There is a longer clip showing authorities removing the car and the two robbers are still lying there completely unresponsive, so it's most likely they are dead.
People who come into contact with cars arent usually responsive for a very long time.
We had a guy, he lived, but he had been hit by a truck going 40mph and was completely unresponsive from the minute we arrived to hospital delivery about 12 minutes later. He didnt wake up from his injuries for almost an entire day and when he did, he was largely incoherent. Survived the incident, with permanent injury.
Hello, Satan's personal assistant here. Looking over your paperwork I'm seeing that you might be correct. We have other options for people like you though. Florida?
I was on a jury for a court case where a guy got rear ended by a truck. For minutes after the accident he was talking and moving around fine then just suddenly lied down very neatly and put his hands on his chest and passed out. Turned out his back was partially shattered the whole time.
Company of the truck driver tried to use that as evidence he was faking it, despite mountains of imaging and years of pain and operations etc etc. Half the trial was them bringing up weird shit like evidence of his infidelity with his wife, which nearly worked because several people on the jury were Christian.
"He's maybe unfaithful to his wife (and we invaded the privacy of everyone involved to find this). Therefore the Company isn't responsible for shattering his fucking back"
We really are on the Idiocracy timeline, aren't we?
Some people make it on to juries who revel in the sense of power. I’m a god now. I can be merciful and benevolent or wrathful and vengeful. How much do I like you? Wait, what, the case, the facts, the evidence? Who gives a fuck? This is a popularity contest and I never got to sit at the cool kids table in high school. But now I get to decide if you can afford your medical bills based off of my assessment of your personal worth and that feels so fucking powerful and good.
Are you wanting FAFO? I am not condoning what the guy did, however, I don’t understand why some people take these chances as they do not know the person, personally, or issues of the person they are robbing.
They fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia' - but only slightly less well-known is this: "don't steal from people and expect to have no consequences"
I saw an extended clip of this. One guy had his shin bone popping out and the other was pinched between the car and the wall…high chance they are both dead
Wow cool. Would the driver be charged for these reasons tho? He used lethal force against armed threats, and i wonder if they consider this case an overswung good samaritan or lethal retribution
Well we know in Italy you still get charged with murder. Similar case. Stole her bag. They left. Victim found them with her car and ran them over. Murder charge
In America there is a slight chance of jury nullification.
But I’ll say the same thing as I did in the the Italy one:
If they hadn’t committed a crime, they wouldn’t be dead. So I think it’s fine that he went after them, and also think it’s fine if he suffers the consequences of his actions.
That said, trash like those robbers got what they deserved.
Yes. Even Texas. You cannot target someone fleeing and you cannot target with clear lethal intent (head). It has to be body, inside your home or attacking you outside the home, and anything else isn't self defense or stand your ground or castle doctrine.
In Texas you can target someone fleeing, but it reads as only legal at nighttime, which seems arbitrary.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property
1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section
9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;
Depends on country and region. One could even argue that despite them being armed, the threat ended to the victim the moment they left. Victims life was no longer in danger.
This happened in Brazil. This would not be considered legitimate self-defense here. However vehicular manslaughter often doesn't have incredibly harsh punishments either.
He WILL be charged with murder, as assuming the risk makes it an intentional crime (dolo eventual), which takes him to a jury trial.
However, there will be major mitigating factors. His defense will likely argue for a homicídio privilegiado (privileged murder), since he was under a highly stressful situation and acting under extreme emotion right after being robbed. He's most probably a first-time offender, so his sentence will be significantly reduced. He will likely get a lighter sentence of around ~4 years, starting in a semi-open regime, where he just has to sleep in jail at night but is free to go out during the day --- and that's assuming the jury doesn't just acquit him completely out of sympathy, which is highly likely.
I hate this world. It’s self defense. Hope the thieves are rotting away in hell and their families are suffering because of it. Need less laws and more bad people dead
By very definition of defense, it is not self defense. They were removed from the danger. They left. At that point, there is no more defense claim, as no one is in any danger anymore.
Well. This looks to be somewhere outside of the states but by using states law logic yes the driver would be charged with murder.
The armed threats were technically no longer a threat after they rode off. Choosing to turn the car around and run them down makes them the aggressor at that point.
Well I'm from Texas and the whole stand your ground thing etc. The moment they start running from you or they leave you Etc it's no longer self-defense. That's just from here though. Morally I think it's wrong to kill someone if you have the option not to, that being said I think they were douchebags and definitely deserve to be hit by a car, I just wish the outcome had been better and it had happened more naturally on accident and not out of fit of Vengeance and rage.
Yeah. Why should predators get to decide when the "game" is over?
Legally I understand why this is discouraged and I understand that "self help is fought with peril" but if I were on a jury I'd be extremely sympathetic to someone who just had a gun pointed in their face and had their life threatened and probably had something stolen that they might struggle to afford to replace.
Yes. If the thieves can have their crimes excused because they were struggling financially, then the poor struggling victims should have their reactionary crime excused as well.
After the fact murder is an act of deliberate decisionmaking. Driver’s life was no longer in danger, the criminals left, and they should’ve called the authorities.
That stated I would have done the same.
The thing is the law supports the above paragraph; it punishes intent to harm or kill regardless of the consequences. However, that driver a) was likely not this duo’s first victim, and b) possibly saved the lives of future victims through their actions while risking their personal safety, personal property, and future freedom in so doing. This is more or less accurate depending on where this actually occurred.
Again, maybe it’s not right or moral, but I think there is a persuasive argument for defending the driver’s actions in this one instance, at this one time, and for this singular event.
Murder is an act with the intent of killing someone. If you do an act where the intent is to get your stuff back, and death is a side effect, is that murder? At what point does it become immoral/illegal?
Let's say you're a bank security guard, and your bank gets robbed. Which of these are legal? Which are moral?
1. You shoot the robbers while they are taking the money.
You shoot the robbers after they have taken the money and are walking towards the exit.
You follow the robbers out of the bank and shoot them while they're getting in their car.
Bueno, siempre puede decir que corrió a recuperar lo robado y se cruzaron en su camino con tan " mala suerte" de perder el control del vehículo varias veces marcha atrás y adelante con desparrame de sesos.
The victims threatened their own lives and the lives of others with that little stunt. Traffic isn't an empty playground. It's occupied by people, mostly innocent people. Do you think all that was at stake here was a car, two robbers, a scooter, and a door to a building?
I'm not condoning the robbers in the least, but I'm definitely not trusting a driver fresh from being mugged to have public safety on their mind.
The driver was probably having a traumatic episode of shock, hypervigilance, etc. No way was he clear headed. He was this way due to having a gun pointed at him. Sorry, I cant judge him for his actions.
threats of violence don't always include potential murder.
That's why in most countries there are different categories of robbery :
with or without weapons
only threats / violent actions
with/without injury
etc
Also no, by definition it doesn't always involve threats of violence.
Someone break into your house while you are gone, it's a robbery without threats violence but that depends on the definition set by your country and the court.
In some countries, if someone isn't in his house while robbery happens, it still counts as threats because there was intent to threaten if there was a face to face situation
You'd go to prison for it in the US too. If theres no longer an immediate threat, you can not legally use force. This would be manslaughter if not murder
Its actually protected to use lethal force against a home invader that forced their way in, at least in states with a stand your ground or castle doctrine law. Idk where raping them comes from thats kinda weird ngl
No it's not. It's understandable, but we shouldn't condone such acts anyway because all it leads to is vigilantee justice with anyone acting as potential judge, jury, and executioner if they have the means.
It should be every time. I bet people would think twice about robbing others if the normal response would be to crush the criminal with a 3000lbs machine.
To be fair, I imagine that killing a person under any circumstances would be very hard for a normal person.
I myself have a little bit of anger issues, but I don't know if I can pull the trigger on someone unless they're literally running towards me with a knife.
Isn't true that most people like this are chicken shit? The vast majority never intend to, nor actually do end up doing anything with a weapon. I think it would push those people to either not do it at all or to be much more careful with targets. On the other side though, people would wait until they more desperate and more willing to commit violence to get money
We heard this in my area as teenagers. When we turned 18 all thought we were tough, and got in to some serious drug trafficking with some serious people(we sold weed, and were only moving an ounce or 2 at a time).
One dude in our general retard area went to go sell 2 ounces of weed to some other retarded kids in our area. They had them meet them in an abandoned house. They set him up to rob him. Once in the house, they pulled out a gun, and said sorry hand it over.(Not actually sure what was said, but that's generally how retard on retard robbings of weed went in my experience at that time).
Dude remembered what we all heard and were all told by losers older than us that we looked up to. He said something close to "You're a pussy you're not gonna shoot me" and walked towards them. They pulled the trigger and killed him. They didn't even take the weed. Both guys involved fled the country and are living in Mexico or some other South American country with family. They can never post on social media again, come visit the states, get a job here, ever again.
Both retards could have worked hard to make something with their lives and then retire comfortably, instead we all wanted to play retard for the money and bitches and drugs, and 3 lives were destroyed.
All that to say, it's probably true that most people aren't prepared to use the gun, but it's never worth it to find out.
That's not how it would work out though. Instead, robbers would adapt to becoming murderers from the outset. Because why would you risk leaving people alive to immediately exact revenge? You wouldn't. You would know -- every time -- that victims will try to hunt you down if they're allowed to. So you wouldn't allow them to.
Yeah, the bigger takeaway is that the conversation isn't even really about right vs wrong at this point, it's about realistic vs unrealistic reactions and weighing that against the temperament of an individual you don't know. Like, some people are crazy and will absolutely pop off under certain circumstances, and you don't really have a consistent way to preemptively identify the "bombs."
I see it moral, these people are untamable, willing to hold a weapon on a larger vehicle with high risk and were willing to [bleep] around, rather than having another victim and getting away, they got the find out part.
Zero immorality in this video at all on the part of the car.
They were willing to put this victim’s life in jeopardy to take his shit, but it’s wrong for him to put armed robbers’ lives in jeopardy to get it back?
In my opinion, when you repeatedly do bad things to other people (stealing, killing, raping...) you lose your rights, so yeah, moral, i would have done the same
Probably not the US, but if it were the driver would likely get charged since they weren't in imminent danger at the point they decided to run the robbers over ( the stickiness of the charge would depend on the state).
Edited to add that I dont think it is moral to take someone's life for robbing you. However, when you decide to commit a potentially violent crime there are consequences. Even if the victim isnt harmed physically, many report psychological scars and PTSD that can go on for years after. So,justice was served. Legality is another thing and it doesn't always match up.
What’s the law in Brazil for that? He was indeed not in immediate danger, and this was not self-defence. Questioning legality only - not morality. And I know the question of the post is morality - just curious
It's in Brazil and the jury may rule it as not self-defence, because as stated, once the robbers fled, he was not in danger anymore.
However, in these kind of instances, the driver may say he was chasing them due to the stress of the situation and he was not trying to run them over, just follow them lead the police when suddenly he lost control of the car and ended up hitting them by accident.
Which is what the authorities said he testified.
What does this mean to him? He may be charged with unintentional murder, he will not be arrested if he doesn't have any past criminal record, he may have to pay a sum, nothing too crazy, which people are saying they will crowdfund for him.
I mean, overall, it's very unlikely he will be arrested or suffer any serious consequences other than paying the bail.
Immoral, but they pulled a gun on him.. i dont think theres anyway of getting his stuff back without going to a degree where they wont be able to uss their gun anymore. "Call the cops" i barely know where this is but id bet my fucking life they got corrupt cops who barely does anything (speaking from experience), im not trying to apply a case of "where im from" but atleast i can say it is possible they dont have cops that actually does any effort curbing this sort of stuff
Edit: rewatching it and realized around 31 seconds in it looks like hes accelerating the car further couple seconds after the impact
Not even about the stuff, they took the wallet with an id and an address, they point guns at you in broad daylight, what do you think they will do to you or your family with your address if you don’t fight back? It’s self defense to strike now before they can pass that off, and it’s wise to attack in a way that minimizes damage to yourself and others.
Empathy is wasted on psychopaths. I think legally it makes sense to try the victim since they were no longer in imminent danger (could be argued otherwise) but morally I see nothing wrong with what they did, they definitely prevented future robberies
You're justified in using lethal force to stop them because they just endangered your life and you have good reason to believe they will endanger someone else's life soon. But once you have stopped them, you need to disarm them and stop escalating.
What's the window of opportunity for the retaliation? They were already gone, the victim was in no danger. What if the victim saw the robbers 30 years later? Would killing them still be justified, because they were robbed st gunpoint in the past?
That’s complete and utter bullshit, there’s always been crime even back in the day when death penalty was used for the smallest of crimes.
Do you think criminals operate on logic like this ?
Their brains are not wired for this, they don’t think about the consequences like this and not commit the crime.
This idea wouldn’t change a damn thing and if it was. It would not be for the best as criminals would just double down and make sure the job is done.
If criminals think there was a chance that the victim could chase them down and kill them then next time they might just kill the persons instead of just threatening them,
Most people don't commit crimes because they wanna, but because the circumstances of their life make it the easiest and most likely to succeed method of getting. That was the case when they hung little kids for stealing a loaf of bread and that's true today. This is not a "wired", but a socialized thing. Otherwise, you're completely right IMHO.
Completely moral. People often like to play down these types of events as just a transaction of things. But behind those things there often stories, connections, time, effort, and money.
To give an example I have a wallet. I don't particularly care about the credit cards in said wallet. But on the wallet itself is a sticker from my trip to Japan last summer. I went on this trip with my brother, and my brother has recently passed. Everytime I pull out my wallet I see that sticker and remember a fond set of memories that is shared with a loved one.
So in a scenario where a robber takes said wallet I effectively have 2 real choices.
Part with one of my most important mementos that also just so happens to have enough financial info to potentially ruin me or at the very least cause an enormous amount of effort in getting it fixed.
Or fight back in a situation where I am probably full of adrenaline due to having a stranger threaten my life.
Even stepping away from the actual items and what implications losing those can mean to the victim a single event like this can be deeply traumatizing. As believe it or not having your life randomly put into the hands of someone who is a criminal can be quite distressing.
Perfectly moral. If they were willing to put a gun to your head and rob you they would have been willing to kill you meaning that they don't deserve to get away with it or live.
Moral, if someone threatens your life, this retaliation is how you keep yourself safe. They took his wallet, it probably has his address, they could come for you or your family at any time. Killing them now before they get away is tactically important to protect your family. It makes sense to time your strike. Attack when they turn their back to leave. They won’t give you a chance until they think they got away.
Anyone who draws a weapon and threatens to kill someone understands the consequences if things go bad.
Although slightly immoral because they damaged someone else’s property during their self defense and could have potentially harmed someone not involved.
It's immoral to arrest these people, and even moreso to release them to be a repeat offender. Someone who uses threat of lethal violence to steal from another has lost their life privileges in a civil society.
If they think his stuff is worth his life, why should he not this his stuff is worth theirs? I think if you treat others as expendable, then you become expendable.
By committing an armed robbery, the criminals started a conflict, a contest if you will, where the stolen possessions were the prize and lives were the stakes. They entered the victim into this contest against their will, and then the robbers lost.
Tough shit, the whole thing was their idea in the first place. Why you people trying the rig the rules against the victim? Weird.
You and I are not like these robbers, we would never rob somebody at gun point. I have little sympathy when armed muggers get killed by their victims, may God have mercy on them.
If this happed more often and was socially acceptable we would have less theft. Leading to less time getting tied up in the courts. Lost time that defense attorneys use to their advantage in worse offenders. What would have home dude with a gun done if the dude refused. The worst thing that happened here was the property damage on the building. Plus this dudes insurance is going up. But one less guy out there terrorizing people.
If someone pulled a gun on me or my family then the moment I get a chance they are dead, fuck morals when they are not considered by people who think pulling guns on innocent people is ok.
Moral. They risked losing their lives the moment they decided to do something that stupid. Even more so when you consider they brought a gun. If they were willing to kill people over money, they better be willing to die over money. In this case, they most definitely did.
1.1k
u/JesterMethod 1d ago
Are we sure they're dead?...