• 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

She did. How many more times do you think she could have been hit with bricks before they got there?

If she'd stayed inside, probably she wouldn't have been hit again. :roll: What circumstances necessitated her going outside to confront these punks with a gun?
 
If she'd stayed inside, probably she wouldn't have been hit again. :roll:

"probably". I wouldn't be willing to bet my life on that.

What circumstances necessitated her going outside to confront these punks with a gun?

Fear for her life.
 
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?


She did call the police.


There are now reports coming out they did try to kick her door in.


non-lethal? I don't believe in non lethal. I believe in threat neutralization and pepper spray wouldn't have helped this lady.


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.


This is chicago, what do you think the timeline for that would be, if ever. :lamo


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.


Why not, would you wait until they smashed all your windows? hit you in the head with a brick? burned your house down?

I doubt you catz, would be timmid tammy here. ;)



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.


You are one of the good ones. You think within a couple years someone would have advocated for her?


they didnt


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.


:lamo you can't be serious, WTF would that do? 2 kids? south shore chicago? I'm sure they could have stopped the menacing and the assaults and the vandalism and the arson. by calling the city information and petty crime line.

Besides, why should she be required to rely on someone else for her own protection? Self defense is a right.



311? You suggest she call the city help line?



"Many police functions can now be accomplished by calling 311.

Filing a police report after a crime has occurred and the offender is gone:
If you wake up in the morning and realize that your bicycle is missing from your garage, call 311.
If your neighbor leaves the dog in the yard all night, barking at squirrels, call 311.
If you come out of the grocery store and realize the cell phone you left on the seat of your car is gone, call 311.
If you hear your car alarm in the middle of the night and realize someone has tried to steal or break into your car, call 311."



:doh
 
Last edited:
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.


The kid was escalating already. she put a stop to it.



Hyperbole doesn't make your position any stronger. Was she safer INSIDE or OUTSIDE of the house?



there is no hyperbole here and I am the first to admit when I indulge in it.



Arguable, given the recent links I presented, the history of arson, and brick throwing, it's completley arguable.
 
We had something like this happen a couple of days ago, in a continuous problem apartment complex.

An 11 year old followed an elderly man (he's 94) to his apartment, he then got his 14 year old buddy and decided to beat the man, almost to death, with rocks and take $25 and a cell phone.

He's still in the hospital and may not make it.
 
We had something like this happen a couple of days ago, in a continuous problem apartment complex.

An 11 year old followed an elderly man (he's 94) to his apartment, he then got his 14 year old buddy and decided to beat the man, almost to death, with rocks and take $25 and a cell phone.

He's still in the hospital and may not make it.



Well he should have called the police, oh wait. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Aww, they're just kids, we should let it go this time....:doh

There's a big difference between beating and robbing a man and this situation. In all cases, the kids need to be charged and disciplined. In the case of the woman, no one needed to be shot.
 
There's a big difference between beating and robbing a man and this situation. In all cases, the kids need to be charged and disciplined. In the case of the woman, no one needed to be shot.

As far as the story goes, they were throwing rocks and bricks at the woman and intentionally harassing and damaging her property.

Any reasonable expectation of safety they should of been shown, flew out the window as soon as they started to harm her.
 
"probably". I wouldn't be willing to bet my life on that.

Fear for her life.

Whereas going outside virtually guaranteed that she would be exposed to further violence. And, she wasn't as much at risk of losing her life INSIDE the house as she was when she went OUTSIDE.

That's simply undeniable.

By leaving her home, she escalated the situation to a point that someone being shot became an almost 100% outcome.
 
Whereas going outside virtually guaranteed that she would be exposed to further violence. And, she wasn't as much at risk of losing her life INSIDE the house as she was when she went OUTSIDE.

That's simply undeniable.

By leaving her home, she escalated the situation to a point that someone being shot became an almost 100% outcome.

Arguments like these "hey let's just shoot the brats" arguments we are hearing...they are what diminish the credibility of pro second amendment arguments.

Just sayin'.
 
As far as the story goes, they were throwing rocks and bricks at the woman and intentionally harassing and damaging her property.

Any reasonable expectation of safety they should of been shown, flew out the window as soon as they started to harm her.

No. She went outside. She put herself back in harm's way after calling the police and not waiting for them.
 
Whereas going outside virtually guaranteed that she would be exposed to further violence. And, she wasn't as much at risk of losing her life INSIDE the house as she was when she went OUTSIDE.

That's simply undeniable.
It's entirely deniable. She went outside with a ****ing gun. It was just as easy for them to come inside the house and harm her further, anyway.

By leaving her home, she escalated the situation to a point that someone being shot became an almost 100% outcome.
By throwing bricks at her, they escalated the situation to a life and death one. By refusing to leave when she brandished her weapon and told them to, they escalated the situation to a life and death one. They had many choices. And I bet that next time they think twice before ****ing with her since they know that she'll ****ing defend herself with deadly force instead of sitting around like a pansy ass waiting for someone else to come and take care of things.
 
No. She went outside. She put herself back in harm's way after calling the police and not waiting for them.

I measure a couple of things before I decide if force has become necessary.

Repeated abuse, previous contact with the police, degree of harassment and bodily harm.

I know when I was a kid, even though I was a destructive somewhat evil little bastard, that any confrontation with the police would have scared the **** out of me.
Obviously, these kids did not have that fear.

I think she was well within her right to do something, instead of wait.
Who knows how long it could of taken, she did say that they attempted to kick in the door or kick the door.
 
I really find this very sad. She should be trapped in her own home, while her property is being destroyed? Seriously??
 
I measure a couple of things before I decide if force has become necessary.

Repeated abuse, previous contact with the police, degree of harassment and bodily harm.

I know when I was a kid, even though I was a destructive somewhat evil little bastard, that any confrontation with the police would have scared the **** out of me.
Obviously, these kids did not have that fear.

I think she was well within her right to do something, instead of wait.
Who knows how long it could of taken, she did say that they attempted to kick in the door or kick the door.

If they came through the door, I would have no problem with her killing one of them instead of just wounding them. However, as long as her life was not in immediate danger, she should have waited for the police.
 
"Many police functions can now be accomplished by calling 311.

Filing a police report after a crime has occurred and the offender is gone:
If you wake up in the morning and realize that your bicycle is missing from your garage, call 311.
If your neighbor leaves the dog in the yard all night, barking at squirrels, call 311.
If you come out of the grocery store and realize the cell phone you left on the seat of your car is gone, call 311.
If you hear your car alarm in the middle of the night and realize someone has tried to steal or break into your car, call 311."

Nice selective quoting.

Talking directly to police officers in your district:
In 1993, the Police Department began a comprehensive community policing strategy designed to help officers get to know the neighborhoods in which they work and to help residents get to know their beat officers.

This partnership is designed to help address potential crime and disorder problems before they escalate, improving the quality of life for all residents of the City.

While the police and community hold regular beat meetings, there may be issues or activities that you and your neighbors need to talk directly to your district about between meetings. You can use 311 to accomplish this.


These are exactly the types of problems that community oriented policing is designed to address. This lady had access to beat officers and COP officers who could have sat down with her personally, developed a strategy to address this neighborhood nuisance, and removed the problem from her neighborhood. It happens all the time, daily, in cities around the U.S., including in Chicago. I used to be involved with it all the time.

Instead, she chose vigilante justice. I find it interesting that you are defending going vigilante against a 12-year-old. :shrug:

If they came through the door, I would have no problem with her killing one of them instead of just wounding them. However, as long as her life was not in immediate danger, she should have waited for the police.

Exactly. If these kids had actually invaded her home, I'd have zero problems with her shooting. But they didn't. She took the conflict to them, and escalated it to a level that I find morally objectionable.
 
Last edited:
If they came through the door, I would have no problem with her killing one of them instead of just wounding them. However, as long as her life was not in immediate danger, she should have waited for the police.

That's the problem, it's sometimes hard to understand when your life is in danger, from a story.

I've had people try to intimidate me with guns before, I could have responded with a gunfire but it made no sense.
They were merely trying to intimidate me but not hurt me.

These kids crossed the line to actual bodily harm and repeated abuse, even after a confrontation with the authorities.
 
That's the problem, it's sometimes hard to understand when your life is in danger, from a story.

I've had people try to intimidate me with guns before, I could have responded with a gunfire but it made no sense.
They were merely trying to intimidate me but not hurt me.

These kids crossed the line to actual bodily harm and repeated abuse, even after a confrontation with the authorities.

Bring the authorities back out. Don't call the cops, then get your 9 and go back out cappin' kids before the cops ever get there. That's ghetto.
 
Bring the authorities back out. Don't call the cops, then get your 9 and go back out cappin' kids before the cops ever get there. That's ghetto.

Normally I would totally agree with that but when they have no fear of the authorities and they act with malice, things change.

Ghetto kids, sometimes, need a ghetto response.
 
I really find this very sad. She should be trapped in her own home, while her property is being destroyed? Seriously??

I've been thinking the same thing. :confused:

Some are advocating that the woman should have just stayed in her house where she was "safe" (despite occasional bricks coming through the windows and her front door being kicked). These kids had been harassing the poor woman for a YEAR, and weren't likely to stop; in fact, their harassment and vandalism had increased over that period of time to the point that they physically assaulted her with a brick in the chest.

And the advice she's given is to stay in the house and take cover.

:shock:

I'm curious exactly how long those who advocate this course of action believe she should stay in her home to avoid more assaults from kids that had been coming after her for a YEAR.

Should she start having friends and neighbors do her grocery shopping for her? After all, these kids have been rampaging up and down the street for at least a year, and just taking a walk to the corner could result in another assault. Maybe she should quit her jobs (yes, she works two jobs), so she can be sure she won't be hit by another flying brick as she heads down the street to the bus stop.

:roll:
 
Hmmm, an unsupervised boy running amuck in the neighborhood, with a pattern of terrorizing an elderly lady living alone, and the parents of the boy not taking responsibility for their boys actions.......tells me the elderly lady had every right to protect herself and her property from the little thug.

The pattern of terrorizing is key to understanding why the elderly women finally took such drastic means since the act of terrorizing is meant to oppress, intimidate, and frighten which leads to a state of panic. The elderly woman was living in a constant state of fear and thus her rights were being violated. And since the parents of the boy and the state were not protecting the woman's rights, she had the right to defend herself where others would not.

People whine about the boy's injuries, but that wouldnt have happened if the boys parents were raising their son to be a responsible good citizen instead of a menace to society. I place the bulk of the blame on the boys parents because if they were in any way unable to control their own son, then they should sought outside help or put him in a special school for troubled youth, instead of letting him run wild and terrorizing the neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom