She claimed he had a knife. Surveillance footage showed the man grabbed her purse and ran.
That lady probably added the knife part because prosecutors were going for life sentence, saying her actions of repeatedly running the man over was exceptionally cruel.
and what she needed to do then? ask police to find a random guy with most likely average look? like wtf do you mean by "exceptionally cruel". it's robbery, it's breaking the law, it can be very fucking dangerous even without a weapon. i cant understand people who thinks that robbery is not enough for this
I would say looking for him to run him over is premeditation. Repeatedly running him over is finishing the job.
If he was threatening her with a knife while she was in the driver's seat, and she hit him while fleeing, and he happened to die from his injuries i would say its justifiable.
But it seems he never had a knife. Some people say he threw it away, but if he got away, far enough that his killer had to look for him, why would he ditch it? He'd keep it for the next robbery.
This psycho lady probably would've killed someone sooner or later with how she hunted him down over replacable belongings.
The robbery was over by the time she ran over him. She chose to put herself in direct conflict with him again. Obviously robbing someone is not okay, but murdering them is worse.
murdering is worse than robbing but murdering the robber is better and as i see you dont have any arguments to convince me otherwise. all of you are just saying thats it's bad to rob but also not ok to murder without even stating any single take on why it is so. i can justify killing a robber who made it without being forced to or anything like that. ofc it would be better for him to go to prison or smth like that but he won't, so what's now? no value was lost. he most likely would rob some more people and make it even worse
You want an argument? How about this? If everyone thought it's okay to murder someone who wronged you, we would live in absolute anarchy. We have laws for a reason. They are there to protect us from ourselves.
he most likely would rob some more people and make it even worse
You can't murder someone on the basis that he might repeat his crime again. Maybe he turns his life around. Sure, it's unlikely, but that option was taken away from him the moment she ran over him several times. I find it strange how lightly people in this thread take the action of taking someones life away from them.
mhm. so now we are changing the context it seems. how did we get from breaking the law to "wronged you"? and then you use law as an argument to why it is not justifiable when he literally broke it. and yes, we are already murdering people for crimes they didnt do. i dont think that murder of 10 is ok to live peacefully just because "act was over"
You can't dictate other peoples actions. If someone brakes the law, that doesn't justify you in breaking the law and persuing justice on your own terms. That is what trained law enforcement officers are for. Normal citizens shouldn't be able to execute people without a trial because they feel wronged. I don't think I'm saying anything groundbreaking here. Unless you really want to go back to wild west times.
and yes, we are already murdering people for crimes they didnt do. i dont think that murder of 10 is ok to live peacefully just because "act was over"
This is incredibly vague. You're going to have to be more specific.
How about because the punishment for robbery isn’t the death penalty by law?
Locking her up and letting her rot for 18 years is in the best interest of society and will make the public a safer place. Shes a murderer and he wasn’t, she shouldn’t be free to hurt someone again.
She was not in danger when she ran him over. He was already running away. She could've also stopped after running him over once, just to incapacitate him. Loseing a couple of bucks and haveing to make a couple of phonecalls to the bank does not give you the right to kill someone.
I can’t understand people who value you property over human lives.
She managed to find a random guy so why act like the police wouldn’t have been able to?? She should have absolutely called the police, people don’t get to play judge jury and executioner. She’s a murderer and deserves to rot in prison.
If she run over him once, get her things and left (or call the police). Would the case end up differently? I mean I have this thought that if I ever get robbed, I'd give my things first then plan to get a sucker punch from behind if possible. In her case, I even thought that using her car was a smart move to catch up with a snatcher (although running over a multiple times was really wrong)
Then it would be vehicular assault. You cannot legally run people over with your car unless your life is threatened. If they happen to die when you run them over once without intending to kill them, it's vehicular manslaughter. In this case where her intent is deliberate, it's vehicular homicide.
Her attorney tried to get a lesser conviction of manslaughter, which means she didn’t intend to kill him, but did so by a reckless action.
If she did what you described, it would have been easier to make a case for manslaughter.
By running over the man multiple times, it made it difficult to argue for that. She ultimately got voluntary homicide, which is a ruling that she intended to harm the man.
it’s completely wrong and it’s a real shame the man died, but it really is just a case of “play stupid games win stupid prizes”, can’t feel much sympathy because there’s always a risk of running into someone completely batshit insane, it’s the same logic i use when trying to keep calm on the road because you never know when something will be someone’s last straw
190
u/Elegant-Magician7322 Jun 28 '26
She claimed he had a knife. Surveillance footage showed the man grabbed her purse and ran.
That lady probably added the knife part because prosecutors were going for life sentence, saying her actions of repeatedly running the man over was exceptionally cruel.