News Junkie: Elderly woman shoots bully, no charges!

[sageoftruth]

Shooting a child can never be justified, no matter how must of a bastard the child might be.

Yeah... I know (sigh). Damn kids.

 

[XT inc]

shoulda shot him in his gaming hand, one less fuck to deal with on xbox live.

 

[mr_rubino]

Because she's A) old and B) a woman, of course she's the real victim.

The little prick deserved to be punched, but shooting at him is a bit of an overreaction.

She should've used a bean-bag round. I don't understand the use of actual bullets for home defense, unless the attacker is using lethal weapons themselves.

Serves him right, though. I wish I could shoot more pricks my age.

So your saying that people should use non-lethal rounds for self-defense. Exactly why? These people are choosing to come into your home to threaten you into giving them your belongings with force, what about that entitles them to any ounce of consideration on your part? what about that entitles them to force you to buy rarer, and more expensive bullets, just so that when you defend your life from thier threats, they don't die. If someone is robbing you/ chucking bricks at you, your life is on the line, i see no reason why they deserve to risk less for choosing to attack you.

Because murder, assault, battery are not minor offenses. Does that make any sense to you, or do you not know how bad prison is?

Self-defense is legal

Murder isn't. You are not strictly judged on facts. Killing a man who is verbally abusing you is murder. Killing someone who may have been throwing bricks at you is a grey area. If it wasn't an old woman, she'd be on trial right now, because bricks are not at all lethal to the majority of people.

I'm going to quote someone who puts it better than me.

People like you don't actually know what "self defense" is, do you? You just throw around the term because it sounds flashy. I'm guessing you also don't know what "deadly force" is and what justifies its use in "self defense", do you?
Yeah, I thought so.

"He brok mah windurz and I could theoretically have been injured in sum wei, and he also sed meen hurtful thingz" is not it.

really, why don't i chuck a brick into your throat, maybe 6 inches above where teh kid hit her, or into the head, about 6 inches higher than that. the throat shot, will crush your laranx, suffocating you, unless you get a trachiotomy, and the head shot, poses a chance of causing a clotting or bleeding problem in the brain, which can kill/cripple you. that's lethal force, and that's self defense.

So... yeah, nothing but hypotheticals, emotional response, and shiny terms that you don't know the meaning of. Thought so. I got 6 inches for ya, and God knows that would certainly be more productive than trying further to explain this concept to you.

 

[spartan231490]

I'd like to remind you folks we used to hang and stone people.

Escalation is never apropos as a rule, she should have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, then given the lightest sentence.

But this was justified, we all know it was, and social law as most of us (who I'm sure were rather unpopular in schools) know, responds with massive force.

charged with assault for a lethat weapon? how many times does it have to be said, IT WAS SELF DEFENSE, WHICH IS PERFECTLY MOTHER F-ING LEGAL.

People like you don't actually know what "self defense" is, do you? You just throw around the term because it sounds flashy. I'm guessing you also don't know what "deadly force" is and what justifies its use in "self defense", do you?
Yeah, I thought so.

Wow, where do you find all this self-righteousness, is it in the douchebag handbook? the kid was CHUCKING BRICKS at her. It was really funny in home alone 2, but in reality, all it takes is a lucky shot to the head, or the throat, and people die. her life was legitimately in danger, she retaliated with potentially deadly force, that's the fucking definition of appropriate response.

I see wherever I found my "self-righteousness" (one of those words people in the wrong like to use to try to change the subject) in the same place you found your complete misunderstanding of laws. Sure hope noone ever puts a gun in your hands.

ITT, lots of bullied 12 year olds living out a fantasy.

If i am so misguided, educate me. If self-defense is not defined as using whatever force neccesary to protect your own life, wht is it defined as. cuz that's what she did.
Is there an ignore option on this site, cuz i would love never to have to see one of your posts again.

I suppose I'm supposed to be hurt that you babbled ignorantly and then ran?
I guess before we go further, I have to ask you how she was "protecting her life". This should be a laugh. Like I said, "he coulda injad me in sum wei" with those bricks he had been pelting her house with that he... wasn't throwing at her when she shot him. XD. Welp, you have a point: the little kid WAS being rather ornery.

"zomg im politically correct" all over the place.

Translation?
(That was rhetorical.)

yeah, I guess I learned my lesson, never try to use reason to convince people on the internet, 90% will choose to ignore it, the other 10% are probably smart enough to come up with it on thier own. My opinion is posted in several places on this thread, along with my justifactions for it, if you can't or wont comprehend it, saying it again won't change that.

