In Chicago, police and prosecutors are dealing with a shooting in an unexpected way. Margaret Matthews, 68, had long complained about a 12-year-old who has been “terrorizing” her. When the boy joined friends in throwing bricks through her windows, she shot him. Police, however, did not charge her — instead charging the boy.
Another boy, 13, is also charged as a juvenile misdemeanor aggravated assault to a senior citizen.
Neighbors told police that the boy has been leading a group of kids who have been terrorizing the whole block.
Other neighbors, however, said that the boy told them that he was just walking by when the woman shot him and insist that he is not a bad kid.
We have seen these type of controversies in “castle doctrine” or “make my day” jurisdictions. However, Chicago is not such a jurisdiction. Courts have generally required a commensurate level of force to be used in self defense actions. The age of the individual can factor into this determination. Yet, I have never seen a brick through a window treated as justification for the use of potentially lethal force.
Source: CBS
Being terrorized for a period of time can be justified as self defense.
According to the report I read, the brick was being aimed at the women (who presumably would have little chance to get out of the way of the next brick, given her age). I suspect this fact was key in the police and state’s attorney’s decision to handle the case as they did.
mred
“Civilians are not trained to give equivalent, proportional response to an assault, like cops are.”
Like murdering unarmed non criminals and unarmed dogs. And shooting and beating up the people who call them for help.
You statement is of course correct.
But things have gotten so twisted these days that “proportional response” by cops has gotten way out of hand.
What other force could she use?
The police apparently were doing nothing. They chose to wait until shots were fired, with the potential of “collateral” injury, and violent reprisal.
We do and we should have the right to protect our property, real and personal from being harmed by others.
The level of physical violence and type of damage, could be considered life threatening. Hurled bricks can kill and loss of security, broken windows, breach the protective wall of the home ad pose a real threat to the occupant(s).
Then of course there is the issue of how extensive the damage to her home inside and outside and how much repair will cost and who will pay.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–K3X6rptE4&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Good thing Earnest T.Bass didn’t live to see this day.
Clockwork Orange in the 21st Century.
My guess is this kid won’t be throwing bricks again. Sorry but the kid decided what his life was worth.
The cops had been called and weren’t going to come. What the hell else was she supposed to do, let them kill her?
The kid is lucky. Flesh wound. Hopefully he won’t do this again; however, I place the odds of that at zero.
Civilians are not trained to give equivalent, proportional response to an assault, like cops are. Some prosecutors and courts are ignoring that. Not in this case. Whether you agree with this prosecutor, that’s our world today.
BTW, was her true proportional response just to throw the brick back?
I am amazed that no one has brought up race as a factor yet…..
Yes….I think that the child deserved what he got from this woman….but for her being a better shot the kid would not be here today….99% of us live in a Vacuum…Some areas of some citys cops will not respond or even go to without numbers….do I blame the cops hell no….
I wonder how many of you all remember the area called Cabrini–Green…..wonderful area….safe too….yep cops even loved going there….NOT
Come on if that was your grandparent….Your momma….tell me how would you feel….
Many kids twelve years of age are the same size as many adults, especially to seniors. If the granny feared for her life because of illegal actions perpetrated by the kid, then too bad he got shot. I have zero sympathy for the kid in this story. The granny did more than enough to assist the kid. I would have given the kid a more thorough punishment. He’s lucky to still be alive, imo.
AY,
you don’t disagree with the woman in shooting a kid for harassment?
Seems some would like to charge the kid as the adult here, and let this crazy armed granny go like she’s just a bad kid? You people crazy?
Around 68 is the time to realise that you don’t go about shooting kids when you can call a cop. Terrified? At 68?! You’re two legs in the grave already, what’s she have left to be scared about ffs.
The 12-yr old is only 12 years old… what on earth is the excuse of the demented old fart? The kid gets a final warning, the granny is executed, in my court.
You did a great interview on Anderson Cooper’s show Mr. Turley. You are very articulate and precise on your message. Thanks. As far as this kid in this story, he’s lucky he was only shot for his invasive actions. I certainly would have added a few more steps into preventing him from ever repeating that crime again. 🙂
“Trying to deal with problems after the fact is always far more expensive than dealing with them up front – ask health care workers or BP.”
No disagreement on that point.
“For the state to foster “good” persons when the parents can’t is labor and cost intensive. That’s not an investment we make.”
Trying to deal with problems after the fact is always far more expensive than dealing with them up front – ask health care workers or BP.
The kid’s families, the police and Chicago failed these kid’s and putting this woman in jail for this (logical) outcome after a year of abuse serves no purpose.
culheath
(Blouise’ question)
“The kid is 12 years old … what are the odds he will be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society?”
(Answer)
What are the odds that society will even make the attempt to rehabilitate and make him a productive member of society?”
_____
Our prisons don’t rehabilitate and our society seldom intervenes in such situations with positive outcomes short of a crisis, by that time it’s often too late.
For the state to foster “good” persons when the parents can’t is labor and cost intensive. That’s not an investment we make. We’re too busy shipping skids of hundred dollar bills off to the four corners of the earth for no good reason.
This woman needs a good lawyer because I’d bet a dollar to a dime the kids parents will sue her.
I agree with the woman, in this case. (sorry, Jonathan) What was she supposed to do, throw bricks back? In places like Chicago, reports to the police of getting terrorized are treated as ho-hum matters.
“We’re all encouraged to get involved and protest the stoning of a woman in Iran for a non-crime. When do we protest the bricking of a woman in the US because she’s 68 and lives in a neighborhood with juvenile delinquents? Let’s see how you feel when you’re 68 and get hit with a brick.”
Tom
————————————
hear hear!
how about the ball dropped by local authorities? Is that not to be addressed? There be many kids are way out of control these days, and yes, it will get worse if it goes unaddressed…
Parents are afraid of their cildren; because they have been told that they can not use physical force in defence against attacks,they give the childen the concept that this is the way life is;you can attack/terorise/mob without hindrance. In real life , when coming outside the family, they will see that violence is met with violence in self-defence.ake the ownership/responsbility for children away from the state, and back to parents.