• 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

Hatuey said:
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.



She wasn't hit.



Garbage is Public Property on Curb



What?
Click to expand...




Dood please read the links in this thread, she was hit. The kid was so chargged with aggravated assault.

Do you have any evidence the trash that was set ablaze was set out trash?




Why do you all feel the need to defend an elderly abusing savage?
 
digsbe said:
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..
Click to expand...

So that is reason enough to be shot instead of hauled off in handcuffs?
 
BDBoop said:
But he's not dead, and she's not charged. Had she done something wrong, she would have been charged, but she was not.
Click to expand...

Yes, clearly the fact that she wasn't charged means she didn't do anything wrong. :roll:

Pointing a gun at a human being and pulling the trigger means you are trying to kill them. Period. End of discussion. It doesn't matter that the kid survived, she tried to kill him.

Oh, and hey, idiots. Thinking the old lady did something wrong is not the same ****ing thing as defending these kids. The same bull**** comes up every time Palestine is discussed.

She may have been hit by a brick. Hours earlier, before the cops came. I haven't seen any hard evidence that a rock was even thrown at her during the second visit. (all the quotes I've seen so far are from neighbors who may not have even witnessed the event) The "self defense" claim has an expiration date, if you break into my house and leave unharmed, I can't just shoot you next time I see you walking down the street. These kids are ****heads and should be in jail for a long time, but attempting to kill a thirteen year old is not an acceptable response to previous property damage.

Property is things. People are more important than things.

edit: Found a different article that indicates they did throw bricks the second time. A bit different then.
 
Last edited:
It is most likely just a matter of time til the punks get a gun and go shoot her.
Ever hear the expression, "it takes all kinds"? It doesn't, we just HAVE all kinds.
The parents should have been arrested right along with the kids.
 
Deuce said:
Pointing a gun at a human being and pulling the trigger means you are trying to kill them. Period. End of discussion. It doesn't matter that the kid survived, she tried to kill him.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Like nobody ever shoots to wound. Especially police officers. We can period, end of discussion now.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
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
Click to expand...

Good point! I recall being hit in face with a brick by a mean little boy and my mama did not shoot that child. She took me to hospital and took it up with his parents. My Daddy did wanna kill him though:)
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
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
Click to expand...

I NEVER threw rocks at old ladies, and I don't know a single person who ever did. The world doesn't need any 15 year old boys who would throw rocks at an old lady.

The fact that an old lady was repeatedly threatened by a neighborhood hoodlum and she had to be the one to put a stop to it is a sad commentary on our society.
 
FederalRepublic said:
I NEVER threw rocks at old ladies, and I don't know a single person who ever did. The world doesn't need any 15 year old boys who would throw rocks at an old lady.

The fact that an old lady was repeatedly threatened by a neighborhood hoodlum and she had to be the one to put a stop to it is a sad commentary on our society.
Click to expand...

The kid was 12, not 15.
And he threw the rocks at her house, not at her, specifically.
And she was 68, not 80, just for the record.
Let's see, just as an experiment, if we can maintain this discussion for even one page without hopping the Crazytown Express.
That will require all participants to debate using known facts, rather than fabricated strawmen.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Off the streets is different then killing them
Click to expand...

If they are dead then they are obviously off the streets... right? That is, unless they are left dead and rotting on the streets, as cars run them over and over, like a chipmunk.
 
1069 said:
Let's see, just as an experiment, if we can maintain this discussion for even one page without hopping the Crazytown Express.
Click to expand...


Bodhisattva said:
If they are dead then they are obviously off the streets... right? That is, unless they are left dead and rotting on the streets, as cars run them over and over, like a chipmunk.
Click to expand...

:sigh:

______
 
1069 said:
The kid was 12, not 15.
And he threw the rocks at her house, not at her, specifically.
And she was 68, not 80, just for the record.
Let's see, just as an experiment, if we can maintain this discussion for even one page without hopping the Crazytown Express.
That will require all participants to debate using known facts, rather than fabricated strawmen.
Click to expand...

I have taught inner-city 12 year-old gang youths and they are far more capable and vicious than you apparently seem to give them credit for...
 
1069 said:
The kid was 12, not 15.
And he threw the rocks at her house, not at her, specifically.
And she was 68, not 80, just for the record.
Let's see, just as an experiment, if we can maintain this discussion for even one page without hopping the Crazytown Express.
That will require all participants to debate using known facts, rather than fabricated strawmen.
Click to expand...

For the record, he hit her in the chest with a brick. She had called 911. And remember, when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. He was charged with assault. She wasn't charged at all. Kind of a shame she only hit him in the arm.
 
MaggieD said:
For the record, he hit her in the chest with a brick. She had called 911. And remember, when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. He was charged with assault. She wasn't charged at all. Kind of a shame she only hit him in the arm.
Click to expand...

If she hadn't, it might have been difficult for her to live with.
Not that she'd have to live with it long, since she's old and will be dead soon, probably before that kid is old enough to drive.

:roll:
 
When I was a kid with a drivers license, we had 2 little kids who like to jump out from behind street parked cars, and scare drivers.
First kid, I told his mom, no response. Next I told his dad, and he thanked me and I thought that was it. Turns out he started watching from his living room, and caught his boy in the act. There was a serious ass whipping and the boy never did it again.
About a year later, I told another kids dad that his boy was doing the same thing. I thought the man was going to kill me, I had to run. He cursed me and told me it was none of my business. Clearly the man is a "wonderful" father...when he was sober, which wasn't often.
 
Coronado said:
By the way, this is why you don't **** with old people. They'll blow your whipper-snapper ass away.
Click to expand...

Yeah, really. Didn't anybody see Gran Torino? That's got one of my favorite movie lines ever and it's on this topic.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Further, she was being pelted when she stood at her window to look at or yell at the kids, and when she went outside to confront them. I can understand why, but if someone's throwing heavy **** at you, putting yourself in range of the heavy **** is a dumb thing to do.
Click to expand...

Yes, cowering in fear inside your house is much smarter than arming yourself and eliminating the threat.
 
1069 said:
The kid was 12, not 15.
And he threw the rocks at her house, not at her, specifically.
And she was 68, not 80, just for the record.
Let's see, just as an experiment, if we can maintain this discussion for even one page without hopping the Crazytown Express.
That will require all participants to debate using known facts, rather than fabricated strawmen.
Click to expand...

Ok. Let's see, just as an experiment, how different my statement sounds, since I was exaggerating so badly...

"I NEVER threw rocks at old ladies or their houses, and I don't know a single person who ever did. The world doesn't need any 12 year old boys who would throw rocks at an old lady or their houses (when they know the old lady is in her house, for the purpose of terrorizing her).

The fact that an old lady was repeatedly threatened by a neighborhood hoodlum and she had to be the one to put a stop to it is a sad commentary on our society."

Does that make you feel better?
 
1069 said:
If she hadn't, it might have been difficult for her to live with.
Not that she'd have to live with it long, since she's old and will be dead soon, probably before that kid is old enough to drive.

:roll:
Click to expand...

People should never feel guilty about defending themselves. Some do, but feeling guilty is still better than being the victim.
 
liblady said:
it was dangerous, and maybe reckless, but deserved. so let's charge her with some misdeamoner, and put the kid in juvie for awhile.
Click to expand...

No. No. NO. You don't charge people for defending themselves. Period. The proper response to a bully is overwhelming force. I thought I saw a light coming from you, but it's fading...
 
1069 said:
The kid was 12, not 15.
And he threw the rocks at her house, not at her, specifically.
And she was 68, not 80, just for the record.
Let's see, just as an experiment, if we can maintain this discussion for even one page without hopping the Crazytown Express.
That will require all participants to debate using known facts, rather than fabricated strawmen.
Click to expand...

Yet, when he hit her, he didn't go home. Instead, he and his friend continued throwing rocks and harassing her. Most people who are throwing things at objects/structures and accidentally hit someone, would feel pretty bad about doing it and try to atone for doing it, not continue to do the same action that just potentially injured another person. Heck, I've thrown rocks before across a stream and accidentally hit a girl in the head on the other side. Guess what I did? I punished myself for the rest of the day by staying at the campsite, instead of playing with the other kids, despite all the grownups there telling me that it was okay, and they all understood that all the kids were throwing the rocks and it was an accident. That is the difference, intent. They weren't just trying to throw rocks at her house. They obviously had no problem with causing her injury.
 
Kali said:
Good point! I recall being hit in face with a brick by a mean little boy and my mama did not shoot that child. She took me to hospital and took it up with his parents. My Daddy did wanna kill him though:)
Click to expand...

Kid must have had a weak arm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom