• 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

It is amazing how many punk kids living in South Phoenix are, according to their parents, good little alter-boys, once they get caught. I sat on a jury once where a kid broke into an elderlly woman's home at night and apparently had plans to rape her. He was too drunk, tho, and she managed to call the cops. She had a pistol, but "didn't want to shoot one of the neighborhood kids".
It was his word against hers.

Kid was not convicted, due to prosecutor not doing her job. She called 2 cops to the stand, and their conflicting testimonies left considerable doubt. There was some doubt as to whether they arrested the right kid. The victim should have shot the kid in the leg or something, leaving NO doubt as to his identification.

When the kid's mom testified, her boy was as an angel, despite previous arrests for drug use and other miscellaneous misdemeanors.
watching Phoenix news, there is almost always a standard response when one of the punks gets arrested. "He goes to church every sunday, he is a good boy".
I feel sorry for kids who have no parental guidance at home, but not sorry enough that I wouldn't shoot one if he broke into my house.
Cops will tell you, REAL burglars don't break into occupied homes.

And bratty kids stop throwing bricks after daddy takes a belt to his ass. The parents here should be prosecuted for not controlling their brats...
 
Morally speaking, I've worked with violent felons. In this situation, as described, an escalation to potentially lethal use of force is excessive. The woman had a range of possible responses. In her shoes, I'd have gone indoors, closed my door, and called the police. I have zero problems with appropriate use of force. In this case, however, I feel her actions were excessive. Furthermore, it was premeditated shooting. She PLANNED to shoot this kid after longterm harassment. She could similarly have phoned the parents, called the police, requested a restraining order, or asked for mediation or victim's assistance. Or all of the above. She was 68, which is not 80, nor is it elderly.

Yes, the boy was a bully and probably a delinquent little thug. However, out of a wide range of options, this woman chose to escalate this longstanding feud to a potentially lethal level.

I'm not a fan of using a hammer when what's needed is a screwdriver.


I find that when people have to exaggerate by as wide a margin as the proponents of the shooting are doing in this thread, they pretty much know they're not right and are merely being ornery.
People who are confident in the positions they're defending don't have to lie to support them.
A little bombast is one thing; turning a 68-year-old into a feeble 80-year-old with glass bones is quite another.
It's entirely possible the middle-aged woman in question could've taken them in a physical fight, depending upon her size.
12-year-olds aren't that strong. They're typically prepubertal children. Boys, girls: doesn't even matter as far as size and strength until after puberty.
They're children.
 
Last edited:
To believe that 10, you would have to ignore all the links and facts i presented. None of which has been addressed.
 
So did new information come out or are we still doing that thing where we make up the scenario in our own heads and comment on that?
 
You can review the thread deuce. I'm sure it will answer your question. :thumbs:
 
I understand why the woman reacted the way she did, but there was another way. I'm forced to agree that this wasn't the best choice considering the dangers to others in proximity, and the fact that the kids weren't even on her property. Few people have commented on the fact that the parents are not involved in this story. Why aren't they?

You deal with community police repeatedly, then you call child services and tell them that there are parents not watching their children as they vandalize the neighbourhood and damage people's homes. When child services knocks on their door and asks wtf is going on, or threatens to take their kids away, the whole family will be in for a reality check. And if that doesn't work, then the kids will get taken away and the problem is solved anyway.

The problem is that a lot of kids get away with murder these days and the system only enables bad behaviour. How many times can you suspend kids from school before enough is enough? How many times can the cops come and shake their finger at delinquents before they need to be hauled off to juvy? I mean honestly, why is the system a complete failure in this story?
 
yes, the proper response to arson of your property

Garbage is public property. Not private property. SCOTUS decided that.

and assault with a deadly weapon

Throwing a brick through somebody's window is not assault with a deadly weapon. It's vandalism.

is to stop the threat by any means necessary. If the parents can't control thier sociopathic savage, this is what happens.

The basic premise of your argument for deadly force is wrong. Why continue?
 
While I cannot blame this woman for her actions? I refuse to cheer on an adult shooting a child. YES CHILD! Where in the hell are the parents and why in the hell did it have to come to this? :(
 
Garbage is public property. Not private property. SCOTUS decided that.

The receptacles qnd the property it rests on are not. This is silly.

Throwing a brick through somebody's window is not assault with a deadly weapon. It's vandalism.


But hitting a peron with a brick is.

The basic premise of your argument for deadly force is wrong. Why continue?



Someone thinks "vause i says so" is an argument. I hasnt worked for anyone in this thread. What makes you think you are differe nt :lol:


Refute my argument and my links from folks like the NACDL, this retort of your fails. Thanks! :2wave:
 
Yes... the response to kids throwing bricks through a window and setting a garbage on fire is to go out and shoot them. I'll remember that next time my annoying mail man intentionally leaves the paper outside while it's raining. Yes. That is what I will do. I'll go out and shoot him. Then after that? I'll shoot whomever cuts me off in traffic. After that? I'll shoot the first Mormon who comes and terrorizes me with their silly 18th century beliefs. Yes. That is what I'll do. Whenever I feel terrorized, I'll just shoot somebody. I could get used to the 2nd amendment.

Are you telling us you plan to commit premeditated murder? This lady didn't asked for these kids to attack her. How does throwing a brick compare to a newspaper delivery or a Mormon soliciting?
 
While I cannot blame this woman for her actions? I refuse to cheer on an adult shooting a child. YES CHILD! Where in the hell are the parents and why in the hell did it have to come to this? :(

shooting a child for throwing a rock


If rock throwing justified being shot, how many 15 year boys would there be?

I doubt very few male posters on DB did not throw rocks at other kids or buildings at some point in their youth. Just imagine getting shot and killed for that
 
shooting a child for throwing a rock

You can't take things out of context (AND change what was thrown) and throw in appeal to emotions to boot. They didn't throw a stone, they threw a brick. They'd thrown them before, they'd hit her. They threatened her. They did a **** ton of stuff over the course of a YEAR. She wasn't operating in a vacuum and it's senseless to assume that she was.

And again: if she was wrong, she'd be charged as well.
 
You can't take things out of context (AND change what was thrown) and throw in appeal to emotions to boot. They didn't throw a stone, they threw a brick. They'd thrown them before, they'd hit her. They threatened her. They did a **** ton of stuff over the course of a YEAR. She wasn't operating in a vacuum and it's senseless to assume that she was.

And again: if she was wrong, she'd be charged as well.

And most boys have thrown rocks, boulders, bricks and other items at other boys, people, and building. Heck we even hit people and the building with them.

I guess all the boys I went to school with should have been shot and potentially killed
 
And most boys have thrown rocks, boulders, bricks and other items at other boys, people, and building. Heck we even hit people and the building with them.

I guess all the boys I went to school with should have been shot and potentially killed

Appeal to emotion again?

Not to mention, apparently you were a thug, and you went to school with a bunch of thugs. Doesn't make it right or normal.
 
Appeal to emotion again?

Not to mention, apparently you were a thug, and you went to school with a bunch of thugs. Doesn't make it right or normal.

Every young boy is then a thug

Do a poll here on DB and ask how many young boys in North America threw rocks, bricks and other such items at other people (generally other boys) or building. I bet if voters were being honest it would be 100% who will say they threw a rock at another person at least once
 
Every young boy is then a thug

Do a poll here on DB and ask how many young boys in North America threw rocks, bricks and other such items at other people (generally other boys) or building. I bet if voters were being honest it would be 100% who will say they threw a rock at another person at least once

Do it yourself. You want a poll, you put up a poll. Sheesh. People.

P.S.: the poll needs to read "Threw a brick, kicked in door, verbally threatened and abused the same person for a year" in order to actually address the issue at hand.
 
Last edited:
Did I miss the part where she killed them?

She shot the kid did she not. He was in the hospital was he not. Do people never die from gunshot wounds in the US? The chance of dieing from a gun shot is significantly high
 
She shot the kid did she not. He was in the hospital was he not. Do people never die from gunshot wounds in the US? The chance of dieing from a gun shot is significantly high

But he's not dead, and she's not charged. Had she done something wrong, she would have been charged, but she was not.
 
The receptacles qnd the property it rests on are not. This is silly.

That's not true. In Chicago trash receptacles are provided by the city and the property they rest on is the curb. Which makes it all public property. Not private.

But hitting a peron with a brick is.

She wasn't hit.

Someone thinks "vause i says so" is an argument. I hasnt worked for anyone in this thread. What makes you think you are differe nt :lol:

Refute my argument and my links from folks like the NACDL, this retort of your fails. Thanks! :2wave:

Garbage is Public Property on Curb

Law enforcement officials do not need a warrant to search a trash can that a homeowner sets out for collection in a publicly accessible area next to his house, according to a federal appeals court ruling. [U.S. v. Redmon, No. 96-3361, 7th Cir., March 10, 1998.]

Drug enforcement agents in Urbana, Ill., got word from an informant that a man named "Shaw" was expecting a shipment of cocaine. An undercover agent delivered a cocaine package to Shaw, who, when questioned, claimed he had received it for Joseph Redmon.

What?
 
I have no real problem with this woman shooting these delinquent brats. They refused to listen to the cops, she did tell them to leave, and they persisted. They ignored every warning, are vandals, and were throwing bricks. It's her right to own a gun and use it. Cops failed, warnings failed, and these kids were not stopping their dangerous vandalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom