Guilty or Not Guilty? What say you?

[JDL]

Vigilante justice, very guilty. You really shouldn't go hunt someone down and insagate a confrontation.

 

[Picton]

To your second point: All law other than "an eye for an eye" is arbitrary.

But this case is EXACTLY why governments insist they get to have a monopoly on violent justice.

Back when families engaged in vendettas, nobody really minded: it was just. They kill one of yours, you kill one of theirs, cool. To that extent, I don't have a personal problem with this car owner's urge to go cap those who had wronged her.

The problem is that vendettas between small groups of people with vested interests in the pursuit of justice for that crime? They ALWAYS end up involving bystanders, usually hurting them and often killing them. It's on behalf of those uninterested bystanders that the government steps in and asserts its right to dispense justice.

So because these bangers couldn't control their aim, it actually ends up strengthening the government in its insistence that vigilantes cannot be depended on.

 

[pewpewpew]

But this case is EXACTLY why governments insist they get to have a monopoly on violent justice.

Back when families engaged in vendettas, nobody really minded: it was just. They kill one of yours, you kill one of theirs, cool. To that extent, I don't have a personal problem with this car owner's urge to go cap those who had wronged her.

The problem is that vendettas between small groups of people with vested interests in the pursuit of justice for that crime? They ALWAYS end up involving bystanders, usually hurting them and often killing them. It's on behalf of those uninterested bystanders that the government steps in and asserts its right to dispense justice.

So because these bangers couldn't control their aim, it actually ends up strengthening the government in its insistence that vigilantes cannot be depended on.

Is that the situation here? I thought the lady was trying to get her car back, and the killings were an unfortunate development not the goal. The OP states just that, the article is rather ambiguous.

I think your point is fair but I also think it only works if the legal system/government is actually dispensing "justice". More and more people seem to be hip to the jive that that is not happening, so I do wonder if we will see more and more people trying to take matters into their own hands

 

[MisterHappy]

I'm struggling to understand the argument you're making here. You think I am saying something worth nothing must be destroyed on principle. I am saying that the destruction of something worth nothing requires no recompense.My

There is a causal relationship between the criminal act and the criminals' death in this case. If they were hanging out at the park and murdered by a random, I would say differently.

To your second point: All law other than "an eye for an eye" is arbitrary.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. The way I interpret your statement The life of a criminal is worth nothing, is that a criminal's life can be taken, as it is without value, with impunity.

I am saying that the destruction of something worth nothing requires no recompense.

Are you saying that a person that steals a car can/should be put to death, either by the state, or by the person who owned the car?

You cite this case, in particular - perhaps we diverge, there. I read it as a blanket philosophy of "Hang 'em high."

And, the "eye for an eye" maxim was a limitation on retribution, not a minimum.

 

[MisterHappy]

What replaced horses…vehicles

World hasn’t changed , still the same rules as always. Only people have changed …

I disagree.

There is a much larger distance between most people and death, now, than when a cowboy was on the range, and loss of Old Paint might end badly, because he could not make it to the next waterhole on foot.

This is why it's very rare that one is considered to be acting reasonably, defending property with lethal force.

Someone threatens your life, or the life of another? Fine, do what's needed.
Someone jacks your ride? Chasing them down, and busting caps is not what I'd consider reasonable. At least at our current level of civilization in this country.

 

[MisterHappy]

Is that the situation here? I thought the lady was trying to get her car back, and the killings were an unfortunate development not the goal. The OP states just that, the article is rather ambiguous.

I think your point is fair but I also think it only works if the legal system/government is actually dispensing "justice". More and more people seem to be hip to the jive that that is not happening, so I do wonder if we will see more and more people trying to take matters into their own hands

I agree that there is a difference between law and justice.

Yes, I see the possibility of more people taking the law into their own hands, but that leads to two bad outcomes - vigilante justice, with the inherent excess and over-enthusiasm that that would bring, and the inevitable .gov reaction to become more controlling of people, at their request, for "security."

 

[pewpewpew]

Are you saying that a person that steals a car can/should be put to death, either by the state, or by the person who owned the car?

What I am saying is that, if, during, or directly as a result of, the theft of the car, the thief loses their life, it is the fault of the thief, and no charges should be brought. Obviously, this is a major simplification, but that is the general idea. What the state does with thieves that have been caught/convicted long after the fact is their business. Stating the life of a thief is worth nothing simplifies that idea (no harm, no foul, thus no charges), probably too much.

In any case, to the FBI/CIA/NSA/MA Police: I would never act on the concept and don't suggest anyone else do so, so you can jist go ahead and take me right off of whatever list I'm on now as a result of this thread.

And, the "eye for an eye" maxim was a limitation on retribution, not a minimum.

Yes. Maybe the better example of non-arbitrary law would be Newton's Third Law of Motion, applied to redress of injuries of various sorts.

 

[Reptile]

Legally - the threat was over when the car jackers left with her car.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I agree that there is a difference between law and justice.

Yes, I see the possibility of more people taking the law into their own hands, but that leads to two bad outcomes - vigilante justice, with the inherent excess and over-enthusiasm that that would bring, and the inevitable .gov reaction to become more controlling of people, at their request, for "security."

I remember going to the movie theater to watch Death Wish. When Bro son killed a bad guy people cheeered in the theater.

Fast forward to someone actually doing a Death Wish activity and it’s bad. Duality I guess. People like the idea but just do t want it to really happen.

 

[paul73]

Vigilante justice, very guilty. You really shouldn't go hunt someone down and insagate a confrontation.

meh.
just avoid public spaces and leave no witnesses.

all this is a typical mentality of suburban critters who have never lived in the wild. where police does not serve nor protect.

 

[Mark from ?]

Given today's world, I can see this happening more and more, especially down South, where this woman would have more than likely been given a medal.
The Sheriff of Polk County would more than likely give her the highest civilian award for bravery and at the same time apologize profusely on the woman's behalf to the innocent bystander who inadvertently got struck by a round. I can hear him say that we, the police, can't be everywhere at all times but if the car wasn't stolen, we wouldn't be having this press conference now, would we?

While what you say is true...if they didn't commit the crime she wouldn't have had to do that shit...and realistically that is basic common sense. It can be a double edged sword of stupidity allowing vigilante justice. The system is not really set up for that.

Im not so sure of this in FL......she got carjacked and lost her car, luckily survived. During the carjacking, if she was carrying, she has every right to fxcking shoot the a**h***s in the face, no harm no foul.

After the fact, you let LEO deal with the finding and getting the car back.......assuming you have insurance they should pay for a new car, as it was stolen.
I will admit in a lot of shitholes the cops do nothing........so its frustrating as hell I bet.

 

[Picton]

The Sheriff of Polk County would ... apologize profusely on the woman's behalf to the innocent bystander who inadvertently got struck by a round. I can hear him say that we, the police, can't be everywhere at all times...

No sheriff would do anything of the sort.

That'd be the quiet part out loud. They can't say that, and there are good reasons. Think of the lawsuits they'd be exposing themselves to.

 

[Dennis in MA]

St Louis is not in MA but that certainly is not exercising your duty to retreat.

But in any state if you track somebody down and it turns into a gun fight I think you are screwed.

As soon as she spotted her stolen vehicle she should of just called the cops and let them deal with it.

No offense, but I've seen quite a few scenarios where the cops respond with, "well, uh, we don't have time to deal with this."

But you can't just fling open doors and start throwing lead. LOL.

Maybe if you ran around like Gomer yelling CITIZEN'S ARREST, CITIZEN'S ARREST it would work.

 

[JDL]

Vigilante justice, very guilty. You really shouldn't go hunt someone down and insagate a confrontation.

Now that I have had some time to think about this it seems it is just ghetto rats being ghetto rats. Ghetto rats steel vehicle, ghetto rats try to retrieve vehicle all involved using ghetto rats mentality. Everyone is guilty.

 

[paul73]

Now that I have had some time to think about this it seems it is just ghetto rats being ghetto rats. Ghetto rats steel vehicle, ghetto rats try to retrieve vehicle all involved using ghetto rats mentality. Everyone is guilty.

it`s all about RESPECT, man!
no proper respect shown is punishable.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Now that I have had some time to think about this it seems it is just ghetto rats being ghetto rats. Ghetto rats steel vehicle, ghetto rats try to retrieve vehicle all involved using ghetto rats mentality. Everyone is guilty.

It might be Ghetto Rat mentality, but I have to admit I'd feel the same way. Though I probably wouldn't go to that extreme. I would dream about it though. Sometimes when you know you can't depend on the police, you start to take matters into your own hands. Hell, without that kind of mentality Hollywood would have damn little material to make a movie. Most are about people doing things themselves to get justice.

 

[JDL]

It might be Ghetto Rat mentality, but I have to admit I'd feel the same way. Though I probably wouldn't go to that extreme. I would dream about it though. Sometimes when you know you can't depend on the police, you start to take matters into your own hands. Hell, without that kind of mentality Hollywood would have damn little material to make a movie. Most are about people doing things themselves to get justice.

Hollywood dosent make movies like that any more, unless it has lesbeions, gay guys or transvestites or some other sort of crazy DEI theme it dosent get made.
It's only a vehicle nothing to kill people over, not even in a dream.

 

[LTCRN]

While what you say is true...if they didn't commit the crime she wouldn't have had to do that shit...and realistically that is basic common sense. It can be a double edged sword of stupidity allowing vigilante justice. The system is not really set up for that.

Im not so sure of this in FL......she got carjacked and lost her car, luckily survived. During the carjacking, if she was carrying, she has every right to fxcking shoot the a**h***s in the face, no harm no foul.

After the fact, you let LEO deal with the finding and getting the car back.......assuming you have insurance they should pay for a new car, as it was stolen.
I will admit in a lot of shitholes the cops do nothing........so its frustrating as hell I bet.

He has basically in the recent past told the residents of the county that it would be okay with him if you took out a dirtbag who was looting your home after a major hurricane had struck FLA. Other press conferences that he has held regarding crimes against others, he has stated "fool or fvck around, you may or will find out" and he doesn't necessarily mean jail time! In my humble opinion, he advocates punishment outside of the courts when justified. I'm not going back reviewing his many press conferences regarding this. It would take to long as I'm very busy doing nothing most of the time.

 

[Admin]

Did the carjacking victim hit the bystander or was it the carjacker? The article has so many details

 

[StevieP]

She got carjacked. She jacked her car back. That'd be it if they didn't shoot at her first, at which point HER shooting them (and a bystander) was in self defense.

But yeah, probably guilty...

 

[Coda]

Maybe if you ran around like Gomer yelling CITIZEN'S ARREST, CITIZEN'S ARREST it would work.

Maybe that would be better than chasing somebody down so you can engage them in a gun fight, but not much.

Once again........... Call the cops and let them deal with it.

"well, uh, we don't have time to deal with this."

Once they realize guns are involved, they will find the time to deal with it.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Not guilty would be my choice because the law is an ass.

 

[Twigg]

If she didn't fire the first shot in any sane world, she'd be innocent.

 

[MisterHappy]

I remember going to the movie theater to watch Death Wish. When Bro son killed a bad guy people cheeered in the theater.

Fast forward to someone actually doing a Death Wish activity and it’s bad. Duality I guess. People like the idea but just do t want it to really happen.

Everyone says, "The Purge would be a great idea!"

Most of them would be dead 15 minutes after the siren went off.

 

[Dadstoys]

While what you say is true...if they didn't commit the crime she wouldn't have had to do that shit...and realistically that is basic common sense. It can be a double edged sword of stupidity allowing vigilante justice. The system is not really set up for that.

Im not so sure of this in FL......she got carjacked and lost her car, luckily survived. During the carjacking, if she was carrying, she has every right to fxcking shoot the a**h***s in the face, no harm no foul.

After the fact, you let LEO deal with the finding and getting the car back.......assuming you have insurance they should pay for a new car, as it was stolen.
I will admit in a lot of shitholes the cops do nothing........so its frustrating as hell I bet.

I'm sure the lady was aware that she was most likely never going to see the car again or even if these guys got caught there would be no justice.
Liberal shit holes are releasing guys that rape kids back out onto the street. Think they GAF about your stolen car ?
The same guys would probably be back out the same day to clean out her house this time.
and then mug her on the street the day after that.
If the system refuses to do their job ,don't be surprised when people fight back instead of curling up in the fetal position and taking it like they want them to.

 

[Lucus]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymK_vty6dTE

She just needed to be a little more resourceful.

 

[tuna]

Legally, she’s guilty. There were two confrontations and she started the second, fatal one.

Morally, not guilty. She got her stuff back, as should be her right.

Were I on the jury, which I would lie to get on, because if I answered questions honestly I wouldn’t be picked, I would refuse to give a guilty verdict.

If the lawyers and judges don’t have to follow the laws, I’ll be damned if I will as a juror. I’ll go with my conscience.

And I’d find the car thieves responsible for the bystander.