Woman Runs Down Robber

[Zacha341]

Yeah, I think she might catch a case behind this... his family is going to go nuts to get justice for their victim loved one. Maybe not...

Do I support what she did? No she could have killed the guy, but I can see where the rage comes in..... more of this to come sadly in response to crime.

I've often wondered about a scenario like this. She really can't claim self-defense and, I suppose, could potentially get charged with attempted murder.

[R8RBOB]

Agreed.


This reactionary, uncivil behavior - acting out of negative emotions instead of showing self-control - is exactly why Detroit has so many of the issues it does. One shouldn't be acting on every emotion one feels. That's the difference between civil society and a crime-ridden shithole.

In regards to Detroit, I agree with you. The nature of some of these kids is unsettling because they don't know when to walk away.

Now, back to the robbery and getting hit by the car. My comment pertained to those citizens who are wronged and they are told to just walk away. This lady was minding her own business when this desperado thought he had the ups on her and decided to strike. This criminal too could have walked away and decided to do something decent. Instead, he decided to take what wasn't his and he paid for that. I'm sorry but I can't compare this to reactionary, uncivil behavior because this lady didn't set out to run this bum over. He cause the events to happened when he wanted to make her a victim.

[lilpup]

No, that doesn't fly. Yes, he took her property but that doesn't justify her retaliation. Both are wrong.

[gnome]

I think Lilpup is correct here. Regardless of what happened with the cell phone, I don't see how trying to run someone over with 2 tons of steel is warranted.

That being said, if I were her lawyer, I would say she was only trying to catch up to the thief when he stumbled and was hit by the car. Purely unintentional. Oops, sorry.

A sharp prosecutor would argue that the driver created an atmosphere of danger when she decided to chase the crook. Afterall we know she was robbed of her shopping bag while walking to her car. She then had to get her keys, start the engine, back up, go forward, cross a couple of lanes of traffic and the median strip before she hit crook. That had to take some time, certainly long enough to weigh the cost of a phone against that of a life. While the crook set the events in motion, the victim had ample time to reflect on the consequences.

And in there is the root of the issue. Consequences and the simple fact we live in a time and a region where consequences are rarely considered. Whether it is doing the nasty without a wrapper, building a freeway through a neighborhood, electing a thug mayor, or stealing a cell phone.

Consequences, that's the truth.

[Zacha341]

The truth-ruth indeed!

Consequences and the simple fact we live in a time and a region where consequences are rarely considered. Whether it is doing the nasty without a wrapper, building a freeway through a neighborhood, electing a thug mayor, or stealing a cell phone.

Consequences, that's the truth.

[noise]

This reactionary, uncivil behavior - acting out of negative emotions instead of showing self-control - is exactly why Detroit has so many of the issues it does. One shouldn't be acting on every emotion one feels. That's the difference between civil society and a crime-ridden shithole.

You should remember this before submitting some of your replies.

[gnome]

That was uncalled for Noise, Lilpup is trusted voice here. And while she not might suffer fools gladly, she has never said anything which deserves such a snarky attack.

[R8RBOB]

No, that doesn't fly. Yes, he took her property but that doesn't justify her retaliation. Both are wrong.

You can sell this line of thought when you are a victim and you do the right thing and walk away after you are victimized and you know who your violator is.

[rjk]

Of course it's not legal to run someone over in a situation like this, but there are ways to dole out some pre-justice street justice and still stay out of trouble. There are numerous defenses this woman could use assuming that she talked to a lawyer before she said too much to the police.

You ever notice how people who flee the police almost always end up with a black eye[[s) or other damages to their face?

If I were to ever witness a thug knocking down an old woman and stealing here purse I'm not just chasing him down and calling the police. I'm putting my forearm to the back of his head and driving him into the sidewalk or maybe a mailbox. That's a free shot at an a-hole and it's all covered under things that just happen when you're apprehending a suspect.

[hamtown mike]

And in there is the root of the issue. Consequences and the simple fact we live in a time and a region where consequences are rarely considered. Whether it is doing the nasty without a wrapper, building a freeway through a neighborhood, electing a thug mayor, or stealing a cell phone.

Consequences, that's the truth.

I whole-heartedly agree. I've said it in other posts relating to other topics, and I'll say it again. As a society we have, and continue to, offset or negate the rules of cause and effect- aka consequences. Consequences are rarely considered because consequences are rarely enforced.

What really had me initially thinking about this topic was an incident that took place on my street. A few nights ago it was a very cool evening, prompting me to air out the house. As I went to close my front door before bed, I heard a loud "whiishhhhh." [[Imagine a rocket style firework taking off.)

Two women came running from a car parked across the street, bounding into the house next door. I stood on my front porch, stupefied, trying to process what had just happened.

One of the women came back out. I questioned her about what had just taken place. She admitted to having trashed the car and slashing the tire. She claimed that the owner of the vehicle had caused her younger sister great harm. I asked if she had filed a police report. "Yeah, but they ain't gonna do nothing." was her response.

Honestly I had to think about whether I call the police or not. The "great harm", if true, deserved far more than a flat tire and and a Pollack-like smattering of ketchup on the car's hood.

I had to go with what I knew to be true, what I saw. It would be wrong to not report it. 3 wrongs [[the great harm, the slashed tired and my blind eye) do not make a right. So I called the cops.

Between the time I called and the time the police arrived a number of cars hurriedly came and went to and from the perpetrator's residence. An hour later the cops came, explaining their lag in response to shift change.

Thanks for sticking with me this long, I swear I'm making a point. Consequences- The owner of the trashed car, the police and myself were in the street discussing what had taken place. The police asked the owner of the vehicle if he wanted to pursue the matter.

He said no.

He had been clearly wronged and he had a willing witness but he still chose to "walk away from it." Poof-Consequences just slid right out the door.

The result? Next time I'm less likely to care. How many times does it need to happen before I really don't care? How many times before I close my window when I hear someone screaming bloody murder? At what point do I draw the blinds as a hooker applies her trade in the backyard of the abandoned house next door?

[eno]

The driver and crime victim must be black. If she is white then she would be accused of a racist attack and the robber who attacked her would be considered the victim. That's how it plays in Detroit where race defines everything, no matter how twisted the result.

You see the same racism in the news story about the pot bust near Eastern Market. Use of the words "suburbs" and "not citizens of Detroit" are euphemisms for white. The Mayor and Wayne County sheriff Benny Napoleon "identify" the pot growers as not from the neighborhood [[black) and seem to appeal to the race of the community [[black) to rise up against this crime and the criminals [[suburban whites) involved.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...se-20110825-mr

[HistoryNotHisStory]

The State Law does not says if a person life is in danger. It states that if a person feels that their life is in danger.

If she felt that her life was in danger, then she had a legal right to defend herself with a gun, knife, or a car.

[R8RBOB]

The driver and crime victim must be black. If she is white then she would be accused of a racist attack and the robber who attacked her would be considered the victim. That's how it plays in Detroit where race defines everything, no matter how twisted the result.

You see the same racism in the news story about the pot bust near Eastern Market. Use of the words "suburbs" and "not citizens of Detroit" are euphemisms for white. The Mayor and Wayne County sheriff Benny Napoleon "identify" the pot growers as not from the neighborhood [[black) and seem to appeal to the race of the community [[black) to rise up against this crime and the criminals [[suburban whites) involved.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...se-20110825-mr

Nice to know what race you are. This thread never mention anything about race until now. So what was your point? That Whites are discriminated in Detroit because the big bad press which is controlled by Whites want to create a "us vs. them" mindset in Metro Detroit. If you want to talk about race, call into Rush Limbaugh's show and rant how suburbans are being discriminated in Detroit and maybe he will spend an hour ranting on how Whites in the burbs are be discriminated in Obama's America.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Get it through your head - her life was not in danger. Yes, she can make a citizens arrest but not by running over someone.

The State Law does not says if a person life is in danger. It states that if a person feels that their life is in danger.

If she felt that her life was in danger, then she had a legal right to defend herself with a gun, knife, or a car.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. When you are the victim of theft, you feel violated. You feel violated because someone would dare enter your space and take what's yours.

Here's a scenario. You park your car and you go into the store. A would-be robber is lurking and bingo there's your car. The crook breaks the window and in he goes. As the feet of the thief sticks out of the window, here you come and you see the robber in your car. Do you.....

A) Run and call the police
or
B) Approach said robber and beat the shit out of him

You could call the police but the thief has fled with your goods. Human nature mandates that you would go the B route because the violation sets in your mind and you are angry. You are mad as hell and you have the thief in your sights. If you are a man, you want to rip his throat out for costing you money to steal something of no value yet this thief didn't care that he or she would force you to come out your pocket to replace the window that was busted out. If you are a woman, you know that you can't physically beat down a man so you will use whatever weapon is available. In the case of the lady, she had her car and she used it. Good for her.

There is nothing wrong with Option B. It is perfectly legal to make a citizens arrest.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Agreed.


This reactionary, uncivil behavior - acting out of negative emotions instead of showing self-control - is exactly why Detroit has so many of the issues it does. One shouldn't be acting on every emotion one feels. That's the difference between civil society and a crime-ridden shithole.

It is not uncivil behavior to perform a citizens arrest. Every Michigan citizen has a right to perform a citizens arrest.

If I have the means to stop a crime in action and to arrest that person, it is not uncivil. There is nothing uncivil about a citizens arrest.

[R8RBOB]

Of course it's not legal to run someone over in a situation like this, but there are ways to dole out some pre-justice street justice and still stay out of trouble. There are numerous defenses this woman could use assuming that she talked to a lawyer before she said too much to the police.

You ever notice how people who flee the police almost always end up with a black eye[[s) or other damages to their face?

If I were to ever witness a thug knocking down an old woman and stealing here purse I'm not just chasing him down and calling the police. I'm putting my forearm to the back of his head and driving him into the sidewalk or maybe a mailbox. That's a free shot at an a-hole and it's all covered under things that just happen when you're apprehending a suspect.

Here's the thing that I am trying to get across. This was a woman. Because of human anatomy, a woman is incapable of subduing a man. [[Before people start to howl, I know that there are some ladies out here that can whoop a man's ass due to training but I'm looking at the average woman like my sister or my mother. Though they have no problem going after a man, they know that man could beat them to death.) The lady in question was not going to chase after the dude on Telegraph like me or another man and lay the smackdown. She is a lady and women will use what they have to make their point. If she had a gat, the MFer would been laid out in the middle of Telegraph but all she had was her car so she used it. Like I posted earlier, this will never go to trial. No jury will convict her because Detroiters have been victims for far too long.

[Kevgoblue]

The State Law does not says if a person life is in danger. It states that if a person feels that their life is in danger.

If she felt that her life was in danger, then she had a legal right to defend herself with a gun, knife, or a car.

On a personal level I think the kid got what he had coming for stealing the lady's phone.

But on a LEGAL level, doesn't your right to claim self defense end when the other person is actively fleeing the scene?

[eno]

Race always matters in Detroit. It's not racist to bring race into a discussion. It's another facet to any discussion.

Just because race hasn't been mentioned only leads me to believe that both parties in the attack were of the same race.

You seem to go on a rant about bringing race up rather than address the points I'm making. The Mayor and Benny Napoleon brought race into the discussion by their use of euphemisms in portraying the pot grow operators as "from the suburbs", "not from Detroit or this community". Try to address those characterizations.

Characterizing my points as related to those of reactionaries is a disservice to free discussion.

[R8RBOB]

Race always matters in Detroit. It's not racist to bring race into a discussion. It's another facet to any discussion.

Just because race hasn't been mentioned only leads me to believe that both parties in the attack were of the same race.

You seem to go on a rant about bringing race up rather than address the points I'm making. The Mayor and Benny Napoleon brought race into the discussion by their use of euphemisms in portraying the pot grow operators as "from the suburbs", "not from Detroit or this community". Try to address those characterizations.

Characterizing my points as related to those of reactionaries is a disservice to free discussion.

Hmmmmmmm, last time I checked, the suburbs were not 100% White. There are Blacks in the suburbs, yes? If the pot growers are "from the suburbs" I don't care what color they are, they are from the suburbs. They are not from Detroit, they just got caught in Detroit, selling weed from the suburbs.

If you want to discuss and rant about race then start a thread. It is not hard to do.

[stipes]

The State Law does not says if a person life is in danger. It states that if a person feels that their life is in danger.

If she felt that her life was in danger, then she had a legal right to defend herself with a gun, knife, or a car.

Think about it folks. It was a iPhone and look at the wealth of information that he could have took and did end up killing someone tryin to rob them. A theif is a damn thief....
If I was her I would have said he slipped and fell and I didnt mean to back over him,,just was checkin to make sure he was ok...

[wolverine]

Not when she's in her car chasing the guy.

Isn't there a section on defending property though? I can't remember

[RickBeall]

lilpup wrote
>>This reactionary, uncivil behavior - acting out of negative emotions instead of showing self-control - is exactly why Detroit has so many of the issues it does. One shouldn't be acting on every emotion one feels. That's the difference between civil society and a crime-ridden shithole.

I agree! The reactionary, uncivil behavior towards criminals has to stop!

[micky]

I really am having a hard time understanding the justification of this woman's actions.

She was robbed, end of story.

What she did by running this man down equates to pre meditated murder.

Her life was not in immediate danger by any means, she went after him with a deadly weapon, nothing less nothing more.

There is no justification for her actions in a civilized society, one may claim that Detroit is not by a long stretch a civilized environment, and while this may be true on a lot of levels, for the most part it is our responsibility to act as rational adults in a bad situation, not stoop to their level.

Vigilantly justice is just not acceptable, a lot of men/women have died defending your right to a fair trial in this country and to deny another of those rights for whatever reason, makes their sacrifice for your right's in vain.

[Danny]

Now that's rising up against the enemy. Take back Detroit from crooks and thieves!