News Junkie: Elderly woman shoots bully, no charges!

[spartan231490]

Well i think she should be charged with something. No matter ho hard she had been taunted shooting somebody is not an acceptable way to deal with it.

did you read any of this? she wasn't being taunted, she was being attacked. the kid broke all her windows with bricks and then started chucking the bricks at the woman. It's slef-defense.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

Here's the thing with self defense, you're allowed to use "justifiable force." What this is largely depends on the situation. Yes, the kid was throwing bricks, possibly endangering the life of the woman. However, the kid was twelve.

Honestly, if I were that kid's parents, I wouldn't press charges simply because he was being a complete moron and harrassing the poor old lady. Like most people who do that, I'm sure the kid had had, at some point in time, friends to help him harrass her.

Honestly, she probably pulled the gun and told him to stop, he acted like he was going to throw a brick, so she shot him. Believe me, if he was close enough to be throwing bricks into the house, the lady probably had a good chance of hitting where she was aiming. I mean, he is twelve, how far can he throw a brick? Besides, it was on her property, she had every right to defend herself if she felt she was in danger. I've had stuff thrown at me before, and I'll tell you, bricks whizzing by your head makes you a little concerned for your life. Legally speaking, she might have even been justified in killing him.

If she does get charged with something and I was on that jury, I'd give a verdict of not guilty. Sure, she could have handled it better, but how calm can you really be if bricks are smashing through your windows?

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

The shoulder is a terrible place to be shot. There's a joint there that if damaged, is irreparable. In other words, his arm could be unusable for life.

 

[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.

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

 

[Mr.Pandah]

It's like that time the father went to his daughters wedding, only to be beaten to death by a bunch of kids who were trying to look cool in front of girls.

I remember hearing that story a few weeks ago and it still infuriates me to no end that something as stupid as that happened. I can't believe it. I really can't.

As for this story, I do feel the old woman was in the right. It may be extreme, but what else could she do? The kid was attacking her. It doesn't take a lot to cause severe injury to an elderly person. Imagine a brick coming flying through your window and takes out your leg? As an old person, you fall down, and nobody would know. You'd lie there and just die most likely.

The kid was an asshole. She shot in self-defense, didn't kill the little shit, and now he'll know better since Granny is a pretty good shot.

 

[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.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

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

It's fuckin' Chicago. The goddamn Rottweilers are packin'.

This is true...

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Well, welcome to the layer cake son...

 

[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.

 

[dududf]

Even though the kid was a little shit, I don't think the granny shoulda capped him.I doubt an old lady could guarantee that she could hit him in the shoulder. 6 inches up or down and the punk would have been dead.

 

[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.

 

[2fish]

He lost his human rights defense when he threatened hers. I would have used rubber bullets then put two into him. Granny needs to work on her doubletap.


Don't mess with old people, they know how to hold a gun properly.

 

[dududf]

It's like that time the father went to his daughters wedding, only to be beaten to death by a bunch of kids who were trying to look cool in front of girls.

Got a link to that story? I wouldn't say no to giving that a read.

 

[mr_rubino]

Meh, there's thought and then there's emotion. On a message board, emotion can reign without setting disturbing precedents.

 

[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.

 

[mark0217]

"zomg im politically correct" all over the place.

 

[monkey_man]

so not mess with old lady, they will get revenge...

 

[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.)

 

[Nazz3]

Bullying an elder woman?

LOL. Pathetic little shit deserved it. Especially if he was throwing bricks through the window...

 

[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.