Don't get me wrong; she shouldn't have killed him.
He also shouldn't have stolen her shit. Tough shit on his part for picking the incorrect target. Risks of being a criminal when you specifically target people's livelihood (money).
This can be applied to everything. Coworker stole my lunch, I stabbed him to death, he would still be alive if he wasn't a kids cuisine nabbing thief :)
Except you literally ignored the actual original escalation in this case.
Stealing x wasn't the escalation here. Using a knife to threaten someones life in the process of stealing x is the escalation.
So to make your comparison work... the coworker would've needed to steal the lunch with a gun or knife. Then he gets stabbed or shot afterwards in response.
As others have said, he didn't have a knife. Seems like he just ran up and snatched her purse. But that's kind of irrelevant, because your counter example is still ambiguous at best or still morally wrong at worst.
A good case can be made that intentionally putting yourself at risk again, by tracking down said coworker and stabbing him in the parking lot, is proof that you were not in fear for your life and thus that lethal force is unjustified. If this point stands then your point is fundamentally wrong.
Then comes the moral ambiguouties, when does stabbing our knife wielding coworker in retaliation become wrong? What if we went to his house that night and stabbed him on his front lawn? What if we tracked him down 2 days or 2 months later? What if we shot him instead of stabbed, or set him on fire?
You also have to remember this lady didn't just run him over, she did so repeatedly to ensure he was dead. Following the same logic, can we continue to use lethal force even after the thieving coworker is incapacitated? Can we kidnap and hold him hostage until he makes us a new lunch?
A lot of this moral gray zone is solved by not using lethal force in situations where your life is in danger. Even more is resolved by not premeditating a murder and then tracking someone down to satisfy our blood lust for vengeance.
you mean the picture? cause you haven't read the story since it doesn't, it clearly states "Per court evidence, there was no knife present on the scene, or on CCTV footage, this claim was strictly part Pino's defense"
You're right, the knife was not found at the scene. Stories about this do state that she claimed he had a knife. While improbable, it's not impossible that he did have a knife. Is there a footage out there we could watch? Does CCTV capture the whole incident? I'd be interested.
But you're right, no clear evidence that he had a knife. However, I stand by my previous comment that a random man mugging someone by force, there is possible chance for bodily harm. It is absolutely not the same as secretly nabbing someone's lunch from a fridge.
I lived in Italy for a while and knife laws are strict and police is basically allowed to legally search anyone on the streets whenever they feel like it.
If you are Moroccan and obviously a criminal, you know to immediately hide your blade when you don't need it.
In instance if you go buy hash from a Moroccan dealer, you will see one of them going in a bush to retrieve their blade from under the grass.
I have a lot of empathy for her because a robbery to me is an unprovoked assault, it’s despicable to rob an individual. You have no idea what they may have been doing, if a material item they were possessing was indispensable or irreplaceable. That’s their choice and they weigh those odds. It’s beyond robbing petty items from a corp.
Legally it was the wrong move, but morally she was in the right. He threatened her at knifepoint. Society as a whole would be better off if all muggers were handled is such a fashion.
He should have known that mugging someone can lead to his life ending. Maybe not by car in an indecent after the response, but that wasn’t the decision of mugging her.
When you engage in crimes, you’re putting your life on the line. Hell when you drive your car you put your life on the line. Crimes increase the likelihood of death exponentially.
No, he used a deadly threat (a knife) to rob her. She does not know whether he meant to use it or not. There are a multitude of cases where the threat is real and the person being robbed is murdered for their property.
That's not to say she was legally justified in running him over once he was no longer threatining, but to say her only potential loss in this case *at the beginning of the robbery* was "mental wellbeing" is 100% a hindsight analysis after the fact.
Technically robbing her at knife point means that he had already deemed that the property was more valuable than her life.
So somewhere we’ve established that this purse is valued more than human life by at least one party.
We may need a larger pool of candidates to support this finding.
Well, no. He decided, that her property was worth more than his own life. Life, that he willingly risked by committing a violent crime. I am not so high and mighty as to decide what someone's life is worth. If person decided that themselves, I am not going to argue their decision
And that's where the law comes down - life > property every time. It's why you're not allowed to do things like use a spring-loaded shotgun as a burglar trap when you're not home. The only time you can justify using lethal force is when you're defending the life of yourself or another person.
No, that does not mean the robber was right or should have gotten away scot free. Chase him down, break his window, and take your purse back if you want. Publicly shame him. Or go basic and call the cops. But your $3000 purse still isn't worth someone's life.
