Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: 68 Year Old Woman Shoots Youth Who Was Throwing Bricks At Her

  1. #1
    Regular Member 5o56x45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    51

    Post 68 Year Old Woman Shoots Youth Who Was Throwing Bricks At Her

    Some kids had been harassing an old woman for a year. On the particular day when she returned home all of the windows in her house were broken and she saw the kids running away. Later they returned and were throwing bricks at her. The old woman shot one of them in the sholder.

    Here are some links for the full story and its in Chicago of all places:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-windows-woman

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/...2861285880255/

    http://cbs2chicago.com/local/elderly...2.1936778.html

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...uth-shore.html
    Last edited by 5o56x45; 10-02-2010 at 04:54 AM. Reason: Add Another Link
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
    Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    221
    Kids these days have no respect for anyone. Bricks can kill someone so i feel she had every right to defend herself especially if one actually hit her.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by 5o56x45 View Post
    Some kids had been harassing an old woman for a year. On the particular day when she returned home all of the windows in her house were broken and she saw the kids running away. Later they returned and were throwing bricks at her. The old woman shot one of them in the sholder.

    Here are some links for the full story and its in Chicago of all places:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-windows-woman

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/...2861285880255/
    How sad. This type of harassment happens all the time down under. These kids harass her for a year and she finally has to use a firearm to defend herself. Shows just how much our society care about the elderly. Thank God she had a firearm and was able to show these kids she will no longer be treated like pond scum.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    While I am glad no criminal charges are being filed against her AND I think the kids needed some kind of a55-whoopin' I can't say that what she did would be legal. She probably will get some form of civil lawsuit. Yes she got hit with a brick and bricks could be deadly but she went into the house and came out with a gun. She could have stayed in the house or gone back in.

    Now if they came in the house after her she would be justified in shooting. If she had a gun on her and was hit by a brick, shooting probably would be justified.

    When I bought my first shotgun I looked around for rock salt cartridges thinking the less than lethal shell would be good for non-life threatening situations, then I learned the laws and realized you can't use a lethal weapon in that situation. I still think that both those kids would have learned a lesson if their backsides had rock salt peppered through them!!! I guess one having a bullet wound may work too.

  5. #5
    XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX
    Guest
    SNIP
    "The boy and his 13-year-old companion were charged with aggravated assault. Matthews will not be charged, police said"

    IMHO the parents of these childern should be charged, it's the responsibility of the parents to know what the childern are doing. You are so oblivious to your child that they are able to harass this lady for a year ? Don't get me wrong, I believe the childern should also be held responsible in some way aswell. I assume they are also going to need to pay for the windows, but I did not see anything in the article about it.
    Last edited by XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX; 10-01-2010 at 10:31 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Yes she got hit with a brick and bricks could be deadly but she went into the house and came out with a gun. She could have stayed in the house or gone back in.
    Way to misrepresent the facts. She came home to find the kids running away with her windows broken. She went inside to call the police. The kids came back and she went out onto the porch(doesn't say why, but probably to do the stereotypical thing, tell the kids she called the cops). They started throwing bricks at her, that's when she pulled out her gun and shot. She did not go inside to get the gun and since they did not attack her before, she didn't necessarily have reason to fear an attack on her person.

  7. #7
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653
    I'll have to re-read the OP but I took it as she went in and got the gun and came BACK out myself. Anyway, I don't think shooting the kid was warranted in THIS incident. From what it sounds like, shooting him might be a good thing but, this one wasn't it for me. I don't see that her life was truly being threatened but I don't know what was said either. It's sad that things went so far in this neighborhood that it came to this, that is clear.

    The issue with her "fearing for her life" from this kid being acceptable is that it leads to her being scared to death of a guy on a Harley who stops next to her. Are we going to let her shoot him because he scared her? Yeah, it's a stretch but I think you see where I am going. If the kid was coming in her house, blast his butt! If he was yelling I'll stone you to death and throwing bricks AT HER, not her house/windows, fine, but from what I read, that doesn't seem to be the case. It read like he threw rocks at her property and burned her garbage cans. No real endangerment of life and limb that I can see.
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    While she was standing on her porch, they threw bricks at her. One of the bricks hit her in the chest. She then shot one of them.

    It's not like she went inside, got the gun, and started firing--which would be of questionable legality. There was an intervening event after she went inside, got the gun, and came back out, but before she fired. She suffered an assault with a deadly weapon and fired to stop it.

    Justified.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Way to misrepresent the facts. She came home to find the kids running away with her windows broken. She went inside to call the police. The kids came back and she went out onto the porch(doesn't say why, but probably to do the stereotypical thing, tell the kids she called the cops). They started throwing bricks at her, that's when she pulled out her gun and shot. She did not go inside to get the gun and since they did not attack her before, she didn't necessarily have reason to fear an attack on her person.
    If my grandma was being attacked by teen-hoodlums I would want her to not be charged too. I grew up back in the day when EVERY grandma would turn you over their knee, or carry you by your ear to your own grandma so they could discipline you!

    I wasn't trying to misrepresent anything. The first article I read stated it the way I mentioned. I guess it depends on which article you read. I know papers have been known to get it wrong: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/...2861285880255/

    "Matthews told them to stop, but they just started swearing at her, she said. She then called police, but not sure if they would respond, she also retrieved a gun from inside her house, went back onto the porch and fired at the boys because she feared for her safety."


  10. #10
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    While she was standing on her porch, they threw bricks at her. One of the bricks hit her in the chest. She then shot one of them.

    It's not like she went inside, got the gun, and started firing--which would be of questionable legality. There was an intervening event after she went inside, got the gun, and came back out, but before she fired. She suffered an assault with a deadly weapon and fired to stop it.

    Justified.
    Ahhh, that is a different account of the events than what I have read so far on the incident and changes everything. I withdraw my previous given the new, more detailed evidence.
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  11. #11
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    The first article I read stated it the way I mentioned.
    In that case, I apologize for accusing you of misrepresenting the incident.

  12. #12
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    In that case, I apologize for accusing you of misrepresenting the incident.
    Accepted.

    I actually would be for the Texas style laws where you can defend your property with deadly force. In this case assuming I legally could defend my property I would be aiming some birdshot at their backsides! (Rock salt if I could find it)

    I hope she doesn't lose all of her possesions in a civil suit.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Accepted.

    I actually would be for the Texas style laws where you can defend your property with deadly force. In this case assuming I legally could defend my property I would be aiming some birdshot at their backsides! (Rock salt if I could find it)

    I hope she doesn't lose all of her possesions in a civil suit.
    I would like to see other states adopt one of South Carolina's laws regarding self defense. I read that if you shoot someone and are acquitted of any wrong doing, the offending party or their family is NOT ALLOWED to bring a civil suit.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    I would like to see other states adopt one of South Carolina's laws regarding self defense. I read that if you shoot someone and are acquitted of any wrong doing, the offending party or their family is NOT ALLOWED to bring a civil suit.
    That is your standard castle doctrine law and yes SC has that provision. In this case I see a lady being attacked on her own property, she was doing nothing illegal and did not contribute to the origin of the attack so she met those three requirements. The last requirement was that she met the force with proper force. The kids were throwing bricks and had broken out the windows of her home so she was not safe even in her home. She went in and came out with a gun to defend herself. As I see it she met all the requirements of the castle doctrine. Even if she had stayed inside while calling 911 she was not safe as the "projectiles" (bricks) were going inside her house. Much as if someone was shooting a gun into your house. To me this is a clear case of someone having to go to extraordinary means to defend themselves and no charges should be placed against her and no civil suits should be allowed.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The castle doctrine is not necessary in this case. The lady was attacked with deadly force and responded with deadly force.

  16. #16
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    <snip>
    no civil suits should be allowed.

    I personally think a civil suit should be allowed,by the shooter against the families of the little criminals,pain and suffering,legal and court costs,damages to her property and anything else applicable.
    And i hope the shooter does pursue such actions.
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  17. #17
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by lil_freak_66 View Post
    I personally think a civil suit should be allowed,by the shooter against the families of the little criminals,pain and suffering,legal and court costs,damages to her property and anything else applicable.
    And i hope the shooter does pursue such actions.
    Agreed completely. The criminals should be held financially liable for any damages caused by their crimes.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    I would like to see other states adopt one of South Carolina's laws regarding self defense. I read that if you shoot someone and are acquitted of any wrong doing, the offending party or their family is NOT ALLOWED to bring a civil suit.

    Unfortunately, that may not always be true. Massad Ayoob in a recent article for a magazine detailed the legal struggles of a Texas man after shooting a man who robbed his home and tried to run him down with a car. The case was before Texas enacted their Castle Doctrine law, but in the article Ayoob commented that even in states with established CD laws, civil attorneys are filing and going to trial on wrongful death cases. They simply say that the defendant did not follow the CD and some judges are saying the defendant must prove he did. This means the person must still go through the legal expenses of defending themselves just to prove the CD law covers them. It's sad, but even a CD law is not (forgive the pun) bulletproof.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Unfortunately, that may not always be true. Massad Ayoob in a recent article for a magazine detailed the legal struggles of a Texas man after shooting a man who robbed his home and tried to run him down with a car. The case was before Texas enacted their Castle Doctrine law, but in the article Ayoob commented that even in states with established CD laws, civil attorneys are filing and going to trial on wrongful death cases. They simply say that the defendant did not follow the CD and some judges are saying the defendant must prove he did. This means the person must still go through the legal expenses of defending themselves just to prove the CD law covers them. It's sad, but even a CD law is not (forgive the pun) bulletproof.

    In Texas all cases involving deadly force must go before a Grand Jury. If you are 'NO BILLED" that is generally the end of it. A DA that tries to prosecute after a NO BILL is really asking for major trouble. The kind akin to that SC DA that ended up getting kicked out of office, losing his license and getting some jail time over trying to prosecute those LaCross players. And a civil Lawyer that brings such a suit here is leaving his client and himself wide open for a countersuit which might include slander and libel. I know I would also name the lawyer individually and as a rep of his firm. I want the DEEP pockets.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •