Jail her, or give her a medal?

[El Barto]

Woman arrested after killing bag snatcher (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=15871&na me=Woman+arrested+after+killing+bag+snatcher)

[ThaSaltCracka]

jail her, this goes way beyond self defense.

[ddollevoet]

Somewhere in the middle.

Take her statement and let her go home.

[ThaSaltCracka]

this seems to me to be manslaughter, lawyers, how wrong am I?

[elwoodblues]

The facts aren't all out there, but if she purposely did it she deserves jail. Absent an EXTRAORDINARY circumstance, the contents of a purse just aren't worth killing or being killed over.

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah I agree, the article is lacking some content.

[El Barto]

The content likely missing is that the theif seems to be part of a theft ring involving many. The final paragraph of article suggests this:
[ QUOTE ]
The second youth escaped the scene and is being sought by police. But two males aged 15 and 16 were arrested later that night after being linked to the scooter used in the theft. The youths are suspected of being involved in other thefts that have taken place in the district in recent weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]


Should not these other guys in the theft ring be responsible for the death. Conducting thefts in traffic is practically asking for trafic accidents to happen. If a death occurs in the commiting of a crime, all the criminals in the ring should be held responsible for it.

[zaxx19]

You guys are really missing what this article really is about...Morrocans, Dutch, crime, failure to assimilate,........mutual antagonism between the immigrant community and the native Dutch communities...Europes is big big big trouble.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are really missing what this article really is about...Morrocans, Dutch, crime, failure to assimilate,........mutual antagonism between the immigrant community and the native Dutch communities...Europes is big big big trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]yeah.....

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Should not these other guys in the theft ring be responsible for the death.

[/ QUOTE ] of course not, are you serious?

[Utah]

I agree. There are not enough facts but if she intentionally killed him then she should go to jail.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. There are not enough facts but if she intentionally killed him then she should go to jail.

[/ QUOTE ]I think it may be hard to show she intentionally tried to kill him, but if she was reckless and went beyond simply defending oneself(and ramming a moped is going beyond that IMO), then she should go to jail for manslaugther, or more likely involuntary manslaughter.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should not these other guys in the theft ring be responsible for the death.

[/ QUOTE ] of course not, are you serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in this case, since the criminal died. If the person killed in a traffic accident had been the woman or an innocent bystander, then all people involved in planning the crime have a criminal responsibility for the death.

If you drive the getaway car in a bank robbery, you should also be responsible for any people killed in the bank, even though you didn't pull the trigger.

[El Barto]

If she is charged, this would be a good case for jury nullification.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
If you drive the getaway car in a bank robbery, you should also be responsible for any people killed in the bank, even though you didn't pull the trigge

[/ QUOTE ] I diasgree completely, and most courts disagree with you as well.

[elwoodblues]

Actually, most courts wouldn't disagree. It's called the felony-murder rule.

[bholdr]

it doesn't sound intentional to me, but if it was, of course charges are in order. sounds like she was caught in the moment and acting on fight-or-flight instince, and chose fight...

I would say, though, that somebody that invades people's cars to rob them from a MOPED is accepting a certian ammount of risk, esp if they're career criminals or part of an orginized crime ring (sounds like it to me)

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, most courts wouldn't disagree. It's called the felony-murder rule.

[/ QUOTE ]even if you didn't know what was happening inside?

That seems absurd.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]


even if you didn't know what was happening inside

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


even if you didn't know what was happening inside

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
that seems absurd

[/ QUOTE ]

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, most courts wouldn't disagree. It's called the felony-murder rule.

[/ QUOTE ]even if you didn't know what was happening inside?

That seems absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. If you are part of a criminal enterprise, you are liable for everything that results from that enterprise.

The fact that there was a gang of pre-meditated purse snatchers must not be ignored. I will back the possibly hot-blooded overreacting woman over the cold-blooded serial robber any day.

[elwoodblues]

For the record, this very well not fall under a felony murder rule as purse snatching might not be a felony.

[jakethebake]

Medal.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I find it humorous you find serial purse nabbers as heinous as killing someone.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, this very well not fall under a felony murder rule as purse snatching might not be a felony.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were in the US, it could fall under RICO though. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it humorous you find serial purse nabbers as heinous as killing someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. The Bank robbery case was just an example of crime by a gang being a mutual endeavor.

A rash of motorized robberies should be taken seriously though, this wasn't a one time robbery at a whim here.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
A rash of motorized robberies should be taken seriously though, this wasn't a one time robbery at a whim here.

[/ QUOTE ] true true true.

well, I think I am arguing a pointless point here, I doubt there is proof that the death was nothing more than unintentional. She probably freaked out and ran over them.

[lastchance]

No medal. If it's intentional (and you can prove it), send her to jail. Otherwise, send her home.

Particulars are always important.

[Richard Tanner]

Okay Salt, when it comes to American Law I agree this goes beyond self defense. However, let us assume for a second that we are going to judge this case based only on one's own opinion of right and wrong, what say you now.

Just curious, not trying to be an ass.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

What the hell job are you doing where the driver doesn't know the crime. Unless the driver is being held hostage, he/she is just as at fault as anyone else.

Cody

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell job are you doing where the driver doesn't know the crime. Unless the driver is being held hostage, he/she is just as at fault as anyone else.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]what is a murder happens that was unplanned?

anyways, do I think what she did was wrong or right, well, if it was an accident, then it was an accident, if it wasn't an accident, then it was very wrong IMO.

[El Barto]

Today's Update:

Motorist denies killing thief on purpose (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=15909&n ame=Motorist+denies+killing+thief+on+purpose+)

Haven't read it yet, but I'm sure this will shed more light on the topic.

[El Barto]

From article:
[ QUOTE ]
Discussion continues to rage in the district and on internet forums about whether the death was an accident or murder. Some people have said that the victim was to blame by setting events in motion by taking the bag.

[/ QUOTE ]

They must have read my posts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

this makes no sense:
[ QUOTE ]
Lawyer P.A. van der Waal said his client — who is being held on suspicion of manslaughter — only wanted to pursue the suspects to get her bag back. He said the woman put her car in reverse to try and tell the thieves that there was nothing of value in her bag.

[/ QUOTE ] so she wanted a bag back that had nothing of value in it. She in turn tried to retrieve the bag by persuing them on a crowded road.

[Richard Tanner]

I don't understand your point of view, and I'd like to so please try and help me here. I'm very hardline about things like this and I know that's the point of alot of tension, but to me anyone commiting a violent crime (mugging to murder) has forfited the right to their life. Call it extreme (and I fully recognize it is) but I don't have a problem with it because I DON'T COMMIT CRIMES. I don't understand everyone's rush to defend those that are harmed in the act of commiting violent crimes. Sorry but to me, these acts are premeditated and that shows (or should show) and understanding of possible consequences.

Any input into the differeing viewpoints would certainly be helpful.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

That I'll grant you, that lawyer is an idiot. I think he's just trying to find a more paletable way to say "revenge killing".

Cody

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm very hardline about things like this and I know that's the point of alot of tension, but to me anyone commiting a violent crime (mugging to murder) has forfited the right to their life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree mostly. When someone invades your home or your car, you as the victim A) do not know their intention, B) can't afford to assume wrongly that they mean you no harm, and C) have every right to take whatever means necessary to defend yourself.

In this case, it looks like they took what they could and tried to run, which eliminates the self-defense argument above and probably warrants some criminal charges. On the flip side, I'm not going to be too tough on the woman because she was probably panicked and the purse snatchers were scum who frankly had it coming. A slap on the wrist would satisfy my thirst for justice.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
To me anyone commiting a violent crime (mugging to murder) has forfited the right to their life...Any input into the differeing viewpoints would certainly be helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you are saying that capital punishment should visit all those who commit violent crimes or that someone can use deadly force following a violent crime. As far as punishments go, we generally want the punishment to fit the crime. Everyone would agree that the loss of life is the greatest punishment society gives and, thus, it should be reserved for the worst of crimes (if used at all.) Frankly, simple assault just doesn't fit that standard.

With regard to whether someone should be allowed to retaliate with deadly force to any violent crime --- A person has the right to protect themselves. The story above is not about self protection --- the crime had already been committed, no physical injury was described. So basically the question here is should I be able to kill you to get back the wallet that you took from me. Not only should society want to avoid this type of vigilantism (just for the sake of avoiding civil unrest), but again we have made a judgment as a society that life is more precious than property. Property can be replaced, a life cannot.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
but to me anyone commiting a violent crime (mugging to murder) has forfited the right to their life

[/ QUOTE ] this was clearly not mugging for murder.

[Richard Tanner]

No I meant any crime from mugging to murder.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

My post had nothing to do with capital punishment, it dealt with the retalitaion of victims. As for capital punishment I'm all for it so long as guilt can be proven, but since we can't prove guilt with the finality that we can execute, I'm aginst it as it is now.
However, my point was the any force taken during a violent crime commited against someone is justified. I ask only that of which I am will to give myself; if I ever accost you trying to rob or harm you, I expect you to kill me. Of course that won't be a problem as. again, I'm not a criminal.

Cody

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
No I meant any crime from mugging to murder.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]completely ridiculous.

[wtfomgbs]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your point of view, and I'd like to so please try and help me here. I'm very hardline about things like this and I know that's the point of alot of tension, but to me anyone commiting a violent crime (mugging to murder) has forfited the right to their life. Call it extreme (and I fully recognize it is) but I don't have a problem with it because I DON'T COMMIT CRIMES. I don't understand everyone's rush to defend those that are harmed in the act of commiting violent crimes. Sorry but to me, these acts are premeditated and that shows (or should show) and understanding of possible consequences.

Any input into the differeing viewpoints would certainly be helpful.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
I ask only that of which I am will to give myself; if I ever accost you trying to rob or harm you, I expect you to kill me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? You expect me to just shoot you right on the spot instead of calling the cops, even after you surrender? I think this is pretty -EV.

[Richard Tanner]

If I surrender I'd love to see a little mercy, however I'm still a violent criminal and a burden on society, so feel free to shoot me. Of course this is a non-issue as, yet again, I don't commit anything remotely close to these offenses.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

Why salt? Don't just deny, defend your point, I really want to understand your take.

Cody

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Why salt? Don't just deny, defend your point, I really want to understand your take.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]well, I want to know precisely yours. You think that if someone commits a crime, or attempts to commit a crime, they literally risk their life doing it? As in, there is a very good chance they may die if they attempt it?

[Richard Tanner]

That's sort of what I'm saying. My take is that violent crimes aren't required in life. If someone decides to mug someone, attack someone, or murdur someone, they are showing a premeditated desire to do something society rules as wrong. That said, I think anything anyone does to a person attempting to cause harm to him/her is justified. I have no sympathy for those that commit crimes and get hurt/killed. In my opinion, that is what you get.

Again, I don't commit violent crimes so I'm not too worried about ever getting hurt in the commission of one. My issue here, however, is a seperate one from what the government does as punishment, in those cases I do agree the punishment should fit the crime.

Of course, I'm only refering to those cases where it is very clear cut that the person was being attacked (i.e. no killing someone and then telling the cops that "Oh, he was trying to rob me", no proof, no justification for force).

Cody

[Beavis68]

I agree - this punk died committing a crime - let her go.

[jakethebake]

medal. still.

[Bez]

Ideally, medal.
In reality, jail if she meant it. Too good a reason for people to go round killing innocent people and using a mugging as an excuse.

[CORed]

Most of the people here are citing American laws for something that happened in the Netherlands. I'm going to do the same because I have no idea what Dutch law is regarding homicide and self defense, though I suspect it isn't too much different. Of course, in the USA, these are matters of state law, so it varies from one state to another, but in general, you only have the legal right to kill somebody if you are in danger of death or serious injury. In most states, you do have the right to use reasonable force to protect your property, but if the thief is not showing a weapon or kicking the living [censored] out of you, you don't have a right to kill him. IMO, these laws are reasonable. If you catch someone picking your pocket, I think you are perfectly within your rights to punch him in the face, or to tackle him if he tries to run away, but grabbing your gun and shooting them dead is excessive. Think about it. Should a store owner have the right to shoot a kid who is stealing a candy bar? For that matter, should they have the right to shoot an adult who is stealing a $20 item? IMO, no. In the incident in question, there seems to be some question as to whether the woman whose purse was stolen backed into the thief deliberately or accidentally. Only the driver knows for sure, and it's not in her interest to be honest if she did intend to kill the thief. If the thief were robbing her at gunpoint I would have no problem with her actions. I would also point out that she could have avoided the theft by simply locking her passenger door. While this in no way justifies the attempted theft of the purse, it does seem that a common-sense precaution could have prevented a nasty situation.

[Richard Tanner]

COred, I have no argument on any of the legal points, in fact I agree wholeheartedly, but that isn't the point of my posts. I was discussing what should "really" be done, we all know that what's legal and what's right sometimes conflict, such is life.
My point(s) were that anyone who commits a violent crime is subject to any sort of retaliation from the victim during the course of the crime. I just don't see the point in setting limits in what a person can do to those that attack them in these kinds of things.
For the record I do seperate this crime (and crimes like it) from say, an drunken bar fight, as that is a "crime of passion" (read: Spur of the moment). Of course in any situation where a person feels their life is in danger they are allowed to use resonable, lethal if nessecary, force.

Cody

[lastchance]

This wasn't a violent crime. I missed it the first time too, but the guy never laid a hand on the lady. Just a simple shoplift, or something to that effect.

And, you probably can't make a case against this woman. The forensics and psychiatric stuff would have to be spot-on to even hope to get a conviction.

This really isn't the ideal case for this kind of debate.

And in most situations, there are a lot of other factors to be considered.

Is a person going to be overaggressive in his judgment? Is a person going to hurt an innocent person in trying to seek vengeance/defend himself? Is that person going to put himself back in danger because he is trying to seek vengeance?

Those are the real reasons we don't allow a provision for any type of vengeance.

[MMMMMM]

One medal, since she got one of them.

[Richard Tanner]

True, I understand that there must be limits, and I also understand that personal responsibility is taboo in America.

Cody

[lastchance]

Guy didn't deserve to get killed. If everyone who ever tried to steal something was killed, we would be missing 50-80% of the human population.

[Richard Tanner]

That's not a totally bad thing, more room for those of us that don't steal.

Cody

[lastchance]

<-- is immoral, and therefore, will steal if desperate. Though I'm really having second thoughts knowing that I don't want to run up against someone who will kill me. Obviously, the best thing is not get seen in the first place, or steal without anyone else noticing. You need to make things magically disappear without anyone else noticing.

[Richard Tanner]

Hope you're good at it, or just don't try and steal from me, either way.

Cody

[lastchance]

If I'm good at it, then you wouldn't notice I'd been stealing from you. With any luck, it'd take days/weeks before you noticed anything was gone.

Ah well, but I'm a yuppie kid with a decent education and no need for money yet. So this is moot. Just a fantasy of mine. People, like me, leave way too much stuff around. Gotta crack down on my own nasty habit first.

Still, people leave a lot of money lying around (and by that, I mean there are a lot of ways to leech off other people and society).

[BeerMoney]

She is being put into this postition by this a__hole. If he had left her the f__k alone, this never would have happened. What if he had just finished raping her?

[Richard Tanner]

I agree with what you say, and this is where my above argument comes from.

Cody

[CORed]

I guess that on this point I think the law is mostly right. I wouldn't really classify the initial theft as a violent crime. It's also a good illustration of why it's a good idea to lock your car doors. The thief opened the victim's unlocked car door and snatched her purse. It was a property crime. Now, I think in this sort of situation, by law and by right, you have a right to use a certain amount of force to prevent the theft, or to catch the thief and recover your property after the theft, but I don't think you have a right to kill the thief, legally or morally. In this particular case, in the absence of compelling evidence that the women deliberately backed the thief into the tree, I'd be inclined to let her go (but not give her a medal).

However, if we change this to a case where the thief grabbed the purse out of her hand and ran away, and she pulled a weapon out of her pocket and shot the fleeing thief in the back, I would not hesitate to say she should be charged with murder. OTOH, if she managed to tackle him and he hit his head on the pavement and died, I would let her go. It's somewhat questionable which of these two hypothetical situations is closer to the facts of this case.

I don't think it is desirable to allow private citizens (or the police for that matter) the right to use unlimited force against a fleeing thief. It is just too easy for this kind of power to be abused. We have laws, police and courts for a reason. When people are given too much latitude to take matters into their own hands, it is too easy for a situation to escalate into an endless cycle of revenge killings. Does the law always to the right thing? Not even close, but it is much better than the alternative.

In the U.S I think the thief's family would have a good chance of getting a civil wrongful death judgement against the driver. I don't really like that. I don't know if that is the case in the Netherlands.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess that on this point I think the law is mostly right. I wouldn't really classify the initial theft as a violent crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

They barged into her car while she was occupying it. That's called assault.

[Richard Tanner]

I still would have to consider this assult. In any case, I agree that this can lead to abuse of power so what we'd have to set limits as to what's justifable and what isn't. And as soon as we make limits we screw ourselves because these cases really need to go case by case.

[BadBoyBenny]

I thought the Netherlands legalized both bag snatching and manslaughter years ago.

[Richard Tanner]

Only if the bag has pot in it.

Cody

[nothumb]

First, this person was not committing a violent crime.

Second, there is a difference between a person being killed in the process of committing a violent crime, and being killed gratuitously when they are no longer pose a violent threat.

For instance, if someone mugged you, and you went back to your house, got a gun, found the guy, and shot him, you'd be wrong. If you had one on you and shot him during the crime, it would be justifiable. But personally, I'd try to scare him off or just wing him.

NT

[EliteNinja]

[ QUOTE ]
Investigations are now being conducted to determine whether the woman caused the accident intentionally, constituting a criminal offence. The woman was still being detained on Tuesday.

[/ QUOTE ]

It all depends if she did it by accident (yeah, right) or if it was intentional. Accidentally-on-purpose.

[Richard Tanner]

Why does it matter. I'm all for revenge killings. You'd hope we've evolved as a people but judging by the fact that we still have violent crimes, I'd say we haven't. So why not allow vigilante justice (so long as it's during the events of a crime, not two days later as you described).
What's the big deal. I really don't get all this compassion for criminals. And please quit saying this wasn't a violent crime, I seriously doubt she had time to say "excuse me, if I yell are you going to pull a knife on me, or do you even have one." Sorry, but assult is assult, better to err on the side of the victim.

Cody

[lastchance]

Because vigilantes are going to shoot innocent people while they try to get revenge.

[Richard Tanner]

Of course, so they go to jail too. I'm not advocavating the taking of the law into your own hands, as such (even though I joke about it). What I'm really refering to is in situations where people are getting assulted, they should be allowed to fight back without concern for the legal ramifications (as it pertains to the criminal, of course they must mind innocent bystanders).

Cody

[El Barto]

A homebuilder shot a suspected burglar (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13776181&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id= 532215&rfi=6)

1 - he only shot the burgler when the burgler was reaching in the truck for who knows what.

2 - but he had remained overnight at the construction site to confront the burglars.

Legitimate shooting or not?

[Richard Tanner]

It seems (if we got all the info and it is accurate) that it is 100% allowable, both legally and in my personal opinion.
As an aside, I always thought Texas was ridiculous on crime (death penelty and such) but after reading their legal code in regaurds to the use of deadly force, I'm starting to warm up to them. I think they have it right, person A was taking person B's property so person B shoots him. Is it what I would want to happen, No. Personally I would want people not to steal from one another, but as that isn't an option, at least we have one less theif now.

Cody

[Broken Glass Can]

http://lonestartimes.com/content/images/poster.beardslee_aclu.jpg

[Richard Tanner]

You sir, are my new hero.

Cody

[lastchance]

Yeah, probably allowable.

This is during the commission of a crime, not after the commission. The burglarers made no specific intent to retreat.

At the same time, they may not have a deadly weapon.

[BadBoyBenny]

What the hell is glee club. I've heard the term before but I really have no idea.

[Richard Tanner]

I believe that it's a cheer leader sort of thing but I'm not sure.

Cody