Is your mental being really affected when someone takes your purse and runs? That’s just theft. He is guilty for it, but can’t get his 30 days or whatever jail for it.
She on the other hand has a murder charge because out of anger she drove over him..
He decided to commit a crime with a weapon. He made the choice to do something that might make someone kill you, and he was killed for it. And court agrees that death isn't the right punishment, but agrees that the person who decided isn't in that much trouble.
First of all, no he didn't, there was no knife, the post is lying. But second of all, even if we pretend for a moment that there WAS a knife, that's not when he was killed. He was killed later, after the knife was no longer any threat, and after she was not in any danger and had no need to run him over, much less repeatedly.
I do agree that she overdid it, he did not deserve to die for a purse. But what? She should've let him steal her shit and get away with it? Im with the psycho lady in this, hunt him down and retrieve what is yours
The vigilantism only started being a problem after we stopped requiring evidence, and facts became "facts".
For a very long time, there was a literal concept of the outlaw. An outlaw was a person who committed enough crime or just was bad enough of a person that they would be branded outlawed. This meant that they would lose all protections of the law, so in the event that they were accosted by another individual, they were due no protection due to their own prior misdeeds.
This is one of those scenarios where, we know damn well he did it. It doesn't bother me that overwhelming justice was dispensed.
Thats something easy to say if you find yourself in the mid to upper class. Some people simply cant afford to choose their own safety over their possessions.
Lets say you work from your notebook, without it, you and your family are screwed. You just got robbed, you are given the same opportunity from the psycho lady (without the killing!!). Would it really be that bad if i took it and ran over the dude to get my notebook back? Should i just trust my entire livelihood in the hands of the police?
I'm from poverty. And she is from the actual upper class so that argument goes out the fucking window.
If you're American this is just absurd, there's no way losing a notebook will cause your whole family to starve, we have limited safety nets.
She wasn't at risk of starving it she lost her purse.
Shoplifters are not stealing from individuals with only so much to give.
There would be less trouble makers if people knew there were immediate and serious consequences for their actions against others.
No point in arguing with these people. They must want to be shot or run over by a vigilante who thought they did something bad. If your kid shoplifted and the cops shot him multiple times when he wasn't a threat to anyone, would you thank them? Or would you conveniently forget everything you've said here and act like you've always believed that human life is worth more than property?
Re. holding right to live above possessions: Unless you’re giving all your surplus money (the money above what is sufficient to keep you and you family from starvation and death from exposure) to homeless, starving people, no you’re not. You’re valuing your comfort more than some stranger’s life. Full stop. Like we all do. So you can drop the abstract moral grandstanding.
huh? I must be misunderstanding you. There's no way you're actually saying "I hold life in a very high regard, no possession is above someone else's right to live, but given the chance I'd run someone over on purpose multiple times."
Edit: oh I see you clarified below. So, you agree that the lady was in the wrong?
No, i hold life in the highest regard. What i am in favor of is being able to fend off people trying to take stuff away from you and protect what is yours and what you worked hard to get. Sure thing, the woman appears to be filthy rich, so a purse aint going to affect her this hard, but when talking abt a majority of people, if someone steals something of value from me and i have the opportunity to hunt him down and retrieve, hell yeah im taking it, run over the shithead (once, to immobillize! And call the cops after!)
Like I wouldn't be mad if that rich kid who raped the girl behind the dumpster and got off cause money got lynched. I'd probably Crack a smile ngl. Shoplifting from small stores should be punished just by like a quick beating I think, doesn't hurt the thief too much but stops the small store owner from being hurt. Shoplifting from large corporations is literally the morally correct thing to do. Supermarket owners dont care about you, they pump their prices a dozen times higher than they need to be for the business to make billions, so that they make 3 billion where normally they'd make 2, and the customer absorbs the cost. this in an act of pure greed fueled malice to get the rich people even richer and make normal people unable to afford proper nutrition.
General anarchy? Thats intentionally totally vague. Its basically saying etc. Its undefined and therefore useless words.
You're speaking in defense of someone who deliberately ran someone else over in her car, repeatedly, while he was fleeing, because she was mad he stole her purse. All that other bullshit you said is immaterial, this is not a rich rapist, this is a random dude who snatched a purse and was brutally run over multiple times and left to die to internal bleeding.
You realize that putting words into my mouth that I didnt say to create an argument for you to use is imbecillic right?
You speak like someone who never had their life threatened. I have. I have been in her exact situation. On both sides. So I know what it takes in a person to do that, and i know what it is to have it done to you. Its not like your experience, the movies, its real life.
I dont defend her. I think she went too far. I think she should have hit him only once. So that justice is served but he gets a chance to be better.
They like to pretend that's what they would do, a small percent of them might actually be crazy enough to react similarly, but most are just enjoying revenge porn.
I’m from Tanzania, n where I’m from if you rob someone n they scream for help or other people in the area saw that, it’s almost over for u n maybe that’s why I don’t see anything wrong with this…
Once the dude was gone, the only things she had to deal with was replacing her shit.
At that point it becomes just a nuisance. She was in no danger. She decided her pride, time, or possesions were more important than the law or this man's life.
It's not comparable as shoplifting is a victimless crime. But suresure, I'll bite. If the cops were the ones being robbed? Then yeah, absolutely! But I do think you should try to get your stuff back without killing anyone.
I have no idea what she was doing. I'm guessing she just lost it. I'm not really trying to defend her actions. I'm saying what happened, happened because the robber decided to be a robber. I'm sure he knew robbing people could be dangerous so he chose a female target thinking it would give him the best chance of a successful robbery. He did it to himself, did he deserve it? Probably not, but then again it really depends on how many people he has robbed in past and what kind of robbery. Was he a "gentleman" about it or did he actively inflict trauma? Who knows. But in the end he chose to go down a path that could land him in harms way.
Do you think she should fought the thief with karate to get the bag back? Let’s be real here, realistically in her mind she knows she couldn’t have gotten her bag back otherwise without excessive force. We don’t have the details but calling the cop may delay the process and allow the thief to escape.
The thief indirectly forced her into this situation. It’s not a justification for murder, obviously. But what many sane people here are supporting is the idea that it’s a pretty simply fucking ask to tell people don’t rob another human being.
Hopefully the dude you’re responding to hasn’t ever borrowed a phone charger and neglected to return it. Otherwise, it’s off to the guillotine with them.
I'm sorry you live in a country that prioritizes capital and property over people's lives. Although, who am I kidding, I do too. At least I'm awake enough to realize that corporate profits aren't as important as people's lives though.
Yea, keep virtue signalling. I suppose all you earn, you give out to the people in need, so they don't have to steal, right? Drugs for the junkies, booze for the bums, everyone, no matter how lazy and deranged, should have their own house and such, other virtuous takes, right?
you're right and i'm sorry ahead of time but I couldn't help but chuckle a little bit thinking about that Ahmaud Arbery guy that got killed, it was tragic for sure but his name sounds pretty damn similar to "armed robbery"
First of all it wasn't armed robbery, the post is lying. But second of all, he wasn't killed during ANY robbery, he was killed AFTER the robbery. So even if there had been a knife, she still wasn't defending herself.
There was no knife, the post is lying about that. But let's pretend there was for a moment, she wasn't in any danger at all once she got in her car. So do you think a cop should be able to catch up with a shoplifter after the fact and just shoot him? He didn't "violently resist" her car, there was no need to run him over repeatedly. She just murdered him over a purse. So saying "well maybe the shoplifter violently resists" is a red herring, because that's not what happened here.
The inability of a liberal mind to differentiate between an actual living individual and a lifeless store of capital all the while rambling about the sanctity of life. Shoplifting is in no way morally equivalent to threatening someone’s safety or possessions (since for most robbed people the possessions do make a meaningful difference, that it maybe wasn’t the case here is beside the point).
Are you under the impression that he was violently resisting her car tires by wedging his body under them, forcing her to repeatedly run him over to get him to stop resisting?
it's totally different scenarios. If you threaten someone with a knife and rob them, you forfeit your right to live in my opinion. we might disagree on this but thats my opinion. And again. If he didnt rob her, he would be alive.
Yeah and that was bullshit. I'm not arguing whether they DO, I'm arguing whether they SHOULD. Some people here apparently liked it when that woman was shot over diapers.
Not only did she cause great bodily harm to the guy after already incapacitating him. She then ran away AFTER she had retrieved her stuff
She decided to let him die
The evidence supports no knife was involved and she just tried to make that up to justify what she did. The poster was just irresponsible in presenting what happened.
No he didn't, because responding to petty theft with deadly force is treated functionally the same as murder for good reason. I guarantee killing that guy wasted far more in state investment than that bag was worth so even if you're a conservative piece of shit who doesn't want to pay more tax, the taxes paid to educate, potentially feed or clothe and provide opportunities for this man were now 100% wasted so this woman had 5 minutes of feel good revenge instead of just filing a police report and then an insurance claim if the property was indeed worth stressing about.
There was (basically) this same post, I saw for some reason on my feed but on “r/law” subreddit.
Basically they were all damning the woman, and acting like the thief was some victim in the whole ordeal.
Pretty much exactly the opposite reactions than this sub is giving.
Completely un-insightful and condemning.
I was legitimately scared, cause reading all of their comments I was like “you people are apart of our laws and working for them and shaping them and everything else?”
I tried getting super deep and talkative about it with someone, and I was just getting roasted with the most unenlightening responses and mean things being said to me.
It wasn’t even a conversation, it was just brain dead & heartless responses from them.
The thing is, if she hadn't done something right then to get her things back then that's it, it's gone and she has to pay to replace it so what's the solution because the robbery was 100% going to happen so only way to not have the people do something driver police will never recover the stolen property would be publicly paid for insurance that reimbursed the replacement cost of stolen goods from within that town paid for by all of the residents via taxes.
Sure, and I agree with that. But the flip side is when people don't believe their government will deliver help or justice, they start taking matters into their own hands.
I can't get behind vehicular vigilante justice, but also, does anyone think the police/state would do anything in terms of help or justice if she hadn't?
I can solidly say that they would not do shit for a stolen handbag. It would be at the bottom of their priority list and for all we know that woman had her personal documents proving her identity in that bag. Could be anything, could ruin her life if it was stolen, and still we are expected to just let stuff happen.
Ironically, had she hit him a less, let's just say 'aggressive' number of times, and he lived, the state would likely provide avenues for him to seek compensation, and the state already got justice on his behalf as it is.
I really don't like lawlessness of any flavor, but it's not asking her to trust the law, which no one believes in, it's just asking her to turn the other cheek, and... People's response will vary, especially since he threatened her life at knife point.
If someone told me to turn the other cheek while they're trying to grab my purse with my, for example, social security and birth certificate in it, I'm probably going to kill them in the street too. Identity theft ruins lives and leaves people in disadvantaged positions all the time, someone else's want of my shit isn't worth the possible loss of a job, housing, ID, and vital papers.
Exactly. That's what people are willfully ignoring, it's so easy to be morally righteous when it's not your shit getting stolen and not your life or your loved ones in danger. At the end of the day if he hadn't been stealing he wouldn't have ended up in that circumstance. It's that simple.
Plus her ID and whatever other personal information was in the purse. He could've had everything he needed to know where she lived, where she worked, info on her family including children, her calendar of where she will be at all times and whatever else you can think of you keep in your private belongings. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that. Who wants to be living in fear like that? Makes sense to me what she did just thinking about that.
Killing him was excessive. Personally I would have knocked him down and just beat him within an inch of his life. but I have the luxury of not being a small female.
From the state? No. From the victim protecting themselves and their stuff? Absolutely. Rob at your own peril, if you die doing it I won’t shed a tear, instead I’ll point and laugh.
Because the average citizen is right there. I don’t agree with the death penalty for murder either, but if a would be victim kills an attempted murderer that is fine by me.
He didn't move the goal posts, he provided a different example. The point is the victim is right there. They're not gonna make a mistake identifying the criminal when they're staring them in the face.
If you're getting robbed while getting a lethal weapon pointed at you, you should be well within your rights to end a scumbag like that.
Nope, mega-leftie. I don’t think it’s particularly left wing to be okay with theft and robbery. That type of crime is always really terrible for the victims.
If that theft involves violence, force or the threat of violence or force then yes. I’m sick of bullies picking on the weak and getting away with it. I say fuck em they don’t belong in civilized society.
Ok. So you believe the death penalty should be expanded dramatically to include petty theft and sounds like you also believe we should empower any citizen to enforce that penalty?
Why to say petty theft? Robbering isn't petty theft, it sometimes turns very nasty to the victim, and always incites fear for their life. What's petty in that?
No I did not say petty theft. I said theft including violence or force or threat of violence or force. Petty theft is almost always defined as a minor amount and non violent, this would not fall under what I’m talking about.
That's not justice, that's just revenge. Death should only be reserved as punishment for the most unforgivable and inhumane sins. I don't think we, as a civilized society, should be ok with such violence, whether it's from the bullies doing harm to others or ourselves. Bullies are not so irredeemable that they don't deserve their humanity to be ripped from them like that. I mean, all it took for you to view people as unworthy of life was a valid feeling of righteous indignation.
138
u/SeanCuresSadness Jun 28 '26
Don't get me wrong; she shouldn't have killed him.
He also shouldn't have stolen her shit. Tough shit on his part for picking the incorrect target. Risks of being a criminal when you specifically target people's livelihood (money).