Here is the codification of when homicide is justified in Louisiana, and here is an example of how the “shoot the burglar” provision of the defence is applied.
As you can see, this provision is not interpreted by the courts as giving householders free reign to shoot trespassers inside their homes. Note that the defence does not even touch on trespass outside the home other than car-jacking.
[QUOTE=glee]
I didn’t say or imply any such thing.
Cutting off hands is barbaric (especially if the person is later proved innocent).
On the one hand you have someone who snatches a purse through an open window and flees.
On the other hand you have someone who reverses down a city street at speed, trying to hit another vehicle and suceeding in killing the thief.
You deduce from this that the purse snatcher is likely to kill someone, and that it’s all right to murder him?
[/QUOTE]
No. From my life’s experience, thieves tend to escalate their crimes. And someone mentioned he was already accused of armed robbery. So I was saying that had this vermin not been stopped he may well have gone on to worse atrocities.
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Well, your assertion was that it’s not legal to shoot someone in your yard in any state…not that it’s an enormous pain in the ass.
[/QUOTE]
And your assertion was in all 50 states, I can shoot someone in the yard and suffer no repercussions.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
A crime is still a crime, even if we don’t like the victim of the crime.
[/QUOTE]
And even thieving, murdering scum have the right to not be executed without a fair trial.
But we as a society have a tradition, going back to the Bible and the Code of Hammurabi, that we have certain set penalties for crimes- we don’t allow the victim to decide what should happen to the criminal. One obvious problem with doing otherwise would be that it would mean that nice, easy-going, peaceable people would be victims of more crimes, since they wouldn’t want to do something really terrible to a criminal. Those people are good to have around- we don’t want to make their lives more unpleasant than the lives of nastier people.
We have noticed, over thousands of years of history, that allowing victims to mete out their own justice tends to lead to an escalating spiral of revenge and counter-revenge. It also means that you have no recourse if someone stronger and better-armed than you commits a crime against you. That sort of thing is destabilizing to a society. Most of the ones that did allow such things were violent, lawless places- not somewhere you’d want to live.
We have a long tradition, again going back to the Bible and the Code of Hammurabi, that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. More recently, we have a tradition that execution is not an appropriate and proportional punishment for theft.
I sympathize. I had my purse stolen once, and I still hope the guy who did it died a painful death. But I understand why our legal system doesn’t allow me to hunt him down and kill him, and I accept that the need for social stability and the rule of law trumps my desire for revenge.
I would be OK with her jumping out of the car, Macing the guy, taking back her purse, and getting the police involved. I wouldn’t be OK with her doing anything other than what was necessary to get back her property and hand the guy over to the police. Punishing the guy for what he did is the job of the police, not the victim. Doing otherwise encourages criminals to target those who are least able to fight back- women, the small, the weak, the elderly, and the handicapped.
It seems to me that the woman created a fatal hazard and displayed reckless disregard for public safety and used (disproportionately) deadly force in reaction to a non-violent crime. Lock her up.
[QUOTE=VunderBob]
and is paying to this day for a monumental f*k up
[/quote]
Monumental fuck up? That a massive understatement. He shot and killed somebody for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I have zero sympathy for him and his “hell.” He should be treated like any other piece of filth murderer.
[QUOTE=Maastricht]
That is a very American viewpoint, as it is even legal in many states to shoot somebody trespassing on your property. Not so, however, in the Netherlands. The judges viewpoint is that purse snatching doesn’t deserve a death sentence, and that we can’t have vigilante justice or retalatory action. “Being one’s own judge” is heavily frowned on here. I’m not saying that stance doesn’t have its drawbacks as wel as advantages compared to the American system; but it IS a difference. .
[/QUOTE]
American courts also frown on “being one’s own judge.” If this had happened in America, the woman would almost certainly be prosecuted for homicide, and, given the generally harsher sentencing levels here, would likely end up doing more than three years in prison, even if the charge were knocked down to manslaughter.
I can’t see the first page now, so I’m not sure if I read that she has been in hiding for several years now. If that is the case, I hope when she is sentenced she gets some leniency on that score.
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
If this had happened in America, the woman would almost certainly be prosecuted for homicide, and, given the generally harsher sentencing levels here, would likely end up doing more than three years in prison, even if the charge were knocked down to manslaughter.
[/QUOTE]
Note that US sentencing guidelines are only significantly harsher than elsewhere for drug-related crimes.
That said, Holland has a statutory maximum prison sentence of 15 years, or 20 for murder, which I find odd.
Untrue. Life sentences can still be received in Holland. The “Maximum 20 years” is a bit of a myth. Don’t feel too bad, most Dutch people perpetuate is as well. 
[QUOTE=Coldfire]
Untrue. Life sentences can still be received in Holland. The “Maximum 20 years” is a bit of a myth. Don’t feel too bad, most Dutch people perpetuate is as well. 
[/QUOTE]
I think one was handed out today, no?
Could well be, I dunno. Which case was that?
It is fairly rare, but it happens. For example, the man who killed Theo van Gogh got life without parole.
[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
And even thieving, murdering scum have the right to not be executed without a fair trial.
[/quote]
Exactly.
I’d say it’s the job of the courts.
[QUOTE=DLuxN8R-13]
I think it’s pretty outrageous that someone who was being not only robbed, but *physically attacked *(and a mugging or purse-grab is an attack, make no mistake about that)
[/QUOTE]
Not unless the seat of a car is capable of being assulted.
[QUOTE=DLuxN8R-13]
I think it’s pretty outrageous that someone who was being not only robbed, but *physically attacked *(and a mugging or purse-grab is an attack, make no mistake about that) and killed her assailant in self-defense (snip)
[/QUOTE]
yeah, because chasing down and smashing to death someone who’s trying to get away from you is self defense.
You can’t kill someone for stealing a purse. Not even the government can legally do that. Why should a private citizen have more power to prosecute and sentence someone than our elected government does?
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
He wasn’t “obviously dangerous” to her, unless she happened to be some sort of psychic.
The purpose of laws and penal systems is not to take care of what karma misses. It is to maintain order and the safety (and rights) of the public.
It doesn’t matter what he did the day before. The DA’s job is not to make value judgments regarding the victims or homicides. His job is to enforce the law, and this woman is guilty of manslaughter at the least.
Sure, she was acting in the heat of the moment, but she certainly had time to consider her actions as she chased the guy around town.
30 months sounds right to me,.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
Did she know that this boy had been on trial for armed robbery the day before?
Did he threaten her with a weapon?
If the answer to both of the above is no, his prior trial for armed robbery is irrelevant. She had no way of knowing that he was anything other than an ordinary unarmed purse-snatcher.
[/QUOTE]
I am afraid you are misunderstanding me, I probably wasn’t very clear.
I am not saying that she knew about this or that this influenced her actions.
I am saying that I think Dutch legislation is a joke if this woman gets a sentence that is higher then the sentence against the criminal who has been in court a lot and is clearly a repeat violent offender.
Yes, she killed somebody but it doesn’t look like she did so on purpose and her life has been a living hell ever since.
He however, is a criminal little shit who would have continued his crimestreak if this hadn’t happened.
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
Yes, she killed somebody but it doesn’t look like she did so on purpose
[/QUOTE]
An important point, but that’s why they have trials.
[QUOTE=Monty]
I’d say it’s the job of the courts.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right, of course. It’s the job of the criminal justice system.
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
I am saying that I think Dutch legislation is a joke if this woman gets a sentence that is higher then the sentence against the criminal who has been in court a lot and is clearly a repeat violent offender.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so. She killed somebody. He had threatened someone with a weapon and stolen a purse. There’s a difference here.
What would be a joke would be a criminal justice system that let somebody off for killing someone because the victim was an “undesirable” of some sort.
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
Yes, she killed somebody but it doesn’t look like she did so on purpose and her life has been a living hell ever since.
[/QUOTE]
With regard to the bit I bolded, how do you know this? From the quote in the OP
I don’t know the truth but the judge has a lot more info that you or I about the incident.
[QUOTE=yojimbo]
I don’t know the truth but the judge has a lot more info that you or I about the incident.
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s fair to say that na reasonable person would assume that hitting someone with a car entails a significant disregard for the lives and safety of others. If you hit someone with a damned car, and then say “Well, gosh, I didn’t mean to kill them,” you’re engaging in a bit of Orwellian doublespeak. Everyone knows that a person struck or pinned by a car has a very good chance of dying.
I don’t like thieves either, but my understanding was that the Netherlands was a civilized nation that respected the rule of law. Civilized nations do not allow their citizens to kill each other for the alleged commission of petty crimes.