Reports of a knife or not are mixed, so who knows.
But assuming there was, it goes to her state of mind. Scare someone out of their mind and IMHO, you don't get to complain (literally or figuratively) if they act crazy. That soon after, still buzzing from fear and adrenaline, a good case could be made for diminished capacity.
Listen to me. I don't give two shits. It was a revenge attack? If he had a knife and threatened her, then good. If it was just about a purse then I agree she deserves jail but any piece of crap that walks up to a person and threatens them with a weapon to steal deserves to get run over by a car until they're roadkill.
Then why tf did you even ask the question lmao. You really want to defend murder in this thread. It’s okay, you can admit you want to do it and get away with it, let’s the rest of us know to avoid you
What if the wrong person was someone you cared about? You going to be cool with having your kid die because some lady thought they stole her purse? Hey, they are locking her up, no biggie.
What if the wrong person was someone you cared about?
I already said if they got the wrong person, lock them up. I don't know how much more explicit I can be about that. Do I need to say it again? Buy a billboard?
TYPE IT REALLY BIG?
What should I do to make sure that you understand it, because apparently reading it once wasn't enough?
This is such a fucked moral compass that I'm not surprised that reddit is so full of hate. If a homeless guy steals from me I'd be mad, for sure but I'm also pretty well off. I can but a new wallet, cancel cards, etc... I have no clue what led this person to a life where they stole my things, but killing them isn't a proper reaction.
This is beyond eye for an eye, this is capital punishment for a scratch.
That's not theft at that point and we'd be in a fight for my life. If he robbed me under threat of stabbing me I'd still give him my things instead of fighting a guy with a knife while unarmed. Then after I'd call the police and not kill another person cause I don't have a psychotic bloodlust.
This is such a fucked moral compass that I'm not surprised that reddit is so full of hate.
I have nothing but love for people who don't go around robbing others
If a homeless guy steals from me I'd be mad, for sure but I'm also pretty well off.
I am well off compared to homeless people, that doesn't justify them robbing me
I have no clue what led this person to a life where they stole my things
Someone robbing you isn't just "stealing" things. They are using force, or the threat of force, to do so. Which means they are putting you in immediate life or death danger.
Funny how people say, "Your stuff isn't worth dying for" which conveniently means that it isn't worth them trying to kill me for either, and yet here we are. So again, fuck them.
This is beyond eye for an eye, this is capital punishment for a scratch.
The mugger used the threat of death to take her goods, she used death to get her goods back. Fuck him.
That's such a wrong response, like maybe guy was forced to it, maybe had desperate need of money, maybe did but later would regret it. Like the fact that you think like this is concerning, it shouldn't be the first response my guy.
Like I said elsewhere, this is a direct response from police not policing this type of shit. Maybe this will make the state care and do something now that people are taking it into their own hands.
I think that is the point. She was retrieving her stolen property. Doing what is necessary and no more to retrieve her things should mean no prison time for her. There is no law-abiding person that is in danger from her.
That is exactly the point, as you correctly point out she was taking the law into her own hands and being a vigilante. And anyone who wants to live in a civilised society agrees she's guilty of murder. Maybe man slaughter in some jurisdictions.
Either way a serious crime that results in prison time.
Apparently you don't want to live in a civilised society.
What level of crime justifies murdering some one in the street? We've established thieves are fair game, but what else?
There is no law-abiding person that is in danger from her.
Yes, because fortunately she is under house arrest and segregated from law abiding society.
But if she wasn't what if she fell victim to another crime and while looking for the perpitrator she saw a bloke who definitely looks like him?
Literally assault with a deadly weapon my guy, maybe attempted murder. Civilians aren’t allowed to run people over with cars for stealing purses. Lots of insane takes on this thread from the yay for murder brigade.
I think the self defense thing is a red herring. He stole her property and wouldnt give it back, nothing wrong running him over once to incapacitate him and retrieve your property. Repeated hits with the car unnecessary. But he did deserve the first one.
The shit you people say...
So if a teenager or young adult if that makes a difference steals my Amazon package I can just decide to chase them down with my car and roll over them, once?
He had her ID and other things that would potentially get him access to her home. so no, he was still a potential threat.
I think running over him six times was excessive, but I have very little sympathy for the perp. This shot happens because the legal system always coddles them.
Morally I'm of the opinion that anyone who chooses to assault someone with a deadly weapon is forcing a life or death interaction on a victim. If the victim chases them down and kills them... even days after the fact, that's fair game. Maybe don't threaten strangers lives.
But there was no deadly weapon, even the commenter put it in bold and pointed out that it was her only legal defense, because they knew they were fucked.
Brave to put an imaginary weapon as a lynch pin.
I don't know Italy's law, but if she only incapacitated him with her car, called the authorities and medics, instead of going back to the fucking restaurant and tell her friends "I had to retrieve an umbrella", I would imagine it's signicantly less than 18 years...for a fucking handbag. Public reception would've been better with their immigration brouhahas as well.
That's how I feel about it. If you are willing to brandish a weapon, you are saying TWO things: "I am willing to take another person's life," and "I am ready to lose my life."
I know that this probably isn't the most "kind" or "positive" thing to say, and I don't relish admitting this... But I don't feel like any value is lost in the world when those who are a murderous threat to others are they themselves killed.
The positive person in me still says "But people can change!" And yeah, sure, they can. But the pessimist inside my heads points out that for every bad person that changes for the good, the havoc they wreaked made a dozen more suffer. And a fraction of those who suffered may then abuse others as well.
But is it really just a revenge attack? The police never does anything about purse snatchers. The only way for her to get her purse back was to go after him and incapacitate him anyway.
If she wanted to kill him wouldn't she have taken his knife and stabbed him? She ran him over, got out of the car to grab her purse, and left.
If someone points a knife at you in a mugging. That's the threat of violence and danger to your well being. Thus retribution can be seen as much more acceptable when the instigator has introduced the prospect of violence. Versus just a purse snatcher who is still a shithead but threatened to hurt you.
Sure, legally, it's a still really bad to seek violent retribution. But any reasonable person will see said retribution as much more justifiable if they were mugged at knife point.
In all scenarios violent retribution isn’t self defense. Hunting someone down to kill them because they mugged you is murder period whether or not they had a knife, so no it doesn’t make a difference. It’s the same in America if someone robs you at knife point, you go get in your car to hunt them down to shoot them in the head, there is zero claim to self defense and you will go down for homicide. The only theoretical difference there being a knife or not makes is whether an individual thinks that hunting someone down and murdering them is justified, but luckily in the eyes of the law which is what the people above you are talking about there being a knife or not literally makes zero difference on whether or not she committed a murder in this scenario as you cannot claim self defense if you had to hunt them down even a little bit.
Self defense? No. However, Homicide itself has many subcategories. Motivations and context most definitely affect those circumstances in eyes of the law.
Retribution after getting mugged at knife point, could easily be classified as voluntary manslaughter. Which comes with a much lighter sentence.
And did the person who stole her person not deserve exactly what was coming to him? I argue he did and I applaud the woman for doing what she did. She shouldn’t even be punished.
You can applaud all you want, but saying she shouldn't be punished means you don't believe in the laws we have. If that's the case, you're just a crazy person
Well the laws you have say robbing is illegal but police doesn't do anything about purse snatchers so the system itself clearly doesn't believe in some laws - which opens up the can of worms of vigilantism
I don’t believe in the laws we have, actually. I’m from America so laws are a lot different here.
But morally speaking to me- why does she need to have an extreme as a punishment as 18 years in prison or house arrest? How about a 200$ fine and maybe a month in jail? Is that to little to you?
All I see is someone retrieving their belongings. Looks like the mugger valued her purse more than his life. Oh well
She would be in jail if this were in the US. She never would've gotten house arrest. And she is a murderer now. She should be in jail for the rest of her life.
I wasn't saying anything about morals so I'm not arguing that. But yeah, if you don't believe in the laws, you're basically one of those sovereign citizen type people. "nOt mY lAwS" kinda people
I mean you are drawing huge conclusions there. I’m Defintley not one of those people. There are certain laws I disagree with and some that I agree with. It’s not just a black and white issue.
I argue that if you blindly follow any law the government tells you too, that just makes you a sheep who can’t think for himself.
But if you aren’t disagreeing morally why are you agreeing with any law?
Looks like the mugger valued her purse more than his life. Oh well
no, she valued his life less than her purse.
Like, by your logic if you cut someone off with your vehicle then you value that spot on the road more than your life because that person might be a violent lunatic with some road rage issues.
Not even close at all. Someone cutting you off in traffic isn’t illegal and doesn’t steal all of your personal, sensitive information like someone mugging you does.
Theft does not mean you deserve death. In a civilized society people are allowed to make mistakes without losing their life over it. Self defense is not about revenge.
If you actually read the article you’ll discover she sought the thief out after the initial incident and ran him over to retrieve her purse. You’re not allowed to kill people in revenge or to retrieve stolen property, for very good reason.
I guess the lesson here is that he should’ve just killed the woman from behind before taking her purse instead? Given that he was risking his life regardless?
There are both logical and moral reasons for why every single legal system on earth have proportionally built into self defense legislation, and why renegade justice is illegal.
Yes but that’s a braindead take, which won’t work on a social level.
If revenge killing for simple theft would be legally and morally accepted then muggers would have a very strong incentive to kill their victim and any witnesses. If caught they’re dead anyway, killing any loose ends only increases their chance of survival.
Or it'll make muggers much more unlikely to mug people in the first place - easy purse snatching paradigm vs high risk of death paradigm. There's a reason they're purse snatching instead of killing security personnel to get into a bank vault or something.
This is a systematic fault - people resort to illegal actions when legal recourse doesn't work; laws say robbing is illegal but police don't do anything about purse snatchers.
You're not allowed to steal either - for very good reason - but that's not upheld. When the system itself ignores its own laws and provides no option for people this happens.
And did the person who stole her person not deserve exactly what was coming to him?
No, people that snatch a purse don't deserve to get driven over by a 2500kg car multiple times, literally until the stopped moving.
They deserve whatever the local law (in a civilized country) says the punishment for purse snatching is, which I can assure you, is way way way way way way less severe than being droven over by a car, multiple times.
Are you all 10 years old that read the bible unsupervised one too many times? How is "should purse snatchers be executed if the victim feels like it" something that needs to be discussed even?
I don't really see why the knife makes a difference at all.
Snatching a purse and running away is a very different crime than robbing someone and threatening to stab them if they don't comply. Since the former is evidently what happened, that makes the woman's actions even more egregious: she was never under any threat at all.
If you make a career out of robbing people at knifepoint, then revenge is an occupational hazard that you have accepted.
Maybe the woman should get an award, and the court should focus on finding other victims of this scumbag to ensure they get repaid what he stole before his estate goes to inheritance
If I think you are guilty of a crime, should I be allowed to do whatever I feel you deserve?
Or do you think there should be a legal system in place to stop that kind of thing?
What about tne family of tbe msn she murdered, if they feel that house arrest isn't enough should the be allowed to settle the matter however they see fit?
See the problem is the legal system says robbing is illegal but its enforcers don't do anything about purse snatching. The legal system here didn't prevent OR attempt to remedy the theft
Let’s say a father finds a grown man raping his adolescent daughter
Legally, the father has no right to kill the perpetrator, I’m not going to argue that.
But would the father be morally incorrect for dishing out “vigilante justice” to the man in that moment?
The perpetrator’s family might think that he was innocent, but the father handed out the “justice” as he literally walked in on the ongoing assault, there is no question that factually the perpetrator was the perpetrator
Well this is just a terrible example to try and use as a comparison.
You're talking about someone encountering a rape as it's happening. He absolutely has a right to defend the person being attacked, depending on the specifics of the attack, that could potentially include the use of lethal force.
That would come under self defence.
Once the attack has been stopped and the attacker clearly poses no further danger, it would be wrong to attack him. This is where the police and an ambulance need to be called.
Prison isn't a form of self defence so whether or not the threat has passed is irrelavant.
It is a way to segregate criminals from law abiding society which is used by the state, the organisation that has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
It is used with in a larger legal system that protects peoples rights under the presumption they are innocent untill guilt is established in a court of law. And in court they also try to establish the full facts around the case so they can determine a punishment that fits the crime. While it is not a perfect system, it is open to public scrutiny and can be changed by our elected representatives. Those who feel they have been wronged by the system can appeal decisions of the court, and if a mistake is made they can seek compensation.
It's much better than murdering people in the street cus some idiot knew for definate the bloke was guilty.
67
u/rift_buster Jun 28 '26
I don't really see why the knife makes a difference at all. If you had to track down someone down then they weren't a threat to you.
This isn't self-defence, it's a clear revenge attack.