 

[MaVeN1337]

Too bad she didn't get him in the head.

Would have been one less moron in the world.

 

[spartan231490]

Because she's A) old and B) a woman, of course she's the real victim.

The little prick deserved to be punched, but shooting at him is a bit of an overreaction.

She should've used a bean-bag round. I don't understand the use of actual bullets for home defense, unless the attacker is using lethal weapons themselves.

Serves him right, though. I wish I could shoot more pricks my age.

So your saying that people should use non-lethal rounds for self-defense. Exactly why? These people are choosing to come into your home to threaten you into giving them your belongings with force, what about that entitles them to any ounce of consideration on your part? what about that entitles them to force you to buy rarer, and more expensive bullets, just so that when you defend your life from thier threats, they don't die. If someone is robbing you/ chucking bricks at you, your life is on the line, i see no reason why they deserve to risk less for choosing to attack you.

Because murder, assault, battery are not minor offenses. Does that make any sense to you, or do you not know how bad prison is?

Self-defense is legal

Murder isn't. You are not strictly judged on facts. Killing a man who is verbally abusing you is murder. Killing someone who may have been throwing bricks at you is a grey area. If it wasn't an old woman, she'd be on trial right now, because bricks are not at all lethal to the majority of people.

I'm going to quote someone who puts it better than me.

People like you don't actually know what "self defense" is, do you? You just throw around the term because it sounds flashy. I'm guessing you also don't know what "deadly force" is and what justifies its use in "self defense", do you?
Yeah, I thought so.

"He brok mah windurz and I could theoretically have been injured in sum wei, and he also sed meen hurtful thingz" is not it.

really, why don't i chuck a brick into your throat, maybe 6 inches above where teh kid hit her, or into the head, about 6 inches higher than that. the throat shot, will crush your laranx, suffocating you, unless you get a trachiotomy, and the head shot, poses a chance of causing a clotting or bleeding problem in the brain, which can kill/cripple you. that's lethal force, and that's self defense.

So... yeah, nothing but hypotheticals, emotional response, and shiny terms that you don't know the meaning of. Thought so. I got 6 inches for ya, and God knows that would certainly be more productive than trying further to explain this concept to you.

You have not once even attempted to explain to me why this doesnt qualify as a credible threat to her life, she's a 68ish year old woman, a brick could definitely seriously injur or kill her. that makes lethal response justified, if you actually provide evidence against that, you might have a valid point, but so far all you've done is say "Oh look at you, your an idiot cuz you think using force to protect your life is self-defense!"

 

[Beryl77]

I can imagine what that boy was thinking. I'm sure he thought that this old woman wouldn't do anything, so could keep repeating his misbehaviour. He probably was bragging before his friends but I'm reassured that his last thought, before she shot, was "OH SHI-".

 

[mr_rubino]

I'd like to remind you folks we used to hang and stone people.

Escalation is never apropos as a rule, she should have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, then given the lightest sentence.

But this was justified, we all know it was, and social law as most of us (who I'm sure were rather unpopular in schools) know, responds with massive force.

charged with assault for a lethat weapon? how many times does it have to be said, IT WAS SELF DEFENSE, WHICH IS PERFECTLY MOTHER F-ING LEGAL.

People like you don't actually know what "self defense" is, do you? You just throw around the term because it sounds flashy. I'm guessing you also don't know what "deadly force" is and what justifies its use in "self defense", do you?
Yeah, I thought so.

Wow, where do you find all this self-righteousness, is it in the douchebag handbook? the kid was CHUCKING BRICKS at her. It was really funny in home alone 2, but in reality, all it takes is a lucky shot to the head, or the throat, and people die. her life was legitimately in danger, she retaliated with potentially deadly force, that's the fucking definition of appropriate response.

I see wherever I found my "self-righteousness" (one of those words people in the wrong like to use to try to change the subject) in the same place you found your complete misunderstanding of laws. Sure hope noone ever puts a gun in your hands.

ITT, lots of bullied 12 year olds living out a fantasy.

If i am so misguided, educate me. If self-defense is not defined as using whatever force neccesary to protect your own life, wht is it defined as. cuz that's what she did.
Is there an ignore option on this site, cuz i would love never to have to see one of your posts again.

I suppose I'm supposed to be hurt that you babbled ignorantly and then ran?
I guess before we go further, I have to ask you how she was "protecting her life". This should be a laugh. Like I said, "he coulda injad me in sum wei" with those bricks he had been pelting her house with that he... wasn't throwing at her when she shot him. XD. Welp, you have a point: the little kid WAS being rather ornery.

"zomg im politically correct" all over the place.

Translation?
(That was rhetorical.)

yeah, I guess I learned my lesson, never try to use reason to convince people on the internet, 90% will choose to ignore it, the other 10% are probably smart enough to come up with it on thier own. My opinion is posted in several places on this thread, along with my justifactions for it, if you can't or wont comprehend it, saying it again won't change that.

There you go using words you don't understand again, like "reason". All I see is someone "reasoning" from their emotions instead of their head. I guess it's honorable in a way, but thankfully, the system tries to control against reasoning from the pancreas.

Because she's A) old and B) a woman, of course she's the real victim.

The little prick deserved to be punched, but shooting at him is a bit of an overreaction.

She should've used a bean-bag round. I don't understand the use of actual bullets for home defense, unless the attacker is using lethal weapons themselves.

Serves him right, though. I wish I could shoot more pricks my age.

So your saying that people should use non-lethal rounds for self-defense. Exactly why? These people are choosing to come into your home to threaten you into giving them your belongings with force, what about that entitles them to any ounce of consideration on your part? what about that entitles them to force you to buy rarer, and more expensive bullets, just so that when you defend your life from thier threats, they don't die. If someone is robbing you/ chucking bricks at you, your life is on the line, i see no reason why they deserve to risk less for choosing to attack you.

Because murder, assault, battery are not minor offenses. Does that make any sense to you, or do you not know how bad prison is?

Self-defense is legal

Murder isn't. You are not strictly judged on facts. Killing a man who is verbally abusing you is murder. Killing someone who may have been throwing bricks at you is a grey area. If it wasn't an old woman, she'd be on trial right now, because bricks are not at all lethal to the majority of people.

I'm going to quote someone who puts it better than me.

People like you don't actually know what "self defense" is, do you? You just throw around the term because it sounds flashy. I'm guessing you also don't know what "deadly force" is and what justifies its use in "self defense", do you?
Yeah, I thought so.

"He brok mah windurz and I could theoretically have been injured in sum wei, and he also sed meen hurtful thingz" is not it.

really, why don't i chuck a brick into your throat, maybe 6 inches above where teh kid hit her, or into the head, about 6 inches higher than that. the throat shot, will crush your laranx, suffocating you, unless you get a trachiotomy, and the head shot, poses a chance of causing a clotting or bleeding problem in the brain, which can kill/cripple you. that's lethal force, and that's self defense.

So... yeah, nothing but hypotheticals, emotional response, and shiny terms that you don't know the meaning of. Thought so. I got 6 inches for ya, and God knows that would certainly be more productive than trying further to explain this concept to you.

You have not once even attempted to explain to me why this doesnt qualify as a credible threat to her life, she's a 68ish year old woman, a brick could definitely seriously injur or kill her. that makes lethal response justified, if you actually provide evidence against that, you might have a valid point, but so far all you've done is say "Oh look at you, your an idiot cuz you think using force to protect your life is self-defense!"

*sigh* Now you're just boring me by repeating yourself along with your "SOMEFING BAD COULDA HAPPEND AT AN UNDETERMINED TIME!!11!" nonsense. You can't stretch out justification for deadly force over a year of possible harm, oddly enough. Well... maybe you can... but my head would start to spin if I had to figure out what no doubt interesting situation that would happen in.

 

[crazypsyko666]

Because she's A) old and B) a woman, of course she's the real victim.

The little prick deserved to be punched, but shooting at him is a bit of an overreaction.

She should've used a bean-bag round. I don't understand the use of actual bullets for home defense, unless the attacker is using lethal weapons themselves.

Serves him right, though. I wish I could shoot more pricks my age.

So your saying that people should use non-lethal rounds for self-defense. Exactly why? These people are choosing to come into your home to threaten you into giving them your belongings with force, what about that entitles them to any ounce of consideration on your part? what about that entitles them to force you to buy rarer, and more expensive bullets, just so that when you defend your life from thier threats, they don't die. If someone is robbing you/ chucking bricks at you, your life is on the line, i see no reason why they deserve to risk less for choosing to attack you.

Because murder, assault, battery are not minor offenses. Does that make any sense to you, or do you not know how bad prison is?

Self-defense is legal

Murder isn't. You are not strictly judged on facts. Killing a man who is verbally abusing you is murder. Killing someone who may have been throwing bricks at you is a grey area. If it wasn't an old woman, she'd be on trial right now, because bricks are not at all lethal to the majority of people.

I'm going to quote someone who puts it better than me.

People like you don't actually know what "self defense" is, do you? You just throw around the term because it sounds flashy. I'm guessing you also don't know what "deadly force" is and what justifies its use in "self defense", do you?
Yeah, I thought so.

"He brok mah windurz and I could theoretically have been injured in sum wei, and he also sed meen hurtful thingz" is not it.

really, why don't i chuck a brick into your throat, maybe 6 inches above where teh kid hit her, or into the head, about 6 inches higher than that. the throat shot, will crush your laranx, suffocating you, unless you get a trachiotomy, and the head shot, poses a chance of causing a clotting or bleeding problem in the brain, which can kill/cripple you. that's lethal force, and that's self defense.

I'm not sure which is better, the misspellings, the death threats, (which is not protected by free speech, if you're going to rag about that) and the inaccurate context. We don't know where the kid was throwing the bricks. We don't know if granny was hit. Stop being such a fucking troll trying to escalate things.

 

[NickCooley]

I fail to see how anyone can say with a straight face that after a year of abusing and terrifying this old woman that "He was too young to know what he's doing". He's 12, that's plenty old enough to know right from wrong provided he wasn't locked in the cellar all his life. While it was 7 years ago I don't recall being the shambling retard you people make a 12 year old kid out to be.

Some of you just need to come out from under your safety blanket and realise that kids are just as capable of the same twisted shit as adults are and yes, they DO know what they're doing. Scum is still scum whether its 12, 100 or anything in between.

 

[InfernoJesus]

A 12-year-old!? He's just a misguided kid, probably the result of poor parenting. That's not reason enough to shoot him.

 

[Jamash]

So verbal abuse is enough justification to shoot children?

Does freedom of speech not apply to children, who can be shot for being mouthy?

I know it's not quite as simple as that, but it does seem a bit extreme to shoot a child, even if he was being a bastard.

I hope she was a crack shot and was aiming for his shoulder, because if not she's extremely lucky. Six inches out and she could have hit him in the head or chest.

Did you read the article? He taunted her for a year, smashed her windows and hit her in the chest with a brick. He obviously didn't care if she was badly injured. Honestly, after a certain point, after having all the chances to stop and say sorry, a nice big bullet wound is what some people deserve. Personally, I hope she hit the sad git in his wanking arm...

I read that article, and I've also read the same story as reported by different sources...

Some articles report a different story, quote neighbours as saying the kids weren't as bad as they've been made out to be. One article says she came out of the house and chased the boys firing her gun.

One article quotes the women herself as saying "He's got a demon", does that mean suspected demonic possession is justification for shooting a child (her stepson is a Pastor which implies they are a very religious family)?

One story I've read quotes a neighbour, a retired police officer, who though it was a drive by shooting based on the amount of gunshots he heard.

I've read enough versions of this event not to instantly believe the version as reported by a celebrity gossip magazine, I've read enough conflicting versions of this one event to know that I don't know what actually occurred, but I do know that shooting a 12 year old child seems over the top.

 

[mr_rubino]

I fail to see how anyone can say with a straight face that after a year of abusing and terrifying this old woman that "He was too young to know what he's doing". He's 12, that's plenty old enough to know right from wrong provided he wasn't locked in the cellar all his life. While it was 7 years ago I don't recall being the shambling retard you people make a 12 year old kid out to be.

Some of you just need to come out from under your safety blanket and realise that kids are just as capable of the same twisted shit as adults are and yes, they DO know what they're doing. Scum is still scum whether its 12, 100 or anything in between.

Ahh, someone who wants to overhaul the system. Hey, good luck to ya. Maybe it needs to be... but it ain't yet!
We shoulda had the little bugger arrested and charged as an adult for attempted murder! That'll learn 'em.

 

[Sacman]

good, serves that little shit right... moral of the story, you mess with an old lady you get shot...

 

[Danman1]

I hope I'm not the only one playing the scene in my head and laughing.

 

[ryai458]

Why does a elderly women, most likely with powerful medication, doing with a firearm?
She was probably aiming for his face and missed.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Personal harm, intent, property damage...the stupid kid never learns, and nobody else is going to bother wasting time on him.

It sounds like this little shit needed to get sorted out.
Pity she didn't hit him in the head; it would have been the only sensible thing to ever cross his mind.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Twelve year old idiot had to learn someday, bite someone hard enough, often enough, they'll bite back.