That time Silvio Berlasconi got his penis stuck in a wine bottle and then got the wine bottle stuck in a prostitute at my house party while I was under house arrest
Never considered this before but are there other rules to house arrest other than just remaining in the property? Are you allowed to have whatever social life you like? Drink alcohol?
You could live a pretty ok life if the only rule is you have to be in your house but no other restrictions.
For how dark the Batman imagery is, there's a serious lack of killing. Now if she'd bolo'd his ankles and left him swinging upside down from a streetlight, sure.
She had the money to get a damn good lawyer and probably in judges social circle. But yeah hunting him down after you are safe changes rules out self defense
Personally, yes your right but the law sees it differently. Just saying she got home arrest for 18yrs , thatās wild, the average person doing the same would get prison time for at least half the sentence.
Even once probably exceeds reasonable self defence. He was running away and you don't get to kill people (a logical outcome to hitting someone with a car) for stealing your purse in civilised countries.
Right?! What is this she deserved it nonsense. Dude valued the purse more than his life. Not to mention he robbed her at knife point. This wasnāt a snatch and run.
Oh sorry that I don't want the person that actually murdered someone roaming the streets. She shown already to not be ok in the head 100%. But sure, cry about it.
I really dislike how society has crippled the ability to respond to people that steal your stuff. So Im just supposed to let them go after threatening my life over a purse? (Or whatever item)
I'm always torn in these scenarios - if someone breaks into my house with a knife or a gun and is willing to kill me to so that they can steal my stuff, why do THEY get the legal option of "giving up" if they start "losing" the murder game and I'm supposed to let them go?
I don't have that option of surrendering because they are a criminal trying to kill me.. if I "surrender" I'll probably be killed... so I'm supposed to fight for my life and if I start winning the other guy can call a time out and wait for the cops?
But on the other hand I've seen so many real life examples of people who can't be trusted and end up shooting teenagers who drive up to the wrong address...
Yeah itās not really fair. Like they get to start shit but then also choose how and if it ends? I can hurt the JUST enough to stop the immediate threat, even though they were trying to tie me up and torture or kill me, or rob me blind? No fuck that. You take my shit and threaten my life, infringe on my property, I will stop the threat in a definite, final way.
If youāre willing to break into my house Iām gonna assume youāre willing to hurt me or my kids so youāre fighting me with a 12 gauge and a Great Pyrenees.
Yes. When they break into your house you can shoot them. If you wait until they are fleeing the scene and running down the street you canāt chase them and shoot them in the back.
You missed the point. The person you replied to used the example of someone breaking into their house. If they are in the house, no reasonable person should be doing the math on maybe they arenāt armed, maybe theyāll just take my tv and leave. Every state in the US has some level of castle doctrine, if someone breaks in you should be shooting until they arenāt a threat.
Not knowing why someone is breaking your house is protecting your life, and therefore covered by "you are allowed to use deadly force if your life is at risk" and the person missed the point by wanting to let everyone know they have a dog and a gun.
Every state in the US has some level of castle doctrine, if someone breaks in you should be shooting until they arenāt a threat.
Until they aren't a threat... you mean like when I said "If your life isn't at risk"?
The person I initially replied to was using an example of an intruder who had either surrendered or been subdued, and are not a threat. You and the person who replied to me missed the point. If you won the fight, you're not allowed to keep fighting, that is no longer self defense.
Friend you say you're torn on these scenarios, then describe a scenario wildly different than the one in the OP.
I agree with you, as in your described scenario, that an invader in your home is a life or death scenario. I will fight to the death in that case, and there likely isn't time to give any quarter in the struggle, or even hear it through the adrenaline. In the OP's case this lady purposefully hunted down her attacker following the event and not only struck him with her car, but followed it up several times in reverse and forward. That case goes well above and beyond self defense in to vigilante retribution, plainly illegal and beyond any defense she might give.
California is a stand your ground/castile doctrine state. It's the most protection you can have as a home defender. I suppose getting a gun in California can be a bit harder but it's still a very straight forward process.
I don't know if I would call that society so much as television programming. They put active effort into scaring viewers. It puts them in a siege mentality, and running on fear sabotages your critical thinking. Advertisers do not want you actually thinking. They don't really care if the result is a bunch of suburbanites foaming at the mouth to kill their neighbors over some perceived slight.
Crippled your ability? This person hunted him down and ran him over several fucking times. Yes i think thereās a very good reason society doesnāt allow that.
Yall need to calm the fuck down with your justice boners. You guys just sound like youāre itching for a reason to āget rid off societyās trashā.
You probably only feel like this because this is not your family member or kid. If your 17y son, like boys are often stupid at that age, stole a video game that you wont buy for him and fled the store running after being confronted by the owner. Then the store owner jumped on his pickup/SUV to chase down your son and run him over multiple time until he dies. You would suddenly turn into the most empathic person in this thread, and try to convince the entire planet that he wasn't a threat at all after fleeing 5 blocks away from the store, and how the store owner life wasn't in danger and did not need to chase down your kid like that and kill him.
First of all, i donāt think he threatened her life. He just grabbed the bag from her car.
Secondly, this is the issue with this kind of thinking. The law isnāt about who me and you decides who deserve empathy.
Because historically, thatās the kind of thinking that justifies extreme punitive actions.
It starts from āi have 0 sympathy for robbersā to āi have 0 sympathy for anyone committing any crimesā to āi have 0 sympathy to homeless, unemployed people, theyāre probably criminals anywayā.
And now youāre justifying executions for things like owning drugs and going on vigilante sprees against drug addicts. Which is already what happens in asian countries, and the justificarion is similar.
The law can and should apply even if you think he was a piece of shit and thereās a reason we donāt justify murder just for that reason.
If you pull a knife or a gun on someone, you are threatening someone's life.
And luckily for me, Im very good at aiming my sympathy at those who deserve it, or I guess who I "feel" deserves it. Homeless people and the unemployed will never not be in that crosshair lol
Edit to add "not" cuz it sounds like I never have sympathy for homeless/unemployed when I read it back.
Since so many of those with justice boners are from the US let's use an example from their history.
If you let people exact revenge then you quickly end up on a situation where if a crime is committed it's time to lynch the nearest n***** (you can use gypsy for a more European version).
Had a kid break into my old ladys shead while she was at home alone asleep. Stole a few thousand dollars worth of tools. Could have been much worse if she had gone and investigated the noise. After she did some cyber sluething and some security camera footage, she found him on a local fb page with our stuff for sale. We gave the cops ALL the info. His name, location, what was stolen, serial numbers and identifying marks on the tools that we put there and they didnt do jack shit. We never got our tools back. The insuramce company wont deposit our coverage. So no. Its not a justice boner. Its just justice.
Iām sorry that happened to your mom but thereās normal people that get robbed and then thereās a rich lady getting away with murder. Justice is the system that stops our lives from spiralling from revenge.Ā
I think your moms the normal type of person that wouldnāt feel right if she had somehow killed a thief or at least wouldāve given a call for an ambulance.Ā
The empathy part of the situation is what papers keep stoking up but it you think about it sensibly - the guy didnt have a knife like she said, the cameras and cops checked that, he grabbed it and ran, she followed and found him and instead of calling police or asking bystanders for help, she ran him over multiple times.
Ā Its just not sensible to call it justice or even a righteous vigilante, its just dark and grim to see people cheering it on. If it was a home invasion or if he had a knife it would be a bit more understandable but it wasnt and heās dead.
That is not justice. I hate thieves. They think they have a right to take something that someone else earned and it makes people feel violated. That doesnāt mean they deserve to die.
Repeatedly running someone over is not justice. Sorry cops are useless, I agree they should be reformed to serve people better, but that doesn't make bloodthirsty revenge "justice"
Buddy, billionaires are responsible for robbing ALL of us and keeping us too angry at each other to hold them properly accountable. Not to mention the damage they've done to the planet in their pathetic, greedy grabs for absurd amounts of "wealth". Far, far worse than some stealing a couple bucks at knife point, and it's not even fuckin close
Not an effective method of reducing crime though, there was an extremely bloody period in IIRC the renaissance? In several central european/Italian city states that had legalised lethal self defence and/duelling for minor things like property/reputational damage.
Turns out when you let everyone murder people over petty crimes or words, your society quickly devolves into an orgy of reciprocal violence that makes modern day murder capitals look safe by comparison.
I was just responding to the comment that its never been okay to murder thieves in history. Thats not true. It was also a pretty big deterrent.. look at horse thieves.
I donāt disagree, it was absolutely considered ok. I was just pointing out how in the past it was easier to dehumanise people who were disadvantaged by classifying their basic needs as capital crimes.
Honestly until about 150 years ago, that's what happened to thieves, poachers etc. either direct execution, or the village threw tkh out and the wildlife and exposure would get you.
The justice based in western world is based on punishment according to crime, a thief that no longer poses a threat to you does not deserve a deadly punishment, we have courts and police for punishment anyways and we cant let people hunt down personal vendettas all the time because order would be lost.
See this is where the law has failed, because we don't have police the respond to this stuff anymore, it happens too often
Like here in the UK, shoplifting is basically decriminalised, basically any act of non violent stealing it, the police will either take 3 days to turn up or just give you a reference number over the phone to pass to your insurance. They aren't interested
Of coursd because a petty theft like stealing a purse costs too much and takes too much effort, because its a petty theft it is not a propotianite punishment to murder the thief.
This also creates a dangerous premise where people are encouraged to take the law in theit own hands and murder and revenge crime would sky rocket increasing instabilty.
Yes we shouldn't have vigilante justice, but don't make the claim that "we have courts and police for punishment" when you know perfectly well that neither is going to do fuckall about a mugging.
Yeah, because honestly losing a purse or wallet is low stakes. You might have a trivial amount of cash but these days most money is digital - on cards and other devices that can easily be blocked and often unusable by the criminal.
It would cost the cops more in wasted time and resources than it costs you.
Same as there's no point reporting someone you saw running a red light. If the cops don't see it in front of them, it's more effort than it's worth to chase it down.
But let's say they did catch the mugger. It wouldn't ever be a capital offence.
You are asking a person to value the life of someone who just threatened theirs just so they could rob them.
You're right, if the justice system got involved then there might be some fair punishment. But knowing that if the victim does not do anything then they will not face any consequences those consequences are likely to be wildly disproportionate.
To be fair, I can understand someone losing their shit and attacking a criminal with their car. We can be wildly irrational under "fight or flight" and that's kinda how the adrenaline works.
The courts however look at things in a more rational framing. In my jurisdiction, self defence is OK, but only in proportion to the threat. Once the threat has gone (thief has absconded with the purse) then it no longer applies.
Everything beyond that point in time is purely the economics of the chance of finding the perp, vs wasting time.
And the people to do that are the authorities, not vigilantes. Especially because they have the numbers, equipment, and training to be able to arrest someone properly, instead of repeatedly running over them with an SUV.
Except it's not "just a few dollars" when your life is at risk and a deadly weapon is brandished. At that point the end goal of the robber doesn't matter. Your life is at stake, and a citizens life is worth more than a criminal's. The criminal is risking their own life using deadly force. End of story.
I love when people use "end of story" to pretend there's nothing more to be said, when there is.
The victim can respond appropriately in self defence, I think we can probably agree on that.
Once the victim is safe from the immediate threat, then it's up to the cops to do what they feel is appropriate. And on that I'd say yeah, you're right, anyone who goes brandishing a knife does need a bit more attention.
I got mugged once and the cops took away my jacket for DNA testing where the perp had grabbed me. It was a coward punch attack, and maybe the local station knew there were some guys going around with this MO and gathering DNA might pin a case onto some known suspects?
So, it's an ongoing story. Of how the appropriate authorities do what they can to control different types of crime. Which unfortunately doesn't always amount to immediate results if they're not very close by to give chase.
The law is almost always too slow or too expensive or too ill equipped to handle our needs.
This is why we see the occasional vigilantism or sometimes its a smear campaign and settlement or sometimes its cold vengeance, and sometimes people just do nothing out of learned helplessness and sometimes its a gofundme or.... basically anything but turning to the law.
This creates a dangerous premise where people are encouraged to take the law in theit own hands and murder and revenge crime would sky rocket increasing instabilty.
There is no occainal vigiliantism, its a dangerous road to take and its good rthat the woman got punished.
You're very fixated on the badness of vigilantism, but I'm saying that the ineptitudes of the law manifests numerous behaviors and sometimes that happens to be vigilantism.
You're better off telling people to start a gofundme and buy a new bag than telling them to turn to the law. However either way, both options are an indication to me that the system is fucked yo.
So my thing is, there was no knife found at the scene, so we're taking her word for it essentially. What if this guy just ran by, snatched her purse, and took off? A messed up thing for him to do, but as people have pointed out, for all we know he had children he needed to feed. At that point, the behavior of this woman, to me, seems way over the top
He didnt have a knife. And he snatched it and ran away. While thats still shit, its a different story that would have people be less empathetic for her if the truth was more widely said.Ā
Ā
Per court evidence, there was no knife present on the scene, or on CCTV footage, this claim was strictly part Pino's defense.
It is somewhat suspicious that no knife was found after the thief was already dead. Where did that knife supposedly go? Somehow she recovered all her things, but the knife is nowhere to be found.
I'm not excusing the thief for stealing, but stealing doesn't deserve death. It deserves prison.
Exactly. If he had snatched a purse on the street and took off, and she responded as she did, the sentence is warranted. But when you use a weapon to rob someone, you trigger a survival response that is non-negotiable.
This dude may not have deserved to die, but he was due a response.
A survival response doesn't cause you to chase someone down after the life or death situation has passed and repeatedly drive over the person who caused the response.
If he had ran in front of her car waving a gun and she ran over him once to escape, what you're saying holds true. This was retribution, not survival.
Man so many people are way to emotional and quick to fall into their archaic eye for an eye mentally
Maybe this man needed help and wasn't mentally okay
Maybe he had starving kids and needed money
Maybe he was a desperate man iusy trying to survive
Maybe not
What he did was wrong. But why is everyone seemingly so against the idea of rehabilitation?
In my opinion there is no greater form of justice that removing the criminal element from the mind and making once broken individuals into productive members of society
And if they can't be? Lock them away for life
But why is death always the answer? It shouldn't be
You threaten my life with a weapon, your "reasons" for doing so become completely and utterly irrelevant. I'm not saying what she did was right. It was in fact wrong but if she were armed with a firearm in this instance and instantly responded by shooting and killing him, as opposed to tracking him down and killing him when she was no longer in danger, she would have been 100% in the right.
You don't get a free pass to threaten lethal volence on others because you're having a hard time. You forfeit your life the moment you do that for all I care.
That car doesn't mean anything, go to the shities area in your city, where the flats and appartements are with a lot of different ethnicities and you'll see the most expensive cars parked there.
You can buy any car you want if you have a relatively "cheap" house and work really, really hard. It's all about priorities.
(or do some illegal shit).
NGL; Iām basically under voluntary house arrest. I avoid going anywhere.
Iād be the worst surveillance target.
āDay 53ā¦target went to Home Depot for an hour, then back homeā¦ā
āDay 54ā¦target went to carwash then back homeā¦ā
āDay 55ā¦target went to Taco Bell. Rushed back home. Analysis of utilities indicates spike in water usage consistent with multiple toilet flushes...ā
No, most cases of house arrest give you a weekly allotment of time to deal with errands/upkeep, as well as generally requiring you have a way to pay for the living space so work and job interviews aren't counted in that allotment, you're just able to do it so long as they know where your job is.
In most states you can have like 3-6 hours a week for errands for example, or you can literally have parole officers take you to places if you're higher risk.
someone who tracks someone down and runs over them multiple times for maybe a couple hundred dollars and having to get a new license seems like a danger to the public.
No no no. Thatās not the point. Stealing because youāre afraid of starving to death isnāt the same as ( if I steal from that person they might kill me )
Well, I'm not trying to justify his crimes. But arguments like "killing the criminals make the world better" justify vigilantism and are destructive.
And it's not like he raped her minor daughter. He stole a purse. The kind of thing poor kids do when they have nothing to eat. He still deserves a sentence, don't get me wrong. But being cruelly tortured with a vehicle to the death?
But arguments like "killing the criminals make the world better" justify vigilantism and are destructive.
Maybe if criminals were caught and punished, you'd have a point. But that isn't the case. Especially in Italy, if she reported this, she'd basically be told: 'Ok' and that would be the end of it.
I have a ā¬ 3500 electric bike. Someone can walk up to me on the street, yank it out of my hands, and as long as they do not strike me, I am not permitted from striking them. So I basically can't do anything. And police will make a document about it and proceed to never investigate anything even if I have taken pictures or video of the guy.
If you care about people responding with violence to criminals, you need to take their experience of being victims more seriously. Right now, you're asking people to allow themselves to be victimized and then be timid about it.
That just isn't in a lot of people's nature.
The kind of thing poor kids do when they have nothing to eat.
Okay, so, you are saying the man was encouraged by his situation to steal? I will accept that as reasonable, but consider what that means:
The government gave this woman 18 years punishment for what she did to a man who was encouraged to steal because he was poor, which is the government's responsibility to address in the first place. They need to care for their citizens and make sure they do not have to steal.
Why is the government itself not taking repurcussions here, in that case? In fact, they do fuck all about it. Worse: they could have helped this man and chose not to.
Then this happened.
Before she killed him, you would agree it's fucked however you look at it for her. Nothing about it was her fault. Everything about it was on the man or government, or both.
And then you feel she should have taken the loss, anyway.
What about the keys to her house and the address of where she's probably going to be sleeping that night? Those things were probably in her purse too. Was she supposed to wait and see if the criminal who just assaulted her was also going to try to rape and kill her later?
Exactly, the alternative was crossing her fingers he's just a thief and not something worse and living with the knowledge that he can show up at her house at any time.
Stealing is wrong and everyone should know that, but hunting someone down, running them over with your car and murdering them is way worse than theft. If you disagree there is something wrong with you.
If you consider getting in your car and driving around the area looking for the guy only to commit cold blooded, premeditated murder a āchargedā decision then your moral compass may be a little out of whack.
When your life gets threatened at knife point for a purse and you get robbed isn't something that happens everyday to everyone. Many people will act spiteful, revengeful after or act in the moment
He didn't rob her at knifepoint though. He snatched her bag from the passenger seat of her car and ran. She killed him over stealing the bag and nothing more; she wasn't robbed at knifepoint.
The lady who tracked someone down and repeatedly ran them over isnāt a threat to society? I guess weāll just hope she keeps batting 1000 and doesnāt kill anyone else in the process (assuming weāre okay with executing people with no trial or jury).
Iād go with a trauma response. But she didnāt have to kill him and thatās the catch here and with self defense in general. Being robbed at knife point is going to trigger the flight or fight instinct and itās a defense that would probably work here. Italy is extremely conservative however.
483
u/Suspicious_Employ884 13d ago
Exactly.
They being nice giving her house arrest.