News Junkie: Elderly woman shoots bully, no charges!

[Therumancer]

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

It depends as much on where you happen to be.

As I've mentioned before, in some places (like here in Connecticut) when confronted by violence a person is under the obligation to flee first as their primary recourse of defense. Active self defense, and the entire continuum of force only enters into it if your pretty much run down by someone trying to attack you. The idea behind this is to curtail bar fights and such since both people involved will be arrested just for there being a fight, it also makes life easier for the police since "who started it" is no longer all that relevent to the situation.... or at least that was the law last time I bothered to check on it.

Differant places have differant ways of handling things. I suspect things turned out like that here in Connecticut because of the Coast Guard Academy, Sub Base, and numerous college campuses all in relatively close proximity to each other (at least down here in the SE part of the state).

One important thing to understand is that laws vary from state to state, and so do the exact definitions of some crimes like murder, manslaugher, etc... and how and when they are applied to differant situations. Things don't change TOO radically, but the differances can be pronounced enough that where someone is tried for crimes can be a big deal. In certain cases where it's uncertain where a crime took place (close to a state border) typically the perpetrator wants to be tried in the state with the lesser penelties, and the authorities generally want to stick him in whatever state has the stricter penelties and a better chance of conviction. In cases of infamous criminals who have committed crimes all over the country (as rare as it actually is) you can actually see arguements about which state gets to try him for what first.

 

[asinann]

If the cops were following the letter and intent of the law both the boy and Granny would be locked up right now. The boy for whatever they arrested him for and Granny for: Reckless discharge of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill, attempted murder, and child endangerment.

If you took a list of charges like that and the person being bullied was someone say in their 40's, would you still be cheering?

If your answer is no then you need to stop cheering for Granny too, the law is supposed to be applied equally to all people regardless of age.

Honestly, the kid had some kind of punishment coming, but shooting the kid was way WAY too much. She saw the kid, she could have called the cops.

 

[WirlWind]

So many people didn't actually read the article fully.

If someone had been outside my house throwing bricks, hit me in the chest and it had been going on for a year, I probably would have done the same. Hell, I probably wouldn't have lasted a year before doing something. Of course, the rules are a LOT different in Australia.

But by the law, she was in lethal danger, thus lethal force was applicable. Bricks can indeed kill people by being thrown.

I've been a victim of bullying in the past so I know how it feels to have nothing done when I've been physically assaulted by 1 or more people.

You know what I did to stop those bullies and ALL subsequent bullying towards me? I defended myself with a large stick and beat the shit out of the guys who tried. In a 1 on 1, I snapped and put the kid in hospital with a ruptured stomach. No-one ever seriously bullied me ever again.

To people who say violence is never the answer, you're wrong. Sometimes, violence is the only thing that will work in today's society. I tried telling the police, I tried diplomacy, I tried speaking to the teachers who spoke to their parents. The ONLY THING that had any effect on the situation was fighting back.

It's a shame that that's the case, but saying otherwise doesn't make it less true.

 

[SeanTheSheep]

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.

Yeah, these are my thoughts, pretty much down to the letter, I don't really have much more to add on to this except that I think the charges should have been filed, because. Even under the circumstances, I don't think shooting a child is the right course of action.

 

[crazypsyko666]

We don't know if granny was hit. Stop being such a fucking troll trying to escalate things.

If you read the actual article, we do know if Granny was hit. She was. In the chest. The night she shot him. Strong application of force (like a thrown brick) to the chest can kill a person. If someone is doing something that can kill you, you can do something that can kill them.

Are you people really so immature and pathetic as to suggest murder as a justifiable response to anything? Look, I'm not a saint, and I've had my share of fights over the years, but one thing I've learned is that escalation of violence gets you nowhere but down. The only time I'd even consider murder an acceptable act of defense is when others are threatened who are helpless to defend themselves, or it is completely necessary to kill someone to save yourself.

Why are we discussing the concept of murder anyways? She shot the bastard fuck in the shoulder, not in the head, major organs, or arteries. The kid is FINE. ALIVE. It is at this point that the law is no longer about practicality, but morality.

I honestly think the old lady was right in what she did. I can see that getting lost in the jumble of rants and misquotations here, but the old lady was in clear danger, and from what I can tell, this was her best way out. You cannot reason with a stupid, angry brick-wielding 12 year old. I've been one. I would have shot me, too.

 

[shadow741]

This is deeply screwed up. It's a 12-year-old bully, not a twenty-something mugger. Unless the kid was throwing bricks directly at her and she feared for her safety, this was way overkill. There are plenty of other avenues to take, like calling his parents or the police.

The kid's been bullying her for a year and it says in the news article that she was hit in the chest w/ a brick.

 

[captain underpants]

This story brings this song to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vXW66o15e0

What I want to know is, where the fuck were the parents?

 

[Nouw]

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

What if he burned down her house and killed kittens and puppies?

Ahem, I'm on the fence. I'll just say Shooting the boy isn't the answer.

 

[CRoone]

What I want to know is, where the fuck were the parents?

Off doing something other than making sure their kid was on track to becoming a well-adjusted member of society. At least, when the Police aren't knocking on their door because they caught Little Johnny tossing bricks through windows and hitting mailboxes with baseball bats.

I don't profess to being well-versed in juvenile discipline and corrections, but as I understand it, the parents take the fall whenever their kid acts up. In the end, between the parents not paying enough attention to his activities and subsequently having to face the consequences of his actions, Little Johnny is getting off more-or-less scott-free.

Frankly, I hope that the bullet to the shoulder woke him up a bit to the reality of the situation; that one day, we all reach a point where we alone will face the consequences of our actions from then on. Better he learn why he should behave now, before he goes and does something *really* stupid...a bullet to the shoulder now is a slap on the hand compared to what might befall him if he doesn't shape up.

Let's not go nattering about my opinion, though. Nobody *has* to be right here - this is a thread, not a courtroom.

 

[esin]

If you read the actual article, we do know if Granny was hit. She was. In the chest. The night she shot him. Strong application of force (like a thrown brick) to the chest can kill a person. If someone is doing something that can kill you, you can do something that can kill them.

No, we do Not know that granny was hit in the chest with a brick.
All we know is that she Claimed she was.

I'm with Rednog on this one. Sketchy testimony.

 

[derelict]

Too bad it was a shoulder and not a head shot. Only death cures stupidity. Yes, I realize it was a youngster...but truth is we need some real punishment for overstepping boundaries. When I was a kid I'd never dream of breaking the windows out of someone's house, especially not as a 'prank'. That's both ridiculous AND sad.

 

[Aur0ra145]

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.

I don't follow your logic, one is of an individual protecting themselves.

The other is of the government dealing with the populace.

 

[knight steel]

.. Why am i not suprised?

Its just wrong.

(this is just my opinion from the article here, im not in anyway trying to demean or stir up shit)
The kid hit an elderly lady with a brick:
"I was terrified," the South Shore resident tells the Chicago Tribune. "The young man hit me in the chest with a brick. After a year of harassment, that was the straw that broke the camel's back."
he came back, she probably was not looking forward to another brick in the chest so she shot the little fuck stick. The kid will be fine and probably gained a healthy terrifying fear of the elderly.

Ah thats much better ^_^.

 

[Mr.Gompers]

So many people didn't actually read the article fully.

If someone had been outside my house throwing bricks, hit me in the chest and it had been going on for a year, I probably would have done the same. Hell, I probably wouldn't have lasted a year before doing something. Of course, the rules are a LOT different in Australia.

But by the law, she was in lethal danger, thus lethal force was applicable. Bricks can indeed kill people by being thrown.

I've been a victim of bullying in the past so I know how it feels to have nothing done when I've been physically assaulted by 1 or more people.

You know what I did to stop those bullies and ALL subsequent bullying towards me? I defended myself with a large stick and beat the shit out of the guys who tried. In a 1 on 1, I snapped and put the kid in hospital with a ruptured stomach. No-one ever seriously bullied me ever again.

To people who say violence is never the answer, you're wrong. Sometimes, violence is the only thing that will work in today's society. I tried telling the police, I tried diplomacy, I tried speaking to the teachers who spoke to their parents. The ONLY THING that had any effect on the situation was fighting back.

It's a shame that that's the case, but saying otherwise doesn't make it less true.

This. A thousand times this. It's been a truth of mankind since the beginning. I got bullied back in the sixth grade, right in front of the teacher. The only reason it stopped was because one day I got pissed enough to stop taking the abuse and go after the main guy who was bullying me. The Teacher literally pulled me out of the class and took me to one of counselors, who finally did something about the situation. No one tried to do anything to me after that, because they knew that if the teacher hadn't intervened I would have fought the prick until one of us couldn't get off the floor. The counselor helped the situation somewhat, but what actually made them stop was the fact that I was willing to hurt someone for my right to have a peaceful existence.(As messed up as that may seem)

Now, if someone had taken to throwing bricks at me? I would have picked it up and used it to beat them. It seems that we're supposed to be cowards, reliant on our higher ups for protection, instead of actually being able to defend ourselves.

 

[minarri]

From the viewpoint of the law, there are a bunch of things wrong with this situation. Regardless of how much someone had it coming it's generally looked down upon to shoot someone, is it not?

Even so, I have to laugh. looooool.