News Junkie: Elderly woman shoots bully, no charges!

[spartan231490]

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.

What if his brick had crushed her throat and she had suffocated on the sidewalk? She was defending her life, and even had she killed the little shit, I would still believe she was justified and he got what he deserved. and heres the funny thing about a restraining order, you can walk right through it, restraining orders are horribly inefective, and what do you think she was doing for the last year, just waiting until he did somthing bad enough that she could shoot him for it, she obviously tried every other option available to her.

 

[spartan231490]

Excellent stuff. Wish this happened more in the UK, mostly the victim sticks up for them self and ends up being sued by the criminal. If the police can not do anything or are unable to do anything then the victim should be able to protect them self. And its the criminals fault because they commited the crime which ended up with them being shot. There should be a law saying any criminal hurt doing a crime losses the right to sue the person for any injuries, regardless of how violent the criminal is beaten. End of the day, if they were not commiting a crime, they wouldn't of been shot.

Yes, i couldn't agree with you more. No more burglars locking themselves in thier victims garage and then suing the victim cuz they had to live on dog food for a few days.

 

[Varrdy]

Fair play to her, I say! Maybe now the little fucker will learn some respect. If not, I hope someone takes one of the bricks he threw and shoves it up his arse...and puts the video of it on You Tube!

Wardy

 

[Chronic42]

Its all fun and games till some one gets shot in the shoulder by an elderly woman.

The kid had it coming...

Like everyone is discussing above, not too long ago in South Africa, a burglar was breaking into the house of an elderly man by climbing onto the roof and walking on it, and from that fell through the weak and old roof into the house breaking his hip and suing the home owner for it and got away with it. The way I see it some criminals and juvenile dirt bags don't deserve justice if they haven't seen the error in their ways.

But her shooting the child in the shoulder was over board. "She could've shot him in the leg instead" .

 

[Dags90]

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

Like many laws in the U.S., it varies on jurisdiction. However, it is the case in some states (I think Texas is one) where you can shoot people dead for trespass. You also have to prove a bunch of stuff, like that's it's reasonable to assume the person knew they were trespassing and they had "criminal intent".

 

[Daffy F]

Oh dear. I wonder what his mates will say... He got hospitalised by a Granny. It's like those muggers who got beaten up by a blind guy :L

 

[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.

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.

This and this again.
No one walking around saw this? Neighbors didnt hear glass breaking?
I am sorry but this rings heavily of apathy on the neighborhoods part.

 

[PureChaos]

brilliant, hope more stuff like this happens. serves the annoying little shits right

 

[MasTerHacK]

I hope she got him in his throwing shoulder.

Either way I'm sure he's learnt his lesson now.

Hehehehehe...
All I can say is...
PWNED!
It's enough...

 

[WhoaItsBrett]

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

Shooting a person regardless of age isn't justifiable. There is never a "good" reason to bring harm to another person. That being said, had I been in her shoes, I would have done the same thing.

 

[zfactor]

An elderly woman in Amerca ...

NO IT WAS CHICAGO!!!

Oh and the Supreme Court recently overturned the handgun ban here WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

(But that discussion is for another incredibly long thread...)

 

[Phoenix09215]

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.

My thoughts exactly. In this case I suppose you could say the kid had it coming, but if he was killed then the old woman would be a child murderer. Both of them are in the wrong, the kid, although a jackass is a kid. While the old woman is ment to be a responsible adult! I hope that kid has learnt his lesson, but I also hope that woman will get some sort of punishment (by this I don't mean jail or something to extreme) or ATLEAST a warning.

 

[zfactor]

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

Shooting a person regardless of age isn't justifiable. There is never a "good" reason to bring harm to another person. That being said, had I been in her shoes, I would have done the same thing.

Only if they were going to bring or have brought harm to me or my family members.

 

[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.

And the kid would have been charged with the felany crime of assaulting an officer of the peace.

Yup.

Okay, maybe not. IIRC some states won't allow you to charge a minor under a set age with a felony, but still. Though they could still give the little shit six years in juvie.

 

[Verlander]

Why does a granny have a gun?

All the better to shoot you with.

She really shouldn't have shot him. I can't believe she's not being charged.

Agreed. This kid isn't going to have learned a thing from this, he and his parents are just going to have justified self righteousness. If it had been a kid doing this to a young man who had shot him, that guy would have been put down for years. Ageism and sexism right there

 

[WillItWork]

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.