good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

[FederalRepublic]

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

Some of you don't believe in private property, so this isn't exactly an astounding revelation.

 

[FederalRepublic]

It's unlikely. And, if they did, she had a weapon. Instead, she went outside and escalated this situation into a shooting. I would suggest that poor social skills are often a factor in these kinds of situations.



Hyperbole doesn't make your position any stronger. Was she safer INSIDE or OUTSIDE of the house?

Was she safer insider her house with kids throwing bricks through the windows, or outside her house watching said kids running away screaming "she shot me!"

 

[WhyteRash]

first.. good for her..
she's perhaps all by herself in a neighbohood that likely was a descent place at one time, before being populated by lazy, disconnected parents with morals as low as thier unguided children.

for those in defense of these "murderers in training"..
when is a good time to "draw the line" ? after some random gunshots into her windows? after a actual break-in or two? after her home was burned?
when is your life worth more than the one who is threatening to end yours and exhibiting behaviour that supported their claims?

 

[OscarB63]

While I cannot blame this woman for her actions? I refuse to cheer on an adult shooting a child. YES CHILD! Where in the hell are the parents and why in the hell did it have to come to this?

any thug with a pattern of criminal behavior is hardly a child. you want to do big boy crime, take big boy consequences.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

any thug with a pattern of criminal behavior is hardly a child. you want to do big boy crime, take big boy consequences.

The police should have dealt with the boy far better then he did

Throwing rocks does not justify potentially being killed

 

[OscarB63]

The police should have dealt with the boy far better then he did

Throwing rocks does not justify potentially being killed

they were not "rocks" they were bricks. there is a difference. All you lunatics sticking up for these little turds seem to want everyone to think that this was a bunch of little "Barney" watching, rope jumping innocent kids. The age thing doesn't really matter.

This was a gang of thugs who had routinely harrassed this woman over a period of months. The cops had been called on numerous occassions with no effect.

Assault with a weapon, be it a gun, knife, pointy stick or yes...even a brick, is a serious offense and you should expect your attack to be met with equal or greater resistance.

 

[spud_meister]

McCoy said the boy had been breaking windows, breaking items on Matthews' shed house, and setting her garbage on fire.

They sound like little ****ing angels, and potential arsonists, I think she was well within her rights, what could have happened if they lit a fire that spread, I hear elderly ladies are allergic to flames.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

they were not "rocks" they were bricks. there is a difference. All you lunatics sticking up for these little turds seem to want everyone to think that this was a bunch of little "Barney" watching, rope jumping innocent kids. The age thing doesn't really matter.

This was a gang of thugs who had routinely harrassed this woman over a period of months. The cops had been called on numerous occassions with no effect.

Assault with a weapon, be it a gun, knife, pointy stick or yes...even a brick, is a serious offense and you should expect your attack to be met with equal or greater resistance.

I am not sticking up for the kid, he is a little thug who should be in juvinile hall. The police screwed up, but throwing a brick at a window does not justify being shot

 

[OscarB63]

I am not sticking up for the kid, he is a little thug who should be in juvinile hall. The police screwed up, but throwing a brick at a window does not justify being shot

how about throwing a brick that hits someone in the chest?

 

[MaggieD]

If she hadn't, it might have been difficult for her to live with.
Not that she'd have to live with it long, since she's old and will be dead soon, probably before that kid is old enough to drive.

:roll:

Whew. Guess you told me.

Those of us who don't live in these sad neighborhoods can't even imagine what it's like. Not a single week goes by without KIDS being shot to death by KIDS. It's a war zone. The cops are consistently a day late and a dollar short. The neighbors suffer from day and night blindness as they refuse to cooperate with the police. That's both for fear of retaliation and an apathy that most of us simply can't understand.

This lady FINALLY drew the line. Was she smart? Well, that probably remains to be seen. Hopefully, neighborhood gangs will see her as "the crazy old lady that don't take no ****" and leave her alone.

 

[Alvin T. Grey]

Can we meet in the middle and suggest the parents needed a kicking.
It's a pitty that the cops can't do them for the crimes of their little angles.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Yes, clearly the fact that she wasn't charged means she didn't do anything wrong. :roll:

Not being charged for shooting someone in CHICAGO indicates to me, differently.

Pointing a gun at a human being and pulling the trigger means you are trying to kill them. Period. End of discussion. It doesn't matter that the kid survived, she tried to kill him.

Good for her.

Oh, and hey, idiots. Thinking the old lady did something wrong is not the same ****ing thing as defending these kids. The same bull**** comes up every time Palestine is discussed.

Read the thread. :failpail:

She may have been hit by a brick. Hours earlier, before the cops came. I haven't seen any hard evidence that a rock was even thrown at her during the second visit. (all the quotes I've seen so far are from neighbors who may not have even witnessed the event) The "self defense" claim has an expiration date, if you break into my house and leave unharmed, I can't just shoot you next time I see you walking down the street. These kids are ****heads and should be in jail for a long time, but attempting to kill a thirteen year old is not an acceptable response to previous property damage.


Again, read the links I provided in the thread. Perhaps you should have all the information before calling folks "idiots"....


You missed aggravated assault, you missed the menacing, you missed the arson, you missed the year+ of harassment, convieniently I might add.

Property is things. People are more important than things.

Savages menacing elderly folk, and assaulting them are not worth more than my iphone case. :shrug:

edit: Found a different article that indicates they did throw bricks the second time. A bit different then.

Reallly, after a whole diatribe of a post, this is your response? I was hoping for some equal outrage now. Guess not. :lol:

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Pointing a gun at a human being and pulling the trigger means you are trying to kill them.

Is that so?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Oh please. Like nobody ever shoots to wound. Especially police officers. We can period, end of discussion now.

Nobody should ever shoot to wound, and no, police officers are never trained to "shoot to wound". Shoot until the threat is stopped. Center mass...



A man's torso is 19", his arm is 6" what do you think shooting to "wound" will accomplish other than making you more dead better?


Shoot to kill, the mistake this woman made was not aiming center mass.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Is that so?

If it's not, you are doing it wrong.

 

[BDBoop]

Nobody should ever shoot to wound, and no, police officers are never trained to "shoot to wound". Shoot until the threat is stopped. Center mass...

Yes they are; ask Caine. If somebody is trying to get away and you can take them down, you do. You don't use 'deadly force' if you don't have to, and you'd better be prepared to explain why you did so (if and when you do).

 

[OscarB63]

Cops still haven't charged this dangerous criminal...I guess she didn't break the law. :lamo

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Yes they are; ask Caine. If somebody is trying to get away and you can take them down, you do. You don't use 'deadly force' if you don't have to, and you'd better be prepared to explain why you did so (if and when you do).

you don't shoot em in the butt.... If you take your gun out you shoot em till they stop. Center mass... I think you misunderstand something caine told you. I train(ed) folks like Caine.

 

[BDBoop]

you don't shoot em in the butt.... If you take your gun out you shoot em till they stop. Center mass... I think you misunderstand something caine told you. I train(ed) folks like Caine.

Leg. And I'm only referring to him because he's the only cop I know on the board.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Leg. And I'm only referring to him because he's the only cop I know on the board.

Leg?


You mean the 8" inch or so portion of the leg that houses the femoral artery or do you mean the 6" ish calf, that you are going to take your 4" barrelled pistole and hit said suspect to "wound" from 15+ft away while moving? :lol:

 

[OscarB63]

Leg. And I'm only referring to him because he's the only cop I know on the board.

military cop here...we are trained center mass. If the situation warrants firing your weapon, it warrants shooting to kill. otherwise use less lethal methods. Dat's why they give us dose nifty tasers and night sticks

 

[Moot]

Nobody should ever shoot to wound, and no, police officers are never trained to "shoot to wound". Shoot until the threat is stopped. Center mass...

Oh man, I totally disagree with that statement, especially considering it was a kid she was shooting at. If the threat can be minimized or stopped by disabling instead of killing then that is the right action to take in all circumstances. After all, we're not talking about war here, we're talking about an unruly boy.

A man's torso is 19", his arm is 6" what do you think shooting to "wound" will accomplish other than making you more dead better?

But we're not talking about an adult male, we're talking about a kid with a brick in his hand.

Shoot to kill, the mistake this woman made was not aiming center mass.

Wrong. Deadly force was not neccessary to stop the kid from throwing the brick. Shooting him in the arm was all that was neccessary.

 

[MaggieD]

Yes they are; ask Caine. If somebody is trying to get away and you can take them down, you do. You don't use 'deadly force' if you don't have to, and you'd better be prepared to explain why you did so (if and when you do).

BDBoop, better check with Caine. You've misunderstood him. Coppers fire three -- center mass. And even then they hope and pray they hit SOMETHING.

Oh man, I totally disagree with that statement, especially considering it was a kid she was shooting at. If the threat can be minimized or stopped by disabling instead of killing then that is the right action to take in all circumstances. After all, we're not talking about war here, we're talking about an unruly boy. But we're not talking about an adult male, we're talking about a kid with a brick in his hand.

Wrong. Deadly force was not neccessary to stop the kid from throwing the brick. Shooting him in the arm was all that was neccessary.

Shooting him in the arm? Are you smoking something?? Really? Do you think shooters, amateurs at that, are accurate? You're dreamin'. The kid threw a brick, hit her in the chest. She ready-aimed-fired and hit the creep. She was lucky she hit anything -- much less that she was actually aiming at his arm. One lucky jerk, if you ask me.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Shooting him in the arm was all that was neccessary.

Why shoot him in the arm? Why not just shoot the brick out of his hand and send him on his way?:lamo

 

[BDBoop]

BDBoop, better check with Caine. You've misunderstood him. Coppers fire three -- center mass. And even then they hope and pray they hit SOMETHING.

Caine never said so. I referenced him because I thought I knew whereof I spoke. Apparently I was mistaken, as always.