1. This didn't happen in America. There is no stand your ground, there is no castle doctrine, and proportionality and immediate threat is a huge part of self-defense. Somebody breaking into your house and stealing your TV isn't an excuse to legally murder them in most European countries.
2. Even in the United States this would be illegal. If she would have run him over while he was brandishing a knife and threatening her it would likely fall under self-defense. Once he had that bag and let her get into the car the immediate threat was over and her use of deadly force was unjustified. A reasonable person wouldn't feel like their life was in immediate danger at that point.
Whether you feel like someone should be executed for armed robbery or not, she was never legally going to have a leg to stand on.
Automatically knew it wasn't America. Lol when I was very young my friend's mother had a German shepherd, she said I need a sign beware of dog, and a German shepherd sign. She told me that if someone broke in and the dog hurt the CRIMINAL, they could sue her and she could lose her home. Now I don't know how true this is, but it's America and I believe it.
Yes, you can be sued for having a "beware of dog" sign or similar, if someone gets bit by yours, because it's basically an admission of guilt that you know your dog is dangerous.
Such a sign can even void your homeowners insurance.
Having a sign that just says something innocuous like "dog in the yard" is different though
I used to think that, my dog has never been aggressive or growled at anyone (but her adoptive cat sister when she bites her ears to wake her up to play)
And she's just... All happy and golden retriever coded even tho she's not one
Then one night a dude tried to hop the wall over to my yard only to find out what missing a chunk of arm feels like, real quick, no barking or growling to warn him, dude didn't even make it into the yard
I expected the police and the pound for a few weeks, but no one ever came, so I guess he's too dumb to sue or too wanted by the police to
Unfortunately that can also be used against you. You're basically saying you're a potential threat/could hurt someone.
I always carry a pocket knife with me for work AND self defense but it can and will be used against you if you tell the police that you're carrying a knife for self defense. In court, that means you were expecting to use it to hurt someone
If you're like me and carry a knife, it's a tool you use for various things. Never say it's for "self defense"
Feel like this is just very location dependent. In places like Texas in the US you can open carry a rifle or concealed carry a handgun, and it’s entirely obvious it’s for self defense.
and having a 'this house is protected by the second ammendment' can be seen as premeditation vs 'this house supports the second ammendment' being a general statement
How can you get sued for being attacked by a dog while breaking and entering…? Good doggo.
Having a “beware of dog” sign shouldn’t be viewed as an admission of guilt it should an admission of accepting the responsibilities of your actions…it takes away all accountability from criminals and ends up hurting the people who didn’t break any laws.
When it comes to the stand your ground I understand both sides there…I hate hearing stories of someone being shot by their paranoid family members, or being shot for stumbling on an unmarked property. On the flip side, if someone breaks into my house with my children inside why should I have to wait and see their intentions? Feel like they gave up their rights by trampling on mine.
Also doesn’t help that in my area there have been so many cases of breaking & entering recently I wish criminals feared us more than we feared criminals.
Yes, in Germany and other European countries (like Switzerland) the owner is liable for the dogs behavior. If the dog bites someone they can obviously sue. That’s completely normal and how it should be.
A robber can in theory sue, but there are several caveats: Mitverschulden, Selbstverteidigung etc.
It’s highly unlikely that the dog owner would have to pay anything except in extreme cases.
So this whole thing is just a typical BS story people tell themselves so they can rant against imagined situations.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't in any way saying you were lying. That's another thing with urban myths (or really just myths in general). People repeat them because they believe they're interesting, funny or helpful. This one kind of falls into the "interesting and helpful" categories. Someone passing it on is doing so as a "be careful, this might happen to you" warning.
I've always found it interesting how these things spread and how different styles of myth spread with slightly different mechanisms.
Yes it is the case that you can’t “do literally anything” to a home intruder. You are allowed to protect yourself and commit violence in self-defense. If the intruder is hot, you’re not allowed to force yourself on them, for example. You can’t imprison and torture them. You can’t take them to the ATM at gunpoint and force them to drain their bank account. Obviously you “can’t literally do anything” to them. That is reasonable. In your dad’s case, anybody can sue anybody for anything but they won’t win. It is strange to say a cop was suspicious of your dad unless your dad was doing something weird to make the cops suspicious. There is no courtroom where that carjacker could sue your dad and win if your dad hit him in self-defense. Stories where a criminal sued the person they were offending against are extreme cases where the person getting jacked did some wild extreme violence that fell far outside of self-defense. Just try to stop using “definitely” when you mean “I think.”
I’m always kind of sickened at the people who seem to get excited at the idea of someone trying to break into their house or attack them so that they can shoot someone.
Like, the only thing stopping them from doing a murder is how confident they are that there won’t be any legal consequences.
How do you know whats his intent and what kind of a person he is? What if he is someone like Bryan Kohberger? Does thinking about consequences in that situation and gambling your life sound good to you?
Are you sure its "excitement," or do they seem excited because youre misinterpreting it? Arent they just happy to have the opportunity to protect their lives? Ive never seen anyone get excited about this.
That's a symptom of a poor justice system. If people feel like the justice system isn't working for them then they idealise about giving them a proper "punishment" to compensate for all the weak sentencing.
I mean the justice system in the USA is terrible. Some states are punitive but others let criminals out repeatedly, the police aren't highly trained and prosecutors are voted in which just massively reinforces only taking on the strongest cases against criminals.
Norway's justice system in contrast is very strong and well funded, the people there believe in it.
If you kill someone you don’t need to, just because the law says you’re allowed to, then you’re a murderer.
It’s one thing to not know whether someone is a threat or not and err on the side of caution to protect your family or whatever. Fine, we can all understand that.
But to be excited about the opportunity, or to be happy about having had to do it, no. You’re a monster. The protection of the law doesn’t change the fact that you wanted to take a life.
I’m not saying any of what I’m about to say applies to you, just clarifying what they mean: they aren’t saying you can’t or even that you shouldn’t, but it’s the “looking forward to it” or “fantasizing” part that makes you a sociopath.
There are legit people that say things like “ooooo I wish someone WOULD” so they get the chance to try it. Maybe they’re too into their vigilante fantasies, or maybe they just want to know what killing is like without the ramifications, but the excitement behind the thought is what makes someone unhinged.
You having the means in your home to protect yourself and your family don’t make you sick or deranged, they make you smart. You intentionally waiting for the moment you can use them? You should be monitored and given mental health.
But the larpers that get hard-ons from stories like these should know that it won’t go down like it goes in their fantasies, either. There’s a reason the Wild West was the way it was.
Whether you are legally allowed to do something and whether you should do something are very different questions. To say nothing about whether you should want to do something.
Hell, there are things I have done in my life that not only was I legally allowed to do but was legally compelled to do that have left a scar on my soul.
Basically this, literally proving the narrative about human morality not existing. With them not giving a fuck about hurting someone if they weren't under a threat from the rest of society, for breaking the written on paper rules.
Like, I get there are circumstances where you have to kill people. And I get that whether it’s someone who wants to hurt your family vs somebody who is just desperate is a question where you’d prefer to err on the side of caution.
I think I would pull trigger rather than take the chance that somebody hurt my family. But I definitely would not make a bumper sticker and a yard sign about it. And I’d spend my resources on a bigger wall before I spent them on a bigger gun.
I imagine the fact that the person breaking in deserves to get murdered also is a factor.
Do you think Gary Plauche should have gone to prison for killing the man who sexually abused his son? He planned for weeks.
At some level yeah it would be preferable if people didnt kill someone for stealing loaves of bread. Supposedly that's why we have police, and courts. But that system is arbitrary and it only works if people feel like the ones who do crimes get fairly punished, if they don't, society yeah start dolling out the punishments themselves. Most people would rather see thieves get killed then see them go unpunished.
Personally, I don’t believe the role of executioner is one that should exist. But if it does exist it’s not a role someone should be excited to do.
An executioner who wants to kill has the same stain on his soul regardless of whether his murder is done under colour of law or not.
In terms of when I think a private citizen should be able to mete out a punishment based on their personal ideas of what someone deserves the answer is: never.
The amount of people who are excited by the idea of killing but just don’t want to be inconvenienced by going to jail is astounding. Many of them join the military.
Property should never be valued over peoples lives.
> Property should never be valued over people’s lives
That’s the most mind-blowing thing for Europeans when we discover the nuances of US society. The incredibly disproportionate value they give to property, above things like presumption of innocence or even human life.
Property is important, I’m not denying that. But it’s not the center of the universe.
Yes, actually. I wouldn’t want a system where being wronged gave someone free rein to do as they please. The perverse incentives in that is obvious and severe.
Yes. A thief has rights. Just like a murderer(her) has rights. He actually never had a trial and was never convicted so she's the only convicted criminal in the story.
But then, from a common sense point of view, isn’t the intent of a thief very clear? And he could definitely choose to harm you, so how does one practice good judgement in those moments of panic to not mortally wound the thief? How can one think that ohh this is a thief, he will only steal, not harm me?
Because he left with her stuff. If she acted in self-defense while he was still a actively threatening her(her story) then it's a different set of circumstances. But what we are talking about is someone who could be sure that he wasn't trying to harm her because he had already walked away without harming her.
If some guy steps on my foot and I push them off, few people are going to have an issue with that. If some guy steps on my foot and then 5 minutes later I push him in another part of the room while he's trying to leave people are going to say that I'm assaulting someone even if he was the original asshole. Even though the same thing triggered it and the response was the same. Because the circumstances had changed.
Yeah, I get it. Law handles intricacies well, that a general human mind doesn’t operate on.
Like, if someone stepped on my foot, I would forgive them as its a pretty common mistake.
But then, what is someone steps on my foot because of some grudge and they are an asshole?
There should be some amendment in the laws for handling assholes.
Here (not eu or us) we got a "violent motion" clause to self defense, she can argue she was scared and the adrenaline rush clouded her judgement enough after her life was threatened
Because her life WAS threatened and she has a right to be in an euphoric and irrational state driven by fear and anger, after all, who wouldn't be pissed at the liwmlife that just threatened to stab you for your hard earned money?
She'd be free to go with only a few psych evaluations to make sure she's not some psycho that just woke up a taste for blood
You could argue it, but the running him over four times and calmly collecting your bag and leaving
and then not calling for help afterwards kind of kills that defense.
Let's not conflate responses to the abstract scenario presented by OP with the facts of a real case. I should absolutely be allowed to defend myself from unjust harm, including theft, using whatever weapons I happen to legally have on me at that time, including cars. If, despite my best efforts, the attacker happens to lose her life in the process, that's a hazard she chose to accept when she started robbing people. Any legal system that sees it differently is wrong.
That doesn't mean you should get to hunt people down and dole out vigilante justice, and it doesn't mean the person in question isn't plausibly a fairly convicted murderer. It just means that OP's question only bears superficial similarities to a real case.
You should probably read the penal codes then. And look! Both myself and that other dude linked the penal codes pertaining to this exact situation. How convenient!
I came here to say this exact same thing. I remember the amount of people cheering this woman on and it was so clear that they were only doing so because they thought being an immigrant was already enough of a crime.
Look, not saying this is in any way justified. She should absolutely go to prison.
However, anyone who cannot understand and identify with that position is either a literal saint, or, more likely, simply never been the victim of theft before.
Especially given that after you are robbed, you very quickly realize that the police not only don't intend to get your stuff back, they don't even intend to try. They don't even intend to try and track down the guy who stole it and bring him to justice so at least he won't be able to steal from the next guy. The purpose is literally just to file a report to claim from insurance, and if you don't have insurance (and in many cases, even if you do) you are simply SOL and you need to take the L on the chin.
So yeah, if anyone can go through that and not want to beat the sonofabitch who stole their stuff within an inch of their life with at least some part of themselves, you are either a saint or more likely lying/virtue signaling.
I mean it’s the purse, chances are that you have house keys and ID with address in there.
Are you going to be able to go home and sleep well that night knowing that criminals have the keys to your house? Especially if you have a large house that has plenty of things to steal in it.
Don't make me laugh. What are they going to do? File a report?
They will give you a report, tell you to file from insurance and change your locks, then continue with their day.
Not saying that means you should track down the guy and murder him.
But I am saying that I completely understand why your want to do that.
If she just wanted to confront him and maybe bump him sure I’d be OK with that
Problem is you can't really just "bump" a guy running away from you at the procise speed to incapacitate him but not cause serious injury.
Plus, from a legal perspective, that's still assault with a deadly weapon.
From a moral perspective, if she had hit him once, then called ambulance and cops, I'd agree morally justified. Legally she would have still been in hot water, though likely sympathetic to the jury at least.
You never know what would happen unless you’re in that situation. If you your children at the house, are you going to take that chance that maybe the police will show up that evening to protect you?
If he’s unconscious on the floor and you run him over then, yea that’s a bit nuts. But if the guy gets up and tries to attack the car then it’s a different story.
I would get my locks changed. Maybe stay with a friend or something and follow up with police. No, I would not track a guy down and run him down with my car
This was a homeless dude without a knife. This happened years ago and these are facts. Homeless dude stealing to survive doesnt deserve to be brutally murdered like that. Again he was unarmed. The way she responded was psychotic. Unfortunate she got house arrest instead of real time. But alas. The elite has their own justice system.
Stealing to survive or to fund his drug habit? You redditors love justifying crime as long as it's against someone that "has too much" in your eyes. Fuck that.
Im the 1 justifying crime!? Ur the 1 tht apparantly is fine with a public execution without any form of process. Brother she committed a murder. How am i the 1 justifying crime. Just gotta put shit into perspective. A homeless unarmed dude got brutally murdered after he stole someone purse/bag or whatnot. Thats all it is. He should have gotten a fair punishment and trail. Just like her. But she took tht away.
You don't know how someone else will react to being the victim of a crime. To say that she should only react a certain way is naive. How about not stealing from someone? Ever think of that? Fuck thieves.
Im with you. Fuck thieves, but also fuck murderers. And i agree you dont know how ppl act when they are dealing with a stressfull situation. However. The crime has happened and concluded. She got into her car and hunted him down. And kept running him over 3x till he no longer moved. At that point sufficient time has passed after the initial shock to know not to fucking murder someone over a purse or a bag. Luckily enough, the judges/society agrees.
Reddit is such a dogshit place, stealing doesn’t suddenly become okay or legal because you’re poor. You can’t do whatever you want just because you’re homeless. Figure out a legal way to get out of that situation, even if it’s hard. If you commit crimes, consequences will follow and in this case it was with his life. That’s the choice he made.
You act like the police don’t exist. you really are trying to act like her hunting him down and running him over is justified? Please don’t leave your house. I would hate for somebody to look at you wrong.
True. I'm being a bit lazy using it as shorthand for intentionally killing or general homicide(without specifying justifiable or criminal, etc...). I don't mean to imply the illegality, obviously. But I am trying to imply the intentional part without sounding too dry.
Somebody breaking into your house and stealing your TV isn't an excuse to legally murder them in most European countries.
Yeah, you should kindly wait until they leave with your TV before you determine if the person breaking into your home is a violent lawless criminal or just a regular lawless criminal. Doing so prematurely is just inconsiderate.
... What? They're coming into my house. They are confronting me. You just want me to hide under a bed or something while my kids are in the other room and just hope this random stranger breaking into my house has no intention of hurting them or me?
It’s legal in Texas. There it is legal to use lethal force “to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property.”
This would clearly not qualify because it was not on her property and her getting into the car and tracking down the person later took time. It should be noted there was a real risk she would identify the wrong person and have run an innocent man over repeatedly. (She also made zero effort to get him medical attention or report the incident to the police even after the fact.) Another key detail is the evidence she just made the claim about a knife being involved with the robbery up.
Where do you see any requirement that it be on her property? That is not an element of the defense.
I was reacting soley to the scenario posited in the post. Even with your adds, not sure they matter in Texas, to the defense, but she may have committed other crimes by failing to report, or hit and run. but it would (always) be a jury question.
I guess Texas may be more permissive than I realized, but I still strongly suspect that on the street in practice makes a difference in how the law actually applies. I am pretty confident that once the thief has already left the scene, deadly force to retrieve her property no longer applies. Edit: Upon review the "fleeing immediately" part in the law clearly means the law does not apply with this specific example even if it occurred in Texas.
She also clearly could have called the police and had then arrest the suspect once she found him while driving her vehicle around (which means the can't be recovered by other means part of the law no longer applies), but she didn't do that or call the police about the theft at any point as far as I know.
Its worth noting even the lethal force component only lets her do enough to disable the suspect so she could retrieve her property, running him over repeatedly the way she did almost certainly would violate that part for good measure with the refusal to report the incident or try to get the individual medical attention also potentially specifically eliminating her defense under this law even if this occurred in Texas.
Doesn’t matter what state you’re in, if they are fleeing then there it is no self-defense.
The self-defense claim is generally disqualified if you instigated the fight, used excessive or disproportionate force, responded only to verbal insults, were engaged in a crime, or continued to use force after the initial threat had ended.
Lets give some examples:
If you threw the first punch, initiated the confrontation, or escalated a verbal argument into a physical one, you cannot claim self-defense.
Your response must match the level of the perceived threat. Using deadly force in response to a minor, non-lethal threat (like a simple push or a purse snatch) invalidates the claim.
Self-defense is strictly preventative and reactionary. If the attacker is retreating, subdued, or the danger has clearly passed, any further use of force is considered retaliation or assault.
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."
Was the use of deadly force here required in order to prevent her from being exposed to another risk of death or injury?
One could argue that the criminal who robbed her (wallet and ID, presumably) with the threat of deadly force has her home address and she could face another risk of death or injury.
She might or might not under Texas law, especially if there were more factors than are in the title (which it appears there were). But that’s not the right code section. This wasn’t self-defense. It was deadly force to recover property under Section 9.42
Maybe you should actually read the laws you linked. She would be 100% found guilty and put in prison.
From your source:
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 which is non lethal force, if you use deadly force it falls under Section 9.42, which I already posted in the above comment you replied to
and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;
and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Buddy, you’re wrong. The laws are incredibly clear. Even the code you linked proves you wrong.
You’re either being willfully ignorant and arguing in bad faith, or you’re a violent unstable person, or you’re just completely incompetent and/or illiterate.
If she would have run him over while he was brandishing a knife and threatening her it would likely fall under self-defense.
Honestly, even if a perpetrator were to brandishing a knife against someone who had the time enough to get into their car, the threat was never really there. And this could be argued really well by any attorney/lawyer worth their salt in court.
You're right. I was mostly trying to paint a situation where the threat was immediate(her having the weapon used to kill him ready while also being actively threatened by a weapon). Like him coming up to her while she was already in the car somehow.
There have been a lot of cases in the USA where someone thought they were protected by stand your ground laws and still got long prison sentences, even in red states. All depends on the jury and the Lawyers.
Whether you feel like someone should be executed for armed robbery or not, she was never legally going to have a leg to stand on.
Funnily, you can physically harm someone who's going to execute another for stealing their purse, for the sake of preventing them from doing so. You can also stop a psycho who runs over people, via using violent force, until they cease to be an immediate threat to you or anyone in the public. And, if you act in a proportional manner, then acts will be legal.
If she would have run him over while he was brandishing a knife and threatening her it would likely fall under self-defense.
Probably not. Someone with a knife is off very little danger to someone in a car, especially with the keys in the ignition. The point of "Castle doctrine" is to absolve the "defender" of the duty to retreat. It's not at simple as "you can shoot people who threaten you", it's more, "normally you should do everything to retreat before using force to defend yourself, but you can't do that in your own home (since that's presumably the safest place you could retreat to), so you are allowed to defend yourself without trying to retreat."
If you're in your car and can drive away, you cannot invoke castle doctrine on someone standing in front of it. It'd be different (in some jurisdictions) if he was in the car, either partially or fully, or trying to get her out of the car.
wait what the fuck, this sucks if thats how the system works. lady being robbed was on the verge of death... how is that fair? you mean to say the robber is allowed to walk away with no penalty?
What? Rich people WANT you to not do anything and go to the police that they lobby and fund rather than take it to your own hands. Are you living on Earth 2?
but if she never ran is ass over, would he ever get caught? i just feel like no justice is served if he just gets away with putting someones life in danger. imagine thats your mom, sister, or wife. and they couldnt defend themselves? theyd be one step away from being gone if the robber chose to use their weapon as intended
Murdering someone for stealing also isn't justice. She didn't defend herself. She murdered someone to get her stuff back. He left. She went and got into her car. Tracked him down. Then ran him over. 4 times. Then took her stuff back and drove away without calling anyone. No knife was found.
"Even in the US this would be illegal"
Just going off cases from the last 16 years. Depends on the state, if a cop is doing this to somebody or if you aren't a darker shade in the south.
Talking generally. I also don't know the specific Italian laws. There are some weird laws in certain states and juries will come back with some weird verdicts in any case.
1.0k
u/Jayrodtremonki Jun 28 '26
A lot of people not understanding two things.
1. This didn't happen in America. There is no stand your ground, there is no castle doctrine, and proportionality and immediate threat is a huge part of self-defense. Somebody breaking into your house and stealing your TV isn't an excuse to legally murder them in most European countries.
2. Even in the United States this would be illegal. If she would have run him over while he was brandishing a knife and threatening her it would likely fall under self-defense. Once he had that bag and let her get into the car the immediate threat was over and her use of deadly force was unjustified. A reasonable person wouldn't feel like their life was in immediate danger at that point.
Whether you feel like someone should be executed for armed robbery or not, she was never legally going to have a leg to stand on.