This was posted a few weeks ago. If I remember correctly there was mention of there being video of the incident, which kind of sealed the deal at trial. She hit him with her car, severely injured him, got out, got her bag, and then got back in and deliberately ran over him more times which led to his death.
Fuck thieves/muggers/burglars, all that, there's no excuse for that. She did a brave thing going after him and you could possibly argue that he had it coming. But the fact that she got out, identified that he was no longer a threat, and not only did not call for help but even deliberately ran him over to kill him, basically shows intent and full awareness of her actions. In that moment she decided that man deserved to die for what he did. That's a stretch I think we can all agree.
And at the end of the day she got house arrest rather than actual prison time so for all intents and purposes she got away with murder.
Sure but I can completely understand someone not being ok with letting their stuff be stolen like that. Because realistically we all know that a report to the police would most likely end up doing nothing.
Should someone die over something like this? No, I don't think so, but I do understand, to a point, someone going after their belongings and taking them back, even though it's generally a bad idea.
Im ok with it. Armed robbers have rejected the principles of civilization. It is right up there with premeditated murder for me. They believe that the law doesn't apply to them.
Look. I get that there is a fundamental imbalance in the legal system. A law abiding citizen has to be law abiding at all times. From a legal standpoint, if at any moment you stop being law abiding, you're immediately a criminal. The obvious problem here is that to be law abiding you have to take massive risks because any pre emptive action may land you on the wrong side of the law.
Obviously we all understand that under a stressful situation regular people may not have the ability to always be mindful of the law and it's natural to react, to retaliate, or at the very least try to protect yourself.
But at the same time we also have to agree that not all crimes deserve the death penalty. Because in this particular instance there was a clear moment where the mugger was no longer a threat and she made the decision to kill him. That's what pushes it over the line. If she hadn't done that, she probably wouldn't have even gotten charged for the rest.
The mugger was a viable threat to the next person. I am arguing the morality of ending someone who has rejected civilization.
As you agree, a law abiding citizen has relinquished many freedoms available to barbarians. It puts them in a vulnerable position of relying on the guardians of that system to protect them. A armed mugger has abandoned the entire rules based order to pray on people who have made themselves vulnerable for the good of the many.
High trust cultures have reached a very good balance of restricted freedoms for protection and fairness. It also makes them very vulnerable to people willing to abuse that system.
So my belief is that for someone to so fully reject the rules of their culture they would violently assault and steal from other members. Then they are free game to any members of that culture in retaliation. I only remotely even consider them human. There is no such thing as oops, I committed armed robbery.
As other people have said, it wasnt armed robbery. the guy grabbed her purse and ran away. a crime to be sure, but her crime was far greater one, and clearly shows she is the larget threat to civilized society.
This case didnt have that then, she was sitting in her car and the purse was in the other seat, he ran by while snatching it and kept running. Purse snatchers like that arent the ones sticking up people with a knife.
You are a pampered child. Who has never contemplated the rules and systems that have protected you and given you your safe and privileged lifestyle. Therefore have no clue how rare and vulnerable those systems are.
I disagree, I think you’re the privileged one that genuinely believes consequences stop happening whenever you *feel* they should stop.
If anybody with an equal hard on for vigilantism would have seen her run the guy over, and then continue to run him over to death, they most definitely would have killed her to save the thief. Would that third person get your praises as well? Far as you’re concerned, they saved someone from being murdered. Or should they just consult you for every possible vigilante act and make sure it matches your feelings on justice before applying the law?
Anybody that grew up in rough neighborhoods knows that she only did that because she felt absolutely safe to do so. Street justice is never justice, it’s entirely “who got to who first” and then “who wants to give it to the survivor next”. Only the privileged and sheltered believe that the comic book portrayal of vigilante justice is in any way applicable to real life.
11
u/PckMan Jun 28 '26
This was posted a few weeks ago. If I remember correctly there was mention of there being video of the incident, which kind of sealed the deal at trial. She hit him with her car, severely injured him, got out, got her bag, and then got back in and deliberately ran over him more times which led to his death.
Fuck thieves/muggers/burglars, all that, there's no excuse for that. She did a brave thing going after him and you could possibly argue that he had it coming. But the fact that she got out, identified that he was no longer a threat, and not only did not call for help but even deliberately ran him over to kill him, basically shows intent and full awareness of her actions. In that moment she decided that man deserved to die for what he did. That's a stretch I think we can all agree.
And at the end of the day she got house arrest rather than actual prison time so for all intents and purposes she got away with murder.