• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,828
Reaction score
14,859
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Laws vary from state to state, but most go something like this:
1. You are not allowed to shoot someone to defend property only.
2. Any time you shoot someone, it is normally considered "lethal force". Even if they don't die, shooting someone is typically considered evidence of intent to kill, even if you claim intent to wound.

Admitting that you "shot to wound", can be used against you in court. It will be considered evidence that you did not consider the situation serious enough to warrant deadly force, yet as I mentioned, shooting someone AT ALL is usually considered deadly force regardless of your point of aim. In essence you are admitting to using a lethal weapon in a situation that you felt was not worth killing over. I'll grant you that this is a legal construct whose literal application probably goes outside of common sense in some cases, but it is a fact that admitting "I shot to wound" can put you in prison.

This goes back to "when arrested, say NOTHING except 'I want my lawyer'." :mrgreen:
So let me get this straight, if someone with ill intentions comes on your property and even if they aren't armed, it is better to kill them so as to avoid a legal hassle and possibly prison? Something seems terribly wrong about that but then again, if they live, it's your word against theirs.

I am a former law enforcement officer. To my knowlege, "shooting to wound" is not a normal part of any PD's curriculum. Even a bullet in the arm can kill, by severing the brachial artery. A bullet in the foot is potentially fatal if infection sets in. In some few VERY RARE scenarios, a SNIPER may shoot to disable, but that is not typical.
Kewl, I love a man in uniform. I concede you are definitely the expert in this discussion.

"Warning shots" are also disallowed in most if not all PD's. It was found that warning shots endangered bystanders too much. Tactically a warning shot takes you off target for a moment, and gives the perp a moment of time when he is not covered by your weapon.
But in the same token, by not giving a warning shot, aren't you endangering the bystanders just as much if they have no warning and and get caught in the crossfire? And as is often the case, public opinion turns against the police when they shoot and kill unarmed civilians, especially when it is witnessed by bystanders that the officers could have just wounded them.

Now, about this business of "Waving a gun to scare someone off"... yes and no. As an LEO, if I drew a pistol it was with the intention of using it if necessary... but in some cases the person backed down at the last possible instant and saved their life thereby.
I would think as a "peace" officer you would be obligated to give the person the chance to back down. The public puts their trust in the police to not only protect them, but to not kill them as well. Either way, it's gotta be a tough job to be a policeman.

Since leaving LE, as a private citizen with a concealed carry permit, I've been in some dangerous situations. Awareness and decision-making skills are critical, as I teach in my self-defense and handgunning classes. I don't want to ever be so far behind the curve that I am drawing against an already-drawn-gun... that's a good way to get killed, unless done from behind cover. For one example, I was once targeted for some kind of street-crime. One perp approached from the front, trying to get my attention. Being trained to watch for this kind of thing, I moved to one side and looked for the partner I assumed he probably had, and saw him coming up behind me. Both exhibited body language consistent with "threat behavior". Finding myself bracketed by two men of apparently criminal intentions, I put my hand on my weapon and prepared to draw. When they saw this, they both veered off in opposite directions and left the area. Had they not done so, I would have completed my draw if they continued to close on me, as 2 on 1 is legally equivalent to deadly force in my state. What would have happened at that point is pure speculation, but if they had immediately ceased their threatening behavior I would not necessarily have fired. Waiting until they had me pinned between them and a gun in my face or knife at my back would have been "less than ideal."
That sounds just like the movies. Seriously, I'm glad you lived to tell the tale. In Utah, it is legal for anyone to open carry, so who needs a concealed weapon permit? But ironically, it is illegal to carry an open beer. But here again, if it is legal to openly carry a firearm then why is that any different than waving the gun to deter a perp as opposed to actually shooting him?

On the "square range" you are commonly shooting at ranges of 7-25 yards. In the street, perps often wait until they have you up close, like arm's length or less, before they even let you see the weapon... and at that point you're in serious trouble, especially if he has a partner behind you.
I agree. But if you know that is a possiblity then why not the pull the gun out sooner to use as a deterent instead of waiting for the perp to show his gun or is at arms length?

Things are not always black and white in the real world.
This is so true. And I don't think any "civilian" can honestly say they know how they would react in a hostile situation until it is upon them.

But I want to reiterate the reason I bought my gun was to protect my property and as far as I know, that right is protected by the constitution. I remember how it was during the LA riots and the police were no where to be found for days. It was a mad house. On the news there were some Korean business owners whose businesses were getting looted and destroyed by their own neighbors. So they went and bought guns, came back and started shooting at the looters. When you see the video below, it's amazing nobody was killed, but it did stop the looting of their businesses and public opinion was on their side. Days later, after the dust settled and things returned to normal, most of the looters returned the goods they stole. I must say, that kind of renewed my faith and hope for humanity somewhat, because if they had been killed they wouldn't have had that chance to redeam themselves. But my point is, if the Korean business owners had guns to use as a deterent from the very start, no one would have tried or have gotten into their businesses to do the damage they did and they probably wouldn't have needed to go on a shooting spree after the fact.

LA riots – Looters and Korean business owners defending their stores | Newsnet 14
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So let me get this straight, if someone with ill intentions comes on your property and even if they aren't armed, it is better to kill them so as to avoid a legal hassle and possibly prison? Something seems terribly wrong about that but then again, if they live, it's your word against theirs.

A lot of this is going to depend on the details, specifically what your state laws say about how you are legally allowed to handle an intruder. Some state laws are very reasonable; some are ridiculous.
If you own a gun and intend to use it for defense, you need to know what the law says. It's probably online at your state.gov website.



But in the same token, by not giving a warning shot, aren't you endangering the bystanders just as much if they have no warning and and get caught in the crossfire? And as is often the case, public opinion turns against the police when they shoot and kill unarmed civilians, especially when it is witnessed by bystanders that the officers could have just wounded them.

Not really. A warning shot is by definition a shot that is not aimed at someone that needs to be shot. Consequently, its point of impact is more uncertain. If I take my point of aim off the perp, I'm giving him a moment in time to do something that might endanger me, other officers, or bystanders. If I fire a shot that isn't aimed at the perp, bystanders might not be expecting me to fire somewhere other than along that line and one of them might be standing in the way or running into the line of fire. It is considered an avoidable risk.
Shots actually aimed AT the perp are supposed to HIT the perp. Yeah, I know, they don't always. But at least anybody in his right mind ought to be trying to get out of that line of fire between or behind the perp and the cops.

I would think as a "peace" officer you would be obligated to give the person the chance to back down. The public puts their trust in the police to not only protect them, but to not kill them as well. Either way, it's gotta be a tough job to be a policeman.

"Obligated?" No. Not if there is an immenent threat to an innocent person, and that is mostly when we're supposed to shoot. If a perp is pointing a gun at me, or at an innocent person, a warning shot might cause him to shoot. If we're talking about a guy standing twenty yards away with a knife, and not charging anyone just now, then normally yeah he gets a chance to surrender.


That sounds just like the movies. Seriously, I'm glad you lived to tell the tale. In Utah, it is legal for anyone to open carry, so who needs a concealed weapon permit? But ironically, it is illegal to carry an open beer. But here again, if it is legal to openly carry a firearm then why is that any different than waving the gun to deter a perp as opposed to actually shooting him?

If you read my other posts, I said that yes, there are certain circumstances when using a gun for a deterrent, without necessarily shooting, is a reasonable action. If the threat is less than imminent, like a man at a distance with a knife.



I agree. But if you know that is a possiblity then why not the pull the gun out sooner to use as a deterent instead of waiting for the perp to show his gun or is at arms length?

If you'll re-read my story about what happened to me, you'll notice that is exactly what I was doing, or rather about to do. They saw me grip my weapon, and that alone was enough to cause them to break off.

This is so true. And I don't think any "civilian" can honestly say they know how they would react in a hostile situation until it is upon them.

