Crazy Tesco Car Park Incident

[Angilion]

I'm not sure if you are being serious, trolling, or genuinely don't know what the word 'lynching' means. It means execution, in case it's the latter. Maybe look up the word 'irony' next.

Maybe look up the word "lynching" first. Certainly the original lynchings weren't always fatal. But even using the most extreme definition...when a mob with weapons, even just impromptu ones, is attacking your vehicle trying to get at you, what would you assume they were going to do? Have a nice chat and a cup of tea? I'd assume they'd kill me if they got the chance. Whether they intended to from the start or just got carried away with their self-perceived righteous violence wouldn't make any difference. Mobs often kill, even if they're made up of people who wouldn't kill individually.

Personally, I think the difference between attack and defence matters. So I think the sequence of events matter. You don't, obviously.

 

[Worthy]

Maybe look up the word "lynching" first. Certainly the original lynchings weren't always fatal. But even using the most extreme definition...when a mob with weapons, even just impromptu ones, is attacking your vehicle trying to get at you, what would you assume they were going to do? Have a nice chat and a cup of tea? I'd assume they'd kill me if they got the chance. Whether they intended to from the start or just got carried away with their self-perceived righteous violence wouldn't make any difference. Mobs often kill, even if they're made up of people who wouldn't kill individually.

Personally, I think the difference between attack and defence matters. So I think the sequence of events matter. You don't, obviously.

You wouldn't think they were just going to pin you down and wait for the police?

 

[StriderX]

You wouldn't think they were just going to pin you down and wait for the police?

Why would anyone ever assume the mildest scenario? You always assume the worst, hope for the best, anything else is naive.

Especially in this increasingly turbulent zeitgeist, no one can afford the luxury of things "working out", so in a way this goes for the mob as well.

 

[2004typer]

Totally agree. What really winds me up is the way some people are so sanctimonious about saying they wouldn't interfere. If someone said "I'd be too afraid to try and stop them," I could understand it. But some people act like it's morally wrong to take responsibility upon yourself. As if anyone who doesn't defer all personal agency to Authority is somehow endangering the very fabric of society. Which I suppose to these people, that's how it seems.

In my view the context of the situation is paramount.......if the public had refrained from involvement would the maximum harm thus have been a criminal escaping with supermarket stock? If so, let the idiot go and leave the follow up to the authorities - in no way would I advocate persons risking their life or that of others for a minor offence at this juncture.

On the other hand, and talking hypothetically.......if the situation was such that without any initial "mob" intervention the criminal was intent on causing maximum harm with the vehicle rather than escaping (i.e. lets assume the criminal was driving the car towards the store entrance rather than the car park exit), from a defence perspective and preservation of life in the immediate circumstance, if there is an opportunity to stop the criminal, clearly any rational person would step in.

 

[Angilion]

You wouldn't think they were just going to pin you down and wait for the police?

Of course not. Why on earth would anyone assume that?

If it was a group of trained people that was maintaining discipline (like the police in many countries, for example), I would consider it most likely that they would detain me. A random mob? That would be a recklessly foolish assumption to make. I would assume they would kill or at least seriously injure me and do whatever was necessary to escape, up to and including killing people. Or I'd be paralysed with fear and wet myself. No way of telling.

 

[bloodiedathame]

The real victims here are my eyes, from having to watch portrait video.

 

[Em3bbs]

Maybe look up the word "lynching" first. Certainly the original lynchings weren't always fatal. But even using the most extreme definition...when a mob with weapons, even just impromptu ones, is attacking your vehicle trying to get at you, what would you assume they were going to do? Have a nice chat and a cup of tea? I'd assume they'd kill me if they got the chance. Whether they intended to from the start or just got carried away with their self-perceived righteous violence wouldn't make any difference. Mobs often kill, even if they're made up of people who wouldn't kill individually.

What a load of irrelevant guff. I was replying specifically to your post which said this:

Only if you ignore the sequence of events or if you think that stealing a small amount deserves a lynching and so the sequence of events doesn't matter.

Here is the definition of 'lynching'

Lynch
/lɪn(t)ʃ/
verb
gerund or present participle: lynching; noun: lynching

1. (of a group of people) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging.

I replied to you that I must have missed the lynching part, ie. someone being killed and this was because that no lynching happened. Your reply was thus:

Then perhaps you should wait to make conclusions until after you are better informed. That's generally a good idea.

I think there was only one uninformed person in this exchange, and it's certainly not me. I don't see anyone here wishing the people deserve a lynching, and it certainly wasn't on the cards. They even had the door open and then left the guy at that point thinking it was all over.

Personally, I think the difference between attack and defence matters. So I think the sequence of events matter. You don't, obviously.

The 'attack' was initiated on the store and staff by the thieves in the stolen hire car.

 

[Scam]

Of course not. Why on earth would anyone assume that?

If it was a group of trained people that was maintaining discipline (like the police in many countries, for example), I would consider it most likely that they would detain me. A random mob? That would be a recklessly foolish assumption to make. I would assume they would kill or at least seriously injure me and do whatever was necessary to escape, up to and including killing people. Or I'd be paralysed with fear and wet myself. No way of telling.

Exactly my point. Mob rule does nothing but escalate the problem and potentially result in more injuries. People thinking a criminal will be glad to be reprimanded by an angry mob? Yeah right. If they're the sort of person who is happy to lie, cheat, steal and hurt others -- they're not going to think twice about fighting hard to escape. As in, physically disabling people who stand in their way. That's the one benefit you have with police, at least criminals know if they hurt a police officer they'll be just making things worse.

 

[h4rm0ny]

In my view the context of the situation is paramount.......if the public had refrained from involvement would the maximum harm thus have been a criminal escaping with supermarket stock?

No, it would have been an attempted murderer getting away. The mob arose in response to him driving over someone. You'll now say that it's the fault of the person being driven over for trying to stop him. You want a country where nobody tries to intervene when wrong-doing occurs. I do not. You seem to have no idea what such a society would be like. I'm not sure what would trigger some empathy or anger in you. If someone drove over your daughter and every body stood around unreacting, perhaps then you would be angry and change your views. I want a society where people care and attempt to restrain someone who does such a thing.

If so, let the idiot go and leave the follow up to the authorities - in no way would I advocate persons risking their life or that of others for a minor offence at this juncture.

You have a weird level of faith in the omnipotence of the state. Ever been burgled or robbed? Did you even get the police to come out? You're lucky if you did - the normal process is call up, get a crime number, file insurance. Ever had the police show up while you were being assaulted? Or would you rather a passerby intervene as that can actually happen? In this case, people intervened because this guy nearly killed someone, breaking her back from what we know.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Exactly my point. Mob rule does nothing but escalate the problem and potentially result in more injuries. People thinking a criminal will be glad to be reprimanded by an angry mob? Yeah right. If they're the sort of person who is happy to lie, cheat, steal and hurt others -- they're not going to think twice about fighting hard to escape. As in, physically disabling people who stand in their way. That's the one benefit you have with police, at least criminals know if they hurt a police officer they'll be just making things worse.

The above is an article of faith and not reasonably supported. Are you saying there is zero chance that they would have got this guy out of the car and been able to restrain him until police arrived? They very nearly managed it. Illogical to assert in the face of that, that it could do nothing other than escalate the problem. Let alone expanding it to the general case. You're making an argument that a group of people should not attempt to restrain someone who tried to kill someone right in front of them because it could do "nothing but escalate the problem". This is patently false. And a rationalization for cowardice.

 

[doodah]

So no update? Would have thought they would have found the car by now.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

Exactly my point. Mob rule does nothing but escalate the problem and potentially result in more injuries. People thinking a criminal will be glad to be reprimanded by an angry mob? Yeah right. If they're the sort of person who is happy to lie, cheat, steal and hurt others -- they're not going to think twice about fighting hard to escape. As in, physically disabling people who stand in their way. That's the one benefit you have with police, at least criminals know if they hurt a police officer they'll be just making things worse.

People are going to take matters into their own hands if:

A. There are no police or political power in control.
B. They believe the justice system will not take care of criminals
C. Corruption

I'm pretty sure the UK covers A and B nicely in 2018 and maybe that's the real issue here criminals are increasingly willing to steal because they know there is no one to stop them.

The amount of deflecting away from the criminals in this thread is pretty staggering.
Regardless of the timeline of events its clear they were thieves and from their actions things escalated where you now have people being run over. They are ****** people.

 

[Orionaut]

Of course not. Why on earth would anyone assume that?

If it was a group of trained people that was maintaining discipline (like the police in many countries, for example), I would consider it most likely that they would detain me. A random mob? That would be a recklessly foolish assumption to make. I would assume they would kill or at least seriously injure me and do whatever was necessary to escape, up to and including killing people. Or I'd be paralysed with fear and wet myself. No way of telling.

To my mind it should be the case that, if you commit a crime and your victim (Or those around him/her) turn on you. One of the legal rights that you should lose is the right to self defense.

If you injure or kill anybody trying to escape, even if you are in fear for your life, you should not be permitted to use "Self Defense" as a defense.

Indeed, I would regard any such outcome as Felony Assault/GBH/Murder with appropriate sentences to follow in addition to those imposed for the original offense.

It should be made quite clear that this is one of the risks that one takes should one choose to commit a crime in the first place.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[Jean-F]

So no update? Would have thought they would have found the car by now.

True, it could hardly be invisible, mirror hanging off, most panels kicked in, vivid colour, I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but that old saw about the Met being unable to find their behinds in the dark with both hands, may have an element of truth to it.

 

[Nasher]

They should have stopped them even more aggressively tbh, broke the side window and tried to either drag him out or knock him out. He's going to end up killing someone.

But yes, mob mentality is returning due to lack of police and ridiculously soft court judgements.

 

[dowie]

Disgusting to expect other people to use their own funds to help even less fortunate people in this country, the money is wasted inefficiently in comparison to a state doing it. I'll never support food banks as it's not going to solve anything.

It solves the immediate need for food... I don't see why it is disgusting, we have a welfare state already, sometimes people are unlucky, other times they screw things up etc...

Point is no one needs to steal food in this country.

There's trying to help and then there's going full neanderthal and ramming trolleys in to cars and bashing your hands on the windscreen. I don't know how anyone can watch that and not think that they made a bad situation even worse.

If they had got the driver out the car, then what? Are they entitled to bash his head in in the name of street justice?

If they get the driver out of the car then they can hold him and the passenger there until the police arrive, they might need to use some force to put him on the ground and restrain him there but beyond that they're not allowed to give him a punishment beating.

This isn't really rocket science tbh.. I don't see why people are struggling with it so much - you're allowed to stop violent criminals/perform a citizens arrest, you're allowed to use reasonable force. Given the level of force used by the car driver in running people over then smashing up the car and trying to get the door open/force the driver out is pretty reasonable.

 

[Hades]

EDIT: Duplicate post.

 

[Hades]

EDIT: Duplicate post.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Disgusting to expect other people to use their own funds to help even less fortunate people in this country, the money is wasted inefficiently in comparison to a state doing it.

It's all our own money. And frankly, I think I spend it a lot more efficiently than the State does. So when I donate food to a food bank (and I do), I'm happy to do so as much as it going through my taxes. I literally know people who have given talks to their local community on how to cheat the benefits system. At least when I go through a needs list for the local food bank I know my money is being directly turned into food and not funding forty-two different layers of bureaucracy to achieve the same thing.​

I'll never support food banks as it's not going to solve anything.

It solves someone not having a meal at night or not being able to feed their kid. Which is what it is meant to solve. Perhaps you mistakenly think a food bank is meant to eliminate poverty and create jobs. It isn't. They do a lot of good.

In fact it's so close to what the right-wingers "hate" that i wonder why they don't rail against it,

It is? I'm a Right Winger (and I imagine quite well-known as such on these forums). Since when was Right Wing against charity? In fact, statistically the Right Wing give more to charity than the Left (who tend to believe the State should solve everything). So here's a suggestion - avoid speaking on behalf of other people. You plainly don't know us "right-wingers" half so well as you think.

it's literally making the middle poorer. I guess they only care if it make's people richer than them poorer, as they're only 'temporary' millionaires.

Case in point.