• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

OscarB63 said:
strawman, because any decent parent is going to make sure their kid doesn't get to that point. as has been said many many times in this thread. throwing the brick through the window was not a one time event. It was one in a long line of events of harrassment. If at any time, the kids parents had stepped in and disciplined the little bastard it probably wouldn't have gotten to this point.

but to answer your question:
If my kid had repeatedly, over a course of a year or so, vandalized someone's property and harrassed them and I hadn't cared enough to do anything about it...then I probably wouldn't care enough to complain when the kid got shot. unless, of course, I could sue somebody and get some $$$$.
Click to expand...



arsoned, assaulted, and menaced. :prof
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
but they do slow down and lose velocity at a high rate of speed.


D00d, I used to do this for a living..... Still train folks on it on the side.... It's a risk sure, but once she was hit with a brick, it's irrelevent.
Click to expand...


I think all my years of military training and expereience have given me more knowledge about bullets and ricochet that TED. :rofl:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Cops are not "help" anywhere, they are historians there to document the carnage....


When seconds count the police are only minutes away. :prof
Click to expand...
This also is true.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Cops are not "help" anywhere, they are historians there to document the carnage....


When seconds count the police are only minutes away. :prof
Click to expand...

cops don't prevent crime, they simply sometimes catch those responsible for it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
arsoned, assaulted, and menaced. :prof
Click to expand...

No arson charge, no assault charge so a menace charge doesn't even follow.

When you show me these three charges to point to with the boys (and I am not even asking for a conviction, just a charge), then you may present that as a defense for the woman. Until you can show these charges, they are nothing more than conjecture and hearsay. In effect, your argument is so full of red herrings it might as well be a fish market.
 
jallman said:
No arson charge, no assault charge so a menace charge doesn't even follow.

When you show me these three charges to point to with the boys (and I am not even asking for a conviction, just a charge), then you may present that as a defense for the woman. Until you can show these charges, they are nothing more than conjecture and hearsay. In effect, your argument is so full of red herrings it might as well be a fish market.
Click to expand...

And she wasn't charged. Don't you think the police would scrutinize her actions as thoroughly as you are?
 
jallman said:
No arson charge, no assault charge so a menace charge doesn't even follow.

When you show me these three charges to point to with the boys (and I am not even asking for a conviction, just a charge), then you may present that as a defense for the woman. Until you can show these charges, they are nothing more than conjecture and hearsay. In effect, your argument is so full of red herrings it might as well be a fish market.
Click to expand...



Please go back I linked to more than one story where the kid was charged with assault on the elderly. Lets start there.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Please go back I linked to more than one story where the kid was charged with assault on the elderly. Lets start there.
Click to expand...

OK, quote for me the assault charge. Was it aggravated assault? Assault with a deadly weapon? Are you letting go of this "menacing" and "felony arson" nonsense then?
 
jallman said:
OK, quote for me the assault charge. Was it aggravated assault? Assault with a deadly weapon? Are you letting go of this "menacing" and "felony arson" nonsense then?
Click to expand...




Post #118 I link to the article where it reports the juvenile was charged with "aggravated assault of a person over the age of 60"

also note post #120 for all the justification under the eyes of the law needed.


And no, he did menace her and committed arson. Whether he was charged with it is irrellevant.


IL has a castle doctrine which reads:


"Illinois
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961
Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.
Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".
Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953)."



As I indicated in a previous post, simply brandishing the brick the juvinile could be charged with menacing, the fact the police charged the youth with assault indicates the likleyhood he was engaged in menacing as well.


Same goes for the felony arson charge according to the laws of the state of illinois.

http://www.sfm.illinois.gov/public/arsonisafelonycrime.aspx
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Post #118 I link to the article where it reports the juvenile was charged with "aggravated assault of a person over the age of 60"

also note post #120 for all the justification under the eyes of the law needed.


And no, he did menace her and committed arson. Whether he was charged with it is irrellevant.


IL has a castle doctrine which reads:


"Illinois
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961
Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.
Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".
Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953)."



As I indicated in a previous post, simply brandishing the brick the juvinile could be charged with menacing, the fact the police charged the youth with assault indicates the likleyhood he was engaged in menacing as well.


Same goes for the felony arson charge according to the laws of the state of illinois.

Arson is a Felony Crime
Click to expand...

Did they or did they not get charged with arson and menacing? Stick to the facts and the facts only, please.
 
jallman said:
Did they or did they not get charged with arson and menacing? Stick to the facts and the facts only, please.
Click to expand...



It's irrellevant whether or not they were charged, the kid clearly committed these to crimes. The police chose to charge him with assault of a person over 60.


That alone justifies the self defense position the chicago police have of the elderly woman's actions.


If I beat the crap out of a Ranger fan in a drunken stupor unprovoked (though arguably, being a ranger fan is provokation enough.) and the cops break it up, but choose not to charge me, I still committed said crime.


Just as if one buys heroin, or tears a tag of a mattress they are not the "consumer" of. They committed said crimes.
 
Do the police usually give the media everything a person is charged with? Even if they had, the media may not have chosen to print it.
 
If he hit her in the chest with a brick even after cops had been there, I'd say that she was justified to use the force she did.

If that didn't happen, and it as just a matter of coming home to find your window broken, I'd say she wasn't justified. I don't know all of the facts here (stopped watching the local news a long time ago).

I think one of my cop friends works in that area. I'll see if I can dig up something directly on it.
 
jallman said:
Even then, you have to show intent to attack the woman with the brick. A brick in the hand, by itself, is not sufficient evidence of assault or menace.

As for the felony arson claim, show me a charge of felony arson and we have a discussion. Until then, this woman shot a kid with a brick over a broken window. That is the crime here.
Click to expand...

According to one statement she made, they did hit her in the chest with one of those bricks, after they came back when the cops left from the first time she called them. After she was hit, she says she went into the house, called the police, got her gun, and took it outside to scare them away.

Woman who shot 12-year-old won't face charges, but boy will - Chicago Breaking News
Woman who shot boy hailed as hero by neighbors Homeowner has no regrets, said child hit her with brick - Chicago Tribune

And the boy who was shot admitted that he was throwing "rocks" at her to the retired cop neighbor who helped him after he was shot.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It's irrellevant whether or not they were charged, the kid clearly committed these to crimes. The police chose to charge him with assault of a person over 60.
Click to expand...

Yes it is relevant if you are going to try to add that to her defense. If they didn't charge them with felony arson, menacing, or any aggravation to the assault, then your mention of them is simply a red herring.

That alone justifies the self defense position the chicago police have of the elderly woman's actions.
Click to expand...

It justifies self defense. It may or may not justify defending oneself with a bullet.

If I beat the crap out of a Ranger fan in a drunken stupor unprovoked (though arguably, being a ranger fan is provokation enough.) and the cops break it up, but choose not to charge me, I still committed said crime.


Just as if one buys heroin, or tears a tag of a mattress they are not the "consumer" of. They committed said crimes.
Click to expand...

The difference is whether or not they are admissible as part of your defense. You cannot say they committed these crimes when they haven't even been charged with them to mitigate the actions of another defendant.

So now, I concede that the assault charge is a defense for her taking action to defend herself. I don't concede that a bullet was the answer.
 
roguenuke said:
According to one statement she made, they did hit her in the chest with one of those bricks, after they came back when the cops left from the first time she called them. After she was hit, she says she went into the house, called the police, got her gun, and took it outside to scare them away.

Woman who shot 12-year-old won't face charges, but boy will - Chicago Breaking News
Woman who shot boy hailed as hero by neighbors Homeowner has no regrets, said child hit her with brick - Chicago Tribune

And the boy who was shot admitted that he was throwing "rocks" at her to the retired cop neighbor who helped him after he was shot.
Click to expand...

My question then becomes...if you are inside and people outside are throwing rocks, you've already made the call to the police...why go back outside where there are rocks being thrown. The answer is to lock the door and wait for the cops.

Now if they come in after you, open fire.
 
jallman said:
My question then becomes...if you are inside and people outside are throwing rocks, you've already made the call to the police...why go back outside where there are rocks being thrown. The answer is to lock the door and wait for the cops.

Now if they come in after you, open fire.
Click to expand...

She's protecting her property. She is in the right.
 
reefedjib said:
She's protecting her property. She is in the right.
Click to expand...

Some of us don't think lethal force is an acceptable response to property damage.
 
BDBoop said:
Do the police usually give the media everything a person is charged with? Even if they had, the media may not have chosen to print it.
Click to expand...
If they're being charged as juveniles they may not release what the charges are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom