Woman who shot 12-year-old won't face charges, but boy will .

reply to post by crappiekat


No I am not living in that area and no off the top of my head I do not know what the neighborhood is like. That being said, I have lived in Chicago and I am very familiar with the city as a whole. What does that have to do with two young boys throwing bricks an old lady? Would it matter if it was two young boys in Nebraska throwing bricks at an old lady? For me it makes no difference if it was in Chicago or on the Moon. You can kill someone throwing bricks at them, that is deadly force. If you use deadly force against me, I can assure you I will return the favor and I will not fail. You see, I have this very serious mental defect...it's called "I want to live" and if you attempt to stop me from doing so, I will stop you in your tracks.

Originally posted by Segador
I would fire a warning shot, then try to go for a painful shot that won't kill them.
Bricks flying at high speeds can be very deadly.

A warning shot that could injure an innocent bystander several blocks away?

A painful shot that wouldn't kill them....but you go to jail and are sued for malicious wounding?

It's easy to say that you would do those things, but no matter what you choose there are consequences that you have to deal with. If you go for the warning shot or wounding shot, you give the assailants a chance to escalate their violence on you.

This woman did exactly what was needed and I applaud her for having the courage to defend herself.

reply to post by Tayesin


I can appreciate what your saying, and I would agree there is certainly a lot more gore in today's video games. However I disagree that we have been led to this by those who govern. It is a parents responsibility to teach their children right from wrong. It is a parents responsibility to teach their children the value of life. If parents did that instead of allowing the TV and XBox to be a babysitter for hours on end, you wouldn't have idiots running to Iraq thinking war is like a video game. Which you really can not compare the two. The kids in this story are 12 and 13 years old. If your fighting in Iraq, your old enough to enlist (18 years), and to be quite frank... by the age of 12 you are more than capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. You don't watch Gilligan's Island and really think there are people stuck on a mysterious island some place. You don't play a video game and run outside thinking you can super boost jump your way across rooftops, and by the age of 12 you know if you throw a brick at someone, you can seriously hurt them.

Again we are talking about defending yourself from deadly force. You have a god given right to live and to defend yourself from someone who is trying to take your life. What this old lady did was defend herself, on her property. If she had chased the boys down the street firing off rounds, that would not be self defense, but that is not what happened here.

Personally I think people are justifying the boys actions and demonizing this old lady's actions simply based on the age of the boys. If it was a 35 year old man throwing bricks at this old lady, would we even be having this discussion?

I'm glad she did stand her ground, I'm just wondering if the parents will file a lawsuit against her. I imagine it'd be hard to get a sympathetic jury for the boys, but I bet they at least try. I wonder if this will be the turning point for them, or if this will just harden them a little bit more?

reply to post by adifferentbreed


I have no problems with this.

It was self defense, they had no reason to throw bricks at her house, and a brick the head is very capable of killing or seriously injuring. Especially an old woman.

Three cheers for granma! The kids' parents should be threatened with lock up and/or the kids pulled from them and sent into foster care. And I have no patience for any parent who says they can't control their kids.

Originally posted by Segador
I would fire a warning shot, then try to go for a painful shot that won't kill them.
Bricks flying at high speeds can be very deadly.

You never fire a warning shot! That is a quick way to get yourself killed. You never carry the gun, pull the gun, or fire the gun, unless you intend to kill someone.

If you pull a gun on some punks with bricks, maybe they were just taunting or bullying, but now it is a life or death situation for both of you. They see the gun, your first shot misses, the brick doesn't. OR, the elderly lady is surprised by the recoil of the warning shots, and the boys jump on her and take the gun. Or, she fires a warning shot that kills an innocent bystander.

Nope, you demand that they stop, if they don't stop and you fear for your own safety, you shoot to kill.

If the facts are correct, then justified shooting. Tragic, but absolutely justified. The boy got lucky it wasn't a fatal shot.

But honestly the blame doesn't stop with the boys. Where the hell are their parents? According to the article, this harrasment has been going on a while now...setting her garbage cans on fire etc.

The police should have interviened in an aggressive way sooner. They had been called several times before.

Something has gone wrong in the way these boys are growing-up. Kids aren't born this way, they are made this way...and if their lives aren't steered in a different direction soon, they will end up dead or in jail next time.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


they deserved what they got 100% thats the bottom line. kids or not..at that age they should know right from wrong. nice job lady

Originally posted by crappiekat
reply to post by crazydaisy

 

~snip~

Anyone out there on the Chicago police force correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't it said "If you shoot someone , Shoot to kill and make sure they have at least one foot inside your residence?'

Not Chicago PD, but I've had some training in this matter, and yes, those comments are commonly heard and passed around. We've all also probably heard if you DO shoot them outside the house, quickly DRAG THEM INSIDE.

All of these are utter and complete nonsense. You shoot to stop the threat. Nothing more, nothing less. The goal is to stop whomever from being able to inflict deadly harm upon yourself or loved ones. Never "shoot to kill", an ambitious prosecutor will have a field day with that one.

Second, NEVER tamper with the scene (drag them inside), it will take the investigators approximately three seconds to figure out what you've done, and then you're toast.

Justifiable is justifiable, inside, outside, on top of, near, or far away from your home. But be careful, laws vary by state/locale. Most generally, the key element in deciding to shoot is whether or not a "reasonable person" would draw the same conclusion with regards to the particular situation, i.e. the attacker is most definitely putting the defender in immediate, grave danger. Another good "general" rule of thumb...Only shoot when the consequences of NOT shooting outweigh the consequences of shooting.

Of course State and local laws have to be taken into consideration with all this, as these vary widely with regard to the responsibilities of the legally armed citizen, i.e. some places you might be required to retreat, if possible. Other places have what is commonly referred to as "castle doctrine", a type of stand-your-ground law. Like I said, it varies, these are very "general" comments. Know your local laws.

Good for the old lady, providing she truly feared for her life which is plausible, if bricks were being actively thrown at her. If she was simply "fed up" and fired in an opportune moment of anger, then she's lucky the police handled it the way they did, she could have landed in some hot water, hoodlum or not.

reply to post by tjack


Edit to add: GREAT ADVICE in your post!

Never "shoot to kill", an ambitious prosecutor will have a field day with that one.

Ok, to be more politically correct. Shoot for the largest target (torso / center of mass) and keep shooting until the threat subsides (dies).

That is the only way to ensure your safety and the safety of others. Don't attempt to shoot a leg or an arm, don't fire a warning shot, etc. Those attempts will either harm an unintended target, or they will miss altogether, or they might still kill the suspect, but it will happen more slowly and you could still be in danger for some time.

So don't "shoot to kill," but definitely shoot to stop the threat as immediately and decisively as possible, and if that happens to be the same thing as "killing" then so be it. What a tragedy that anyone has to die, but better them than me!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
~snip~

So don't "shoot to kill," but definitely shoot to stop the threat as immediately and decisively as possible, and if that happens to be the same thing as "killing" then so be it. What a tragedy that anyone has to die, but better them than me!

edit on 30-9-2010 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

Yes, this is exactly what I was getting at. It's more of a PC thing, like you mentioned. Kinda silly, but it's an important distinction that could cost you years in jail.

"I was in fear of my life and my intent was to STOP the attack, your honor, that's ALL I was concerned about."
as opposed to
"I was in fear of my life, so I placed a quick pair in his center-of-mass and one in the brain pan, just to be safe."

Same result on the street, big difference in the courtroom.