Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
?? What the hell are you talking about?Seriously? You think pregnancy makes a woman psychic?....or do you think she's a psycho who set up a trap for this poor Democrat to be tempted into breaking into her car and rifling through her purse just so she could try to murder him?The problem is she was not in fear of harm. This means she premeditated the attack on him......
Look. We all hate thieves . But really, leathal force ?
Say your stupid kid steals a neighbors garden nome as a prank . The neighbor should be allowed to shoot him dead?
We're talking about the law.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
Did the OP just say we need to rewrite our laws to say that running people over should be legal?
indeed
why not
In North Dakota, it could become legal to hit a protester with your car
Let's think about this briefly. A law is created that you can run people over with your car.
What do you think will happen next? More or less people being run over with fancy excuses?
We're talking about the law.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
I thought you people were all about being a nation of laws?
Presumed innocent!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?
She should absolutely be allowed to be charged. At this point, as far as our legal system is concerned, both of those people are innocent of any wrongdoing (or at least, that's the theory).
I'd need to know the relevant law before I could say how I might vote if I were on a jury. Assuming she did, in fact, break the law, I might vote for her to be guilty but recommend a light sentence, if possible.
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?We're talking about the law.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
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
It wouldn't be the first time a purse thief stole someone's driver's license solely to learn the victim's home address.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
Citizen's Arrest!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?We're talking about the law.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
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
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.
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?We're talking about the law.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
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
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.
By using deadly force? I'd like to see that code.Citizen's Arrest!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?We're talking about the law.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
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
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.
A private person may stop and detain another person when the private person has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed in his presence a (1) felony, (2) a breach of the peace, (3) a crime involving physical injury to another person, or (4) a crime involving theft or destruction of property.
It wouldn't be the first time a purse thief stole someone's driver's license solely to learn the victim's home address.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
Stalking, murder, rape and home invasion are possible in such a situation.
Not guilty.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?
Again, I know you are trying to protect a Hillary voter, but she bumped him, she didn't run him over, severely injure him or kill him.Look. We all hate thieves . But really, leathal force ?
Say your stupid kid steals a neighbors garden nome as a prank . The neighbor should be allowed to shoot him dead?
In fact, when she abandoned the foot chase and opted for the car, she metaphorically did exactly that.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?We're talking about the law.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
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
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.
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.
she didnt do that now did she
By using deadly force? I'd like to see that code.Citizen's Arrest!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?We're talking about the law.posed no immediate threat,
of course he did
he posed a threat to her income
and perhaps credit
plus other things
she stopped it
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
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.
A private person may stop and detain another person when the private person has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed in his presence a (1) felony, (2) a breach of the peace, (3) a crime involving physical injury to another person, or (4) a crime involving theft or destruction of property.
Have someone show you how to click on a link.By using deadly force? I'd like to see that code.Citizen's Arrest!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?We're talking about the law.posed no immediate threat,
of course he did
he posed a threat to her income
and perhaps credit
plus other things
she stopped it
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
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.
A private person may stop and detain another person when the private person has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed in his presence a (1) felony, (2) a breach of the peace, (3) a crime involving physical injury to another person, or (4) a crime involving theft or destruction of property.
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?
