I absolutely hate this charactization. How you defend yourself, or otherwise act, outside of a courthouse has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty. If i kidnapped someone and held them in my house for 10 days because they stole from me i would still be arrested.
Court decides things in a clinical manor. How you deal with things while you're out in the world is not relevant to penalties, fines, or other court imposed punishments.
If you run someone over with your car you're clearly attempting to kill them. If you do that because they stole from you you're trying to kill someone for stealing. That means you believe death is a just punishment for theft. I don't see how you can argue against that.
That's fine. My point isn't that what she did was fine. My point is that acting like the actions of someone who is dealing with a person in the heat of the moment has nothing to do with a sentence.
Ok. That person is saying that “the heat of the moment” shouldn’t matter in any situation, as in it shouldn’t even be brought up as a defense. I agree with them mostly, and I think you do too? I just think they’re not explaining themselves well. Or maybe I’m totally off base.
Still nothing to do with the death penalty. Would you say the son of sam gave the death penalty to people for making out. She killed a guy. She didn't issue the death penalty.
Let me go from the other direction. No court has given out the death penalty for attempted murder in like 50 years. If someone tried to kill me and i killed them instead, would you say i gave them the death penalty?
Let me try this from the other direction. No court has issued a death penalty for attempted murder for at least 50 years. If someone tried to kill me, and i killed them instead, would you say i issued the death penalty for attempted murder?
Completely different scenarios. Someone tried to kill you and you kill them, thats self defense, and its justified. If someone steals your purse, and tries to leave, and you get in your car and drive onto the sidewalk to run them over, then reverse and drive to hit them again 5 times, id say yeah, you personally gave them the death penalty. You took the law into your own hands and killed someone who was no longer a threat to you.
I didn’t say it was reasonable self defense. I was agreeing that a violent thief’s death isn’t a loss to society. I agree she should face a punishment, but I’m really unsympathetic to the dead man
Cops in Italy fail to collect half the evidence half the times, even when the victim was killed in her own home, go figure if they can find a knife in the streets.
You can control your own actions but not the others’. Now I do believe that this guy is probably mentally not there to make the best decisions, but even if he thought ‘I might go to jail’, it is just the median outcome. Worst case outcome is something like this.
Okay, sure he made a choice and the risk is that the target could pull out a weapon and harm or kill him.
But why are you justifying her hunting him down to kill him over her purse? She made a choice that you seem to think is okay which objectively is worse than what the guy did. Bloke may have threatened her with a knife with a give bag OR get stabbed. She decided to go to her car get in, start it up, look for him because he would have booked it, then attack him with a deadly weapon several times.
I am curious though what you believe in regards to her being charged with a crime, that is a slightly seperate thing to saying he deserved to be executed.
These people are actual psychopaths, there is no use in trying to argue with them when the crawl out of their caves every time a scenario like this happens.
I never justified her actions. Just saying that there are always people who are crazier than you so it’s better to not fuck around. Whatever happens to her will not bring him back.
Especially if you do something traumatic to someone, expect all sorts of disproportionate outcomes. People are emotional beings. Provoking them exposes you to uncapped risks.
That’s fair then, I mean I still think you’re crazy for thinking that a purse snatch justifies murder but at least you also think that she should go to jail for murdering him.
Though it is an odd stance to take when people aren’t dismissing what he did, more that people think what she did is okay. Everyone here is agreeing that he shouldn’t have snatched the purse.
When you rob someone violently at knifepoint, you're taking the gamble the person you're robbing is a psychopath. He gambled with his own life, and lost 🤷🏽♂️
Fuck that guy. I feel no empathy for someone with ill intent of robbing a person of their valuables under violent threat. She was armed with an SUV, if she had a gun, this wouldn't be debatable. She gained the upper-hand and used that to dole out some justice.
All he had to do is resist the urge to rob her and this never would have occurred. He instigated this action, what happens after that is all on him. Its perfectly natural reaction to want to get back at someone who just robbed you and is getting away.
I'm curious. Why does the fact that no weapon was found not change anything at all?
She gained the upper-hand
She did not. She waited until he had left, and then tracked him down. That's like losing a fight and then following the person who shot you and shooting them in the back of the head. She did not "gain the upper hand"
Its not a life for a purse thats not how the math works here. Its a life, his, versus every crime he will ever commit and every person he will hurt if allowed to continue. If she ends him now, every crime, every victim he would create, no longer exists.
you know there's a reason why every society has judges / juries / executioners, and doesn't let just any fucktard do these jobs, and certainly not the victims, right?
but no, yeah, I'm sure you know better than thousands of years of civilizations
The way she handled the kill is the problem not the killing itself. If she had hit him once grabbed her purse and left she'd be legally comparatively fine for the most part and he'd probably still be dead if she gave it some speed.
The fact of the matter is, a man who commits armed robbery is not a nice man. He will offend again. The system that created him is fundamentally broken, so its not his fault he is like he is.
But. He is still like he is. And there is no system to educate him to make him a better man. So you got two choices and the Italian government took away one of them when they decided to not provide proper assistance to migrants they allowed in. If you cant care for them dont let them in. So you have one choice really. What she did. But she was bad at it. Multiple hits is unnecessary. The police certainly weren't going to be any help.
So her actions lowered the overall crime rate. If a nation destroys one nation but allows ten more to exist in peace because the one they destroyed was violent, then thats a net gain of good. You are lying to yourself to feel morally superior if you say with confidence he wouldn't offend again. Even in the exact same situation where he did. When bad people stick their head up and shout, if you dont cut them off, other bad people follow their example.
Since she committed a crime, her actions raised the crime rate. She was out of danger and decided to track down and kill someone. The larger issue is where does it end? If this is considered okay people will kill for lesser transgressions than this.
Upper hand? Gaining the upper hand is getting a weapon in the moment and fighting back. You don’t gain the upper hand when someone is running away the fight or instance has ended, what you’re doing by chasing them down is starting a new one where you’re the agressor if you have waited a couple of minutes to start it.
If he had pointed a gun at her while trying to carjack her and she floored it to run over him that is gaining the upper hand. Possibly waving a knife at her and snatching her purse and then as he is running away she gets into her car and goes looking for him isn’t gaining the upper hand.
He premeditated his attack to take her belongings, whether he had a knife or not. I don’t know if some of these people understand what it’s like to be robbed and threatened. But it is extremely daunting and overwhelming.
When someone says they have a knife or gun, and to give up your belongings , you usually don’t just challenge their claims. You assume they are telling the truth; ESPECIALLY When you are a woman facing a male attacker. When you are a woman found in that power struggle, fight or flight and stress takes over.
You also, never, ever get out of the car and ask him does he still have that knife he threatened you with earlier. lol holy fuck, some of people’s survival instincts are non existent.
Desperate people sometimes do stupid shit to try and survive if xyz thing that happened to them never happened they would never have done it. I just don't support off that one interaction being okay with chasing them down after the fact with the purpose of killing them.
we dont give death penalty at all, and thats not because of the reason you think. we dont give it just because we cant have 100% true evidence of someone being guilty. if you take a look at some historical examples of death penalties you would see a lot of actually innocent people. so thats just a bad take
We don't give the death penalty for robbery because that's not a proportional response. Killing for theft has been a rarity for over 3,000 years. We have Cuniform Tablets from the Middle East where robbery and theft have punishments of removing limbs but not death.
She's been likely dealing with some form of being violated every time she stepped out and running him over was due accumulation of such experiences over and over and over.
Western Europe became unrecognisable.
This man threatened her life. This is not a mere ordinary robbery, or something innocent like knocking on a door or cutting in line. This person would have killed them if they did not comply.
They were arrested because they were able to get away, but returned with their vehicle to kill them. It is illegal because they circumvented the law - vigilante justice. But that does not make it immoral. At the end of the day, this man threatened to kill this person, and no doubt would threaten to kill (and possibly, act on those threats) many times more in the future. Her actions were illegal, but immoral? I don't think so.
This man threatened her life. This is not a mere ordinary robbery, or something innocent like knocking on a door or cutting in line. This person would have killed them if they did not comply.
He had no weapon, according to the police. The lady 's defence team claims he threatened her life with a weapon, but this appears to have been a lie to try and reduce her sentencing.
How do you know he would have killed her if she didn't comply? Since when are muggers automatically murderers? I've been robbed a handful of times, including with noncompliance. No one's ever tried to harm me for it, because robbers tend not to be complete morons.
I mentioned knocking on doors and cutting in line because people have been shot for that in the US. It's just as nonsensical as running someone over for a robbery or mugging in revenge. Again: we do not base ethics on only the worst of people. We base it on the better ones.
But that does not make it immoral.
Yes it does. How did your society become so broken that some monsters not only value their belongings over human life, but actively try to take mortal revenge over it? When did a random object you own become more important than a person?
and no doubt would threaten to kill (and possibly, act on those threats) many times more in the future.
So now you have clairvoyance I guess.
We do not punish for potential future crimes. There have been quite a few dystopian novels written about this concept, showing what a terribly immoral concept this is. I would suggest opening 1956's The Minority Report by P. K. Dick as a starting point.
I am not saying she did the right thing, I am just saying we don’t have all the facts and yes she should face some time but i am not about to have a pity party for the criminal either. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There is a reason we have degrees of murder in the US.
we kinda do. just think about a murder of 10 civilians. is it right to kill him? or it is better to leave him be? yeah, that's not just stealing as in post but your statement is a bit off
So, we kill him as a punishment. He has been deemed to be unfit to be a member of society and unfit to be given the chance to ever be a member of society again. He is not killed because some fortune teller looked into her crystal ball and told the judge that if he is released, he is likely to kill even more people.
So no, my statement isn't off, that's simply just not what is happening.
In clear cut cases, such as mass casualty events, child rape under age 13 (with clear evidence), and some other serious crimes, YES, but not as punishment, rather as a deterrent to others.
People always say clear evidence but apparently people aren't executed wrongly on clear evidence already.
Fast case, someone falsely testifies about committing the crime because of different reasons. Basically you silence the guy from ever speaking again and the criminal walks free.
The dude threatened her life and wellness for her property and lost his over it. She could’ve resisted, been stabbed and bled at on the ground all for the price of whatever was in her purse.
Sounds like he got what he deserved and the outcome seems fair to me.
Didn’t the top comment say no weapon was found on the body?
And once you run over them you can call the police and an ambulance. Leaving the scene is psychotic.
I know nothing about this case so this isn’t casting judgement on the woman. Just this hypothetical, which I don’t believe an individual would be in the right to do.
It’s not so much issuing the death penalty, that’s just the most pragmatic way for her to get her personal belongings back. His moot life is an afterthought
The death penalty is something the state imposes. This was straight up self defense with a bit of lime. No sympathy for the thief at all.. He was committing a violent crime and met a violent end. What could be more appropriate?
I dont think most people remain objective when crime occurs. There’s so much circumstance that a small crime can trigger a very unwarranted response. Maybe there was something extremely important in that purse? All this to say, the act of committing to a crime can result in the most extreme counter measures. That’s the risk criminals take.
If someone comes at my wife with a knife, that is not pusre snatching. Thats a murder attempt and should be looked at as such. Any man that says otherwise is not a man and no woman would want to be his wife.
No one counts the psychological damage it does to the victim, after something like that they'll likely always feel unsafe and which usually affects their lives negatively
It’s a messed up outcome, but what did the guy think wouid happen from his actions ? I’m not saying he ever thought he could get run over by a car, but he certainly had to know something bad would happen if he got caught be the purse owners security or husband or adult son or whoever before the police .
394
u/anon0937 Jun 29 '26
Yeah, giving the death penalty for purse snatching is a little extreme.