Robbery revenge

Jokester said:
Presumably if the guy just shot them nobody would have batted an eye lid :confused:
Click to expand...

If they went running after them firing their gun when in no personal danger?

Pretty sure that would have got them in trouble as well.

The speed of that car likely means they intended to kill them. Last time I checked the punishment for robbery isn't the death penalty.
 
It's against the law, but I can't say that I care. They deserved it. I'm sure some liberal wet wipe will be along shortly to tell us how wrong we are though.
 
I don't think they "deserved what they got". I don't think someone should be killed for what they did. I do think it's understandable what the victim did, but also wrong.
 
Excellent outcome. The person who ran them over should be hailed for saving two lives because if he had called the cops they would have just turned up and shot them both seeing as the robbers were armed, no?
 
G-MAN2004 said:
It's against the law, but I can't say that I care. They deserved it. I'm sure some liberal wet wipe will be along shortly to tell us how wrong we are though.
Click to expand...

That would be pointless:

There are many examples of what happens when attacking people in revenge is allowed, especially with a deadly weapon and an intent to kill. You can find examples in the present in some parts of the world and in the past in many parts of the world.

If you cared, you'd already know. If you don't care, there's no point telling you...and you've said clearly that you don't care.

It's not about being a liberal either (although I am). I think you're wrong because I know a little about the history of England. Even in the most violent times, if there was any law and order it included restrictions on revenge. See, for example, the law of Alfred the Great on feuding. Otherwise, society breaks down. If killing someone for robbing you is allowed, it follows that lesser revenge for lesser offences should also be allowed. Or maybe even killing for it - where do you draw the line on deliberate killing? Also, if you allow revenge you must allow revenge. So if person A is allowed to kill person B for robbing them, then a friend, spouse or relative of person B is allowed to kill person A for killing person B...and so on. Blood feuds are pretty much guaranteed when revenge is legal and socially acceptable - how could they not be? Then, of course, there's the mistaken killings (you must be aware of the fact that sometimes one person thinks another person is guilty when they are not) and the murders (hard for a dead person to prove they didn't rob the person who killed them).
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the driver will get lawyer'd up (hopefully free) if there's enough publicity against this. Will say driver was in a state of shock, wanted to escape the scene after being robbed at gunpoint. I think if it goes to court against a jury, they'd probably find them not guilty.. I don't exactly know how the law works, if there's a mandatory issued by judge or not ?
 
dowie said:
you're allowed to use violence in self defence not in revenge
Click to expand...

This it's the exact same deal as the family who got tied up in their home when it was robbed who then got untied run down the street to find the criminals and beat them half to death with bats. Beat them in the home whilst it's a self defence doing it outside of this situation is an assault.

Do criminals deserve a good beating absolutely should it be us dealing this punishment no because that makes us just as bad.. let Strange Reg or Raymond the ******* give it to them in prison.
 
Angilion said:
That would be pointless:

There are many examples of what happens when attacking people in revenge is allowed, especially with a deadly weapon and an intent to kill. You can find examples in the present in some parts of the world and in the past in many parts of the world.

If you cared, you'd already know. If you don't care, there's no point telling you...and you've said clearly that you don't care.

It's not about being a liberal either (although I am). I think you're wrong because I know a little about the history of England. Even in the most violent times, if there was any law and order it included restrictions on revenge. See, for example, the law of Alfred the Great on feuding. Otherwise, society breaks down. If killing someone for robbing you is allowed, it follows that lesser revenge for lesser offences should also be allowed. Or maybe even killing for it - where do you draw the line on deliberate killing? Also, if you allow revenge you must allow revenge. So if person A is allowed to kill person B for robbing them, then a friend, spouse or relative of person B is allowed to kill person A for killing person B...and so on. Blood feuds are pretty much guaranteed when revenge is legal and socially acceptable - how could they not be? Then, of course, there's the mistaken killings (you must be aware of the fact that sometimes one person thinks another person is guilty when they are not) and the murders (hard for a dead person to prove they didn't rob the person who killed them).
Click to expand...

I never said anything about wanting revenge legalised, as I know that would cause all sorts of havoc. I wouldn't even do it myself. But in those rare instances where it does occur, I'll be the first to say that I really couldn't care less and I hope they get away with it. I certainly wouldn't stop them.
 
I guess you could say that the driver wanted to immobilize them somewhat, so that they woudln't get away before the authorities arrived.

Trying to kill them, would have been reversing over their broken bodies mutiple times, since they didn't do that, perhaps there is some justification ;)
 
Also the bit where the detective said, you're never excused using your vehicle as a weapon.

What about that Range Rover incident in NYC a couple of yrs back.. When the driver got ancy and plowed into all the bikes. He was heralded as a hero by the media. I think armed robbery is far worse and far more excusable to be mowed down, than a few angry bikers banging on your window.
 
thedoc46 said:
Also the bit where the detective said, you're never excused using your vehicle as a weapon.

What about that Range Rover incident in NYC a couple of yrs back.. When the driver got ancy and plowed into all the bikes. He was heralded as a hero by the media. I think armed robbery is far worse and far more excusable to be mowed down, than a few angry bikers banging on your window.
Click to expand...

The range rover guy was trying to escape. he ran over the bikers because they had surrounded him.

Back to OP.

I feel there is a case for "Hot Pursuit"

It is another thing all together if the revenge is taken hours or days after the event, but if it is essentially an ongoing part of the original incident then I am happy with it and would not wish to see the Victim facing legal consequences.
 
I don't think robbers deserve being ran over and risk being killed no.

I think they should face the courts to pay for their actions instead. (like the modern developed world should act)
 
The robbers were armed so the victims used the closest weapon they had. The lesson to be learnt here is not to rob people at gun point!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom