good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

[reefedjib]

Antisocial personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't seem to fit this lady.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

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.

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.

It justifies self defense. It may or may not justify defending oneself with a bullet.

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".

What was she supposed to do? Throw bricks back? Wrassle the kid? I don't get what alternative she had. Perhaps you can shed light on this for me.

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.

Sure you can. You can bring up the actions that led to the incident and call them what they are Arson, vandalism, harassment, menacing, etc. How could you defend yourself if you can't bring up the reasons that led you to that point?

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.

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?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Doesn't seem to fit this lady.

I think it was an attack on you. :lamo


Problem is. it defines the little savages to a "T", maybe a little ODD mixed in as well... It's too bad the kid didn't achieve room tempurature, I'm sure some folks lives worth a damn would be saved in his future.

 

[reefedjib]

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.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

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.

 

[reefedjib]

I'd edit out the name calling, I'd hate for you to get gigged on his account.

Good call, thanks. I moved it to the Basement.

 

[OscarB63]

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.

sad isn't it?

 

[Tucker Case]

Moderator's Warning:

Cease the personal attacks. I may not be a little old lady, but I can bust some "caps", too.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

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.

 

[reefedjib]

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.

I was speaking morally, not legally.

 

[Crunch]

you and i never agree.......but the little **** deserved it.

You are doomed when Crunch, ReverendHellh0und thank you. :mrgreen:

 

[Glinda]

Some of us don't think lethal force is an acceptable response to property damage.

But it wasn't just property damage that led to the shooting.

To be fair, you must factor in the earlier assault in determining the woman's state of mind (and therefore, her legal culpability). They'd thrown bricks at her. They HIT her with a brick. They came back to throw more bricks at her.

Their actions (repeated attempts to cause physical harm/injury) AND her state of mind (previously hit with a brick and once again under attack) at that moment is what law enforcement considers when issuing criminal charges.

I think they made the right choice.

 

[Crunch]

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.

You are not paying attention...... Rev already posted quotes that the cops did charge the brat with aggravated assault...... game over. :shrug:

 

[jallman]

Incorrect.

Positively correct. Sorry that doesn't fit your John Wayne attitude toward firearms.

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.

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, the fact one is not charged with a crime does not mean one did not commit a crime.

Once again, that is not applicable as a defense.

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".

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.

 

[Crunch]

Some of us don't think lethal force is an acceptable response to property damage.

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.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

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, 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.

 

[Crunch]

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.

If the screw head is stripped a hammer is the only other alternative if you really need to drive the screw.

She did call the police, they had just left and the kid started in again..... read the whole thread and you might know all of the available facts.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Positively correct. Sorry that doesn't fit your John Wayne attitude toward firearms.

As recently discussed elsewhere, I have a background where I just might know what I'm talking about. Hysterics really aren't needed here. :shrug:

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.

Really perry mason? So my attorney could not bring up that the savage I shot in the head had previously burned my garbage, menaced me with a brick, assaulted me with a deadly weapon (brick) and harrassed the **** out of me? seriously? :lamo


How in the world is that "hearsay"?

Once again, that is not applicable as a defense.

Back that up. Your wrong. You can bring up the direct criminal behavior towards the person charged as a justification defense to establish self defense. It would be asinine to not be able to.

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.

Your ignorance to the self defense statutes and the requirements thereof are not of my concern.


I've already proved this in previous posts which you dismissed.

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.

Obviously you lost this argument and have gone all emo on me. It's too bad. Don't let the door hit you on the way out my friend. :2wave:

 

[OscarB63]

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.

And if she had gone back in and called the police? police who had already been out there once? the kids would've left and as soon as the cops were gone they'd have been back.

restraining orders are worthless pieces of crap. any idea how many people each year are killed by someone with a restraining order against them?

phone the parents? yeah right. If the parents were worth a dime this kid wouldn't be a thugged out punk. calling the parents would be about as effective and screaming up the chimney.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I will add that I think you are confused Jallman, If I am the one on trial, my bad acts cannot be brought up for the most part as it is considered predjudicial, however if I am a defendant for shooting someone. I can bring up the supposed victims crimes against my persons and property to demonstrate to a jury a justification defense. How else would I introduce evidence that met the standards of self defense?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

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?

oh, and Jallman, I'm sorry to see you go before you had a chance to address this... :2wave:

 

[Deuce]

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.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

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.

 

[jallman]

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.

Her "feelings" don't give her carte blanch to fire bullets at children.

That's it, there it is, end of story.

 

[jallman]

oh, and Jallman, I'm sorry to see you go before you had a chance to address this... :2wave:

There was nothing more to address. She had already gone inside the safety of her own home, called the police again, and then she chose to come outside and discharge a firearm at kids.

There's nothing to discuss here.