Should our laws allow authorities to charge this woman?

[HereWeGoAgain]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

Jesus.....every time you open your piehole you're wrong.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

Bullshit.

exactly...here in the lone star state, chest ventilation is an occupational hazard for theives

 

[Brain357]

ASHEVILLE, N.C. -- When Christine Braswell found a man breaking into her SUV in a Walmart parking lot in North Carolina, she chased him. When the 26-year-old couldn't catch him, she jumped behind the wheel -- and what happened next is scary and disturbing to watch.

Editor's note: Video contains graphic content.

"She slammed on her brakes, crammed it in reverse, and ran over the median there in between and hit him in the back. I mean she, just he was running and she just flat hit him," said witness Janice Kelley.

Witnesses told WLOS the man who was hit was allegedly going through Braswell's belongings in her red-orange Ford Explorer.

"When I walked out of Walmart, he had her purse and was pulling all of her stuff out then me and my friend told him to put it down and what are you doing. She stopped and he ran off and then she came up behind him and hit him with her car," said witness Blake Bennett.

Asheville police told WLOS the man escaped with minor injuries. Police are charging Robert Raines with breaking and entering, larceny, and damage to property.

Braswell is facing an assault with a deadly weapon charge.

Pregnant woman runs over suspected purse thief in Walmart parking lot

Yes, it contains a video of the guy getting run over.

Now that Republicans have the power, perhaps it's time they write more laws for victims of crime. Much like they did with Concealed Carry laws in various states, law abiding citizens should have more rights than criminals.

This pregnant woman took off after a guy that robbed her of her purse. IMO, she had every right to stop him no matter how. Now she's being charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

If you were on a jury, how would you vote on this case, guilty or not guilty?

As long as no innocent people are hurt during it I would let it slide. Hitting the criminal is no big deal.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

Bullshit.

exactly...here in the lone star state, chest ventilation is an occupational hazard for theives

Yep..Joe Horn is a Hero around these parts.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He was running away, posed no immediate threat, guilty. Of course that is dependent on the pertinent laws of the state...

Seriously, does what he did warrant death? Because she could have easily killed the little shit stain. He definitely deserves a serious beat down, but not with the front bumper of an SUV...

posed no immediate threat,

of course he did

he posed a threat to her income

and perhaps credit

plus other things

she stopped it

We're talking about the law.

I thought you people were all about being a nation of laws?

North Carolina favors victims of crime with some pretty lenient castle doctrine laws and such

which is a law in a nation of laws

Sure. A castle doctrine states that you do not have a duty to retreat in the face of harm or property. She was in the right to protect property when she gave initial chase. Who wouldn't?

When she could not catch she then had a duty to call the authorities. Castle doctrine does not mean you can go down the street, around the corner, into the neighborhood bar and shoot the guy/girl.

The moment she chose to get in her care, she made a concious choice not to recover her property, but to do harm to the perp. She was no longer in fear of bodily harm and therefore had no right to escalate the conflict.

Nope..you can use force in N.C. to stop a crime. I guess the question is did she use deadly force. He only got a few scratches...
And how was she going to get her property back if she didnt wack the idiot with her SUV?

 

[imawhosure]

ASHEVILLE, N.C. -- When Christine Braswell found a man breaking into her SUV in a Walmart parking lot in North Carolina, she chased him. When the 26-year-old couldn't catch him, she jumped behind the wheel -- and what happened next is scary and disturbing to watch.

Editor's note: Video contains graphic content.

"She slammed on her brakes, crammed it in reverse, and ran over the median there in between and hit him in the back. I mean she, just he was running and she just flat hit him," said witness Janice Kelley.

Witnesses told WLOS the man who was hit was allegedly going through Braswell's belongings in her red-orange Ford Explorer.

"When I walked out of Walmart, he had her purse and was pulling all of her stuff out then me and my friend told him to put it down and what are you doing. She stopped and he ran off and then she came up behind him and hit him with her car," said witness Blake Bennett.

Asheville police told WLOS the man escaped with minor injuries. Police are charging Robert Raines with breaking and entering, larceny, and damage to property.

Braswell is facing an assault with a deadly weapon charge.

Pregnant woman runs over suspected purse thief in Walmart parking lot

Yes, it contains a video of the guy getting run over.

Now that Republicans have the power, perhaps it's time they write more laws for victims of crime. Much like they did with Concealed Carry laws in various states, law abiding citizens should have more rights than criminals.

This pregnant woman took off after a guy that robbed her of her purse. IMO, she had every right to stop him no matter how. Now she's being charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

If you were on a jury, how would you vote on this case, guilty or not guilty?

cases like this are why God gave us jury nullification

I agree with dcbl. Jury nullification is the correct action here. If he was hurt worse, then that is a different story. Hey, isn't jury nullification pulled in the OJ original trial! Therefore, all lefties should know how it works!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

Bullshit.

exactly...here in the lone star state, chest ventilation is an occupational hazard for theives

Yep..Joe Horn is a Hero around these parts.

More than just your parts. That was several years ago and I never forgot his name.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Emotion. Cons run on emotion and that doesn't win out in court. And it shouldn't.

I didn't know that. So what you are trying to tell us is that the past two riots we had were Republicans rioting when the white officers were found not guilty in the death of black suspects?

I don't need to tell you anything, you tell yourself quite enough.

 

[Crixus]

When the individual fled he became 'no longer a threat'. If someone tries to break into your house, you catch them in the act, and they run down the street trying to get away, you can not legally grab your gun or car, chase them down, and try to kill them. That's not how the law works.

Really depends on the state, but you make a good point. The DA may not have a choice really. They may have to press charges.

 

[Crixus]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

Depends where you live.

This is true. We enjoy a good bit of freedom here when it comes to shooting thugs and hood rats. Had this been Texas the chances that the man was shot right there at the car are almost a given. Running away then likely they would have prosecuted.

 

[Montrovant]

The man may not have been badly hurt, but that doesn't mean this wasn't assault with a deadly weapon. If she had had a gun, and shot him in the foot, causing little damage but stopping him, the charge would still be assault with a deadly weapon. The charge is based on the kind of weapon used, not the results, so far as I understand it. Hitting someone with a car is certainly something capable of causing death, so that would likely qualify as assault with a deadly weapon.

I post this because I've gotten the impression from a few posters that they believe because the man did not die, it should not be assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Harry Dresden]

He was running away, posed no immediate threat, guilty. Of course that is dependent on the pertinent laws of the state...

Seriously, does what he did warrant death? Because she could have easily killed the little shit stain. He definitely deserves a serious beat down, but not with the front bumper of an SUV...

1) He wasn't killed, but bumped.
2) I know you are defending a fellow Democrat, but he was a criminal fleeing a crime.

Mick a Democrat?....lol....thats funny....

 

[hjmick]

He was running away, posed no immediate threat, guilty. Of course that is dependent on the pertinent laws of the state...

Seriously, does what he did warrant death? Because she could have easily killed the little shit stain. He definitely deserves a serious beat down, but not with the front bumper of an SUV...

1) He wasn't killed, but bumped.
2) I know you are defending a fellow Democrat, but he was a criminal fleeing a crime.

Mick a Democrat?....lol....thats funny....

Thanks Harry. It's alright though, I've been called worse by better people than DW...

 

[Divine Wind]

The man may not have been badly hurt, but that doesn't mean this wasn't assault with a deadly weapon. If she had had a gun, and shot him in the foot, causing little damage but stopping him, the charge would still be assault with a deadly weapon. The charge is based on the kind of weapon used, not the results, so far as I understand it. Hitting someone with a car is certainly something capable of causing death, so that would likely qualify as assault with a deadly weapon.

I post this because I've gotten the impression from a few posters that they believe because the man did not die, it should not be assault with a deadly weapon.

You can make a rolled up fashion magazine into a deadly weapon. I think that's a trumped up charge given she was obviously not trying to kill him.

 

[Divine Wind]

He was running away, posed no immediate threat, guilty. Of course that is dependent on the pertinent laws of the state...

Seriously, does what he did warrant death? Because she could have easily killed the little shit stain. He definitely deserves a serious beat down, but not with the front bumper of an SUV...

1) He wasn't killed, but bumped.
2) I know you are defending a fellow Democrat, but he was a criminal fleeing a crime.

Mick a Democrat?....lol....thats funny....

Thanks Harry. It's alright though, I've been called worse by better people than DW...

No worries.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

Bullshit.

exactly...here in the lone star state, chest ventilation is an occupational hazard for theives

Yep..Joe Horn is a Hero around these parts.

yup it is actions like his that teaches criminals to keep their hand to themselves

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The man may not have been badly hurt, but that doesn't mean this wasn't assault with a deadly weapon. If she had had a gun, and shot him in the foot, causing little damage but stopping him, the charge would still be assault with a deadly weapon. The charge is based on the kind of weapon used, not the results, so far as I understand it. Hitting someone with a car is certainly something capable of causing death, so that would likely qualify as assault with a deadly weapon.

I post this because I've gotten the impression from a few posters that they believe because the man did not die, it should not be assault with a deadly weapon.

Okay, then let me ask a question when it comes to law.

A father looks out the front window to check on his 10 year old daughter. He sees a strange man with his hands down her pants. He busts out of the front door and the man runs away, and he rightfully chases him down. Once confronted, the father picks up a large fallen tree branch and beats him to the point he can no longer escape. Should the father be charged and face jail?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Emotion. Cons run on emotion and that doesn't win out in court. And it shouldn't.

I didn't know that. So what you are trying to tell us is that the past two riots we had were Republicans rioting when the white officers were found not guilty in the death of black suspects?

I don't need to tell you anything, you tell yourself quite enough.

Not telling myself anything. What I'm telling you is that those riots broke out because of leftists that don't understand our laws and used emotion to carry out their violence and anger.

 

[Montrovant]

The man may not have been badly hurt, but that doesn't mean this wasn't assault with a deadly weapon. If she had had a gun, and shot him in the foot, causing little damage but stopping him, the charge would still be assault with a deadly weapon. The charge is based on the kind of weapon used, not the results, so far as I understand it. Hitting someone with a car is certainly something capable of causing death, so that would likely qualify as assault with a deadly weapon.

I post this because I've gotten the impression from a few posters that they believe because the man did not die, it should not be assault with a deadly weapon.

You can make a rolled up fashion magazine into a deadly weapon. I think that's a trumped up charge given she was obviously not trying to kill him.

The charge is not about trying to kill him, that would be attempted murder.

From what I gather, there is some degree of judgement involved. If the weapon can reasonably be expected to seriously injure or kill someone, it constitutes a deadly weapon, along those lines. A rolled up magazine does not fit that description. Hitting a person with a car does.

Also, while I am in no way claiming she tried to kill him, I don't see anything in the video to make it obvious she wasn't trying to.

 

[Divine Wind]

The man may not have been badly hurt, but that doesn't mean this wasn't assault with a deadly weapon. If she had had a gun, and shot him in the foot, causing little damage but stopping him, the charge would still be assault with a deadly weapon. The charge is based on the kind of weapon used, not the results, so far as I understand it. Hitting someone with a car is certainly something capable of causing death, so that would likely qualify as assault with a deadly weapon.

I post this because I've gotten the impression from a few posters that they believe because the man did not die, it should not be assault with a deadly weapon.

You can make a rolled up fashion magazine into a deadly weapon. I think that's a trumped up charge given she was obviously not trying to kill him.

The charge is not about trying to kill him, that would be attempted murder.

From what I gather, there is some degree of judgement involved. If the weapon can reasonably be expected to seriously injure or kill someone, it constitutes a deadly weapon, along those lines. A rolled up magazine does not fit that description. Hitting a person with a car does.

Also, while I am in no way claiming she tried to kill him, I don't see anything in the video to make it obvious she wasn't trying to.

My point being is that "deadly weapon" is a bullshit charge unless it's used as a deadly weapon. A well swung Bible against a person's temple can kill them. If intended to do so, it's truly a "deadly weapon".