 |
A would-be burglar met his match when he tried to elude Margo Foster, a marathon runner with a black belt in karate who also knows kickboxing and kung fu, police said.
On Friday morning, the 53-year-old Lighthouse Point resident returned home from tennis practice to find an intruder rummaging through her bedroom.
Without thinking twice, she said in an interview, she bolted through the living and dining rooms and followed the startled man out to the backyard. Police said he had one of Foster’s backpacks strapped on his shoulders, filled with her property. She wanted it back…
As related by Foster – after a seven-block chase – the intruder began to climb a 6-foot-high wooden fence, when she “grabbed him by the neck, ripped him off the fence.. threw him to the ground, and put my knee to his chest.”
The two struggled for a few minutes, Foster in her white tennis skirt, before the burglar dropped the bag and started running again.
Foster followed – flagged down a motorist with a cell phone and called the cops – who arrived and arrested the thief.
“I outran the kid,” said Foster. “He had no cardiovascular system.”
And as we always get to say – he had no brains either.
LOVE IT!!!
Friggin awesome.
Also, link’s broken.
#2 – fixed. Thanks.
Can’t wait to see what sort of lawsuit the thief (and some creative lawyer) files against the lady. You know there’s gonna be one…
And if she’d shot the guy, this article either wouldn’t be on the national news at all, or with a spin that made the burglar the victim….
Those wacky, Floridanians!
It’s cool that she chased him down, kicked his ass, and got her stuff back… but would it have been worth it if he’d had a gun? Doesn’t take much of a cardiovascular system or brains to pull a trigger.
Will she marry me??
#7, Moe, it takes time to pull a gun, and she was right on his ass from the start. I suspect she could have nailed him if he slowed down to pull the gun or turn and face her.
Kind of funny how many times the gun grabbers think that the bad guy is the only one who can take a gun away from the other person. I think this gal could actually do it.
I’m shocked the guy did not sue her the moment he was arrested. After all, in today’s spineless, sue happy world, the citizens are not supposed to do the job of the police.
She is also known to hunt Bear with a switch??
Hmmmm… I’ve never seen a bear with a switch before. Must be some kind of animatronic bear.
#10, Tommy,
And what the hell is he going to sue her for? She had every right to make a citizen’s arrest and use as much force as reasonable to restrain the accused. If she had of used a gun that could have amounted to excessive force and possibly could have been charged or sued.
#13
> She had every right to
> make a citizen’s arrest
> and use as much force as
> reasonable to restrain the accused.
If only that were true. If for example shes injures the thief in attempting to restrain him, he can sue for “excessive” force. The problem is doubly worse because she is trained in martial arts and thus it is possible that her “assault” can be viewed as one with a deadly weapon. Unfortunately, restraining a thief is fraught with liability peril. Frankly, it ought to be (but isn’t obviously) the case that if you catch someone in the midst of stealing your stuff, that any and all weapons used on that thief are free game. Excessive force be damned, they would not have experienced that excessive force had they not tried to steal your stuff.
Thomas some states allow deadly force if an intruder is in your home uninvited…
A lawsuit can be very costly.
Anyone else notice that the wording is off in the quote. Is it first person or third person?
I think she her her knee to his chest not my knee.
Honestly she should have kicked him in his nuts
then pulled his hair out.
As related by Foster – after a seven-block chase – the intruder began to climb a 6-foot-high wooden fence, when she “grabbed him by the neck, ripped him off the fence.. threw him to the ground, and put my knee to his chest.”
#14, Tommy,
Are you suggesting she used more than “reasonable” force restraining him? He was trying to flee. He was in possession of stolen property. She did not injure more than transient bruising. What the hell do you want?
Oh, right !!! Your Micro Brain degree qualifies you to determine not only your historical babbling, but also other areas of law.
FYI there lightbulb. He may sue anyway. She does not have the qualified immunity that police do. That does not mean a judge wouldn’t throw it out as frivolous and assign fees to the thief. He was the author of his own misfortune.
Frankly, it ought to be (but isn’t obviously) the case that if you catch someone in the midst of stealing your stuff, that any and all weapons used on that thief are free game.
Some civics for you. Society values all human life. We value it more than material things. A person may be legally killed only in very narrow terms. That is why the law states “Reasonable Force” only may be used. It is this reasonable force that promotes our civility and respect for the law. Vigilantism ends up becoming a far worse scene than what we have now.
#15
Yes, you are correct. In States that are not completely overrun by sissies, you can use deadly force against an intruder. Alas, CA is not one of those States.
#16
Are we to add law to the list of subjects to which you are clueless? Your list of subjects on which you are *not* clueless is getting thin.
Here is a little tale for you. Some years ago, my brother-in-law was living in San Diego. One night a guy broke into his house and had my brother-in-law’s VCR in his hands when my brother-in-law caught him. My brother-in-law had a gun in hand which scared the guy causing him to drop the VCR and he ran out of the house. Thinking that the episode was done, my brother-in-law put the VCR away and went to bed. Later that night, the Police arrived at my brother-in-law’s house and charged him with “brandishing a firearm.”
So, while I agree that this lady was well within her rights to beat the crap out of this guy, depending on the State, you are open to a ton of liability when you, as a citizen, attempt to restrain a criminal because of the loose definition of “reasonable force”. Frankly, the right approach to the law is as mentioned in #15. If you break into someone’s house, you take your life into your own hands. If the intruder valued human life, they wouldn’t be breaking in.
#17, Thomas,
Later that night, the Police arrived at my brother-in-law’s house and charged him with “brandishing a firearm.”
Bullshit !!!
Police must either witness a crime in progress or investigate the crime before making an arrest. If they do not witness the crime, they need reasonable cause before making an arrest. Otherwise they would need a Warrant to arrest him. To arrive on the scene hours later and arrest him without a warrant doesn’t happen.
OR
He was pointing the gun at the fleeing burglar as he ran from the house, possibly even taking a shot or two.
OR
There is something else you neglected to add. Which, considering your penchant to bullshit, could very well be the truth.
Not bullshit unfortunately. The Police showed up at his place with the thief in tow. Thus, they most definitely had a witness and had probable cause. Further, when my brother-in-law answered the door, he immediately pointed out that the man they had in their custody was the thief that was in his apartment. He never fired the gun which was substantiated by the Police. The end result was that my brother-in-law had to drop the charges of theft so that the thief would drop the charges of “brandishing a firearm.” Very true story.
#19, Tommy,
MORE BULLSHIT
If the police laid the charge, it would be THEY and not the parties who would withdraw the charge. The charge would be reviewed by the District Attorney before anyone withdrew it.
Geeze, if you are going to invent a bullshit story, try to make it plausible first.
Are you that dense? Really? The Police *did* charge my brother-in-law with brandishing a firearm (and confiscated the firearm). I read the Police report. The Police were *required* to charge my brother-in-law because they had enough evidence to make the charge (A. a witness and B. my brother-in-law admitting to the Police that he had a gun with him when the thief ran out.)
Prior to going to court, a deal was struck between the PD handling the thief’s case and my brother-in-law’s attorney that if one dropped the charge of theft and breaking and entering the other would drop the charge of brandishing a firearm. Since my brother-in-law wanted to continue owning firearms and a charge of brandishing a firearm would almost assuredly prevent him from doing that, he made the deal.
How that actually played out was that the DA lost their only witness in the case of the People against the thief as well as their only witness in the case of the People v. my brother-in-law and thus the DA dropped both cases. This sort of deal is very, very common.
It is not bullshit, I have read both the Police report and the court docs. Seriously, get a clue.