WOman sees man with gun, so runs over him with her car. Police won't charge her

[BobPlumb]

Why couldn't Helen Keller drive a car?

Ray Charles drove a motorcycle...

You are into something.

 

[OnePercenter]

The police defintely needs to charge her for running him over.

She had no proof he was going to do anything illegal when she ran him over, just as the police now don't have any proof.

PA is an Open Carry State. She violated his rights.

There has to be more to the story. I can't figure out where they are coming from by not charging her.

According to the story; The guy's not dead and Police (through investigation) believe that he was en-route to rob a convenience store.

 

[OnePercenter]

The police defintely needs to charge her for running him over.

She had no proof he was going to do anything illegal when she ran him over, just as the police now don't have any proof.

PA is an Open Carry State. She violated his rights.

There has to be more to the story. I can't figure out where they are coming from by not charging her.

the woman was talking on her obama phone while black. that is why eric holder is not on this.

Which is actually the Reagan phone. 'Free phones' were signed into law in 1987.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why couldn't Helen Keller drive a car?

'Cause when the phone rang she answered the iron and burned her face.

No. The reason ties into this thread.

I thought Helen Keller was dead.

 

[PaulS1950]

It wasn't even a gun! A paint-ball launcher. They BELIEVE he was going to rob a store with an air-soft toy? She ran him down because she thought he was going to shoot the children? How close were the kids and was he even heading in their direction? the police believe that he was going to rob the convenience store? Maybe he was going for refreshments before going back to playing with his buddies in the park!???!

OK, let's say it was a gun - openly carried which is completely legal - and he was headed to the store to buy milk or a package of skittles. Maybe he was on his way to rob the store. He hadn't broken any laws yet. He didn't assault the driver of the car, he hadn't menaced any of the kids, and he hadn't gotten into the store. The police say that it is OK to run someone down just because they have what appears to be a gun? REALLY?

 

[Sunshine]

'Cause when the phone rang she answered the iron and burned her face.

No. The reason ties into this thread.

I thought Helen Keller was dead.

She is. It would be shocking to see her driving a car, wouldn't it?

 

[Sunshine]

It wasn't even a gun! A paint-ball launcher. They BELIEVE he was going to rob a store with an air-soft toy? She ran him down because she thought he was going to shoot the children? How close were the kids and was he even heading in their direction? the police believe that he was going to rob the convenience store? Maybe he was going for refreshments before going back to playing with his buddies in the park!???!

OK, let's say it was a gun - openly carried which is completely legal - and he was headed to the store to buy milk or a package of skittles. Maybe he was on his way to rob the store. He hadn't broken any laws yet. He didn't assault the driver of the car, he hadn't menaced any of the kids, and he hadn't gotten into the store. The police say that it is OK to run someone down just because they have what appears to be a gun? REALLY?

The article said he pointed it at her. IMO that is a question of fact that could be disputed in a court of law. I mean, seriously, open the article and look at that thing. I wouldn't mistake it for a real gun. Good God! It also said his ear had to be sewn back on. I guess they will call him Vincent, now.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:

1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?

2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?

3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?

1- she didn't "know". No one knows the future.

2- not necessarily. It wouldn't have to be a woman.
Why would you be walking down the street with a shotgun in this country?

3- because a car is not a weapon; because she didn't try to kill him.

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

 

[Pogo]

Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:

1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?

2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?

3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?

1- she didn't "know". No one knows the future.

2- not necessarily. It wouldn't have to be a woman.
Why would you be walking down the street with a shotgun in this country?

3- because a car is not a weapon; because she didn't try to kill him.

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The original article has been updated, with some new info that puts a completely different cast on the event.

1.) The woman first stopped and yelled at the guy, telling him to leave the kids alone, and

2.) The guy turned and pointed the "gun" at her.

THEN she floored it and ran over the guy.

The gun looked like a real one with no orange tip, even though it was a fake Airsoft. She was within reason to assume it was real. And when he pointed it at her, she was also within reason to assume he might shoot her; and so she was right to defend herself by hitting him with her car.

Click on the link in the OP, and you'll see the new info that's been added. The original had a time stamp of 2:49PM. Now it says 5:58PM.

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect « CBS Pittsburgh

I wonder why such important info was left out of the original article?

 

[Sunshine]

The original article has been updated, with some new info that puts a completely different cast on the event.

1.) The woman first stopped and yelled at the guy, telling him to leave the kids alone, and

2.) The guy turned and pointed the "gun" at her.

THEN she floored it and ran over the guy.

The gun looked like a real one with no orange tip, even though it was a fake Airsoft. She was within reason to assume it was real. And when he pointed it at her, she was also within reason to assume he might shoot her; and so she was right to defend herself by hitting him with her car.

Click on the link in the OP, and you'll see the new info that's been added. The original had a time stamp of 2:49PM. Now it says 5:58PM.

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect « CBS Pittsburgh

I wonder why such important info was left out of the original article?

When the guy gets out of the hospital he may have something else to say on the topic. Stay tuned............

 

[Pogo]

It wasn't even a gun! A paint-ball launcher. They BELIEVE he was going to rob a store with an air-soft toy? She ran him down because she thought he was going to shoot the children? How close were the kids and was he even heading in their direction? the police believe that he was going to rob the convenience store? Maybe he was going for refreshments before going back to playing with his buddies in the park!???!

OK, let's say it was a gun - openly carried which is completely legal - and he was headed to the store to buy milk or a package of skittles. Maybe he was on his way to rob the store. He hadn't broken any laws yet. He didn't assault the driver of the car, he hadn't menaced any of the kids, and he hadn't gotten into the store. The police say that it is OK to run someone down just because they have what appears to be a gun? REALLY?

The article said he pointed it at her. IMO that is a question of fact that could be disputed in a court of law. I mean, seriously, open the article and look at that thing. I wouldn't mistake it for a real gun. Good God! It also said his ear had to be sewn back on. I guess they will call him Vincent, now.

 

[OnePercenter]

It wasn't even a gun! A paint-ball launcher. They BELIEVE he was going to rob a store with an air-soft toy? She ran him down because she thought he was going to shoot the children? How close were the kids and was he even heading in their direction? the police believe that he was going to rob the convenience store? Maybe he was going for refreshments before going back to playing with his buddies in the park!???!

OK, let's say it was a gun - openly carried which is completely legal - and he was headed to the store to buy milk or a package of skittles. Maybe he was on his way to rob the store. He hadn't broken any laws yet. He didn't assault the driver of the car, he hadn't menaced any of the kids, and he hadn't gotten into the store. The police say that it is OK to run someone down just because they have what appears to be a gun? REALLY?

Why would you carry your gun to buy milk or a package of skittles? You're really reaching on this one.

 

[BobPlumb]

No. The reason ties into this thread.

I thought Helen Keller was dead.

She is. It would be shocking to see her driving a car, wouldn't it?

That's why the riddle is asked using past tense.

Sunshine, you will probably neg me if I post the answer.

 

[OnePercenter]

The original article has been updated, with some new info that puts a completely different cast on the event.

1.) The woman first stopped and yelled at the guy, telling him to leave the kids alone, and

2.) The guy turned and pointed the "gun" at her.

THEN she floored it and ran over the guy.

The gun looked like a real one with no orange tip, even though it was a fake Airsoft. She was within reason to assume it was real. And when he pointed it at her, she was also within reason to assume he might shoot her; and so she was right to defend herself by hitting him with her car.

Click on the link in the OP, and you'll see the new info that's been added. The original had a time stamp of 2:49PM. Now it says 5:58PM.

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect « CBS Pittsburgh

I wonder why such important info was left out of the original article?

When the guy gets out of the hospital he may have something else to say on the topic. Stay tuned............

From jail?

 

[BobPlumb]

1- she didn't "know". No one knows the future.

2- not necessarily. It wouldn't have to be a woman.
Why would you be walking down the street with a shotgun in this country?

3- because a car is not a weapon; because she didn't try to kill him.

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

Yet many more people are killed with cars than with guns.

 

[PaulS1950]

Has anyone heard of vehicular assault? How about vehicular homicide? A car is a 3000 to 5000 pound projectile that can easily kill a pedestrian.

He wasn't breaking any laws, threatening anyone except a lady yelling at him (or maybe showing her it was a toy) and the police said she was right to run him down?

They believe he was going to rob a store? What evidence is there of a crime - or even conspiracy to commit a crime?

I believe this guy is going to get a little richer at the public's expense. Her insurance won't cover the collision because she did it on purpose so he will sue the city for not arresting this maniac in a car who tried to kill a guy who was doing nothing wrong.

 

[Sunshine]

The original article has been updated, with some new info that puts a completely different cast on the event.

1.) The woman first stopped and yelled at the guy, telling him to leave the kids alone, and

2.) The guy turned and pointed the "gun" at her.

THEN she floored it and ran over the guy.

The gun looked like a real one with no orange tip, even though it was a fake Airsoft. She was within reason to assume it was real. And when he pointed it at her, she was also within reason to assume he might shoot her; and so she was right to defend herself by hitting him with her car.

Click on the link in the OP, and you'll see the new info that's been added. The original had a time stamp of 2:49PM. Now it says 5:58PM.

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect « CBS Pittsburgh

I wonder why such important info was left out of the original article?

When the guy gets out of the hospital he may have something else to say on the topic. Stay tuned............

From jail?

What did he do to go to jail for? Carrying a toy gun is not a crime. Neither is openly carrying a real one where this occurred. Deliberately running someone over with a car is a crime pretty much everywhere.

 

[Little-Acorn]

1- she didn't "know". No one knows the future.

2- not necessarily. It wouldn't have to be a woman.
Why would you be walking down the street with a shotgun in this country?

3- because a car is not a weapon; because she didn't try to kill him.

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

In California, if you ram somebody with a car, even if they are in another car, the police charge you with "assault with a deadly weapon".

Whether something is a weapon or not, depends on how you USE it.

If you carry a baseball bat to your local Little League game in a cloth sack with other bats, mitts, baseballs etc., the cops do NOT charge you with "carrying a concealed weapon"... because it isn't.

But if you use the same bat to bash a guy's skull in, the cops WILL charge you with "assault with a deadly weapon"... because then, it is.

Same with a car.

BTW, the principal use for a gun, according to Federal studies from both the Obama administration and the Clinton administration, is to deter crime, NOT "to kill people". It is used far more often for deterrence, than to kill people. So a gun isn't a weapon either, unless you actually shoot or threaten somebody with it.

 

[PaulS1950]

Why would you carry your gun to buy milk or a package of skittles? You're really reaching on this one.

I carry my gun everywhere I go. I have for more than 41 years. There is nothing illegal about it. Why do I carry it? To defend myself - just like 1.5 to 3 million people do each year. (according to the CDC report demanded by Obama)

There was no law broken. He could have just been showing her it was a toy and not actually pointing it at her. She is a whack job. And the police are complicit in this injustice.

How did the police get the "cut-off" barrel for the picture? was it on the ground after she ran him over? Was it broken in the impact? what evidence is there to show he did anything wrong?