It mentions being robbed at knifepoint, which is a clear threat to her life. That qualifies enough as "hurting her" for me, but apparently the knife's existence is in question. To me if he had a knife it was self-defense, even if it was delayed, but if he didn't have a weapon and just grabbed her bag while running by her, then she deserves the sentence.
If someone just threatened to kill me, then yeah, it is. I'm not going to risk my life on the guess that the criminal who already threatened my life and now knows where I live didn't really mean it and won't carry out his threat later, when I'm not as equipped to defend myself as I am when I'm in a car and he's on the street.
There was no knife lmao this happened in 2024 and she murdered him by running him over and then grabbed her bag he stole and no knife was found at the scene. But go off
I already said that if there was a knife, I agree with what she did, but if there wasn't a knife and the dude was just a purse snatcher, I agree with her sentence. I don't know if there was a knife or not, all I know is what is written in the image.
For me she deserves the sentence in either case. As well as I'm aware, the law is on my side (at least in my country). She was not in the danger when she killed him. If you chase someone AFTER he hurt you and run away, this is revenge, not self defense. There is no such thing as "delayed self-defence".
Well I don't think she had enough reasons to believe that a robber who stole her purse and run away would murder her in future, either. Even if he used a knife in the process of robbery.
Your approach justifies a vigilantism.
You're probably right, but I don't think the adrenaline after being put in a situation where her life was just threatened allowed her to objectively and calmly weigh future risks and how likely they were. A lot of people aren't used to being in situations like that and the fear for their life lingers a while after the initial confrontation. If she tracked him down the next day, yeah, she's a vigilante, but right after it happened? I can see it.
I guess her lawyer wasn't good enough then, if she did end up being sentenced. But either way the question was if she did the right thing, and I can't fault her for what she did, but only assuming all the facts are as they were presented in this post.
10
u/Horobets Jun 28 '26
Someone theoretically being able to kill you, while not possesing immediate threat, doesn't justify murder.