• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

5o56x45

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
51
Location
CA
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/...928_1_comer-children-s-hospital-windows-woman

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/30/Woman-who-shot-boy-hailed-as-hero/UPI-82861285880255/

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

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/09/12-year-old-boy-shot-in-arm-in-south-shore.html
 
Last edited:

eb31

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
109
Location
Woodbridge, Va
Kid got what he deserved. He 's lucky she wasn't a better shot. His parent(s)/guardian should have to pay restitution.
 

HolyOrangeJuice

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
221
Location
AZ
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.
 

Haz.

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
1,226
Location
I come from a land downunder.
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/...928_1_comer-children-s-hospital-windows-woman

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/30/Woman-who-shot-boy-hailed-as-hero/UPI-82861285880255/

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.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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.
 
X

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:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
 

HeroHog

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
628
Location
Shreveport, LA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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."

 

HeroHog

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
628
Location
Shreveport, LA
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.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The castle doctrine is not necessary in this case. The lady was attacked with deadly force and responded with deadly force.
 

lil_freak_66

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
1,799
Location
Mason, Michigan
<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.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
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.
 
Top