Too bad she didn't kill him. It's about time people sent a message that you can't terrorize people just because the police can't follow you around with a camera.
Listen, I'm all for an old lady who stands up and kicks someone's ass in self-defense, and I'm all about gun ownership, but come on.
Let's put aside the fact that she used lethal force against a kid for throwing a brick. I won't even address that.
How about the fact that she's living in a heavily populated area with neighbors in all directions and she used a weapon just about guaranteed to drill a hole in someone or something not involved in the brick-throwing?
Unless you're talking about a shotgun loaded with rock salt, firing off a few rounds is an unreasonable risk to those around you unless you're defending yourself from an imminent threat to your life.
A brick through a window does not qualify. It's dangerous, and it could kill you, but I don't think it's enough to send lethal projectiles of your own rocketing around the neighborhood.
One final note: She claims she wasn't aiming for him, and yet she hit him.
Seeing as how I for one believe she wasn't actually trying to shoot the kid, I rest my case.
I like the way you phrased that. Nothing changes how lethal anything is except a change to the properties of the thing itself.
That said, if you are trying to convince me that a brick is as lethal as a bullet, good luck. Bricks aren't capable of the kind of penetration most bullets are, and bullets typically have a much longer range.
Hell's bells, dude, a LOT of things less lethal than a bullet can break a window.