Should our laws allow authorities to charge this woman?

[Ray From Cleveland]

laws aren't intended for the "victims".

Not according to libs they aren't. Laws are intended to protect the criminal.

she had no business pursuing and killing him.

yes, she should be charged.

Typical lib, respond to the headline and not read the story. She didn't kill anybody.

no... I responded to the imbecile trump loon o/p.

dismissed

Like most libs, you don't even know WTF you are responding to.

 

[OKTexas]

If the things in her purse was that important she shouldn't have left in in a unattended vehicle..

If the piece of thieving, subhuman filth thought that his life was that important, then he should have kept his filthy hands off of stuff that didn't belong to him.

What ever, this is suppose to be a legal discussion. Criminals are out there, that's why we take precautions, like not leaving tempting things visible in a vehicle. It only takes a couple of seconds to break a window and garb it.


.

 

[IsaacNewton]

How exactly do people say 'it's a country of laws' yet at any moment they willie nillie toss out the law. It isn't even close, she attempted to murder another human being.

No, she did not. What she did was to recover her rightful property from a piece of subhuman filth who was trying to steal it from her.

But then it's clear enough, given a choice between thieving criminal filth, or the innocent victim thereof, whose side it is that you are on. You are a LIbEral, after all.

What a sad view of your fellow humans you have. Adults are discussing the law, you are all overcome with emotion.

Run along Lucy.

Being upset over a crime is a GOOD THING.

Dude, nobody is glad this woman was jacked and for anyone to suggest it is dumb. The criminal will be charged.

She also though then committed a crime under law. And she will atone for that. The judge will say he sympathizes, as anyone could, but she crossed the line.

 

[RealDave]

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?

You're just pissed she wasn't armed & shot him 30 times.

You can't kill or try to kill a person robbing you if your life is not threatened or a threat of being attacked.

 

[Correll]

How exactly do people say 'it's a country of laws' yet at any moment they willie nillie toss out the law. It isn't even close, she attempted to murder another human being.

No, she did not. What she did was to recover her rightful property from a piece of subhuman filth who was trying to steal it from her.

But then it's clear enough, given a choice between thieving criminal filth, or the innocent victim thereof, whose side it is that you are on. You are a LIbEral, after all.

What a sad view of your fellow humans you have. Adults are discussing the law, you are all overcome with emotion.

Run along Lucy.

Being upset over a crime is a GOOD THING.

Dude, nobody is glad this woman was jacked and for anyone to suggest it is dumb. The criminal will be charged.

She also though then committed a crime under law. And she will atone for that. The judge will say he sympathizes, as anyone could, but she crossed the line.

I didn't suggest you were glad. You insulted someone for being upset about a crime being committed. I pointed out that you were wrong on that.


HOw about we have some consideration for the CIVILIZED people in these situations, instead of constantly worrying that ever t is crossed and every i is dotted iN your rabid lefty zeal for looking out for the BARBARIAN?

 

[IsaacNewton]

How exactly do people say 'it's a country of laws' yet at any moment they willie nillie toss out the law. It isn't even close, she attempted to murder another human being.

No, she did not. What she did was to recover her rightful property from a piece of subhuman filth who was trying to steal it from her.

But then it's clear enough, given a choice between thieving criminal filth, or the innocent victim thereof, whose side it is that you are on. You are a LIbEral, after all.

What a sad view of your fellow humans you have. Adults are discussing the law, you are all overcome with emotion.

Run along Lucy.

Being upset over a crime is a GOOD THING.

Dude, nobody is glad this woman was jacked and for anyone to suggest it is dumb. The criminal will be charged.

She also though then committed a crime under law. And she will atone for that. The judge will say he sympathizes, as anyone could, but she crossed the line.

I didn't suggest you were glad. You insulted someone for being upset about a crime being committed. I pointed out that you were wrong on that.


HOw about we have some consideration for the CIVILIZED people in these situations, instead of constantly worrying that ever t is crossed and every i is dotted iN your rabid lefty zeal for looking out for the BARBARIAN?

Aaaaand you fall on your head again. For a moment you almost acted human.

 

[Correll]

No, she did not. What she did was to recover her rightful property from a piece of subhuman filth who was trying to steal it from her.

But then it's clear enough, given a choice between thieving criminal filth, or the innocent victim thereof, whose side it is that you are on. You are a LIbEral, after all.

What a sad view of your fellow humans you have. Adults are discussing the law, you are all overcome with emotion.

Run along Lucy.

Being upset over a crime is a GOOD THING.

Dude, nobody is glad this woman was jacked and for anyone to suggest it is dumb. The criminal will be charged.

She also though then committed a crime under law. And she will atone for that. The judge will say he sympathizes, as anyone could, but she crossed the line.

I didn't suggest you were glad. You insulted someone for being upset about a crime being committed. I pointed out that you were wrong on that.


HOw about we have some consideration for the CIVILIZED people in these situations, instead of constantly worrying that ever t is crossed and every i is dotted iN your rabid lefty zeal for looking out for the BARBARIAN?

Aaaaand you fall on your head again. For a moment you almost acted human.

YOur post was nothing but partisan blather.

My point stands.



HOw about we have some consideration for the CIVILIZED people in these situations, instead of constantly worrying that ever t is crossed and every i is dotted iN your rabid lefty zeal for looking out for the BARBARIAN?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

You're just pissed she wasn't armed & shot him 30 times.

You can't kill or try to kill a person robbing you if your life is not threatened or a threat of being attacked.

Sure you can if you can get away with it.

But I also think that YOU SHOULD be allowed to use deadly force to stop somebody that robbed you of your property.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Dude, nobody is glad this woman was jacked and for anyone to suggest it is dumb.

Some of us are glad that she got her stuff back. Others, it seems, would rather that she had let the criminal keep it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

HOw about we have some consideration for the CIVILIZED people in these situations, instead of constantly worrying that ever t is crossed and every i is dotted iN your rabid lefty zeal for looking out for the BARBARIAN?

Someone who is on the side of the barbarian, rather than on the side of the civilized, would not agree to that, obviously.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How exactly do people say 'it's a country of laws' yet at any moment they willie nillie toss out the law. It isn't even close, she attempted to murder another human being.

No, she did not. What she did was to recover her rightful property from a piece of subhuman filth who was trying to steal it from her.

But then it's clear enough, given a choice between thieving criminal filth, or the innocent victim thereof, whose side it is that you are on. You are a LIbEral, after all.

What a sad view of your fellow humans you have. Adults are discussing the law, you are all overcome with emotion.

Run along Lucy.

Being upset over a crime is a GOOD THING.

Dude, nobody is glad this woman was jacked and for anyone to suggest it is dumb. The criminal will be charged.

She also though then committed a crime under law. And she will atone for that. The judge will say he sympathizes, as anyone could, but she crossed the line.

And what line was that, using whatever means necessary to retrieve her own property?

So she should have stayed (in your opinion) behind that line which was lose all her personal belongings and just watch the creep run off with no physical or legal ability to stop him; just let him run off laughing like so many before him...........

If that's the case, then maybe it's time we draw a new line; one that favors the victim instead of the criminal.

 

[RealDave]

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?

You're just pissed she wasn't armed & shot him 30 times.

You can't kill or try to kill a person robbing you if your life is not threatened or a threat of being attacked.

Sure you can if you can get away with it.

But I also think that YOU SHOULD be allowed to use deadly force to stop somebody that robbed you of your property.

You would.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What ever, this is suppose to be a legal discussion. Criminals are out there, that's why we take precautions, like not leaving tempting things visible in a vehicle. It only takes a couple of seconds to break a window and garb it.

Is that the society we wish to live in? One where you have to limit temptation to a criminal in order not to be a victim of his criminal activity? If that's the case, maybe women should wear burkas and cover their faces so they don't get raped.

I say the law should limit such temptation. I hope this woman is found not guilty in a court of law, and perhaps, maybe the next criminal in that state that has such temptations to do the same thing will overcome it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

You're just pissed she wasn't armed & shot him 30 times.

You can't kill or try to kill a person robbing you if your life is not threatened or a threat of being attacked.

Sure you can if you can get away with it.

But I also think that YOU SHOULD be allowed to use deadly force to stop somebody that robbed you of your property.

You would.

Yes I would because a strong enough deterrent has proven results every time it's tried.

In my state we used to have car jackings all the time. When the state passed laws that allowed CCW holders to have a naked loaded gun right on the passenger seat, it reduced those car jackings, especially ATM robberies.

 

[OKTexas]

What ever, this is suppose to be a legal discussion. Criminals are out there, that's why we take precautions, like not leaving tempting things visible in a vehicle. It only takes a couple of seconds to break a window and garb it.

Is that the society we wish to live in? One where you have to limit temptation to a criminal in order not to be a victim of his criminal activity? If that's the case, maybe women should wear burkas and cover their faces so they don't get raped.

I say the law should limit such temptation. I hope this woman is found not guilty in a court of law, and perhaps, maybe the next criminal in that state that has such temptations to do the same thing will overcome it.

That is the society we live in and have always lived in. Criminals are going to be criminals, no reason to make it easy for them. Also I agree, I think they should fine her for simple assault and she can pay a fine.


.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

Emotion. Cons run on emotion and that doesn't win out in court. And it shouldn't.

How exactly do people say 'it's a country of laws' yet at any moment they willie nillie toss out the law. It isn't even close, she attempted to murder another human being. It's so tiring to see people just run on how they feel about something. Measured reason is what court is about.

You misspelled "Libs".

 

[Montrovant]

If the man really did have his hands down the daughter's pants, and the father beat him up some but didn't do any permanent damage, you let it go. If the man stopped to surrender and the father beat him so badly he broke both of his legs and ruptured his spleen, the father continuing to beat him after he was unconscious, then the father gets charged. There is definitely a grey area in there that can be hard to decide on.

Okay then, as it relates to the OP, the woman hit the man only hard enough to make him collapse and drop the purse.

And as it relates to immediate threat, the man ran away and there was no longer an immediate threat to his daughter. He had no "legal" reason to chase the attacker.

Hitting someone with a stick and running someone over with your car are different things. While nothing is certain, it seems much more reasonable to think a person can more easily limit the damage done with the stick than with the car.

I don't know that the man in your hypothetical would need a legal reason simply to chase the attacker, but a citizen's arrest is one possibility. It is having no legal reason to assault the attacker after catching him that is the crux of the situation. In the end, such an action, as you described it, would be illegal. If a prosecutor decided to pursue charges, the man might well be convicted. My response is based on my own feelings considering the circumstances, not the letter of the law. I think that at times, mitigating circumstances should be taken into account. That may well happen with the woman who hit the thief with her car. What she did was likely illegal, but that doesn't always mean a person ends up prosecuted. The charge could be dropped, or if it goes to trial, a jury might decide not to convict.

 

[Montrovant]

What a sad view of your fellow humans you have. Adults are discussing the law, you are all overcome with emotion.

Run along Lucy.

Being upset over a crime is a GOOD THING.

Dude, nobody is glad this woman was jacked and for anyone to suggest it is dumb. The criminal will be charged.

She also though then committed a crime under law. And she will atone for that. The judge will say he sympathizes, as anyone could, but she crossed the line.

I didn't suggest you were glad. You insulted someone for being upset about a crime being committed. I pointed out that you were wrong on that.


HOw about we have some consideration for the CIVILIZED people in these situations, instead of constantly worrying that ever t is crossed and every i is dotted iN your rabid lefty zeal for looking out for the BARBARIAN?

Aaaaand you fall on your head again. For a moment you almost acted human.

YOur post was nothing but partisan blather.

My point stands.



HOw about we have some consideration for the CIVILIZED people in these situations, instead of constantly worrying that ever t is crossed and every i is dotted iN your rabid lefty zeal for looking out for the BARBARIAN?

I'm curious what definitions you are using for civilized and barbarian?

Whatever one thinks of the thief, it's not often that someone will call hitting another person with their car civilized.

 

[Correll]

Being upset over a crime is a GOOD THING.

Dude, nobody is glad this woman was jacked and for anyone to suggest it is dumb. The criminal will be charged.

She also though then committed a crime under law. And she will atone for that. The judge will say he sympathizes, as anyone could, but she crossed the line.

I didn't suggest you were glad. You insulted someone for being upset about a crime being committed. I pointed out that you were wrong on that.


HOw about we have some consideration for the CIVILIZED people in these situations, instead of constantly worrying that ever t is crossed and every i is dotted iN your rabid lefty zeal for looking out for the BARBARIAN?

Aaaaand you fall on your head again. For a moment you almost acted human.

YOur post was nothing but partisan blather.

My point stands.



HOw about we have some consideration for the CIVILIZED people in these situations, instead of constantly worrying that ever t is crossed and every i is dotted iN your rabid lefty zeal for looking out for the BARBARIAN?

I'm curious what definitions you are using for civilized and barbarian?

Whatever one thinks of the thief, it's not often that someone will call hitting another person with their car civilized.

Thank you for asking.

The pregnant woman, presumably earned the money represented by the value in her purse and was planning on using it to build and support her family and thus society, civilized society.

The shirtless man, presumably was stealing the value represented in the purse in order to AVOID being a productive member of society, to get his needs met by harming her family and society, civilized society.


How anyone can doubt who deserves consideration in this situation is difficult for me to understand.


A community of people like that woman would be a civilized society.


A community of people like that man, would be a pillaging horde of savages.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the man really did have his hands down the daughter's pants, and the father beat him up some but didn't do any permanent damage, you let it go. If the man stopped to surrender and the father beat him so badly he broke both of his legs and ruptured his spleen, the father continuing to beat him after he was unconscious, then the father gets charged. There is definitely a grey area in there that can be hard to decide on.

Okay then, as it relates to the OP, the woman hit the man only hard enough to make him collapse and drop the purse.

And as it relates to immediate threat, the man ran away and there was no longer an immediate threat to his daughter. He had no "legal" reason to chase the attacker.

Hitting someone with a stick and running someone over with your car are different things. While nothing is certain, it seems much more reasonable to think a person can more easily limit the damage done with the stick than with the car.

I don't know that the man in your hypothetical would need a legal reason simply to chase the attacker, but a citizen's arrest is one possibility. It is having no legal reason to assault the attacker after catching him that is the crux of the situation. In the end, such an action, as you described it, would be illegal. If a prosecutor decided to pursue charges, the man might well be convicted. My response is based on my own feelings considering the circumstances, not the letter of the law. I think that at times, mitigating circumstances should be taken into account. That may well happen with the woman who hit the thief with her car. What she did was likely illegal, but that doesn't always mean a person ends up prosecuted. The charge could be dropped, or if it goes to trial, a jury might decide not to convict.

I hope they don't convict her or find her not guilty. No matter what the outcome is, that may only be the beginning of her problems. The lowlife still has the legal right to sue this woman. We don't know if she has anything he can sue her for, but if she does, that's even a larger problem; another thing our laws should prevent. She would have to endure the expense of hiring a defense attorney, and he will find some ambulance chaser to work for free.

This country and our laws are unfair on many levels, and maybe it's time our politicians made some changes. Of course the liberals that chimed in said this new mother should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Funny how they would want that, but when taking about deporting illegals, the first thing they cry is "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!"