- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,762
- Reaction score
- 1,619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Doesn't seem to fit this lady.
Yes it is relevant if you are going to try to add that to her defense. If they didn't charge them with felony arson, menacing, or any aggravation to the assault, then your mention of them is simply a red herring.
It justifies self defense. It may or may not justify defending oneself with a bullet.
The difference is whether or not they are admissible as part of your defense. You cannot say they committed these crimes when they haven't even been charged with them to mitigate the actions of another defendant.
So now, I concede that the assault charge is a defense for her taking action to defend herself. I don't concede that a bullet was the answer.
Doesn't seem to fit this lady.
I think it was an attack on you. :lamo
I see. I'm Bipolar, not Psychopathic. I think it is utterly pathetic that when someone disagrees with him, he attacks and accuses one of severe mental illness. It strikes me as so typical of a liberal. What a loser.
I'd edit out the name calling, I'd hate for you to get gigged on his account.
I see. I'm Bipolar, not Psychopathic. I think it is utterly pathetic that when someone disagrees with him, he attacks and accuses one of severe mental illness. It strikes me as so typical of a liberal.
Moderator's Warning: |
Cease the personal attacks. I may not be a little old lady, but I can bust some "caps", too. |
She's protecting her property. She is in the right.
It depends on where you live. In Florida, you can shoot someone who comes on your property and gives the impression that they mean you harm. In other states, that's considered an excessive response.
you and i never agree.......but the little **** deserved it.
Some of us don't think lethal force is an acceptable response to property damage.
Yes it is relevant if you are going to try to add that to her defense. If they didn't charge them with felony arson, menacing, or any aggravation to the assault, then your mention of them is simply a red herring.
It justifies self defense. It may or may not justify defending oneself with a bullet.
The difference is whether or not they are admissible as part of your defense. You cannot say they committed these crimes when they haven't even been charged with them to mitigate the actions of another defendant.
So now, I concede that the assault charge is a defense for her taking action to defend herself. I don't concede that a bullet was the answer.
Incorrect.
If this woman was charged with say unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits, or attempted murder, and defense attorney worth a grain of salt would harp on the Arson, Assault, harrassment, menacing, etc.
Once again, the fact one is not charged with a crime does not mean one did not commit a crime.
The law does not make this distinction once the woman uttered she was in fear of her life. As long as she states she was in fear of her life she is authorized to use deadly force, including "a bullet".
Some of us don't think lethal force is an acceptable response to property damage.
I was speaking morally, not legally.
Morally speaking, I've worked with violent felons. In this situation, as described, an escalation to potentially lethal use of force is excessive. The woman had a range of possible responses. In her shoes, I'd have gone indoors, closed my door, and called the police. I have zero problems with appropriate use of force. In this case, however, it was excessive in my opinion. Being hit with a brick does not justify shooting someone. Furthermore, it was premeditated shooting. She went inside and returned with a gun. She could similarly have gone inside and phoned the parents, called the police, or other options.
I'm not a fan of using a hammer when what's needed is a screwdriver.
Positively correct. Sorry that doesn't fit your John Wayne attitude toward firearms.
Any defense attorney worth a grain of salt would know that to assert that crimes that haven't been charged were committed as a defense for his client would fall under "hearsay" and would be stricken by an objection.
Once again, that is not applicable as a defense.
That makes about as much sense as Jimbo and Ed from south park screaming "they're coming right at us" as a defense for killing endangered species.
You're just floundering around at this point for the sake of argument. We're done. I was looking for a real discussion, not the forum equivalent of a bargument.
In her shoes, I'd have gone indoors, closed my door, and called the police. I have zero problems with appropriate use of force. In this case, however, I feel her actions were excessive. Furthermore, it was premeditated shooting. She PLANNED to shoot this kid after longterm harassment. She could similarly have phoned the parents, called the police, requested a restraining order, or asked for mediation or victim's assistance. Or all of the above. She was 68, which is not 80, nor is it elderly.
Yes, the boy was a bully and probably a delinquent little thug. However, out of a wide range of options, this woman chose to escalate this longstanding feud to a potentially lethal level.
I'm not a fan of using a hammer when what's needed is a screwdriver.
What was then? The police? they were of no use. The parents, they were of no use... a bat? fisticuffs? she'd be beaten brutally if she tried this. What then was the answer?
How about aggravated assault of the elderly? Do you have any idea of how easy it is to break the bones of someone 80 years old?..... of how long it takes to heal those old bones?..... of how often old folks die from just a broken hip?
That brat hit the lady in the chest with a thrown brick..... she's lucky it didn't break a rib and puncture a lung.... if it had she would probably be in the hospital for 2 or 3 months and have a real good chance of dieing from it. That's attempted murder in my book, and don’t even get me started on the arson thing…. That’s attempting to burn someone alive.
The kids should be in jail for that.
She was apparently hit in the initial throwing, when a brick came through the window, according to a neighbor. The article doesn't mention that the neighbor actually witnessed this, nor does it say she was hit in the chest. Then the cops were called. The boys ran off. Cops left, boys came back. This is probably hours later, she's not still in the process of defending herself. It is not clear that they were coming back and throwing rocks at her again. You're relying on third-hand information and then you're filling in some blanks all on your own.
Setting a garbage can on fire is not attempting to burn someone alive.
These kids are little ****s and they should stay in jail until they're 18, but it's not clear that the lady was in immediate danger when she fired the shots.
The only legal consideration is if the old lady felt her life was in danger. rof
That's it, there it is, end of story.
oh, and Jallman, I'm sorry to see you go before you had a chance to address this... :2wave: