News Junkie: Elderly woman shoots bully, no charges!

[Casual Shinji]

I'm embarrassed by the number of people that seem to believe that shooting someone is a justifiable response to being bullied.

If you're capable enough to take aim and shoot someone in the shoulder then you're capable enough to pick up the phone and call the police, tell a family member or tell a neighbour about the bullying/abusive behaviour.

If it was that easy then there'd be no more herassment in any neighborhood.

The problem with neighborhood herassment, especially by teenagers, is that there's little to nothing that the police can do about it; they're not really breaking the law and when the cops do finally show up, the troublemakers will simple run home where their parents can cover for them. Then when the cops leave they can gather up again and continue intimidating passer bys.

And it's these same kind of kids that like to throw rooftiles of highway overpasses or through the windows of incoming trains.

 

[xDarc]

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.

Civilians do not have to meet the same standards as police officers when determining engagement. Being faced with a real and potentially lethal threat is usually enough. Even then, it is likely a police officer would avoid criminal charges for shooting someone armed only with bricks, they would simply lose their job.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I love how people are saying "She could have blown his brains out". Maybe Granny here is a good shot. I don't meet a lot of old people who have firearms that don't know how to use them despite failing eyesight. Perhaps she also was scared as hell when the bricks started flying through her window and responded with humanity's fight or flight reaction, which as far as I know doesn't delineate between kid/adult/whatever.
I'm also a firm believer in Karma. Don't hop in the lions cage and not expect to get mauled. Screwing with old people is about as despicable as torturing helpless creatures. Age is not a factor.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

Actually I think we need to get over our overprotectiveness of children in the US. People rapidly tend to forget about all the kids who are hardened criminals, or in other countries soldiers and terrorists. I can't help but roll my eyes nowadays when I hear "OMG, think of the children" especially when it comes to either crime or us taking action in another country that could hurt kids.

To put things into perspective read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_%22Yummy%22_Sandifer

In short that is a rather famous (or it was) child criminal, a hardened gang banger who was involved in all kinds of things, and was executed by his own people at the age of 11.

That's right, the kid was a hardened criminal by 11.

That's simply a famous case which I was able to easily referance, it's only the tip of the iceberg.

When you have kids as young as 7 or 8 packing guns, selling drugs, being used as mules, and even committing murders in some cases (even if the authorities try and keep it out of the media), it's really hard to think "ZOMG she shot a kid".

The days of Dennis The Menace, and innocent childhood mischief are over. Today Dennis might be robbing Mr. Wilson's house to sell his property for drugs, pimping margaret out to pedophilles, and not only packing a gun but acting as the regular backup for other criminals in his brother's gang.

 

[Thyunda]

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

No, it's not murder. It's manslaughter. Big difference. And she did call the police, and she got fuck all out of it.

Sure, it says she called the police, but it says nothign after that. Were the cops on their way? Did they respond? Did they tell her to sit on it? There is no time frame which is given. Just "They came back". So she pulls out a gun and shoots them? I mean. Try calling again? The news didn't ask why the cops didn't show?

And 3rd degree murder is Manslaughter. Same thing

I'm assuming the police showed up, the kids ran off, the police made a couple of token assurances, left, and the kids came back. If the girl didn't know the kid's names, there was barely anything the police could do...what did you expect, stake-out the woman's house?

 

[Imp Poster]

Yeah, Dirty Harriette. "Being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"

Aw, come on, regardless what the laws are, if you were in her situation, you would shoot him too.

 

[spartan231490]

.. Why am i not suprised?

Its just wrong.

it's not wrong, it's self defense. It's not like the kid was calling her an old bag, he was chucking bricks at her property and her person. Her property was in danger, and most likely so was her well-being, and obviously the police had done nothing to stop it. Way to go old lady, and corresponding police force for actually charging the people who commited a crime!!!

 

[Duskwaith]

Fair play to her.

He was lucky he wasnt killed if he was stupid enough to brick her house and then return to hurl more bricks.

 

[Harkwell]

Shooting a twelve year old? Thats bad...or it would be if not for some details...
1) I'm pretty sure granny has called the cops on those kids. In the span of a year, she'd be crazy not to. Makes me wonder where the police were
2) A brick? Those are some bratty kids which brings me to my next point...
3) The mom said they were just walking by. Really? Thats the best she can do? Aside from the fact that she should be at least grounding those kids...

 

[spartan231490]

I can't believe how many people 1) believe that you should be charged with a crime for self-defense, and 2) don't recognize that this is self defense. You only have the rights you're willing to fight for, if you don't know what those rights are, you can't fight for them. Fight for the right to defend yourselves from unprovoked assault people. If a 17 year old was chucking bricks at old ladies you would all want to see him crucified, but because he's only 12, you grant him moral liscene? because he is 12 years old that gives him the right to assault and potentially seriously injur or even kill an old lady? because he is 12 his actions are somehow more holy, more right, and more justifyable? think about the situation and what you are saying, just because he isn't an adult doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, especially his actions which endanger the wellbeing, potentially even the lives of other individuals. I do have 2 questions though, are his parents facing any charges for allowing thier 12 year old to chuck bricks at people, and what previous charges might this child have on his record?

 

[Irridium]

So next time someone's getting bullied they're within their right to shoot the bully, potentially crippling/killing him/her and suffer no consequences at all?

Alright then.

 

[Irridium]

I can't believe how many people 1) believe that you should be charged with a crime for self-defense, and 2) don't recognize that this is self defense. You only have the rights you're willing to fight for, if you don't know what those rights are, you can't fight for them. Fight for the right to defend yourselves from unprovoked assault people. If a 17 year old was chucking bricks at old ladies you would all want to see him crucified, but because he's only 12, you grant him moral liscene? because he is 12 years old that gives him the right to assault and potentially seriously injur or even kill an old lady? because he is 12 his actions are somehow more holy, more right, and more justifyable? think about the situation and what you are saying, just because he isn't an adult doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, especially his actions which endanger the wellbeing, potentially even the lives of other individuals. I do have 2 questions though, are his parents facing any charges for allowing thier 12 year old to chuck bricks at people, and what previous charges might this child have on his record?

We're not saying he shouldn't be punished. But shooting a twelve year old seems kind of over-the-top.

 

[spartan231490]

So next time someone's getting bullied they're within their right to shoot the bully, potentially crippling/killing him/her and suffer no consequences at all?

Alright then.

He wasn't just bullying her, that's a horrible title, he was chucking bricks at her and her house.

 

[spartan231490]

I can't believe how many people 1) believe that you should be charged with a crime for self-defense, and 2) don't recognize that this is self defense. You only have the rights you're willing to fight for, if you don't know what those rights are, you can't fight for them. Fight for the right to defend yourselves from unprovoked assault people. If a 17 year old was chucking bricks at old ladies you would all want to see him crucified, but because he's only 12, you grant him moral liscene? because he is 12 years old that gives him the right to assault and potentially seriously injur or even kill an old lady? because he is 12 his actions are somehow more holy, more right, and more justifyable? think about the situation and what you are saying, just because he isn't an adult doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, especially his actions which endanger the wellbeing, potentially even the lives of other individuals. I do have 2 questions though, are his parents facing any charges for allowing thier 12 year old to chuck bricks at people, and what previous charges might this child have on his record?

We're not saying he shouldn't be punished. But shooting a twelve year old seems kind of over-the-top.

So you think she should have sat by, and let the police pretend to be helpful when a kid was chucking bricks at her? what else could she have done, beat him with her walker? watch the kid run away when the police drive up only to be back 5 minutes after they leave. He was "bullying" her for over a year, it's pretty obvious that a) the police couldn't stop him, and b) it wasn't the first thing she tried, if it was, this would have happened a year ago.

 

[Raijha]

I'm going to have to go with granny on this one, the boys were standing on top of a shed IN her front yard, so on her property, and the bricks that were being thrown at the time of the shooting were NOT directed at the house, as the windows were already broken, but directly at her, one of which hit her in the chest! I will admit that she should have A: Called the cops again and informed them that the boys were back and now throwing bricks at her directly and B: fired a warning shot at least, BUT when it comes down to OMFG that little SHIT just hit me in the chest with a brick!!!! How rational do any of us really think we would be? Definitely sounds like self defence to me, no matter if the offender was 12 or 21.

 

[Starke]

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.

Police have much more strict limitations on use of force than the average civilian. (Because they are assumed to have the training to use force more judiciously.)

EDIT: If a cop had shot the kid in the exact same situation, he'd be up in front of a disciplinary committee right now.

 

[blackflare]

a bit overboard but that kid deserved a beating really i blame the parents

 

[Starke]

a bit overboard but that kid deserved a beating really i blame the parents

I'd settle for shooting him in the shoulder, and potentially shattering his shoulder blade... oooh, please tell me his shoulder blade is slagged.