News Junkie: Elderly woman shoots bully, no charges!

[spartan231490]

Uhm. She shot him. I mean... guys seriously, she shot him. How is everyone on her side? Jesus Christ that woman shot a 12 year old kid, she should be the one to go to jail.

Now I'm not saying that the kid should get off the hook, but no matter what he did, shooting a twelve year old with a gun is not acceptable.

A woman, who has no other means of defending herself. Defended herself against a stupid kid who would have eventually done worse than simply throwing bricks at her.

Did you skip that part? You know the whole BRICK thing.

The little shit got what he deserves and it will serve as a warning for any other stupid little fuck that thinks about doing stupid shit like that.
Sometimes you need to break a few retarded eggs to make an omelet.

Finally, someone else with 2 brain cells to rub togethor. how can anyone think that a 12 year old kid should be exempt from assault charges? that claim is based on teh fact that at 12, he doesn't have the mental capacities to distinguish that what he was doing was wrong. well i'm pretty sure he knew that chucking bricks at an old ladies house and breaking every window, then chucking bricks at the woman herself was wrong, he's 12, not 2, he fucking knew what he was doing, send him to prison. give the lady a medal for courage in the face of danger and services to the city.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

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?

Token assurances only work for so long. You saying that for a year the police showed up, said "It'll be okay" and left? What kind of police do you have?

From what my british roomie has told me, I understand now. Her house back in England was robbed and police, no joke, said "Well if he comes back inform us immediately, keep an eye outfor him" and left
British ones.

 

[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?

Token assurances only work for so long. You saying that for a year the police showed up, said "It'll be okay" and left? What kind of police do you have?

From what my british roomie has told me, I understand now. Her house back in England was robbed and police, no joke, said "Well if he comes back inform us immediately, keep an eye outfor him" and left

Honestly, I know it sounds exaggerated, but they come to the house, take a statement and say 'we'll keep an eye out for him'. In the case of the old lady, they would have said 'let us know if he comes back'. Naturally, he'd run off at the first sign of a police car. They are honestly useless over here.

 

[Trogdor1138]

Serves the little shit right, go Granny.

 

[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.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

Shit, even the grannies have guns in the States?!

But on a serious note, the kid should have know something would happen if she had to put up with his shit for a year...

 

[Irridium]

a) when riots turn violent, police quell them with riot shields and billy clubs, not far off from bullets

b) what do u think she was doing for the year leading up to his, sitting in her living room as he shattered her windows and cracked ribs with bricks and then one day it was suddenly too much and she shot the prick, it obviously wasn't the first thing she tried. She contacted the police, if she/they knew who the kids parents were, I'm sure they got several phone calls. She should have shot into the air, potential injuring someone completely innocent? she just got hit in the chest with a brick, chances are the kid saw the gun coming and thought it was a bluff, and he would have viewed a warning shot the same way. and how in the hell is an elderly woman going to care for a dog capable of being a credible threat as a guard dog, she would do herself more injury than the child, think about it. if the kid's brick had crushed her throat, or hit her in the head and caused an anurism, or killed her in some other faction, you'd be clamoring that the kid should be tryed as an adult, or do you honestly believe that being 12 years old is an adequate excuse to throw bricks at old ladies.
in conclusion, he's 12, old enough to know that chucking bricks at old ladies is not only wrong, but harmful, therefor he is capable of knowing that he shouldn't do it, and he did it anyway, that's a crime, self-defense is not. in my opinion, try the kid as an adult, and send him to prison for 5 years, not juvey for 2, and the parents should have to pay for the old ladies medical bills and all damages resulting from the incident. They should also have to pay for emotional damages, and the bullet she put in thier kids shoulder. Maybe then they'll control thier fucking child and teach him that it's fucking wrong to chuck bricks at old ladies, and if u do it, you won't see daylight for 2 month's per fucking brick. and when u do see the sun, you'll be working for that old lady doing chores to pay for the damages and one single word of disrepect you go back to ur room for another 2 months. oh ps, we're selling every electronic device you enjoy and not getting a new one. I'm not kidding, if this were my kid, that's what I would do/want done.

The woman is also old enough to know that shooting people is wrong. If I shot someone in self defense, I would get tried as an adult and thrown in jail. Regardless of what the bully did to me. And if he was terrorizing her for a year, chances are she would know his name. And if the parents didn't do anything for a year, and were oblivious to the whole thing, they should be the ones at fault. That doesn't mean the kid should get off scott-free, he should be punished. But him getting shot? Its a little extreme. No the kids age shouldn't be an excuse, but letting someone get off easily after shooting a child is just as bad.

 

[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.

 

[Croaker42]

All I am wondering is if the little bastard learned anything from the experience. I think he got what was comming to him. If someone tries to hurt your or yours, you shoot that person.
I find it hard to believe that Granny waited an entire year to do something about it.

 

[spartan231490]

a) when riots turn violent, police quell them with riot shields and billy clubs, not far off from bullets

b) what do u think she was doing for the year leading up to his, sitting in her living room as he shattered her windows and cracked ribs with bricks and then one day it was suddenly too much and she shot the prick, it obviously wasn't the first thing she tried. She contacted the police, if she/they knew who the kids parents were, I'm sure they got several phone calls. She should have shot into the air, potential injuring someone completely innocent? she just got hit in the chest with a brick, chances are the kid saw the gun coming and thought it was a bluff, and he would have viewed a warning shot the same way. and how in the hell is an elderly woman going to care for a dog capable of being a credible threat as a guard dog, she would do herself more injury than the child, think about it. if the kid's brick had crushed her throat, or hit her in the head and caused an anurism, or killed her in some other faction, you'd be clamoring that the kid should be tryed as an adult, or do you honestly believe that being 12 years old is an adequate excuse to throw bricks at old ladies.
in conclusion, he's 12, old enough to know that chucking bricks at old ladies is not only wrong, but harmful, therefor he is capable of knowing that he shouldn't do it, and he did it anyway, that's a crime, self-defense is not. in my opinion, try the kid as an adult, and send him to prison for 5 years, not juvey for 2, and the parents should have to pay for the old ladies medical bills and all damages resulting from the incident. They should also have to pay for emotional damages, and the bullet she put in thier kids shoulder. Maybe then they'll control thier fucking child and teach him that it's fucking wrong to chuck bricks at old ladies, and if u do it, you won't see daylight for 2 month's per fucking brick. and when u do see the sun, you'll be working for that old lady doing chores to pay for the damages and one single word of disrepect you go back to ur room for another 2 months. oh ps, we're selling every electronic device you enjoy and not getting a new one. I'm not kidding, if this were my kid, that's what I would do/want done.

The woman is also old enough to know that shooting people is wrong. If I shot someone in self defense, I would get tried as an adult and thrown in jail. Regardless of what the bully did to me. And if he was terrorizing her for a year, chances are she would know his name. And if the parents didn't do anything for a year, and were oblivious to the whole thing, they should be the ones at fault. That doesn't mean the kid should get off scott-free, he should be punished. But him getting shot? Its a little extreme. No the kids age shouldn't be an excuse, but letting someone get off easily after shooting a child is just as bad.

You wouldn't get thrown in jail, self-defense is perfectly legal. How would she know his name, criminals don't generally leave business cards. it's not like she went to his home and shot him in the soldier, he was endangering her health and her life, adn she stopped it in the only way she could, that's self-defense and as i said before, perfeclty legal, and justifyable. Why shouldn't we let her off, she's innocent?

 

[spartan231490]

All I am wondering is if the little bastard learned anything from the experience. I think he got what was comming to him. If someone tries to hurt your or yours, you shoot that person.
I find it hard to believe that Granny waited an entire year to do something about it.

I'm surprised no one helped her, the kid had to have been at it for a while to break all the windows. If i saw kids chucking bricks at an old lady, I'd go get my shotgun, and see how they like having potentially lethal projectiles aimed in thier direction.

 

[SnipErlite]

I'm torn between thinking this is wrong because, well, she shot him, and thinking this is AWESOME.

 

[spartan231490]

edit: sorry , double post

 

[Devin Parker]

Now this boy knows that his choices have consequences, and that you can only push a person so far before they'll retaliate. He survived, and he's young enough that he can still turn his wretched life around and become a man.

She put up with him for an entire year. He threw bricks at her.

Sounds justified to me.

 

[Dott]

In America, you are allowed to fire a gun or otherwise defend yourself and your home if someone as much as intrudes upon your property.

So, technically, those old tossers who sit around shouting "GET OFF MAH LAWN DANG BRATS" could just gun them down with the GAU-8 he has installed in his window.

 

[Irridium]

You wouldn't get thrown in jail, self-defense is perfectly legal. How would she know his name, criminals don't generally leave business cards. it's not like she went to his home and shot him in the soldier, he was endangering her health and her life, adn she stopped it in the only way she could, that's self-defense and as i said before, perfeclty legal, and justifyable. Why shouldn't we let her off, she's innocent?

He was harassing her for over a year. According to the news article people knew about it. And chances are someone would have known the kid. She could have gotten a restraining order, she could have gotten her stepson to help set up video cameras to provide evidence to the police? Why couldn't she have used the whole area's eyewitness accounts in her favor? There are plenty of things she could have done that don't include shooting the kid.

What if she missed and hit someone else? What if she killed him? Just because nothing bad happened(except her shooting the kid) doesn't mean we should just let her off the hook. She's a grown woman, she knew what she was doing, she knew she was pulling a gun on the kid, things could be a lot worse. Either she's a crack shot, or extremely lucky the bullet didn't drift into the kids head or chest.

If she killed the kid, something tells me we'd be having a very different conversation.

 

[Irridium]

this post is to make the above post show

 

[Avalanche91]

Here's the thing. What COULD she do?

Follow the brat home and tell his parents? Assuming she was to keep up with him, that most likely wont stop him.
Call the police? You honestly think they take that seriously?
Punch the kid? Assuming she's your typical old woman, not a chance.

Basically she was utterly helpless. Though there must have been a better way then open fire.

Wasn't there a firearms thread somewhere round here? This would fit perfectly as a argument.

 

[spartan231490]

In America, you are allowed to fire a gun or otherwise defend yourself and your home if someone as much as intrudes upon your property.

So, technically, those old tossers who sit around shouting "GET OFF MAH LAWN DANG BRATS" could just gun them down with the GAU-8 he has installed in his window.

Not really, you can't automatically shoot people for tresspassing, as much as i wish you could, people have been convicted of murder for doing that.