Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sun Baked, Sep 30, 2010.
Don't mess with granny anymore kids.
Served the little pests right, although its lucky for her that he wasn't severely injured or killed. Where are the boys parents? Yeah, thought so...
Why can't this be captured on video?
Saw an interview with her on the news tonight. She seems like a very sweet, forgiving lady who feels bad about what happened, but does not feel bad about protecting herself. Good for her.
These elderly and these kids are completely out of order! Granny should relax and have more trust in the Police.
Why'd she wait so long...JK. I saw the interview as well and Lee hit the nail on the head.
Wow, how times have changed! When I was growing up, the neighborhood granny used to hand out cookies if you knocked on her door. But then, we didn't break into her house and throw bricks at her either. I suppose that's because my parents taught me to respect my elders.
she had trusted the police for over a year. How much longer should she ahve given them?
Why should she trust an organization that is not obligated to protect you, only to clean up the mess afterwards?
Go easy on him. He's a young boy, new to the world and still learning. At least I hope so.
Who are you talking about?! Why the patronising?
I stand by my point. Granny shouldn't have shot her gun at the kids in these circumstances. I'm not defending the teenagers, they should also face the relevant charges. But calling the old lady a hero and not even considering any criminal liability is just wrong in my opinion. Without exactly knowing the relevant details - shouldn't have been shot the gun away from the kids first? Besides, the post doesn't mention a lengthy ordeal.
Granny got attacked by unruly children and she used her gun at them, narrowly missing a vital organ on one of them - that's how I see it.
LOL. So young. So innocent. It warms the heart.
Get lost! You use 'LOL' and most of your posts have this deeply patronising tone. What sort of a screwed up mind do you have to have if you cannot react in any other way?!
Besides, I'm in my early thirties and doing fine.
Kinda seems wrong to shoot them, though. I mean, I don't doubt that she was harassed, but shooting someone is pretty serious.
Does this qualify for self defense under US law?
They were throwing bricks at her. Sounds like textbook self-defense to me.
She got hit. in the CHEST. with a BRICK. And she is elderly. If that isn't life threatening, I don't know what is. She responded in kind, to save her life. She trusted in the police. You know, until she was hit in the chest. with a brick. Do you propose she just lay there and take it? Christ man.
A court should decide and that's my point. Shooting a gun at somebody is a very serious thing and it should be treated accordingly. Then the court can take all relevant issues into account. In English law, they would consider self-defence, provocation, incapacity and a few more defences but with her outside in the open air ( I assume, on the basis on having been hit by a brick) and the kids some distance away, I cannot see how she had no other choice than shooting the gun at one of the young offenders.
But of course, in the US, criminal law and law enforcement is different, so who knows, maybe she'll get away with this even if she shot while the kids were running away.
So she shot one of them. With a GUN. A 12 or 13 years old. If that isn't life threatening, I don't know what is... Listen, this doesn't automatically get the woman out of criminal responsibility. All parties were vulnerable here and all of them acted excessively. There is a good reason why self-defence is usually used to mitigate the charge, but there should be very strict rules about its application and this case is not a clear-cut at all. I still think that shooting was disproportionate.
The granny reacted well. Kids forget they're responsible for their actions. They pulled crap, the granny pulled the trigger. That's how life goes, and rightly so.
Well, boncho, you sure sound like a pedophile.
That sounds more like the survival of the fittest.
He sure does! Very good point! I upset a pedo!
Not familiar with US law, but what, hypothetically, would have happened to the kid(s) when the old lady got hit in the head and died?
Did she threaten them first? Fire a warning shot?
Granted I don't know the full details (someone above stated that she got hit with one of the bricks, that is an actual assault, no point in denying that), but shooting someone should never be looked at as a heroic action, if you ask me.
more than likely they would have been made out to be victims from child abuse, neglect or something like that and tried as a minor get a couple years at most and let back into society.
I'm not either, but by English law, there would be two charges to consider first - murder and manslaughter. Unless they have a valid defence, at least for manslaughter, they have to be charged. The court would also examine, whether there was any trespass, how planned their actions were, especially relating to the bricks. The court would examine how likely it was that the thrown brick would have caused serious harm. Controversially, it is possible here to be responsible for murder even if the defendant only intended or recklessly committed serious bodily harm. If there was any plan to steal, then that would be also taken into account.
American law is pretty similar, but murder is defined differently with varying degrees.
But similarly, if the kid died, the court would examine, whether her action was really self-defence or not. I think her lawyer would have to try to argue that there was a momentary shock, incapacitating her mind to see through that when she shoots a gun at somebody, the other one might die.
It would be a really bad idea to shoot the gun away from the kids, then you run the risk of accidentally hitting someone innocent, it's not a good idea to shoot a gun just to scare someone off you should only shoot when you are planning to hit something. Besides, the kids could see she had a gun that's enough of a warning and they still chose to throw bricks at her. The article said that they had been harassing her for over a year, and certainly implied that this particular incident went on for awhile, she had time to call the police twice, tell them to leave, and then go back in and get her gun, I would guess that that is a pretty lengthy ordeal.
Its all fine and good to arm chair quarterback after the fact, and to also say that whether or not it is was "really" self defense is something that should be decided in a court of law, but things seem pretty clear.
The is especially true if you have never been put into a position where your life is threatened.
1) The kids had a history of harassing her
2) They were throwing BRICKS at her, one of which hit her. A brick CAN kill someone.