• 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

jallman said:
I did answer the question. Stay inside until the police returned.
Click to expand...



I guess you haven't read many of the links I provided. the police failed her. The agressor was clearly escalating, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Then you call the cops again, and work with the victims advocates to get a restraining order. Why do you people want to shoot someone so bad?
Click to expand...

The cops had been called countless times over the last year, according to neighbors. Restraining order isn't going to do jack ****. It doesn't stop them from doing anything. It's not a matter of "wanting to shoot someone", it's a matter of wanting to stop dangerous vandalism, arson, and physical harm from oneself. If someone hits me in the chest with a brick and raises another one at me, and I have a gun? Guess who is getting shot? Because I can sure as **** guarantee you that I'm not getting hit with another brick. They won't get the chance to hurt or possible kill me again if I can help it. I'll warn them first (as witnesses said she did), but if they refuse to leave, then they're about to learn a valuable lesson about bringing a brick to a gun fight, and that whatever it is that they're willing to do to me, I'm willing to go one step more hardcore to prevent them from doing it.
 
“[D]etached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of a knife.”
– Brown v. United States,
256 U.S. 335, 343, 41 S.Ct. 501, 65 L.E.2d 961 (1921).



She was in presence of a brick to which the aggressor was menacing.
 
rivrrat said:
The cops had been called countless times over the last year, according to neighbors. Restraining order isn't going to do jack ****. It doesn't stop them from doing anything. It's not a matter of "wanting to shoot someone", it's a matter of wanting to stop dangerous vandalism, arson, and physical harm from oneself. If someone hits me in the chest with a brick and raises another one at me, and I have a gun? Guess who is getting shot? Because I can sure as **** guarantee you that I'm not getting hit with another brick. They won't get the chance to hurt or possible kill me again if I can help it. I'll warn them first (as witnesses said she did), but if they refuse to leave, then they're about to learn a valuable lesson about bringing a brick to a gun fight, and that whatever it is that they're willing to do to me, I'm willing to go one step more hardcore to prevent them from doing it.
Click to expand...

I actually work with this population and have never had to threaten shooting someone to get them to stop acting out. :roll:
 
"Evidence About the Aggressor’s Character and Threats
Testimony about the aggressor’s character and threats that were known to the client before the incident is generally admissible, and need not be admitted through the client’s testimony. In many states the aggressor’s reputation for violence may be admissible, even if it was unknown to the client, to show that the complainant was the first aggressor"

Source: National association of criminal defense lawyers.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
“[D]etached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of a knife.”
– Brown v. United States,
256 U.S. 335, 343, 41 S.Ct. 501, 65 L.E.2d 961 (1921).



She was in presence of a brick to which the aggressor was menacing.
Click to expand...

She wasn't in its presence. she was in her house on the phone with the cops. She went back outside. She went outside, presumably, to scare the kids with a gun. You don't go into a situation expecting to scare the other party if you feel as though your life is threatened.

She put herself back in the situation that led to her shooting a kid.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I actually work with this population and have never had to threaten shooting someone to get them to stop acting out. :roll:
Click to expand...

Good for you, but apparently such tactics didn't work with these kids since the cops had been there countless times. Maybe you could stand there and bat your eyelashes while kids throw bricks at you and you could manage to get them to stop trying to hurt/kill you, but I don't gather that was working for this woman.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
"Evidence About the Aggressor’s Character and Threats
Testimony about the aggressor’s character and threats that were known to the client before the incident is generally admissible, and need not be admitted through the client’s testimony. In many states the aggressor’s reputation for violence may be admissible, even if it was unknown to the client, to show that the complainant was the first aggressor"

Source: National association of criminal defense lawyers.
Click to expand...

Good. Now tell me where that admissible reputation for violence comes from?

And further, that in no way states that a crime that hasn't been charged is admissible.
 
jallman said:
She wasn't in its presence. she was in her house on the phone with the cops. She went back outside. She went outside, presumably, to scare the kids with a gun. You don't go into a situation expecting to scare the other party if you feel as though your life is threatened.

She put herself back in the situation that led to her shooting a kid.
Click to expand...


The aggressor was still on her property with bricks, egress to the home where this savage had thrown bricks through the window is not retreating to safety. Also See my above post, I hope that quells your admissibility issue.
 
jallman said:
Good. Now tell me where that admissible reputation for violence comes from?

And further, that in no way states that a crime that hasn't been charged is admissible.
Click to expand...



What are we goal post moving, and yes yes it does, if his "reputation" is that of say drug dealing and assault, that hasn't been charged, it is absolutely admissible.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The aggressor was still on her property with bricks, egress to the home where this savage had thrown bricks through the window is not retreating to safety. Also See my above post, I hope that quells your admissibility issue.
Click to expand...

The aggressor was on the other side of a wall. The bricks weren't coming through the wall. She felt safe enough to stop and call the police. She went back outside. She put herself back in range of the aggressor when she didn't have to do so. She ended up placing herself in a position to fire a gun at kids rather than wait for the police.

She placed herself back in harm's way. End of story.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
What are we goal post moving, and yes yes it does, if his "reputation" is that of say drug dealing and assault, that hasn't been charged, it is absolutely admissible.
Click to expand...

No we are not goal post moving. No, no it doesn't. It in no way states that you can pose that a person is a criminal without charges to back you up.
 
jallman said:
The aggressor was on the other side of a wall. The bricks weren't coming through the wall. She felt safe enough to stop and call the police. She went back outside. She put herself back in range of the aggressor when she didn't have to do so. She ended up placing herself in a position to fire a gun at kids rather than wait for the police.

She placed herself back in harm's way. End of story.
Click to expand...




I had to go back, I don't know why you are getting into the habit of doing this but:


The woman called police and was putting away her groceries when the boys showed up again, authorities said.
The woman walked out onto the porch and the boys began shouting obscenities and throwing bricks at her, authorities said. The woman then pulled out a gun and opened fire, striking one of the boys in the shoulder, authorities said. -Chicago tribune.


She was being attacked.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
68 is gettin up there... :shrug:
Let me ask you, since Jallman won't answer. What should the woman have done?
Click to expand...

I've provided options above. If she felt that she was at risk of imminent harm, she should have called the police. Did she believe that the 12 year old was going to storm her house, for instance? What other types of non-lethal force could she have utilized?

In my department, if sending cops to her house didn't work, police would have gone to the parents' houses and met with them. They might have sent someone like me to meet with the kids and their parents. The children involved were also involved in the juvenile justice system, so there is some recourse available through the court system.

The last thing I would have done, to be frank, was to up the level of escalation by walking back outside, firearm in hand, and confronted the kids.

I actually worked with situations like this in my former job. Chicago PD has a ton of victim resources. I'd probably have asked the officers for a referral to a victim advocate, and worked with that person to potentially file a nuisance suit against the family involved.

I would have worked specifically with these folks: https://portal.chicagopolice.org/po...olved/Hotlines and CPD Contacts/OtherHelpLine

A lot of times, the crime prevention advocates in a large department like Chicago can create a pro-active neighborhood plan to address problems like this, whereas repeatedly calling 911 is just going to result in another patrol officer who isn't familiar with the problem being dispatched to the scene.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
If she felt that she was at risk of imminent harm, she should have called the police. Did she believe that the 12 year old was going to storm her house, for instance?
Click to expand...



You are in the scene, is it unheard of?


She did call the police. They had failed her on numerous occasions and the savages were escalating.





She thought so anyway:

""I was terrified," said Matthews, adding she went inside and grabbed a gun.

She called police, but worried they might come too late. So she said she went back outside and fired at the boys, wounding the 12-year-old in the shoulder.

"I was either going to be a victim or a villain," Matthews told ABC affiliate WLS-TV. "I did what I had to do to protect myself."
Click to expand...



Justified morally and legally.
 
She lived in constant fear, and Tuesday evening reached her breaking point. She had just returned from the grocery store when she saw her windows had been shattered and 2 boys were running away.

Margaret Matthews called the police, but they hadn’t yet arrived when the boys came back and began taunting her again, this time throwing rocks and bricks at her. She was struck in the chest and the knee.

Mrs. Mathews, or Ms. Margaret as she is known in the neighborhood, then went in her home and retrieved her late husbands legally registered gun and fired shots to scare the young men away. She alleges at one point the bullies had tried to kick in her door.

One bullet struck the 12 year old—he was treated at a local hospital and released shortly after.

The two young men have a different version and are being defended by their parents, of course. They say they were passing by and had just finished playing basketball when Miss Margaret came out and opened fire.

Their parents and a few others are furious that Margaret Matthews will not be charged.

The rational and sane folks in the neighborhood call Matthews a hero. They emphatically state that this elderly woman was targeted and harassed repeatedly by these bullies and no one could make it stop.
Click to expand...



Margaret Matthews: Senior Citizen Shoots 12 Year Old, Not Charged (Video) » Right Juris



As more of the story comes out..........
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I've provided options above. If she felt that she was at risk of imminent harm, she should have called the police.
Click to expand...
She did. How many more times do you think she could have been hit with bricks before they got there?

Did she believe that the 12 year old was going to storm her house, for instance?
Click to expand...
Why not?

What other types of non-lethal force could she have utilized?
Click to expand...
Such as?

In my department, if sending cops to her house didn't work, police would have gone to the parents' houses and met with them. They might have sent someone like me to meet with the kids and their parents. The children involved were also involved in the juvenile justice system, so there is some recourse available through the court system.
Click to expand...
Obviously this didn't take place in your department.

The last thing I would have done, to be frank, was to up the level of escalation by walking back outside, firearm in hand, and confronted the kids.
Click to expand...
I would have. I'm sure as **** not going to lay in wait for them to come and get me. I'm going to get the upperhand while I am able. And, she gave them fair warning. THEY chose to stay and continue to threaten her even when she had a gun in her hand. Stupid punks.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You are in the scene, is it unheard of?
Click to expand...

It's unlikely. And, if they did, she had a weapon. Instead, she went outside and escalated this situation into a shooting. I would suggest that poor social skills are often a factor in these kinds of situations.

She did call the police. They had failed her on numerous occasions and the savages were escalating.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole doesn't make your position any stronger. Was she safer INSIDE or OUTSIDE of the house?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom