News Junkie: Elderly woman shoots bully, no charges!

[Dana22]

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.

If the granny was hit, it would be too late for "Self defense", right ?

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

HA! Serves the little shit right.
I hate children....

 

[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.

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.

I truely intended not to post again, but being a troll(apparently) i was unable to help myself when i saw how you used the word pancreas. I'm not really sure what you meant to say, but it wasn't pancreas. It was probably, amygdala, which is the portion of the brain which processes emotional information on a basic level. It wasn't pancreas, because pancreas is the organ near the liver which produces insulin in order to control blood sugar. It might have been the pituitary gland, which produces adrenaline, but that doesnt make much sense either because that is controlled by the hypothallmus, which is actually in the brain, wherease the pituitary is not.
Oh look, I proved you don't know what a pancreas is so clearly your whole argument must be invalid. right?

 

[Mr Shrike]

It's a shame really that the woman had to take action, surely that's the job of the police force? (Although, in Britain, they don't really give a shit unless you're carrying a 200 foot katana...)

Fortunately, pain is a very good teacher.

 

[schroing]

ITT: People who've never even seen a gun before, a bunch of idiots, the usual Escapist "morality is for pussies" crowd, the other usual "one point of view is all I need" crowd, etc, etc.

Seriously, threads like these should be somehow put into the dictionary to illustrate the word "pathetic."

 

[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.

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.

I'm not trying to overhaul anything. Sure the kid was a little shit but I wouldn't of shot him in the shoulder, then again I'm not the one that was intimidated for an entire year so I can't really say what I would or wouldn't do. No, what irked me was the fairly sizable group of people with the opinion that 12 year olds somehow can't comprehend the difference between right and wrong or that they're simply misunderstood little cherubs. I'm sorry but if you couldn't tell the difference at that age you're a fucking moron and if you coddle the kids like that they're gonna think they can just get away with it.

Seriously, some people on this forum are more "divorced from reality" than "escapists"

 

[WillItWork]

[HEADING=3]Late to after-party[/HEADING]

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

In some places we (humans) still do. The Taliban just stoned their first victim in nine years.

I thought about that when I posted. I'm a moderately observant Jew, and know what my ancestors used to do when they ran their country, and for what rules. But still, doesn't apply so much to Chicago.

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

It doesn't work that way. The statutes in most state define exactly what someone can be charged with. Putting her in prison for five years wouldn't have done jack shit, and politically would have been suicidal. Try getting reelected when you've got newsapaper headlines reading "DA charged 87 68 year old grandmother for defending herself from attacker."

Mmm, conditionally agreed. I seem to recall a woman here in RI being charged $25 for pointing a gun at a mugger. He dropped the bag and ran off. Different situation, but hey, as long as we're talking moral imperatives?

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.

More an application of formal and informal law, really.

And who arbitrates that? That's what I mean by social law (perhaps not the most technically accurate term, but it is precise). There are actions and repercussions taken without any sort of written law, but is against a moral or ethical code for a group, culture, or subculture. Just think about shunning.

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.

Well, so we're all on the same page: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense, especially the second paragraph. He hit her with a brick at her chest, however, most courts of my experience (admittedly limited) treat firearms as a separate category. So she proves threat, but not reasonable force.

The argument I am making (and I think [a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.235849.8392028"]crazypsyko666[/a]) are making is that this is an imperfect defense which reduces but not removes liability.

I (hope) I'm kinda the 10% you were talking about. This whole issue is so emotionally charged jerks are gonna continue being jerks.

 

[Omnific One]

I love this part of the article:

The boy's grandmother, Donna Virges, disputes the version of events, saying the two adolescents were simply "walking down the street, and they saw a window broken at a woman's house and as they passed by, they said she came out shooting."

Yeah, riiiiiiiight.

 

[Jamash]

[HEADING=3]Late to after-party[/HEADING]

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

In some places we (humans) still do. The Taliban just stoned their first victim in nine years.

I thought about that when I posted. I'm a moderately observant Jew, and know what my ancestors used to do when they ran their country, and for what rules. But still, doesn't apply so much to Chicago.

Maybe that sort of this applies more to Chicago than you would initially think, because there's an interesting aspect to this story in the New York Post's coverage of this event.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/elderly_chicago_woman_shoots_harassing_ebXq51S9GEkk3r7Ny5o3mJ

Matthews was recovering from the blow to the chest and said she felt guilty about hurting the boy, who she believes was acting under an outside influence. "He's got a demon," she said.

Now, if you're religious and believe in things like demonic possession, then she probably was justified in shooting the child because she honestly believed that she was being attacked by an evil spirit, but if you don't believe in that sort of thing... well then the woman is obviously mental and was probably acting unjustly when she came out of her house firing her gun a the group of kids.

Is believing that someone is possessed by a demon justification for shooting them?

It's nice that she doesn't blame the kid she shot, but rather the evil spirit possessing him, but is that sort of thing really a viable excuse in the 21st century?

 

[linwolf]

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

So if a child was setting a kitten on fire and you were 50 feet away and had a pistol you'd let the kitten burn? You're a sick fuck.

Letting a kitten burn or shoot a person, of course I would let the kitten burn.
But if I was in that situation I would run up to hit the kid on the head and throw a jacket on the kitten.

 

[astrav1]

Good for her.

 

[Oh That Dude]

"Shit, Granny's packing!"

Lulz, win.

I dunno about this, I'm not one for corporal or capital punishment, but on the other hand the kid sounds like a right dickhead.

 

[Regular Guy]

Damn, she doesn't fuck around.

 

[Regular Guy]

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

So if a child was setting a kitten on fire and you were 50 feet away and had a pistol you'd let the kitten burn? You're a sick fuck.

Letting a kitten burn or shoot a person, of course I would let the kitten burn.
But if I was in that situation I would run up to hit the kid on the head and throw a jacket on the kitten.

I just have to double post for this. Personally, I would put a bullet in the kid, aiming for a nonfatal zone. If you're setting cats on fire, its only a matter of time until you move on to bigger prey.

 

[sirkai007]

The kid was throwing bricks at an old woman. That right there is felony battery. He was attacking her with lethal force (yes, lethal). Here in the states, you can use lethal force to repel lethal force.

Shooting a human is shooting a human. If a thief breaks into your house, slips on a toy, and breaks their leg, they can probably sue you and win.

If someone attacks you and you kill them in self defense, it's still murder

So if someone smashes your window with bricks and insults you, suddenly you can gravely injure a 12 year old boy through a bullet wound and you get off scott free? What the fuck?

Assault is assault, whether self defense or not. Shotting another human is just plain and simple shooting them. It's bull shit.

EDIT: Here's an idea granny: Call the cops before going Rambo on a child's ass

Someone attacks you and you kill them it's manslaughter, and generally the defender wouldn't be a violent person and so would have to live with it.

Also no, assault is not assault if it's self defense, you can upto break bones and dislocate joints in self defence, I have, and I got off scot free because I was defending myself from a person with a knife.

She did call the cops

3rd degree murder is murdering someone without preconceived intent to kill them. This would occur in: self defense. So like... Manslaughter! You're thinking 1st degree murder, which is killing someone after having a preconceived intent to kill them (I'm going to walk in there and kill those people)

And you got a lucky break. My friend was attacked in a bar and punshed him out in about 3 hits. He was arrested for assault. it depends on whether the cop is a nice person or not

A lot of that depends on where you live.

 

[Atheist.]

When I first read the title, I thought it meant a junkie elderly woman shoots a bully.

OT: I'm surprised the old woman couldn't think of a better way to handle this situation.

 

[lemby117]

I can just imagine how this went. brick comes through window old granny pulls out .45 magnum says in badass voice "you just made my day punk" ''bang'' yeah dont mess about with dirty harriet.

 

[ecoho]

So verbal abuse is enough justification to shoot children?

No. But the bricks the kid was throwing are potentially lethal. Probably the key reason no charges are being filed against granny.

This precedent should make all future riots a lot easier to deal with. If children can be justifiably shot for throwing bricks, then the police should have no trouble opening up on adults throwing any object that is considered potentially lethal.

People should think long and hard about whether they want to be shot the next time their favourite sports team loses a game.

um ok im not sure if your just trolling or if you beleave this so im going to asume you actualy think this way and answer acordingly. Ok heres the maijor differance the woman was ealderly witch ment in he 70s at least so even a brick to her leg or arm could kill her. Next rioters can be shot if they are useing weapons that are as leathal as this brick was to this woman(in the case of the woman this would be the equivilent to a gun) Now as to if she would have killed him out right by "missing" as you say and killing him there are a few things you should understand if he was on her property he falls under the "make my day" laws of her state i have no idea what those might be were she lives but in my state if anyone comes on your property without premission and refuses to leave you can use leatthal force on them and kill them and not be charged. if your not from the US then i could see how you might be confused.

BTW i beleave she did miss and was aiming for his head


OT: i would of shot the basterd in the head call the morge to pick him up and slept like a baby. as a person who has been bullied i understand when enoth is enoth and yes io beleave she was more then with in her right to exicute his sorry ass for allmost killing her. that being said if your one of these people who think she was wrong let me ask you this one question.

If you were being attacked by a 12 year old kid who could overpower you phisicaly and the police would not do anything about it what would you do?

 

[Home-Skillet]

So verbal abuse is enough justification to shoot children?

No. But the bricks the kid was throwing are potentially lethal. Probably the key reason no charges are being filed against granny.

This precedent should make all future riots a lot easier to deal with. If children can be justifiably shot for throwing bricks, then the police should have no trouble opening up on adults throwing any object that is considered potentially lethal.

People should think long and hard about whether they want to be shot the next time their favourite sports team loses a game.

um ok im not sure if your just trolling or if you beleave this so im going to asume you actualy think this way and answer acordingly. Ok heres the maijor differance the woman was ealderly witch ment in he 70s at least so even a brick to her leg or arm could kill her. Next rioters can be shot if they are useing weapons that are as leathal as this brick was to this woman(in the case of the woman this would be the equivilent to a gun) Now as to if she would have killed him out right by "missing" as you say and killing him there are a few things you should understand if he was on her property he falls under the "make my day" laws of her state i have no idea what those might be were she lives but in my state if anyone comes on your property without premission and refuses to leave you can use leatthal force on them and kill them and not be charged. if your not from the US then i could see how you might be confused.

BTW i beleave she did miss and was aiming for his head

I don't really have much to say about any of this thread,
but I am surprised that all of you seem so okay with someone shooting a kid.
Even if he was harassing her, she couldn't call the cops, contact the parents or anything?
Opening fire on someone shouldn't be your first reaction to everything.