Were the perp trying to attack her and she hit him with her vehicle, I'd be all for it. If she shot him while he was in the process of taking her purse, I'd be all for it. In both cases she is genuinely in fear for her life or serious bodily harm, and would be justified using deadly force. (And hitting someone with a vehicle is using deadly force.)
I am NOT sticking up for the perp, but I am also not going down this slippery slope.
She will be charged with assault, and she will be allowed to plea it down to a misdemeanor, but she will not get off scot-free, nor should she.
If I’m ever in the same situation I’ll be sure not to tell you about it.
Was it revenge, or did she just not want the monetary loss and replacement headache (credit cards, driver’s license, etc.) of having her purse stolen? If her husband had been with her, would he have been allowed to chase down and tackle the thief to get her purse back without being charged with assault or battery?
There are many states in which a property crime (being in your home (property)) allows you to kill that person.
Actually, I believe the article says it is already a misdemeanor.
“I am NOT sticking up for the perp...”
Yes, you are.
You’re saying he stole her stuff fair and square and she has no right to do something about it.
I had a friend who once watched a prison inmate fleeing pursuing guards. The guards shot the fleeing felon. Never any charges. Isn't this similar?
Had she not stopped the suspect, chances are he would never have been apprehended, and therefore on the loose to possibly have a physical altercation from a robbery victim.