Poll of the Day > Blonde Girl BAITED Thieves and then BEAT THEM with ALUMINUM BATS!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

29 y/o Sausage Girl, Savannah Grillot and her equally ugly boyfriend, 25 y/o Corey Curnutt from California were arrested after they BAITED thieves by putting out unsecured bikes and then BEAT them with ALUMINUM BATS and then put the assault on YOUTUBE!!

They were busted in Visalia as authorities said they are charged with numerous assaults with a deadly weapon and conspiracy

It happened in July 2019 and continued until November as they shared the assaults on youtube awhere it showed would be thieves attemptign to steal the paitned blue bike but not getting far as the duo would come out with bats and chased the thieves and visioucly beat them with the bats

The victims suffered non-life threatening injuries and only 4 have been identified

Neighbors said they were initially FINE with what they did but grew concerned with the people injured

Savannah is also in the NAVY as the a spokesperson said she is a sailor in the Lemoore Navy Base

When asked why she did this, Savannah said she was taking the law in her OWN HANDS after failed attempts to stop crime in the area.

If you found out your neighbors were doing this, would you blow the whistle on them?

Savannah and Corey - Busted

https://i.imgur.com/X2JEMN4.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ELzU9YI.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/pCJo5bo.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/WwUawQe.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/MUH4YF6.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/nkjWJJ0.jpg
---

I'd help them, sounds like fun actually.

Did she at least break their legs so they can't easily steal anymore?

Probably didn't go far enough.

---

yeah its hard to feel bad for the thieving bastards, but entrapment is a pretty slippery slope
plus if they had it set up they could have just called the cops when they fell for the trap rather than vigilante beatdowns

---

TheSlinja posted...

yeah its hard to feel bad for the thieving bastards, but entrapment is a pretty slippery slope
plus if they had it set up they could have just called the cops when they fell for the trap rather than vigilante beatdowns

Cops are not goign to do anything.

Meanwhile these jerks are making the world worse for everyone. They are not starving, there is plenty of ways for them to make money without harming others/stealing from them. There is no excuse for what they are doing.

I think they need to make sure the bikes/etc are on their property, then they can wack them all they want for trespassing *heh wish the law worked like that*.

Seriously though, they are obviously bad people, so a few wacks may at least teach them there are consequences for their actions. There should be a law stating you can beat the heck out of people trying to steal from you and are not responsible for any injuries they sustain in the process of robbing/stealing from you. I bet there would be far fewer thefts in such a case.

---

you dont have to convince me that theives are bad
im just saying the problem with vigilante justice is that the punishment they deal out rarely meets the crime, and not all vigilantes are good people and are just as capable of doing terrible shit "in the name of justice" lest we forget travon martin so soon

---

Snitches get stitches so no.

---

TheSlinja posted...

but entrapment is a pretty slippery slope

It's not entrapment, they didn't encourage the thieves to act, they just got em when they did.

This is a perfect example of when the police can't respond and how it's not reasonable to give the police exclusive rights to deal with criminals.
---

If you see somebody on your property stealing your bike beat their ass if its within the law and you feel like it.

However, if you leave out a bike specifically meant to be easy to steal, property you do not value as it was left likely unsecured, you can't sit there and claim like this is justified. Maybe these criminals(the thieves) will learn a lesson from this, but it isnt the public to decide what that lesson is and how the test goes.

Police officers get forceful sometimes with bait car criminals, but they do not beat them with bats unless their lives are in danger as a result, which usually isn't the case for that type of sting.

Why should the public be cheered for creating a bait car scenario(assuming Duckbear is accurately reporting[LOL]) and using more force than most trained professionals?

argonautweakend posted...

it isnt the public to decide what that lesson is and how the test goes.

That is exactly who decides the lesson and test. There's no objective scale for punishment, we settle on what we have by public opinion.

argonautweakend posted...

Police officers get forceful sometimes with bait car criminals, but they do not beat them with bats unless their lives are in danger as a result, which usually isn't the case for that type of sting.

Maybe we need to re-evaluate that.

argonautweakend posted...

Why should the public be cheered for creating a bait car scenario(assuming Duckbear is accurately reporting[LOL]) and using more force than most trained professionals?

Because while professionals have to obey their group's rules, the public need only sate the public. You can't be got for misconduct if you don't answer to anybody.
---

I dont get it.

You see a $20 bill on the ground, and nobody around. a lot of us would pick it up and keep it.

Okay, cool, time to get beat with baseball bats by psychos?

argonautweakend posted...

I dont get it.

You see a $20 bill on the ground, and nobody around. a lot of us would pick it up and keep it.

Okay, cool, time to get beat with baseball bats by psychos?

A bike isn't a lost note. If you picked up a $20 bill on the table in front of me that was clearly mine, I would want to club you to death.
---

Murder over $20. Not worth it.

---

Give them medals and send them on their way.

I think breaking a leg of a bike thief for the first offense is fair, the second time you break both legs.

I mean seriously who would steal bikes if that was the penalty? No bikes would ever be stolen, nobody would have their legs broken.

Having your bike stolen sucks, nobody should have to deal with that. You can't solve/get rid of all crimes that way, but simple crimes, if you make the penalty WAY worse then the bike is worth, nobody will ever do it.

Now, I would never suggest that for someone stealing food mind you, in fact I would suggest giving a job to someone who is caught stealing food lol. The penalty for stealing food is work that will pay for food. But stealing a bike from someone? Yeah, you're a jerk, and soon to be a jerk with a broken leg!

---

the cops wouldve took 30 minutes to get there and they wouldve told them there was nothing they could do about it. the end

---

If the police aren't there to do it, a righteously violent citizen, while not perfectly idea, is IMO an acceptable second.
If anyone's at fault here, it's the police for not taking care of the situation first, before members of the general public got sick of nothing being done about the situation.

---

Using violent for a non-violent crime is over board. By this logic big corporations should just hires goons to break the fingers of people who pirate, because after all the police aren't going to do anything.

All this is doing is teaching thieves they need to bring a weapon next time.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A bike isn't a lost note. If you picked up a $20 bill on the table in front of me that was clearly mine, I would want to club you to death.

Very few people would take the note if you're there and it's clearly yours but you'd do well to hide the note if you suspect theft(or in general being smart with money)

To be comparable to the bike situation, from what i can tell from duckbear, you'd need to place it on the ground, hide, then get upset and attack the person who tride to take it. And, since it would have all been planned from the start (placing the note, hiding, and attacking when somebody steals it) you can't act like you're morally right since you wanted the theft to happen.

None of this makes criminals who steal things in the right. However if you make it a bait scenario you can't get upset when somebody steals the thing you don't value enough to risk on purpose.

A lot of police bait car criminals don't even wind up in prison because their lawyer can successfully argue the case.

Aluminum bats.


---

People were going to steal. Are.. are we supposed to feel bad for them?

I mean, all they had to do was not steal.

---

awezomerobot posted...

Using violent for a non-violent crime is over board. By this logic big corporations should just hires goons to break the fingers of people who pirate, because after all the police aren't going to do anything.

The logic is that public favour makes it right, corporations don't have public favour.

argonautweakend posted...

Very few people would take the note if you're there and it's clearly yours but you'd do well to hide the note if you suspect theft(or in general being smart with money)

So people who don't bring their bike with them in to buildings are clearly just asking for it.

argonautweakend posted...

To be comparable to the bike situation, from what i can tell from duckbear, you'd need to place it on the ground

It's not in a public space, the bike was on private property so it's like a note left in an unsecured wallet at a starbucks.

argonautweakend posted...

hide

Or not be present, the intent of the victim is irrelevant, the intent of the criminal isn't.

argonautweakend posted...

and attacking when somebody steals it

Sounds reasonable, theft = no bueno

argonautweakend posted...

you can't act like you're morally right since you wanted the theft to happen.

It's not moral to bait morons but it's moral retribution to physically punish thieves.
---

argonautweakend posted...

None of this makes criminals who steal things in the right. However if you make it a bait scenario you can't get upset when somebody steals the thing you don't value enough to risk on purpose.

They weren't getting upset, they were getting a low life. They got the upper hand on a piece of shit and gave him the punishment the police were incapable of delivering.

argonautweakend posted...

A lot of police bait car criminals don't even wind up in prison because their lawyer can successfully argue the case.

That just shows how badly handled the justice system is from top to bottom in the US.
---

So people who don't bring their bike with them in to buildings are clearly just asking for it.

No, because you lock your bike up, thus meaning you arent asking for it since youre taking the steps to prevent theft. Of course, people can and do try to steal locked up bikes, which, again since the bike owner took reasonable precautions would mean they are not asking for it. Even if they left their bike unsecured that wouldn't make the theft right, and if the bike owner caught a thief trying to take it if they wanted to beat some ass, fine.

The reason this is different than other scenarios is because it was planned beforehand. They intentionally made something easy to steal and then beat some ass when it happened. They wanted somebody to steal their thing. The intent of the victims does matter, which is why we see their mugshots above. In a case of a "natural" not baited theft, I really doubt we'd see the victims who got stolen from taken in by police after beating some ass.

I can't seem to care about these people getting beat. How about don't take other people' shit?

argonautweakend posted...

No, because you lock your bike up

So if you don't lock your bike, it's free for anybody to take.

argonautweakend posted...

Even if they left their bike unsecured that wouldn't make the theft right, and if the bike owner caught a thief trying to take it if they wanted to beat some ass, fine.

So we're on the same page, great. Now explain how a thief doesn't deserve to get punished when they get caught out.

argonautweakend posted...

The intent of the victims does matter, which is why we see their mugshots above.

We see the picture above because of the severity. You are not allowed to defend your property with force because police have exclusive rights to that and the police can't exert that right because they're not around for these incidents.

We want to beat down thieves personally because policing is incapable of dealing with this kind of issue.

argonautweakend posted...

In a case of a "natural" not baited theft, I really doubt we'd see the victims who got stolen from taken in by police after beating some ass.

Doesn't matter what you think, that's not how the law is, unfortunately.
---

wolfy42 posted...

I think breaking a leg of a bike thief for the first offense is fair, the second time you break both legs.

I mean seriously who would steal bikes if that was the penalty? No bikes would ever be stolen, nobody would have their legs broken.

You say that like physically injuring thieves is a new idea. Enough societies have tried that over the ages and still had theft problems that it's pretty safe to say it doesn't actually work that well. Especially in America, that's just more likely to result in bike thieves carrying guns so they can shoot anyone that tries to attack them. Even if it doesn't, crippling people generally interferes with their ability to be a productive member of society moving forward, potentially sentencing them to a lifetime of mooching and/or further crime. America's justice system obviously isn't very good for rehabilitation, given the recidivism rate, but other countries have seen significantly more success with more of a focus on rehabilitation than on being angry.

---

Not locking up your bike is dumb, but you still don't deserve to get stolen from. It isnt free for anybody to take, but people will certainly try, moreso than if it was locked up.

And you absolutely can defend yourself on your property. if a thief does come onto your property in some states you can take your gun out and blow them away. The difference, as i've stated before, is the motivations at play. Somebody who is a victim of theft generally has no motivation. these people wanted a crime to happen and made it easy, and then went out and attacked the person. If they didnt have the premediation aspect(the whole thing being a set up) I would absolutely take their side if they wanted to beat some ass. But since the whole bait scenario was premeditated, I can't.

Like, the thieves in these cases should be charged with the fairly petty(in most cases) charge of theft, because they literally committed a crime. The motivations of the homeowners does come into play, though. You can have the same scenario happen twice with the same results but varying underlying motivations make it a different scenario.

I've spent my entire life living in an area with virtually zero crime, so ive never been somewhere with strings of break ins and theft and other crimes. But if I did, and i felt the police wouldn't do anything about it, I would take reasonable precautions to make sure my stuff is secured. Get it insured if it is stolen. get a dog, a security system, whatever. I would not bait criminals onto my property. They could have a gun or another weapon, and as somebody pointed out, perhaps the criminals don't learn a lesson about not stealing(because some criminals don't learn lessons too well) and next time they go cruising around your neighborhood looking for shit to snatch they bring a gun.

Both parties in this scenario are dumb. I don't feel like explaining it any more, so i'll just agree to disagree.

people leave bikes in front of there houses all the time don't act like it rarely happens

---

adjl posted...

You say that like physically injuring thieves is a new idea. Enough societies have tried that over the ages and still had theft problems that it's pretty safe to say it doesn't actually work that well.

It stops that particular thief, and thieves deserve that fear.

adjl posted...

Especially in America, that's just more likely to result in bike thieves carrying guns so they can shoot anyone that tries to attack them.

Because the US is well-known for bicycle thieves shooting victims /s

adjl posted...

Even if it doesn't, crippling people generally interferes with their ability to be a productive member of society moving forward, potentially sentencing them to a lifetime of mooching and/or further crime.

So go further, kill 'em. Don't need that type of garbage, we have enough people of every order that don't steal that we won't miss them.

argonautweakend posted...

And you absolutely can defend yourself on your property. if a thief does come onto your property in some states you can take your gun out and blow them away.

In some states. States where the police didn't arrest them.

argonautweakend posted...

these people wanted a crime to happen and made it easy, and then went out and attacked the person. If they didnt have the premediation aspect(the whole thing being a set up) I would absolutely take their side

I don't care who you side with. Point is they only attacked him when he stole, he did the equivalent of poking a bear and paid the price.

argonautweakend posted...

I've spent my entire life living in an area with virtually zero crime, so ive never been somewhere with strings of break ins and theft and other crimes. But if I did, and i felt the police wouldn't do anything about it, I would take reasonable precautions to make sure my stuff is secured. Get it insured if it is stolen. get a dog, a security system, whatever. I would not bait criminals onto my property. They could have a gun or another weapon, and as somebody pointed out, perhaps the criminals don't learn a lesson about not stealing(because some criminals don't learn lessons too well) and next time they go cruising around your neighborhood looking for shit to snatch they bring a gun.

That sounds like a you problem. They're willing to take the risk to protect their own, you're not. You don't have to shit on other people because they don't want to make a faux-fort and let criminals do as they please.
---

I have zero problem with what they were doing.

I hate a thief.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I have zero problem with what they were doing.

I hate a thief.

I'd rather live around petty thieves than violent "vigilantes".

arv never been a target to vigilantes because arv isnt going to take a bike from someones lawn

---

Neither parties great but in this situation Im with the baiters. Ya the punishment was extreme. But a thiefs a thief. They deserved it for taking a stupid risk.

---

I have mixed feelings. However, I guess the whole thing really comes down to intent, where they were trying to create a situation justifying assault. And, in general, I don't like the concept of entrapment because it tempts people to do wrong when they might not have otherwise committed a crime rather than specifically just catching people who do stuff like this all the time.

---

JTekashiro posted...

I'd rather live around petty thieves than violent "vigilantes".

If you don't rob people on camera, you have nothing to fear.

Zeus posted...

in general, I don't like the concept of entrapment because it tempts people to do wrong when they might not have otherwise committed a crime rather than specifically just catching people who do stuff like this all the time.

It wasn't entrapment, they just picked the wrong house, fool.
---

Thieves deserve death.

---

People that will go for a staged crime of opportunity are just as likely to for a genuine one, while those of solid moral foundation will be tempted by neither. Better they get snagged by the bogus bike batters than make off with some youngster's wheels because he doesn't have the knowledge and/or resources to properly protect it.

Rather than cracking down on the vigilantes directly, it would be interesting if the police started staging their own bicycle theft stings. Catch young thieves and set them straight before they're capable of pulling off more costly crimes.

---

Rapists and murderers don't even get the death penalty a lot of the time and those are crimes that can never be considered petty, when theft often is, depending on what is stolen and it's value.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It wasn't entrapment,

It was literally entrapment because they did it with the intention of leading somebody to do wrong so they could punish them.

Shadowbird_RH posted...

People that will go for a staged crime of opportunity are just as likely to for a genuine one, while those of solid moral foundation will be tempted by neither. Better they get snagged by the bogus bike batters than make off with some youngster's wheels because he doesn't have the knowledge and/or resources to properly protect it.

...meaning that they would continue their lives as law-abiding citizens if the opportunities never presented themselves. If the opportunities are unlikely to otherwise exist, you're not preventing anything and exercising basic precaution is more practical than imprisoning maybe a hundred million people who might commit a crime if the stars aligned.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It stops that particular thief, and thieves deserve that fear.

Laws need to be based on what will actually solve problems and help society, not on what individuals deserve.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because the US is well-known for bicycle thieves shooting victims /s

Have you seen the number of gun owners that insist they need to have a gun to protect themselves from petty thieves whom they can only assume want to murder them as well as steal their TV? The presumption that minor criminals are armed and just itching to escalate to violent crime is practically a central tenet of American culture. Hardly an unthinkable leap of logic, particularly for the "tough on crime" crowd.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

So go further, kill 'em. Don't need that type of garbage, we have enough people of every order that don't steal that we won't miss them.

Shall we take that a step further and apply it to speeders (which I understand you count yourself among because you consider yourself too capable a driver to be beholden to speed limits)? Jaywalkers? People who hang toilet paper under the roll (yes definitely)? Heck, since we're talking about practicality and not letting an obsession with vengeance dictate public policy like a moron, why not take it a step further and execute anyone that stops being able to demonstrate their usefulness to society? We don't need to waste resources training factory workers to do other jobs after they get replaced by robots, just put them down! Retirees? Bullets are cheaper than nursing homes.

Obviously, slippery slope arguments don't mean much in terms of drawing actual conclusions, but if you're going with that logic, you need to have a basis for drawing a line. "It's the law" isn't enough, because laws can be changed, and you need a set of logical principles to guide those changes.

---

cant believe yall out here having us "defend" theives because we dont want them shot in the street

---

Red_Frog posted...

Give them medals and send them on their way.

---

JTekashiro posted...

I'd rather live around petty thieves than violent "vigilantes".

I'm never going to try and steal a bike.

Zeus posted...

It was literally entrapment because they did it with the intention of leading somebody to do wrong so they could punish them.

Entrapment is when the person is pushed toward acting in some way, these guys were not.

Zeus posted...

exercising basic precaution is more practical than imprisoning maybe a hundred million people who might commit a crime if the stars aligned.

A hundred million people won't rob your house if you leave your door unlocked lol

adjl posted...

Laws need to be based on what will actually solve problems and help society, not on what individuals deserve.

Laws are for appeasing society, everything else is incidental.

adjl posted...

The presumption that minor criminals are armed and just itching to escalate to violent crime is practically a central tenet of American culture.

It is not, the presumption is that anybody could be a murderer and a gun is useful if that situation appears.

adjl posted...

Shall we take that a step further and apply it to speeders (which I understand you count yourself among because you consider yourself too capable a driver to be beholden to speed limits)? Jaywalkers? People who hang toilet paper under the roll (yes definitely)?

All harmless for the most part.

adjl posted...

Heck, since we're talking about practicality and not letting an obsession with vengeance dictate public policy like a moron, why not take it a step further and execute anyone that stops being able to demonstrate their usefulness to society?

Anybody can be useful, some people don't deserve to be useful. Like thieves.

adjl posted...

Retirees? Bullets are cheaper than nursing homes.

They've paid their dues, in fact they're in nursing homes by paying with what they earned.
---

adjl posted...

if you're going with that logic, you need to have a basis for drawing a line. "It's the law" isn't enough, because laws can be changed, and you need a set of logical principles to guide those changes.

Thieves are garbage and fair game for abuse, that's the line.
---

fuck thieves

---

TheSlinja posted...

yeah its hard to feel bad for the thieving bastards, but entrapment is a pretty slippery slope

I guess its only okay when police do it with bait cars. Or maybe they should have just done a citizens arrest on them instead of attacking them.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Laws are for appeasing society, everything else is incidental.

Then shall we have laws that mandate free cookie dispensers on every corner? That would make society pretty happy, I would think.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It is not, the presumption is that anybody could be a murderer and a gun is useful if that situation appears.

That's... what I just said. I'll take that as you conceding my point.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

All harmless for the most part.

You know, except when people literally die, which isn't usually a consequence of bike theft. If petty theft - a crime whose harm can usually be completely mitigated by insurance - is going to carry the death penalty, then speeding - a crime which contributes to thousands of deaths every year in America - absolutely should.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Thieves are garbage and fair game for abuse, that's the line.

Did you not read the part where I said you need a set of logical principles to guide your line-drawing, or did you not understand it? Because being challenged to provide a set of logical decision-making principles and then just restating your arbitrary position means one of those two things happened, and I need to know which one so that I know whether you need education or just to be ignored because you're not interested in anything more than childish stonewalling.

zebatov posted...

Or maybe they should have just done a citizens arrest on them instead of attacking them.

They really should have. Obviously, these thieves are in fact criminals who deserve to face justice for their crimes. Assaulting them, however, is not that justice, because vigilante violence is a terrible way to allow a society to be run. Film the incident and citizen's arrest them, then hand them over to the police. If these people aren't willing to do their due diligence to ensure due process is followed, there's no reason to treat them as anything more than people who've watched too many Batman movies.

---

Should have just recorded it and called the cops. They probably wanted YouTube clicks.

---

adjl posted...

Then shall we have laws that mandate free cookie dispensers on every corner? That would make society pretty happy, I would think.

Not when food prices shoot up, it also upsets anybody who doesn't support unhealthy eating practices. Most people would not like this.

adjl posted...

That's... what I just said. I'll take that as you conceding my point.

It's very different to say Americans think every criminal is a murderer waiting to pounce than to say Americans prepare for the rare incidence a person happens to be a murderer, but I'm not surprised an American wouldn't recognise the nuance of their own words.

adjl posted...

You know, except when people literally die, which isn't usually a consequence of bike theft.

A bike theft involves property stolen 100% of the time, speeding is not harmful 99.999% of the time, and when harm occurs it is because of additional circumstances. Cars don't suddenly go careening across 3 lanes of traffic in to a building when the speedometer reads 1 over the limit.

adjl posted...

a crime whose harm can usually be completely mitigated by insurance

The need for insurance is caused by theft, other people getting robbed directly effects how much you pay out on insurance. You're a victim of the crime before it even occurs.

adjl posted...

speeding - a crime which contributes to thousands of deaths every year in America - absolutely should.

Speeding itself does not cause any deaths, it's an exacerbating circumstance to deaths just like, say, pothole in the road that destabilise vehicles in crashes. This makes government just as responsible for road fatalities but I don't see you guillotining your state representatives.

Speeding is another example of the failings of the justice system. Because the system can't reliably determine when people are driving recklessly, an arbitrary speed boundary is set criminalising most incidents which are completely harmless.

adjl posted...

Did you not read the part where I said you need a set of logical principles to guide your line-drawing, or did you not understand it?

You take-a the stuff, we take-a tha life. It's very clear and unambiguous, property ownership is king. If it's not yours and you try to take ownership you die, if you do not take things that are not yours, you live.

Does the simplicity overwhelm you?
---