Woman robs man on side of road, Two "samaritans" help her because she's a woman

[MrPanafonic]

In restraining the person they thought was the problem, they became accessories to robbery, intentional or not.

*buzzer*

Wrong.

The police didn't arrest or detain the Samaritans as they are not accessories to a crime; "An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed." The police and the rest of us see what you apparently refuse to, two people pulling a drunk man off a woman who then fled. They didn't assist in the committing of a crime, only intervene on an assault. If they had helped her escape, the police would have had reason to suspect them.

There's this super important thing you seem to forget: context.

Theft in the third

He was highly intoxicated and speaks next to no English. You're assuming it was difficult to snatch something from an unsuspecting drunk man as he wanders around the street. Seems unlikely. But, again, you're advocating murder as a solution, so how likely you are to comment reasonably on the matter is... Well, not likely lol.

Lonely in that you will walk it many times and with an angry heart.

Well, any intellectual conversation with you evaporated when you call self defense murder.

I would facepalm, but...not even worth the effort.

I am also not an angry person, rather jovial in fact, I am just not a pushover or bleeding heart like some. I will not be replying to any more foolish posts from you, good day.

Self defense is limited to equal force. Shooting someone because they stole from you, or even if they hit you, is murder. That is why police cannot fire upon a suspect unless it is certain doing so is the only way to prevent the loss of life.

*buzzer*

wrong

Self defense is not equal to intent. Such as why it is infact legal to kill someone in self defence as long as you BELIEVE they mean to cause you harm...

 

[MrPanafonic]

They assumed he was the attacker and held him down because of it, don't try and avoid that.

Because men are up to ten times more likely to commit violent crime than women.

If you know nothing about a situation, but see one party, a group ten times more likely to be at fault than the other, and a second, much less likely to do the same, which do you side with in the heat of the moment?

Men are more violent than woman. Fact

Or arrest every black person?

I think they already do that >_> just sayin

 

[Ryotknife]

Cant say I am surprised.

The motorists made a reasonable assumption. They saw a man attacking a woman. Sure it is not just that they assumed he was guilty, but based on the information they had at hand and common media portrayal of how such scenes happen/play out (not to mention time constraint) they made the decision.

Now, if they saw the woman attack the man and the motorists jumped in and attacked him as well, that would be suspicious. In that case their best decision would be to try to restrain both of them.

Really, it is more of a case of bad luck.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

The moral of the story is to never help anyone.

 

[kuolonen]

Here I'm conflicted.

On the other hand I think those good Samaritans who let another party slip from crime scene by their actions, deserve to be sued for their last penny. Common sense people.

But then I also think that anyone who is so bad at handling his liquor, that he drinks himself to state where forming a sentence "She mugged me" is too difficult deserves everything they get.

 

[marche45]

The moral of the story is to never help anyone.

The only correct answer.

 

[Dags90]

The only correct answer.

I'm actually kind of surprised people did stop to help in New Jersey. We're not know for being particularly friendly to strangers.

I'm also surprised there haven't been any Jersey jokes.

 

[Ryotknife]

The only correct answer.

I'm actually kind of surprised people did stop to help in New Jersey. We're not know for being particularly friendly to strangers.

I'm also surprised there haven't been any Jersey jokes.

perhaps the motorists were passing through? it is a small state.

 

[Dags90]

perhaps the motorists were passing through? it is a small state.

It's also the most densely populated state, and it's Plainfield. However my point was that they might see what's happening, and elect to keep driving.

 

[Navvan]

*buzzer*

wrong

Self defense is not equal to intent. Such as why it is infact legal to kill someone in self defence as long as you BELIEVE they mean to cause you harm...

lolno

You may only use reasonable force to stop a threat to your well-being or to others. You have to prove that you had valid reason to believe someone you killed was in immediate danger of taking a life, before you can perform an action that may kill them, such as discharging a firearm.

Study the law for a few years and get back to me, yo.

It actually varies from state the state within the U.S.A.

Link [http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.selfdefense.laws/]

There are some allowances (pending on State) of deadly force that are not in a response to the threat of life. Severe bodily harm for example is commonly refereed to as well as threat to life. In addition some states do have laws (for example Kansas) that allow you to kill somebody if you have reasonable belief they mean you any bodily harm.

 

[Kevin7557]

Man Americans are freaking stupid. Who hasn't seen crap like this. A woman beats the Crap out of a man and everyone just sits back but if he raises a hand to defend himself they jump him. Frankly this culture has no future.

(Edited for language)

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

I dunno what else to say really, this all happened because they were being sexist towards men.

Hey guys, let's take a situation we know little about and try to fit it into an ongoing narrative about the horrible wrongdoings of feminism!

 

[sumanoskae]

I'd pick a man to be the aggressor over a woman any day of the week. Nothing to do with sexism, but men are far, far, far more likely to commit an aggressive crime than women are. Just how our hormones and brains work *shrug*

While the statistic is true, that doesn't mean it's biological or inherent. It's due to the way our society is structured. Men and women are encouraged to behave differently, but that doesn't mean these artificial molds can't be broken.

 

[Zaik]

Those two probably post here. They'd fit in perfectly.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

*buzzer*

wrong

Self defense is not equal to intent. Such as why it is infact legal to kill someone in self defence as long as you BELIEVE they mean to cause you harm...

lolno

You may only use reasonable force to stop a threat to your well-being or to others. You have to prove that you had valid reason to believe someone you killed was in immediate danger of taking a life, before you can perform an action that may kill them, such as discharging a firearm.

Study the law for a few years and get back to me, yo.

It actually varies from state the state within the U.S.A.

Link [http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.selfdefense.laws/]

There are some allowances (pending on State) of deadly force that are not in a response to the threat of life. Severe bodily harm for example is commonly refereed to as well as threat to life. In addition some states do have laws (for example Kansas) that allow you to kill somebody if you have reasonable belief they mean you any bodily harm.

And in no state or any civilized country is shooting someone an acceptable way to deal with them grabbing your briefcase and running with it--as the original person I was replying to suggested.

I seriously don't ever want to go to a country where that is the thing to do lol.

Well, as far as I know, you are always allowed to go one step above your assailant. He attacks you bare-handed, you get to use a knife / a bat/ melee-weapon of choice, but should refrain from killing him. Same goes when he has a knife, then you get to use a gun.
If he has a gun, I dunno, you get a tank?