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.
I watched it a few times. Videos are great evidence, but they don't tell the whole story. There were plenty of witnesses around plus the police and EMT report. I'm sure the court will figure it out.Correct. OTOH, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" and he still had her purse. It's not simply a matter of her rent money was in there, but nowadays with ID theft and emboldened criminals who conduct home invasions, the loss of her purse could be a dangerous thing for her.I don't know if he had a weapon and you don't either.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.
.
He ran with her purse.
There was no mention of one in the story from the witnesses or the woman.
.
Let's not forget she braked before hitting him. If she really wanted to run him down like a rabid dog, she could easily have done so. Instead, she just bumped him to stop him...or possibly just to get him to drop the purse. For the fourth time, let the court figure out what's what, but in the heat of the moment, I don't fault her for her actions.
I think you should watch the again. And the court will figure it out, I'm sure they'll plea her down to simple assault with a small fine since she didn't seriously hurt the guy.
.
Revenge isn't legal. She seems to be outraged that he broke the law but she wants no consequences when she broke the law.
She attempted to kill him and I would guess she'll get 3-5 years in prison minimum or more. It's the same if she had a gun in her purse and chased the guy down and shot him in the back. Angry revenge is not legal. If he attacks her and she pulls out a gun and kills him, self defense and case closed. If she pulls out the gun and he immediately runs and she chases him and shoots him in the back, attempted murder and if he dies 2nd degree murder.
People get this weird idea that if they are wronged and angry about it they have cart blanche to then do whatever they like.
Don't like the law, change it.
Want to place a bet on that?
No jury will convict her!
Partisans, both Left and Right, run on emotion just as you are exemplifying with the pejorative "Cons".Emotion. Cons run on emotion and that doesn't win out in court..
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.
.
Yes, but she didn't know what property of hers he might still have. Exigent circumstances would cover her decision on that matter IMO.
It wasn't night and she didn't have time to check if he actually got something. And it wasn't TX.
.
Can you imagine if it were? Oh man all the Clara Harris jokes would be awesome.
How dare you introduce facts into an emotional debate.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.
She was wrong but I'd be sympathetic. If I was on the jury I'd push for the minimum. I believe laws are far too easy on criminals, I'm not for sawing hands off but taking property from people should be afar worse crime than it is. If they have no assets to reimburse then it's hard labor.
Depends where you live.You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .
The dude didn't have a weapon, why would you assume he was a killer, hell, he ran like a scared rabbit.
He ran with the woman's purse—with her identification papers, her credit cards, and who knows what else. At that point, if he didn't want to be run over, he should have given them back.
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?
Things can be tied to survivability.
It used to be a hanging offense to steal a horse. Why? Because depriving a man of his horse might mean depriving him of his ability to survive. It might deprive him of his ability to make an a living, or even leave him stranded in a bad place where he might die if he can't get home.
A TV is one thing. If someone steals your TV, and you have to do without, that's survivable. If someone steals your car, your identification papers, your financial instruments, your work tools, or other things that you need just to go about the business of surviving, then that's a direct threat to your safety and well-being, and plenty of justification for the use of any amount of force, up to and including deadly force, for the one who was thus robbed to try to recover that property or to prevent it from being stolen in the first place.
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?
more protesters will get the fuck out of the road
if a few become panny cakes
--LOL
problem solved
More people in general will be ran over and called protestors or bad people. And since they'll be dead, just call them "protesters" or even "bad people" and its cool? As long as you're physically able to call them a name?
Sounds good
give her the key to the city, same goes for joe horn
Desperate people do desperate things.
There is no THING that is worth more that a human life.
ok...short version...he is a houston man who shot two illegalls to death wehn he caught them robbing his neighbors housegive her the key to the city, same goes for joe horn
There is not a lib here that knows who Joe is.
Emotion. Cons run on emotion and that doesn't win out in court. And it shouldn't.
ok...short version...he is a houston man who shot two illegalls to death wehn he caught them robbing his neighbors housegive her the key to the city, same goes for joe horn
There is not a lib here that knows who Joe is.
I laughed my ass off when the operater was like, "dont go outside, you'll be killed", then he chambered a round and was like "wanna bet?"ok...short version...he is a houston man who shot two illegalls to death wehn he caught them robbing his neighbors housegive her the key to the city, same goes for joe horn
There is not a lib here that knows who Joe is.
And the best part is it was all recorded at the police station because he stayed on the phone with dispatch through the entire thing.
. Now, say the little tweaker had pulled that stunt in Saudi or UAE. Do you really think he would have gotten off so easy? Your comment was dumb. You decied [sic] to break the law you face the consequences.
Don't they amputate the hands of thieves in those places?
You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .
