Should our laws allow authorities to charge this woman?

[OKTexas]

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

Wrong answer, in TX you can shoot someone in the back, at night, if they are running away with your property. I don't think you can run them down with a truck though. From what I saw he didn't have any of her property and it was daylight.


.

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

 

[Divine Wind]

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

Wrong answer, in TX you can shoot someone in the back, at night, if they are running away with your property. I don't think you can run them down with a truck though. From what I saw he didn't have any of her property and it was daylight.


.

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

OJ got like 10 years for doing pretty much the same .

"pretty much" as in "completely different".

Then again, aren't all Socialists "pretty much" Stalinists who murder Christian children?

 

[Divine Wind]

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

Wrong answer, in TX you can shoot someone in the back, at night, if they are running away with your property. I don't think you can run them down with a truck though. From what I saw he didn't have any of her property and it was daylight.


.

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

 

[OKTexas]

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

Wrong answer, in TX you can shoot someone in the back, at night, if they are running away with your property. I don't think you can run them down with a truck though. From what I saw he didn't have any of her property and it was daylight.


.

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

If he was in possession of her address, there is certainly an implied threat. Would you feel safe if you knew criminal(s) knew exactly where you lived and that a condition such as her pregnancy left you weak?

I'm in the phone book, everyone know where I live. What they don't know is I have a gun sitting right in front of me and others loaded and handy. I also carry except when I in my little town.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong answer, in TX you can shoot someone in the back, at night, if they are running away with your property. I don't think you can run them down with a truck though. From what I saw he didn't have any of her property and it was daylight.


.

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

 

[Divine Wind]

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

The reality is you don't know if he was armed or not. You don't know what his intentions were. Was it to take a woman's ID so he could stalk and rape her? You don't know, I don't know and the woman didn't know. All she knew was this criminal stole her purse containing her identity papers including home address. Again, let the court settle this, but in the heat of the moment, I can understand why she wanted to stop him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Wrong answer, in TX you can shoot someone in the back, at night, if they are running away with your property. I don't think you can run them down with a truck though. From what I saw he didn't have any of her property and it was daylight.


.

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

Using that argument, people should not be allowed to use firearms either. I mean, if somebody broke into my house, and I missed the intruder with the first two shots and struck a child in the street instead, should I be charged? Of course, because even though I didn't mean to hit the child, I still did.

If this woman hit a child in the process of stopping the crime, then yes, she should be charged with that. It's the same kind of laws as with CCW. Yes, I am allowed to protect myself using deadly force, but I am also responsible for the harm or death I caused another in the process of defending myself.

 

[OKTexas]

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

 

[The Original Tree]

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?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If he was in possession of her address, there is certainly an implied threat. Would you feel safe if you knew criminal(s) knew exactly where you lived and that a condition such as her pregnancy left you weak?

Or a different possible scenario: He had her personal information but was caught by the cops. She would have to appear at the police station to identify him and testify against him in court. In the meantime, he posted bond and was free and able to try and stop her from testifying against him.

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

The report stated the thief had her purse. It's pretty common knowledge women keep their billfold w/ DL in their purses. It's not a stretch, but if you want to believe otherwise, go for it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

Wrong answer, in TX you can shoot someone in the back, at night, if they are running away with your property. I don't think you can run them down with a truck though. From what I saw he didn't have any of her property and it was daylight.


.

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

Didn't the robber put those people in harms way? Let's get back to why this all started. He started the chain of events. She did what needed to be done and ran the fucker over. No kids were involved so why bring it up?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

That used to be the law. And that the reaction should not be more lethal than the crime.

More than that, people are so willing to kill over property these days. Somebody steaks a tv or a car and the reaction is to kill. When did things become more valuable than lives?

Given the givens, she's wrong.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[OKTexas]

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

The report stated the thief had her purse. It's pretty common knowledge women keep their billfold w/ DL in their purses. It's not a stretch, but if you want to believe otherwise, go for it.

The dude didn't have a weapon, why would you assume he was a killer, hell, he ran like a scared rabbit.


.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

I'm kind of thrown by your reaction to this. Didn't expect it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

The report stated the thief had her purse. It's pretty common knowledge women keep their billfold w/ DL in their purses. It's not a stretch, but if you want to believe otherwise, go for it.

The dude didn't have a weapon, why would you assume he was a killer, hell, he ran like a scared rabbit.


.

A rabbit that needed ran over.

 

[Aletheia4u]

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?

Everybody has the right to defend for themselves or their property. If she had let him run and just report it. She will never see her property ever again. And so she has the right to stop him by any means necessary. They probably will only give her a light sentence of two hours of community service. Try running off with a police officer's handgun and see what will happen to you.

Criminal justice system: Legal right to protect home without fear of prosecution | Daily Mail Online

Unfortunately no, everybody does not have the right to defend their property, and that needs to change.

She was wrong as far as the law is concerned, but not wrong in what she did. The laws should protect people like her from prosecution if she did "whatever" it took to retrieve her stolen property.

If people doesn't has the right to retrieve their property by any means necessary, then should the government should be responsible for what was in the purse. It could of have been her mortgaged money. Will you think that the bank will forgive her mortgage payment? Or maybe she should go out and rob someone else to pay her bills.What if someone has taken yours wife's breast augmentation money that you have been saving up for months? Will you be able to wait to save up for another few months, having sex with the same breast?

.

 

[The Professor]

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

You are correct.

I have a Juris Doctorate, so let me explain to the rest of you how the law works. In all jurisdictions the use of deadly force is allowed only when – at the time such force is used – a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself (or an innocent third party). When a suspect is running away he obviously does not pose a such a threat. Even the police have no right to use deadly force to prevent the escape of most suspects including those who have broken into automobiles. The police can use deadly force only to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The law defines a dangerous felon as someone who has inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. Breaking into a person's automobile does not make a suspect a dangerous felon.

The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:

“The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Conclusion: the lady broke the law. Her only hope is for a sympathetic jury. This is not debatable.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

Hopefully, that would be struck down by SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Did the OP just say we need to rewrite our laws to say that running people over should be legal?

He's a terrorist wannabe?

.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com