• 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

Coronado said:
That all depends, though. Discharging a firearm is probably a crime in that city. If a jury does not believe she had adequate provocation, they would convict her of a crime similar to attempted murder or some crime of recklessness.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unfortunately common sense is a thing of the past.....
 
tlmorg02 said:
Yeah, unfortunately common sense is a thing of the past.....
Click to expand...
It's not really common sense; it is what the charges are, what the evidence is like, how sympathetic she and the victim are and who makes it through voir dire.

It would be an interesting case to see prosecuted.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Yes, but she did not knowingly put others at risk. The risk was a by-product of her defending herself, the drunk conciously puts others at risk.
Click to expand...

She consciously went back into her house, got a gun, went back out, pointed it, and fired it.
 
Crunch said:
And of course she couldn't have been telling a little white lie about that could she?

Think about it..... she just shot a kid, the cops were there, and she said she didn't mean to hit him.


















Yet she did....... just by accident...... or not.
Click to expand...

If we're assuming that the truth is being told about these kids, we have to take her word about the accidental part.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
She consciously went back into her house, got a gun, went back out, pointed it, and fired it.
Click to expand...
It may still have been a "heat of passion" moment, which would alter the level of her culpability.
 
jallman said:
It was kid with a brick and a broken window. I don't think shooting them was the necessary response.

Kid + brick + window < bullet
Click to expand...

it wasn't an isolated incident, and it sounds like the police couldn't, or wouldn't, do anything about it. a terrorized old lady snapped.......and since the kid wasn't killed, i say he did deserve it. people who terrorize the weak and old are disgusting, cowardly thugs.
 
liblady said:
it wasn't an isolated incident, and it sounds like the police couldn't, or wouldn't, do anything about it. a terrorized old lady snapped.......and since the kid wasn't killed, i say he did deserve it. people who terrorize the weak and old are disgusting, cowardly thugs.
Click to expand...

I agree, but she could just have easily hit someone else that had nothing to do with the situation, and that means she did something wrong.

Bullets don't stop just because they hit their intended target -- and this lady says she wasn't trying to hit the kid, which makes the fact that she shot him more dangerous.
 
pbrauer said:
If this woman was defending against being attacked, then she has every right to defend herself. However, I don't see anywhere that her life was in danger, she was being harassed by these kids. She should have called the police in my opinion.
Click to expand...




So felony arson and assault with a deadly weapon is not threatening to you? :doh
 
Deuce said:
I like how "maybe trying to kill these kids wasn't the appropriate response" is translated into "supporting/defending a gang" in a conservative brain.

And yes, she fired a gun at the kid. That's trying to kill them.
Click to expand...



maybe you should read the whole thread and try and keep up. thanks
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Only because she didn't accidentally shoot someone else. She accidentally shot the socially acceptable person, that's why she's a hero.

You shouldn't be rewarded for endangering the lives of other people and being lucky enough that you didn't hurt them.
Click to expand...



Who's lives did she endanger? what if hysterics don't move the conversation foward.
 
Deuce said:
Only if you make the assumption that the kids came back to do harm to her, and this article gives no evidence of that.
Click to expand...




A brick through the window, and setting her garbage cans on fire... I'm sure you would be this "understanding" if the savages were knocking at your door. :roll:
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, we bust people for driving drunk even though they didn't hurt anybody.

Same thing here -- luck was the only thing that prevented a tragedy, like the death of a neighbor.
Click to expand...




Luck was the only reason the old lady's house wasn't burned down or that she wasn't killed by a flying brick. Seriously you must simply be playing devils advocate here. :roll:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Luck was the only reason the old lady's house wasn't burned down or that she wasn't killed by a flying brick. Seriously you must simply be playing devils advocate here. :roll:
Click to expand...

No.

I'm saying the kids should be punished for what they did, and the old woman should be punished for what she did.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No.

I'm saying the kids should be punished for what they did, and the old woman should be punished for what she did.
Click to expand...



What if the kid through a brick through my window where I lived and I came out grabbed him and broke his arm in the entailing scuffle. Should I be punished?


How about a bat?

How about I threw a brick at him and killed him?


Should I then be punished?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You are speculating. Perhaps you can tell me the layout of the neighborhood, and tell me what was in her line of fire. thanks
Click to expand...


Oh, for crying out loud. Are you serious?

She came out onto her porch and fired a gun away from the house, which means towards the street. A city street. With houses on it.

That's all I needed to know.
 
Coronado said:
To be fair, according to her and the neighbors it was several kids and multiple instances of property damage. If it was simply one instance I doubt anyone would be defending her.
Click to expand...

Our justice system does not permit for us to put kids in jail for vandalism, let alone permit them to be shot.

I'm all for second amendment rights and I support the safety of little old ladies. But shooting a kid or several kids because of a brick and a broken window is just beyond the pale. The lady should be locked up for, at the very least, assault on a minor with an aggravated charge since it was a deadly weapon.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The lives of everyone nearby in the neighborhood:
Click to expand...

realistically: the lady was on her porch. the kids were below her in the street. she pointed the gun in their general direction. had she missed, the bullet would've had to glanced off the pavement at just the right angle to head in a bystander's direction and still maintained dangerous velocity.

the "risk" to the lives of everyone nearby in the neighborhood was minimal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom