(US) Granny shoots 12 year old; neighbors cheer

Gunsfortoys

I can see how she lost the plot, the police did absolutely nothing to deter these kids from terrorising this poor old woman. She didnt have to shoot them though, at most what I would have done is fire warning shots, that would have scared the little **** off.

southsiderosie

jackiebaron wrote: »

Excuse me, but this is reality. You know..REAL LIFE. It's not a movie. I don't know what she was supposed to do but it's ILLEGAL to shoot somebody under ANY circumstances unless your life is in jeopardy or you seriously believe it to be in jeopardy. That's not me...that's the LAW.
Following your logic, I could pull out a gun and shoot someone because over the course of many months or years they have made my life miserable by playing loud music at all hours of the day and night and have called me disgusting names every day that they have seen me. I reported them to the police. I told their parents. Nobody did anything so I took the law into my own hands and whacked them.
Nobody's disputing that the kid is a bastard (if the media reports are true) but this casual condoning of shooting someone because they're pissing you off is simply beyond the pale.

No it's not a movie. Real life is the fact that many people with children have completely failed at being parents, the social norms that in the past would have prevented this kind of thing have disappeared, and the police simply cannot do everything.

If someone for a year threw things at your house and verbally threatened you, when they finally physically attacked you, you would probably have a plausible claim that you feared for your life, based on the run-up of abuse. And if you were frail or older (i.e. less able to defend yourself physically), that claim would have even more weight.

Most of us have probably fantasized about strangling an obnoxious neighbor who plays the piano at 3am or who is constantly screaming on the phone, etc. But none of this presents a risk to your safely (although the neighbors would still probably cheer when you snapped). So I don't think that is a comparable situation...nor is kids stealing fruit in an orchard, egging a house on Halloween, etc.

As I said before, I think she got away with it because she was elderly...and the fact that one of her neighbors was a retired cop and he backed up her story probably didn't hurt either.

squeakyduck

If a little brat was doing that to me and breaking windows at my house, I'd shoot him and give him a good hiding. What is it about kids these days they are all little feckers. A good smack every once in a while never did me any bad!

onlyrocknroll

squeakyduck wrote: »

If a little brat was doing that to me and breaking windows at my house, I'd shoot him and give him a good hiding. What is it about kids these days they are all little feckers. A good smack every once in a while never did me any bad!

Jesus :eek:
Poison and drown him too and you have Rasputin.

derfderf

squeakyduck wrote: »

.....I'd shoot him and give him a good hiding......

In that order?

pickarooney

derfderf wrote: »

In that order?

Well yeah, makes it harder for the child to fight back.

gizmo

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

The pensioner should be prosecuted exaclty as if she were a 32 year old male.

People, regardless of who they are, have to be made, and be seen to be made, responsible for their actions/inactions.

Playing devil's advocate here but the kid was trespassing on her property and was engaging in violent and (potentially) lethal behaviour by throwing stones at her despite both her age and her requests to get off her property. Legally speaking I don't think she broke the law?

joseph brand

Her neighbour is Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover).

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2760000,CST-NWS-boyshot30.article

His retirement actually came.

RMD

gizmo wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate here but the kid was trespassing on her property and was engaging in violent and (potentially) lethal behaviour by throwing stones at her despite both her age and her requests to get off her property. Legally speaking I don't think she broke the law?

Considering the kid has deliberately broken her windows before and caused damage to her house, she could argue that was acting defense or herself and her belongings.

I'm not entirely sure, but under American law I think that is ample reasoning for the shooting, defense of one's self and their property.

Sounds like a real-life Harry Brown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1-InCRsoI&feature=related

southsiderosie

RMD wrote: »

Considering the kid has deliberately broken her windows before and caused damage to her house, she could argue that was acting defense or herself and her belongings.

I'm not entirely sure, but under American law I think that is ample reasoning for the shooting, defense of one's self and their property.

Sounds like a real-life Harry Brown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1-InCRsoI&feature=related

I think in Illinois, the benchmark is fear of grave bodily harm, which was ruled to be a reasonable fear in this case. I would be surprised if the parents didn't sue her though.

Wicklowrider

I think, having read all the psts thus far, maybe some people are missing a couple of points here.
1. " The boy had previously set fire to a rug and thrown it on her grill, and had broken windows at Matthew's home as recently as last week, friends said."
2. She is 68 years old.
3. She states she did not intend to hit him.

Waiting to die by arson or similar fate is reasonable grounds to fear for your life - if nobody answers your calls for help at what point do you take action?

Personally I'd defer any action until there wasn't a choice, which I think she did, and then I'd try to keep it proportionate. I think she did use reaonable force - but she shouldn't have had to.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think she would have gotten away with it if she weren't both a woman a pensioner. If she had been a 40 year old man (i.e. like the son-in-law), I think they would have been charged...although I think the neighbors still would have cheered.

Well no of course not. It could have also been an elderly man. The gender makes no difference. But a well bodied 40yr old would have been able to do a lot more things to defend themselves before escalating up to warning shots. The fact is these 2 scumbag kids picked on this woman and her neighbors because they were frail and there was [in their mind, no longer] no repercussions for them.

Its pretty much exactly like Gran Torino: elderly aren't any less entitled to a level playing field, when it comes to self defense.

Either way I'm sure it wasn't the first time she called the police, if this has been going on for a year or more. It's not like it was the first thing she tried. How long do a lot of other people on this thread expect anybody to sit there and get pelted with rocks before fighting back?

Either way, the Police didn't charge her with a crime. That doesn't mean the parents of the two boys will not attempt to go after litigation themselves. But, given how much they seem to care about their children's upbringing, I'd be very surprised.

Manic Moran

3. She states she did not intend to hit him.

I don't think that should be relevant. Intent or not, she used deadly force. Worse, she somehow managed to miss what she was aiming at (which was anything except the kids!) There's no such thing as discharging a firearm and not having it be potentially lethal. (I am not a big believer in warning shots).

However

Having rocks hurled at you is also deadly force. It's used as a method of execution in some countries. Most places in the US also have a law that if you're on your own property, you are under no legal obligation to retreat, and can meet force with force (Ireland has a similar law, incidently).

Legally, she did nothing wrong that I can think of, it seems the D.A. agrees.

NTM

Herb Powell

southsiderosie wrote: »

Not to sound like someone's grandma, but back in the day, if your neighbor caught you throwing stones, they would whoop your ass, and then your parents would do it - then they would make you apologize and pay for the replacement windows (usually via child slave labor). And the punishment would be ESPECIALLY harsh if you were throwing them at an elderly neighbor.

Some kids need to be scared straight, and it's sad that it took getting shot to (maybe) make it happen for this kid, but it doesn't sound like police intervention did any good and parental intervention wasn't happening.

Again, not normally an advocate of shooting children (:p), but I do think that kids need to have a sense of healthy fear of an authority figure, whether it's Daddy when he gets home, or the local beat cop, or even their own granny...or the gun-toting granny next door.

Respect is a hell of a lot healthier than fear. This boy was obviously shown none at home, and so it came to this eventually.
I think the shooting was in no way a solution. I don't agree with it at all.
It is so much easier to pull a trigger and strike fear than build respect, but any fool can tell which is better.
AH is a funny place full of contradictions and hypocrisy

Manic Moran

Herb Powell wrote: »

Respect is a hell of a lot healthier than fear. This boy was obviously shown none at home, and so it came to this eventually.
I think the shooting was in no way a solution. I don't agree with it at all.

I'm not really sure that there is anything in particular which the average 68-year-old woman can do to garner the respect of a 12-year-old boy with whom she has little relationship. Even Clint Eastwood needed an M1 Garand. Your theory is grand, but I'm not sure it doesn't run afoul of a few practicalities.

It is so much easier to pull a trigger and strike fear than build respect, but any fool can tell which is better.

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with."

Is he really a fool?

NTM

RMD

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think in Illinois, the benchmark is fear of grave bodily harm, which was ruled to be a reasonable fear in this case. I would be surprised if the parents didn't sue her though.

Do the parents have anything to sue her for though? She was acting in self-defense. The kid was trespassing, refused to leave and then began to assault her.

I hope to god they can't, that kid caused so much mental damage to this women she deserves to be left in peace.

And ye as mentioned to a previous poster, how the fúck is a 68 year old women going to gain the respect of some a trouble making 12 year old.

Millicent

RMD wrote: »

Considering the kid has deliberately broken her windows before and caused damage to her house, she could argue that was acting defense or herself and her belongings.

I'm not entirely sure, but under American law I think that is ample reasoning for the shooting, defense of one's self and their property.

Sounds like a real-life Harry Brown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1-InCRsoI&feature=related

I give you Colorado's "Make My Day" law!

This is a real law, named after a Clint Eastwood character's catchphrase. (Sorry Rosie but) only in America!

syklops

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Pretty sure that could happen in Fingla, Dundalk, Limerick, or Westport.

Well not quite. If it happened in Fingal, Dundalk or Limerick, the cops would have taken her straight to Mountjoy, and the kid would be suing the state.

southsiderosie

RMD wrote: »

Do the parents have anything to sue her for though? She was acting in self-defense. The kid was trespassing, refused to leave and then began to assault her.

One of my neighbors (on the south side of Chicago no less) was constantly targeted by a group of kids who used to jump her back fence, and steal out of her yard. One day as they were climbing over the fence, it collapsed, and one of the boys broke his arm.

In a world where common sense prevailed, the boy would be charged with trespassing. At a minimum, the parents would make him apologize and pay to rebuild the fence.

Instead the parents sued. And the case wasn't immediately dismissed. Eventually my neighbor was cleared of liability, but not after shelling out a few thousand dollars in legal fees.

It's because of bull**** like this - feral children, ignorant 'parents', and an legal system that seems to favor the criminals rather than the law-abiding - that an entire community can rally around a woman who shot a 12 year old kid. If these kids are so out of control that they don't respect their parents, the police, the elderly or themselves, then the only thing left for them to have any respect for is brute force.

syklops

jimthemental wrote: »

This is nuts, she should be locked up for this. She shot at kids with a handgun. This is beyond reckless endangerment and is just typical of gun culture in america. It's like Padraig Nally all over again, you can't call him an out and out hero even if you do feel for the situation because himself and this Granny escalated the situation too far.

I see where you get your nick.

Manic Moran

Millicent wrote: »

I give you Colorado's "Make My Day" law!

This is a real law, named after a Clint Eastwood character's catchphrase. (Sorry Rosie but) only in America!

The Colorado law is pretty much just a Castle Doctrine under a snazzy name. A lot of States have expanded it into what's known as a 'Stand Your Ground' law, which basically says that if you've a right to be wherever you are, you can be under no compulsion to leave instead of standing your ground. Castle Doctrine laws apply only to the home.

NTM

southsiderosie

Millicent wrote: »

I give you Colorado's "Make My Day" law!

This is a real law, named after a Clint Eastwood character's catchphrase. (Sorry Rosie but) only in America!

Hey, at least our gun laws deal with actual guns...

Millicent

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Colorado law is pretty much just a Castle Doctrine under a snazzy name. A lot of States have expanded it into what's known as a 'Stand Your Ground' law, which basically says that if you've a right to be wherever you are, you can be under no compulsion to leave instead of standing your ground. Castle Doctrine laws apply only to the home.

NTM

Ah, thanks for that explanation. The name just grabbed me. I always thought it was a ridiculous thing to name a law after.

Millicent

southsiderosie wrote: »

Hey, at least our gun laws deal with actual guns...

That's bizarre! 0.o

Herb Powell

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not really sure that there is anything in particular which the average 68-year-old woman can do to garner the respect of a 12-year-old boy with whom she has little relationship. Even Clint Eastwood needed an M1 Garand. Your theory is grand, but I'm not sure it doesn't run afoul of a few practicalities.

Oh of course. I meant that really if they were raised right (which unfortunately does not happen all the time) then they would know it's wrong. Bit of a utopian view I know, but really it is the only way this kind of thing can be decreased dramatically. I just don't agree with guns, or shooting people. Bate him with a schtick

Manic Moran wrote: »

I

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with."

Is he really a fool?

NTM

very interesting. nice one (not sarcastic btw)

aligator_am

IMO the reason not just these kids, but kids in the western world are so brazen is due to political correctness, if a kid is bold and you give them a smack across the back of the legs you'll be done for child abuse. I'm not advocating that kids should be battered or shot, but everyone has a breaking point, and this woman had reached hers.

There were not many good things about the Christian Brothers' school system, but one think I think they instilled in most kids was respect for their elders, unfortunately our society is so bollixed now that if any kid in Ireland was throwing rocks at an adult repeatedly and the adult threw them back once then the adult would be charged, so seemingly it's OK for kids to be little scumbags but if adults return the favour then they are jailed?

looks like it's time to bring back the workhouses for the little scummers, will give those Asian sweatshops a run for their money

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Colorado law is pretty much just a Castle Doctrine under a snazzy name. A lot of States have expanded it into what's known as a 'Stand Your Ground' law, which basically says that if you've a right to be wherever you are, you can be under no compulsion to leave instead of standing your ground. Castle Doctrine laws apply only to the home.

NTM

Yet, police have jurisdiction to remove you from a public location, and property owners have jurisdiction to remove you from their property. I would hope the gun-owners in such states were made aware of the nuance..

RMD

southsiderosie wrote: »

One of my neighbors (on the south side of Chicago no less) was constantly targeted by a group of kids who used to jump her back fence, and steal out of her yard. One day as they were climbing over the fence, it collapsed, and one of the boys broke his arm.

In a world where common sense prevailed, the boy would be charged with trespassing. At a minimum, the parents would make him apologize and pay to rebuild the fence.

Instead the parents sued. And the case wasn't immediately dismissed. Eventually my neighbor was cleared of liability, but not after shelling out a few thousand dollars in legal fees.

It's because of bull**** like this - feral children, ignorant 'parents', and an legal system that seems to favor the criminals rather than the law-abiding - that an entire community can rally around a woman who shot a 12 year old kid. If these kids are so out of control that they don't respect their parents, the police, the elderly or themselves, then the only thing left for them to have any respect for is brute force.

There's a bit of a difference in this case though. In that case although they were trespassing, the owner is also sadly responsible for an accident on their property AFAIK. In this case, the elderly lady was acting in self-defense.

southsiderosie

RMD wrote: »

There's a bit of a difference in this case though. In that case although they were trespassing, the owner is also sadly responsible for an accident on their property AFAIK. In this case, the elderly lady was acting in self-defense.

Why would the owner have to be responsible? If they hadn't been climbing on the fence to steal, it wouldn't have fallen down. This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes people crazy.

As for the kids with the rocks: I find it interesting that under your logic, the woman will not be charged for shooting one of the children who stood on on her shed to throw rocks at her, but if said child had fallen through the roof of the shed while throwing rocks, his parents could sue her because he was injured on her property.

southsiderosie

OK, THIS kind of shooting at children I can't get behind...

GASTONIA A 21-year-old Gastonia woman admits she shot three children with a pellet gun but says it was all just a game and the kids wanted her to do it.

Dimawi Kennedy was arrested on three counts of assault and one charge of discharging a firearm.

It happened Thursday night, outside of the Cleveland Avenue apartment Kennedy shares with her sister and two of the sister's children, an 11-year-old and a 9-year-old, who were hit by pellets. A 9-year-old boy from the neighborhood was also hit, police said.

"I was a little intoxicated, but I wasn't over the limit," Kennedy told WCNC, the Observer's news partner.

She said the kids saw her with the gun, which fires 6 mm plastic pellets, and began running after her, asking her to shoot at them. She said she saw nothing wrong with the request and opened fire, hitting one of her nieces on her upper lip.

That's when her sister called 911. During the call the niece can be heard telling the operator, "She shot me in the lip and I got a bruise."

Kennedy, who was released on bond, said she sees no reason to be sorry.

"I might throw rocks at them next time," she told WCNC.

"I mean, that's what we do over here. This is Cleveland Avenue,"

Kennedy is scheduled to answer the charges in Gaston County Court on Nov. 16.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/03/1735523/woman-accused-of-shooting-3-kids.html#ixzz11L8xeGMp

Based on the previous article, she better be careful about who she throws rocks at...