Quote:
|
True, they only attacked with guns. That's enough for me. If they did it with something less likely to be a problem, I'd not feel quite the same way, though I'd still not suggest charging the victim with more than "illegal parking" or some such.
|
Charging the owner and the robbers are two separate events.
How do you justify charging someone for crimes they did not commit? How is it relevant that they used firearms? If their accomplices had died, it would be a direct result of Peter crushing their vehicle. Peter must accept responsibility. Being attacked is no excuse for murder or other violent crimes.
In the face of this, how do you justify charging a civil offense for something that was clearly criminal and critically injured others?
Quote:
|
This was by the victim as the crime was in progress.
|
In reply to the bolded text, the article clearly states:
Quote:
|
Investigators said after the suspects left with the store's money, the co-owner jumped into his Hummer and chased after the suspects.
|
Both the
suspects and Peter committed criminal acts. Chasing others, critically injuring them and destroying their property over stolen money is not self-defense. It may be closer to "eye for an eye", but it still bypasses due process for vigilantism.
Quote:
|
They were still trying to get away with the loot. They were red-handed. It's not the same thing as someone coming by later and trying to reconstruct the situation.
|
They had already left. That doesn't make it less of a crime or self-defense. It doesn't justify skipping due process to send a message of vengeance before justice.
Quote:
|
You ever been mugged or stolen from?
|
Irrelevant, but yes.