Mob Beats Carjacker To Death Who Stole Car With Three Kids In Philly

originally posted by: midicon

The father and anyone else involved should be charged with murder. The correct course of action should have been to detain the thief until the cops arrive, not beat him to death.

...other males from the neighbourhood intervened... to beat the guy to death.

I don't think they'd have cared to wait for the cops. sounds like too much sizzurp was on the menu.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Bad move messing with someone's property and children. I hope no charges are filed as an example to deter other thieves from making the same mistake.

Mobs are a huge problem in this country right now.

Cheering it on is cheering on the breakdown of law and justice in society.

This isnt good news. It's a herald of worse things to come.

Mobs rampaging through town destroying property, yes. A few people racing to save kids from possible death at the hands of a criminal who cares more about stealing than they do the lives they endanger, and who seemingly do nothing to anyone else are not the problem. I would even say this does not qualify as meeting the criteria to be called a mob.

So you were there, and in the article when they say the perp was pulled from the car and ran, was chased and then mobbed to death, is wrong?

Lawd have mercy, thank jebus those babies are safe now !!!!

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Blaine91555

Not to speak for anyone else, but I am not defending the criminal.

I am defending his right to trial by jury and not be murdered by an outraged mob.

His right to a trial is guaranteed through the state, not the public. There is nothing telling me that i must ensure a speedy trial for someone...that right is guaranteed by the state.

In this case, the state took over an hour to arrive on scene. If there is blame, negligence by the guarantor of said right should share in it, since their slow response prevented medical treatment.

You are right....criminals should get a speedy trial. Since this is guaranteed by the state, the state should be held accountable for it.

a reply to: Graysen

If the police and the courts were so well known for screwing it up, that trust could develop.

Im what is considered a pillar of my community, and still do not like being around cops that much. I don't trust the legal system. How can i when we put people in prison for profit?

They will definitely probably get charged but I would bet they get acquitted.

The law will feel that they can’t allow this even though we all understand their actions.

The story goes he chased down the car. Probably the fool who did this crime got caught in traffic that’s why the guy was able to chase him down. I know his adrenalin was sky high.

Likely the mother went to comfort the kids while Daddy was beating the guy up.

This story can get really ugly

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Blaine91555

Not to speak for anyone else, but I am not defending the criminal.

I am defending his right to trial by jury and not be murdered by an outraged mob.

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

One could argue that the aggrieved party (AKA "victim" of carjacking/kidnapping) has a right to secure their being and property in a timely fashion as well and, if in the act of securing that, the accused felon tries to escape custody from what is essentially a citizen's arrest, deadly force is a logical consequence.

originally posted by: Willtell
They will definitely probably

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

He should be jailed, the carjacker deserved a beating and some jail time, the father went to far here and should be punished, if not we will see America resemble the Philippines, and as we can see from this thread there are few with itchy trigger fingers.

There is something in the back of my mind here... trying to recall where I heard it. It goes like this:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Oh, I just remembered... it's in the United States Declaration of Independence.

Most seem to think of it as just a documentation of history, but it was far more than just that. It was a warning to future generations. It warns of the results when a government, any government, usurps the natural rights of its citizens. When this document was prepared, it was prepared as a last resort... a final ultimatum and final warning to King George. It stated clearly that our Founding Fathers had no great desire to break away from Great Britain. They were not happy about the prospects of throwing off the shackles that had been placed upon them by a cruel and malicious monarchy. This was not what they wanted. All they wanted was their natural rights to live in freedom.

People today seem to think that the document shown above was the act of a group of malcontents... no. It clearly and distinctly says otherwise.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Every man has a breaking point where the laws become null and void. For most, thankfully, that breaking point is far from a "trigger finger." The document itself states this: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." No one here wants anarchy. No one here wants revolution. But neither did the writers of the document.

My breaking point is when I am prosecuted for reasonably protecting my family. At that point, the government is no longer legitimate by virtue of having violated the natural right I possess to defend my family. At that point, all bets are off.

I am not a violent person, but I am a suspicious one. I will not start a fight. I will walk away from a fight if there is an avenue for me to do so. A few people in my life have followed me when I tried to walk away; none of them were happy with the results. But when my ability to protect myself and others is compromised and the government and laws are no longer legitimate, there is nowhere to walk away to.

I am one man. I can do little against the US government. I know this, so please do not try to convince me of what I already know. But remember, I am also not alone. Every man, every person in the United States has a breaking point... all 300 or so million of them. Many are past it already, but afraid to go it on their own. Others are reaching theirs. None want what is coming, but all will kill and die for their cause.

Those who defend this criminal, may think they are standing up for law and order. They are not. They are pushing more people beyond that breaking point, and bringing us ever closer to a complete societal breakdown. Those people need to read and understand the words I excerpted above. They need to understand the warning given.

I said before Trump was elected that this country had already sealed its fate. I said there was no coming back from the brink of tyranny, only a slow slide to the edge of that cliff. I said we had gone too far. After the election of 2016, I tried to hold out hope that I had been wrong, that we could find our way back. But reading this thread, and the excuses made for his criminal, and the ire against a father defending his family, has brought me back to reality.

This will be my last post in this thread. I have said my peace. Accept my words and the words of our forefathers, or ignore them at your own peril. May I be more wrong than I ever have been; may this post cause me to be a laughingstock! It would still be far, far preferable to what I see coming on the horizon.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that law enforcement and medical personnel were "negligent," and should be held "accountable" because they didn't arrive soon enough to save the criminal's life? Yeah, that excuse will hold up in court for those charged in this guy's beating.

Maybe in the future, an Antifa thug can use that excuse the next time they bash someone on the head, resulting in a death. "Well officer, the ambulance crew needs to share the blame for the person's death, because if they had arrived sooner, then he wouldn't be dead."

That excuse can work both ways.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sure, but I'm not defending the criminal, not the legal system either, I simply I'm not an advocate for mob rule, that's going backwards in my opinion.

What it comes down to is " law and order" is an agreement as such and when you lose faith in that system chaos ensues.

Maybe you would thrive in that situation, maybe not either way though if you kill a man, criminal or not that makes you a criminal, no if's, butts or maybe's .

a reply to: shawmanfromny

No, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that Law Enforcement is not mandated to protect anyone's person or property. Their whole mandate is to apprehend those who have escaped from the scene of a crime they committed and bring them to civil justice as well as enforcing the misdemeanor laws of the state.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Considering in many cases with ANTIFA the police are *standing right there watching it all go down* ... it should be the police who are prosecuted for negligence in not attempting to stop it.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


What it comes down to is " law and order" is an agreement as such and when you lose faith in that system chaos ensues.

I think it's safe to say that the system no longer works, which was the plan all along, in my (not so humble) opinion.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


What it comes down to is " law and order" is an agreement as such and when you lose faith in that system chaos ensues.

I think it's safe to say that the system no longer works, which was the plan all along, in my (not so humble) opinion.

It works alright for those at the top of the pyramid, for the rest of plebs it's a nightmare, I share your opinion in that regard.

Just some 2¢

One should never celebrate the breakdown of the 'Rule of Law', nor Vigilante justice, nor the death of any humans.

We can celebrate that the children are safe. I didn't read through this thread, so I'm just offering an opinion.

It's the Rule of Law that is what keeps us from devolving into the jungle. As much as possible it's in the interests of a society to maintain this.

What can we learn from this? Perhaps there's a lesson about leaving your loved ones unprotected in a vehicle or unsecured area. Chaos reigns; bad things happen; bad people are out there.

FWIW

DBCowboy

I was thinking...

If you happen to catch some criminal and start beating him and i see you and attack you because i think you are doing something wrong and break your arm and jaw

Would that be considered mob justice? I would litteraly think you are the bad guy for attacking someone, would you hold it against me ?

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: roadgravel

A jury of 12 would rule on opinion, which may be based on facts.

Point being: it is a reasonable response for that guy to pull the thief from the car and beat his ass. His death was unfortunate (for him anyway).

Didnt you read the news article?

The guy started beating the thief isntead of checking how his kids are. Thats not reasonable.

So in your mind he should have taken the time to see if kids were all okay and just let the bad guy get away? That is rediculous! You catch the POS first!

Um..no, you make sure your kids are OK!!..FIRST!!

Jeezus

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

Yes.

Because (in my opinion and in that scenario) you'd be acting like a complete dick.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


What it comes down to is " law and order" is an agreement as such and when you lose faith in that system chaos ensues.

I think it's safe to say that the system no longer works, which was the plan all along, in my (not so humble) opinion.

It works alright for those at the top of the pyramid, for the rest of plebs it's a nightmare, I share your opinion in that regard.

Oh, if you're wealthy or a politician, the world is your oyster in regards to breaking the law.

a reply to: Maverick7


What happens when the rule of law does not work?