Should our laws allow authorities to charge this woman?

[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.

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?

There are details missing, but possibly yes to charges. Jail time would depend on more details, such as what the man was doing when the father started beating him (had he stopped, or was he running?), how long and badly the father beat him, whether the man was actually doing anything to the daughter, etc.

If the man really did have his hands down the daughter's pants, and the father beat him up some but didn't do any permanent damage, you let it go. If the man stopped to surrender and the father beat him so badly he broke both of his legs and ruptured his spleen, the father continuing to beat him after he was unconscious, then the father gets charged. There is definitely a grey area in there that can be hard to decide on.

 

[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.

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".

I'd imagine they could charge her with just assault.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

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?

nope......the cops should buy the guy a six pack of red stripe though

 

[Brain357]

I think the important part of all this is proof he had attempted to rob her. With solid proof she should be ok. In a situation where there is little proof I can see her being charged. Without proof of an attempted crime it could easily be an attempted murder on the part of the one claiming to have been the victim.

 

[Dr Grump]

Hope they throw the book at her.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think the important part of all this is proof he had attempted to rob her. With solid proof she should be ok. In a situation where there is little proof I can see her being charged. Without proof of an attempted crime it could easily be an attempted murder on the part of the one claiming to have been the victim.

It would be very difficult to believe she just decided to pick out a guy in the parking lot simply because she wanted to run somebody over.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the man really did have his hands down the daughter's pants, and the father beat him up some but didn't do any permanent damage, you let it go. If the man stopped to surrender and the father beat him so badly he broke both of his legs and ruptured his spleen, the father continuing to beat him after he was unconscious, then the father gets charged. There is definitely a grey area in there that can be hard to decide on.

Okay then, as it relates to the OP, the woman hit the man only hard enough to make him collapse and drop the purse.

And as it relates to immediate threat, the man ran away and there was no longer an immediate threat to his daughter. He had no "legal" reason to chase the attacker.

 

[Correll]

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?

Fuck the barbarian's right to try to rob productive members of society and to be treated with kid gloves.


I would not vote guilty no matter WHAT the law says, or the instructions from the court.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How exactly do people say 'it's a country of laws' yet at any moment they willie nillie toss out the law. It isn't even close, she attempted to murder another human being.

No, she did not. What she did was to recover her rightful property from a piece of subhuman filth who was trying to steal it from her.

But then it's clear enough, given a choice between thieving criminal filth, or the innocent victim thereof, whose side it is that you are on. You are a LIbEral, after all.

 

[jillian]

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?

laws aren't intended for the "victims".

she had no business pursuing and killing him.

yes, she should be charged.

 

[jillian]

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?

Fuck the barbarian's right to try to rob productive members of society and to be treated with kid gloves.


I would not vote guilty no matter WHAT the law says, or the instructions from the court.

of course you wouldn't.

wanna be vigilante winger.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If the things in her purse was that important she shouldn't have left in in a unattended vehicle..

If the piece of thieving, subhuman filth thought that his life was that important, then he should have kept his filthy hands off of stuff that didn't belong to him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the things in her purse was that important she shouldn't have left in in a unattended vehicle..

If the piece of thieving, subhuman filth thought that his life was that important, then he should have kept his filthy hands off of stuff that didn't belong to him.

The thing is, if it were legal in that state to use deadly force against theft, he might have not robbed her in the first place. Maybe he would have chose to get a job at McDonald's instead.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

I don't care if he died or not. What matters is that he stole a purse that didn't belong to him, and in so doing, compelled the rightful owner of that purse to resort to drastic means in order to get it back. Any harm done to him as a result is his own damn fault. He should have kept his hands off of that woman's property.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

laws aren't intended for the "victims".

Not according to libs they aren't. Laws are intended to protect the criminal.

she had no business pursuing and killing him.

yes, she should be charged.

Typical lib, respond to the headline and not read the story. She didn't kill anybody.

 

[Correll]

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?

laws aren't intended for the "victims".

she had no business pursuing and killing him.

yes, she should be charged.

Laws are certainly intended for the victims. so that they can receive justice.

 

[Correll]

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?

Fuck the barbarian's right to try to rob productive members of society and to be treated with kid gloves.


I would not vote guilty no matter WHAT the law says, or the instructions from the court.

of course you wouldn't.

wanna be vigilante winger.

You are more concerned with the rights of the robber than the rights of his victim.

You are the one that is crazy, and your craziness has made society sick.

 

[IsaacNewton]

How exactly do people say 'it's a country of laws' yet at any moment they willie nillie toss out the law. It isn't even close, she attempted to murder another human being.

No, she did not. What she did was to recover her rightful property from a piece of subhuman filth who was trying to steal it from her.

But then it's clear enough, given a choice between thieving criminal filth, or the innocent victim thereof, whose side it is that you are on. You are a LIbEral, after all.

What a sad view of your fellow humans you have. Adults are discussing the law, you are all overcome with emotion.

Run along Lucy.

 

[Correll]

How exactly do people say 'it's a country of laws' yet at any moment they willie nillie toss out the law. It isn't even close, she attempted to murder another human being.

No, she did not. What she did was to recover her rightful property from a piece of subhuman filth who was trying to steal it from her.

But then it's clear enough, given a choice between thieving criminal filth, or the innocent victim thereof, whose side it is that you are on. You are a LIbEral, after all.

What a sad view of your fellow humans you have. Adults are discussing the law, you are all overcome with emotion.

Run along Lucy.

Being upset over a crime is a GOOD THING.

 

[jillian]

laws aren't intended for the "victims".

Not according to libs they aren't. Laws are intended to protect the criminal.

she had no business pursuing and killing him.

yes, she should be charged.

Typical lib, respond to the headline and not read the story. She didn't kill anybody.

no... I responded to the imbecile trump loon o/p.

dismissed