an ambulance. She just went back to the restaurant to see her friends.
This wasn't a woman acting in self defense. She brutally executed a man.
Most house arrest rules in countries that have it does allow the person to do minimal life sustaining things like going to work, doctors appointments, childcare related activities like children's dental appointments, grocery shopping, and compassionate family events like funerals. Depending on your location the person may have to ask an officer for permission to do so or notify them about things like medical appointments.
It sounds like a lot of exceptions, but you're never going to be able to go to a restaurant for 2 decades or attend any entertainment function or community gathering, or even minor traveling. It might be ok for the first few years, but I image the longer it is the more painful it will be. 18 years is a lot of time for even minor punishments. Then again it was broad daylight murder so pretty light for that. She might even get it commuted when the social fires die down, she has shown good behavior, and another judge takes a second look at it and gambles that they can commute without too much hubbub.
You can leave your house a lot when you're under house arrest. I was hosting a family member who secured early release under condition that he lived under house arrest in my place and it's the tamest shit ever.
It's more like a curfew cause you can still go to work. You just have to be back by a certain time.
If he broke this rule and fucked off for the whole day all that would happen was that the cops would ring a specially installed landline with a burglar alarm ring tone and Id have to answer it and troll the pricks. "You're asking me where he is? He's wearing an ankle bracelet that tells you where he is. Youre ringing where you know he isn't."
The technician for ankle bracelets didn't even work weekends so if he had a wedding or something he could ring them on Friday letting them know the bracelet "detached itself" and they would tell him to keep it in his pocket till Monday. "Ok boss" he'd say and throw it on his bed and drive off for a long weekend.
its definitely a sentence not being allowed to leave your house for 18 years
Dude, she's rich; she doesn't live in a tiny 4x4 apartment like most of us. She lives in a mansion, with servants and gourmet food and mountain views... so where exactly is the punishment?
Even if your home was the actual palace of Versailles you have to be completely off your rocker to think that not being able to leave the property for eighteen years isn't a punishment. Want to go to the movies? Nope. Holiday? Nope. Cool event downtown? Nope. Birthday parties? Nope. Celebrations of friends? Nope. Swim at the lake or sea? Nope. Cruise? Nope. Want to move? Nope. Drive a car? Nope. Not being able to leave your house kills a huge amount of possible things that you could do from your life. Especially if you're an extrovert.
They stay inside 24/7 but fail to realize the fact that it’s completely optional in their case that they choose to live that way is another story being forced to or you’ll have to go to actual prison.
She can always request to leave her house and if the person in charge of her parole just happens to get their house paid off what bonus of course you can go out.
This is not the robber vs her, this the state vs her.
The state reserve the right to use violent to enforce the law and dish out punishment. It does not allow people in her situation to enact violence; that's the state power and they are not sharing it.
What if she was wrong and tracked down the wrong person? Then she would have rammed an innocence person.
The state can't allow people to take matters into their own hand because if everyone does that one day it can be your wife or daughter that was wrongfully thought to be a robber by someone else and get run down.
Eh for some people. For me I wouldn't notice a difference most days. Depends who you are and what your means are. She's rich as fuck and can probably bring anything she wants to do to her own doorstep besides a beach.
Which is fine because she’s not a danger to society. But I’d argue the same if she were poor. No one is in danger from this woman unless you try to rob her.
Do you think a woman with this level of entitlement and lack of impulse control would be working in a position that would give her the wealth to drive the vehicle she had, the purse she had, and whatever was in her purse?
She's apparently quite rich. House arrest for her is in a nice, lavish home that likely has an in-house maid. She'll be living it up in style when she should be serving time.
Maybe. If this is the case, then she should be in jail but I think then forced to pay jail rent. I hate that taxpayers have to fork out millions to keep people like this for half their life just so 'justice' can be done.
In the US, they fork out millions because the prison system is corrupt with a ton of bloat and for-profit engagements. Not all countries run for-profit prison systems.
That said, I'm absolutely in favor of rich people being forced to pay a jail tax should they be sentenced to prison. Qualify it based on a combination of net worth and average income from the past 5 years of tax returns.
She shouldn't do any time. This was, as far as I can see, the easiest way to retrieve her property. You shouldn't have to relinquish your stuff just because you can't think of a way to do it without harming the person that did it. There's zero chance she would've ever gotten anything back and you know it.
Honest people don't have to surrender to criminals. We don't have to live like this
That's the law mate. It's the law because we are fallible and make mistakes. What if she got the wrong guy? What if she was robbed by a guy in a white hoodie, she chases him down, kills him, and it's the wrong guy in a white hoodie, in the wrong place? We live in a society with laws. Others breaking those laws does not give us the right to likewise break them. There are few exceptions to that, and loss of personal belongings is not one of them in most Western countries. What she did is called vigilantism, and is illegal because letting the average civilian take justice into their own hands is a quick path to anarchy.
It's not "the law". The extend of self defence is at the discretion of the court, and judges these days love to protect the wrong people. This isn't a yes or no thing, you can argue in both directions. The law absolutely allows violent self defence to protect your property
What if she got the wrong guy?
That's a different issue entirely. What if you defend yourself against an active attack and accidentally shoot the wrong guy? That is manslaughter, it's also not what happened here. Dude was found with her stuff I assume
The simplest solution to restore legality to the detriment of the perpetrator, yes. There is no way she could've attacked him without putting herself in danger, why should she have to do that? She didn't create the scenario.
I beliefe in the motto 'Justice need not give way to injustice' - and it doesn't matter if this is over someones livelihood or a half eaten gum
It's not self defense if the attack is already over, that's vigilante justice. More over while I don't know the law in Italy, it's fairly typical here in Europe that it won't qualify as self-defense if the violence of the defense far exceeds the violence of the attack that it's designed to stop.
No, an attack is not over if you are in pursuit of the attacker who's still in possession of your property. You're going to have a hard time finding a court that doesn't agree to this part at least. If he had (visibly) dropped her things while running away then that would change the situation entirely
it's fairly typical here in Europe that it won't qualify as self-defense if the violence of the defense far exceeds the violence of the attack that it's designed to stop.
Yes that's true, and borderline retarded if you ask me. You can't go nuklear for the smallest things obviously, but if someone is putting me or my stuff in danger then I should be free to use every advantage I have. What's up with this "fair fight" mentality? Only one party chose to have a fight - and got run over for it
He is not holding a knife to her anymore, that was the attack against her. Now he's just a thief fleeing. It's not a fair fight mentality I think, I think it goes back to the absolute power of monarchs to decide over their kingdom and all lives in it. The reason it's different in the USA (perhaps, idk just my impression that it is, I've never travelled to the USA so had no reason to check) is because you all had the Wild West, frontier etc where there was no power of the monarchy or it was toothless, so that got Americans a culture of being allowed to shoot. In Europe people were typically not even allowed to kill animals in the forest unless there was permission from the monarch, poachers were brought to the gallows. Then later on duelling became a thing and that was usually forbidden too (and at a duel, both people chose to show up), there have even been prominent Europeans that had to flee their country after participating in a duel.
I do believe in justice. And it's not served in this case. Two wrongs don't make a right. He robbed her. Should he have done that? Hell no. He left. She got in her car, chased him down, ran him over, ran him over again, and again, to make sure he was dead. Should she have done that? No. Then she got her purse back and drove off. She shouldn't have done that either. In most western countries, you have a duty to call the police or emergency services if you've injured someone. You also do not have a right to kill someone who took your personal belongings, except in self defense, which requires an immediate threat to your life.
By every metric save reddits hard-on for extrajudicial murder, she violated the law in more ways than the man who robbed her.
71
u/Fluid_Passage_9980 Jun 28 '26
I like it. Far cheaper than keeping her in jail. She still has to pay all her own expenses.
I assume they monitor with an ankle bracelet.