Disagree. Generally you will react according to how you have been trained, how you have practiced, and how you have mentally prepared yourself to handle a given situation.
I had a shift-mate named I'll call "H". "H" was not exactly John Wayne, but he was a good cop. He found himself in a fight with a perp, who was able to get his weapon out of his holster and attempt to shoot him with it. H remembered his training and used a technique to take the gun away from the perp. He was scared, but he reacted according to his training, practice, and temperament.
Cops are not supermen. There is nothing cops do that "civilians" can't, with suitable training.



But I want to reiterate the reason I bought my gun was to protect my property and as far as I know, that right is protected by the constitution. I remember how it was during the LA riots and the police were no where to be found for days. It was a mad house. On the news there were some Korean business owners whose businesses were getting looted and destroyed by their own neighbors. So they went and bought guns, came back and started shooting at the looters. When you see the video below, it's amazing nobody was killed, but it did stop the looting of their businesses and public opinion was on their side. Days later, after the dust settled and things returned to normal, most of the looters returned the goods they stole. I must say, that kind of renewed my faith and hope for humanity somewhat, because if they had been killed they wouldn't have had that chance to redeam themselves. But my point is, if the Korean business owners had guns to use as a deterent from the very start, no one would have tried or have gotten into their businesses to do the damage they did and they probably wouldn't have needed to go on a shooting spree after the fact.

Again, you need to check your state laws, regardless of what you think the constitution guarantees. In some states defending property is looked on leniently, in others you can easily go to prison in many scenarios. You want to know where you stand with the law if you're going to use deadly force in any capacity. It isn't hard, just look it up and read it.
 

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Cops still haven't charged this dangerous criminal...I guess she didn't break the law. :lamo

The fact that this woman hasn't been charged does NOT mean that she chose the best possible method of handling this situation. Sometimes people who have access to a firearm, but are not trained, in a moment of anger/fear, will see that weapon as a means of handling a conflict that would be better settled without the use of weapons.

It is my personal experience that a gun should be used as a last resort when you are in fear of imminent harm and have no other recourse. That is my personal philosophy about violence. A gun is not a prop that you use to frighten neighborhood kids, it is a tool for killing someone who means you immediate--and serious--harm.

This woman reacted emotionally, and in my opinion, that was a mistake. Many people escalate when they feel frustrated or angry, without realizing the ramifications of that escalation. I've seen gang members do it a hundred times, and I will never be a fan of vigilanteism (and that's what this was, without question).

I find it troubling that a gun advocate would EVER take gun use lightly and applaud people who use a firearm without proper preparation and/or thought.

I never carried a gun when I did intervention with gang members. I've never yet found myself in a situation that I couldn't resolve without the use of a weapon. I strongly suspect that this woman had ongoing problems with these kids because of behaviors that she engaged in personally, beyond the fact that they were little thugs.

I've known hundreds of little thugs. There is a reason that some people have difficulties with them. There are a lot of older people in some communities who expect to be shown a certain degree of deference by teenagers, without realizing that this generation is different, and that they aren't going to show you respect just for being old. You get what you give. I've seen several senior citizens actually CREATE conflicts in their neighborhoods because of the rude and hostile way that they dealt with the kids. I strongly suspect that this woman played an active role in the ongoing feud.
 
Last edited:

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The fact that this woman hasn't been charged does NOT mean that she chose the best possible method of handling this situation.

but it does mean that in the eyes of the law, her action was justified.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,921
Reaction score
77,652
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
one of the risks of being an asswipe is getting wasted by someone you screw with

I am a big advocate of laws that hold that those who engage in felonious attacks on others cannot be heard to complain in either civil or criminal court against their intended victims.

In other words if you rob, burglarize or attack another person and they blow your nuts off with a 12 bore shotgun you are outta luck

no if you were not engaged in felonious behavior or behavior that a reasonable person would see as felonious, then you probably shouldn't have your nuts shot off, maybe just a load of rock salt in your ass
 

FederalRepublic

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,942
Reaction score
711
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
I doubt that would have stopped the little brat from picking up another brick. Besides, I didn't say she was Annie Oakley, only that it was a good shot and that wounding him was all that was neccessary. But others here are talking like deadly force is the only way to use a gun, it isn't. Aiming for the extremities can be just as effective.

Will you still say this when the "little brat" comes back and sets her house on fire? If it happens in a couple of years, I'll remember, and I'll ask you...
 

Travelsonic

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Will you still say this when the "little brat" comes back and sets her house on fire? If it happens in a couple of years, I'll remember, and I'll ask you...

Which begs the question of whether or not it is, or will remain that out of hand. :roll: Lets just focus on the "what has happened" and not base what has occurred on what COULD POSSIBLE in the future HAPPEN or NOT happen.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In my formerly-professional opinion, she definately overreacted to some degree, and was fortunate not to be charged.

Do I sympathize with the untenable situation she found herself in? Of course. Absolutely.

Her solution however, was less than ideal.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,828
Reaction score
14,859
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In my formerly-professional opinion, she definately overreacted to some degree, and was fortunate not to be charged.

Do I sympathize with the untenable situation she found herself in? Of course. Absolutely.

Her solution however, was less than ideal.
I would be curious to know how you would have handled the situation if you were her? Keep in mind it was almost a years worth of harrassment (setting fires, throwing bricks, distruction of property, etc) and calling the police and the boys parents was futile.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would be curious to know how you would have handled the situation if you were her? Keep in mind it was almost a years worth of harrassment (setting fires, throwing bricks, distruction of property, etc) and calling the police and the boys parents was futile.


I regret to say that sometimes the system does not work very well. There are lazy cops sometimes, and even the good cops often find their hands tied by proceedure and the courts. Anything involving juveniles is especially difficult, because they are often treated with kid gloves to the point of ridiculousity.

I would naturally have begun by attempting to get the law to handle it. To facilitate this, security cameras hooked up to recorders would be placed to catch his actions on film. Nothing says "prosecutable" like video evidence.

I would confer with his parents in a very serious manner, explaining that they were susceptible to lawsuit for damages for their offsprings' misbehavior.

I would document everything, and keep copies of police reports, and establish a "paper trail" that the harassment was ongoing.

If there was no resolution through the law, I'd take everything to a journalist for the local news. They often love scandals and headlines saying "Police not doing their job, local widow terrorized," and that sort of thing.

One of the problems with this sort of situation is that they DO tend to escalate until something drastic eventually happens. There's a good chance, if this old lady hadn't been armed, that one day or another we would have read how she'd been murdered by this juvenile, or very gravely injured. If things had gone on without any resolution, there's a good chance that either the old lady or the bad kid would have ended up dead at some point. The circumstances under which this DID happen were less than ideal, as they left room for someone to ask whether it was really a legitimate shooting or not. There are ways to manage these situations better, but nothing I'm going to talk about online.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I doubt she had the means to install cameras. The police had already failed her.
 

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,472
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This woman had been terrorized by these punks for an extended period of time They set fire to her property. They put a brick through her window, which hit her in the chest. They came back with more bricks. During all this the police were ineffective at best at defending this woman from these little monsters. I have absolutely no problem with her response. Could she have responded differently? Sure. But everyone has a breaking point and after constantly being harrassed by these thugs, she apparently reached hers.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
why you shoot first and ask questions later. keep in mind, this guy was a professional who had been trained in disarming an opponent. this is why cops shoot guys with knives. and why I have no problem with this lady shooting this punk who was assaulting her with bricks.

knife3.jpg
 

Attachments

  • knife1.jpg
    knife1.jpg
    43.2 KB · Views: 23

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,099
Reaction score
28,114
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'd draw it shy of using lethal force against a kid with a brick.

You can kill someone with just about anything, so simply saying "the brick could have hurt or killed her" is a bunch of crap. You have to look at the percentages, and I'd imagine that a brick kills A LOT less often than a firearm.

Further, she was being pelted when she stood at her window to look at or yell at the kids, and when she went outside to confront them. I can understand why, but if someone's throwing heavy **** at you, putting yourself in range of the heavy **** is a dumb thing to do.

I'm not saying these kids are in the clear, they should definitely be punished. I'm just saying that she took it WAY too far with the gun.

Maybe you should consider changing your avatar.
 
Top Bottom