Nah. The kid has to learn his lesson somehow. Finger-waggling doesn't get you anywhere anymore.GamingAwesome1 said:
News Junkie: Elderly woman shoots bully, no charges!
- Thread starter sms_117b
- Start date
I'm sorry but you seem to be thinking that a brick is also not a big deal. What if that brick had clocked her in the head? People have argued that she was probably not an expert marksman yet they seem to think that the kid couldn't have harmed anyone/was aiming in such a way as to not hurt her ...... with a thrown brick. If he had killed her with a brick, this probably wouldn't have even made the news other than a little local hand-wringing on "why did this have to happen?" But, since it involves gun violence and it was the elderly woman shooting her assailant, it suddenly becomes frontline news. The fact that the local community seems to be backing her up would indicate that this is not an uncommon occurence and it has been pretty much proven that 911 response times vary as per the socioeconomic status of a neightborhood.jedizero said:
Yes, the child may have complications. This is known as the consequences of your actions. You argue that everyone was an idiot as a child. I think most of us weren't actively trying to engage in manslaughter with our actions. Your jumping in front of a train would have only harmed you. For your example to be a valid comparison, you would have had to push someone in front of the train. Once again, you can kill somebody by throwing a brick at them. This "child" could have inflicted permanent consequences on her by throwing bricks at her. And who are you to say that someone should have to live in fear because it's "kids" that are terrorizing her? The excuse of being young and dumb stops when you start trying to actively injure or even kill somebody.
Yes, we're applauding this. A lot of the people criticizing her were born with silver spoons in their mouths and never have been in neighborhoods where this sort of thing is a common occurence. It's easy to do the armchair quarterback and say that you would never do something like this and that the police always magicly show up when you're behind a keyboard. It's a little harder to get up on your high horse when you're the one having bricks thrown at you or you have lived in such a neighborhood.
Plus, one of the good side-effects is that the cops will be a little more active in the area until the media attention dies down. Maybe, between extra cop presence and the realization that, at least, one person is willing to defend themselves, the other little animals might think twice before chucking bricks at people.
If she was hit by a brick, she calls the police and reports an assault.
She doesn't draw a fricking gun and try her best to kill him.
Hell, I bet just drawing the gun itself would have freaked the kid out beyond belief, let alone actually *shooting* him.
Isn't it wonderful, when you can just judge someone without knowing anything about them? You know, just like you're accusing me and the others that agree with me of doing.
This woman took it upon herself to try and kill a young boy, not even a teenager. When she could have simply called the police and had him arrested. If there had been previous reports of him breaking her windows, of him harassing her, then it'd pretty much have been a simple open and shut case. Instead of potentially being crippled for the rest of his life because either because he was stupid, or his parents simply didn't give a crap,or even that this was in fact, the act of a psychotic old woman, potentially becoming more and more senile.
Depending on his amount of guilt, he could have even learned something useful. Instead he's learned that just like children, adults will overreact at the slightest thing, only the difference is the adults reactions can be far more fatal and tragic.
She doesn't draw a fricking gun and try her best to kill him.
Hell, I bet just drawing the gun itself would have freaked the kid out beyond belief, let alone actually *shooting* him.
I was not born with a 'silver spoon' in my mouth, I have been in bad neighborhoods. We've had people vandalize our mail boxes, we've had some asshole shoot up our house because they were trying to shoot at our halloween decorations. The bullets, if they'd been a little more angled to the left, they'd have gone straight into the living room, and probably killed one of us.thepyrethatburns said:
Isn't it wonderful, when you can just judge someone without knowing anything about them? You know, just like you're accusing me and the others that agree with me of doing.
This woman took it upon herself to try and kill a young boy, not even a teenager. When she could have simply called the police and had him arrested. If there had been previous reports of him breaking her windows, of him harassing her, then it'd pretty much have been a simple open and shut case. Instead of potentially being crippled for the rest of his life because either because he was stupid, or his parents simply didn't give a crap,or even that this was in fact, the act of a psychotic old woman, potentially becoming more and more senile.
Depending on his amount of guilt, he could have even learned something useful. Instead he's learned that just like children, adults will overreact at the slightest thing, only the difference is the adults reactions can be far more fatal and tragic.
first your advocating killing children in certain conditions which i don't know what your ideals or beliefs are but they must be very low if it existent at all.JWAN said:
so she called the police? Perhaps it wasn't same boy or perhaps she is lying because anyone firing a gun from a brick is not right in their head to begin with.
Also why is her story hard to believe? should we automatically assume that she was provoked?
That would be a great way for murders to get out of being prosecuted well he was provoking me so I shot him case won.
"And you people are APPLAUDING this?"jedizero said:
Yup. Sucks, doesn't it?
Who took it upon himself to try to kill her with a brick to the head. Or do you really believe that the kid was some type of marksman with a brick and made sure that he was aiming for a non-lethal hit? Maybe it was a special type of brick that can't cave in somebody's head?jedizero said:
Because that seems to have worked so well in the past year.jedizero said:
Because that seems to have worked so well in the past year.jedizero said:
Speaking of open and shut, is she being charged with anything? Sounds like the police agree on it being an open and shut case.
See, this tells me that you're not really arguing this in good faith. If this kid somehow doesn't understand that you shouldn't throw bricks at people when he's age 12, it's unlikely that having her call the police would have taught him anything either.jedizero said:
As it stands, he did learn something. He learned:
1) actions such as these have consequences
2) Trying to potentially kill/cripple someone may end up with you being potentially killed/crippled.
3) Some people will not cower inside their homes and wait for the police to eventually show up and take a statement that will be "filed" at the bottom of the filing cabinet. Some people will fight back. One person fighting back is worth 100 cops because people (especially Americans) focus more on immediate gains/losses than on long-term gains/losses when they do something.
Point out to me where it says the whole neighborhood is in her favor states this? In another article it says from one neighbor that the boy never caused anyone trouble.BiscuitTrouser said:
So from the one article that was posted it is still very fussy and even if you would to bother researching at all you would see there are two different stories.
Why can't she lie? shooting a kid to begin with, your not right in your head and should be allowed to carry any firearm.
Is she sure that the kid did break her window or that was even the right kid that was shot if she did have bricks thrown at her?
If you base your decision on such little factual evidence but from what I can tell there isn't even any I hope people like that never have to make any serious decisions that will effect anyone outside of themselves
I believe I may have made an error, I misread the article in question. It appeared to me that she was hit with a brick previously to this situation. If she was in fact being bombarded by bricks at the time of her drawing and firing the gun, yes. She does have a legal right to defend herself.
I may not like it, but it was within her right to do so. I apologize if I came across as rude, as I read it and understood it, I felt it was a rather great injustice for something like that to take place.
I still say it wasn't the right thing to do, that simply aiming the weapon at the boy would have been enough to make him stop, but hind sight is 20/20, who is to say what would, or would not have happened?
In either case, I concede your point.
I may not like it, but it was within her right to do so. I apologize if I came across as rude, as I read it and understood it, I felt it was a rather great injustice for something like that to take place.
I still say it wasn't the right thing to do, that simply aiming the weapon at the boy would have been enough to make him stop, but hind sight is 20/20, who is to say what would, or would not have happened?
In either case, I concede your point.
Thank you.
I apologize as well. I sometimes get a little too hot when debating this sort of thing and I did come off as too much of a classist in my reply to you. I could have made my point about differing police times based on the type of neighborhood without resorting to attacks. For that, I apologize.
Maybe it wasn't the right thing to do. Heat of the moment impairs judgement. I disagree on the idea of aiming it if you're not going to use it (The Navy Seal in that SOCOM Hell Week had it right when he said that you do not aim a gun at anything you're not intending to destroy.)but I respect that this is an "agree to disagree" moment.
I apologize as well. I sometimes get a little too hot when debating this sort of thing and I did come off as too much of a classist in my reply to you. I could have made my point about differing police times based on the type of neighborhood without resorting to attacks. For that, I apologize.
Maybe it wasn't the right thing to do. Heat of the moment impairs judgement. I disagree on the idea of aiming it if you're not going to use it (The Navy Seal in that SOCOM Hell Week had it right when he said that you do not aim a gun at anything you're not intending to destroy.)but I respect that this is an "agree to disagree" moment.
Unless the gun was very high caliber, it would not ricochet off the dirt and if you shot a tree, it would just become embedded.Shoqiyqa said:
Ahh, God bless America.Celtic_Kerr said:
As for this particular case, I'm not sure where I stand. I guess a warning shot would have been better?
Canada is where I live actually, but it's the same thing.Cheesus333 said:
See, now a warning shot is sensible.... not this "Kill the fucker" stuff
In my mind, you fire a gun to either train/practice your shooting or to kill someone. The boy wasn't target practice, so he should be grateful that she wasn't a better shot.Agayek said:
Besides, as an elderly woman, what else could she have done to defend herself against a brick? Catch it? Through another brick? Take the brick to the face and proceed to grab the child and carry him back to his parents? No. She used a firearm appropriately to defend herself against an individual armed with a deadly weapon who had demonstrated himself to be dangerous.
I haven't looked up the exact neighbourhood, but it said something about Chicago, didn't it? Chicago's made of concrete.MrDeckard said:
...
...
To all the people saying it's wrong to do anything about being attacked with potentially lethal projectile weaponry by a 12-yr-old, at what point do you do something about it?
What are you going to do, keep filing reports in the police station's circular under-desk filing cabinet until he turns 18 then shoot him ... if he hasn't escalated to arson by then?
As for the parents, it seems like they're the sort of parents who have no problem with their son acting that way but would take enormous offence at being told they ought to take some responsibility for his behaviour and actually raise him.
I checked the location on Google maps and South Shore where she lives is pretty much dead smack in middle of Chicago, so you make a very good point. Chicago IS concrete.Shoqiyqa said:
They already get to use force to stop such things. It's just that Police have a wider range of options available to them than your average person. For the police and military, you have viable options for an escalation of force. The woman in question almost certainly had three options: do nothing (which clearly did nothing), complain to the police (which did nothing), or shoot the kid (which may or may not have done something). What do you expect her to do between complain and the application of potentially lethal force? Throw rocks back? Something about the description of "Elderly" and "Woman" implies that might not be an option, much less an effective one.Jamash said:
