Woman who shot boy hailed as hero by neighbors

[Onward Allusion]

A friend emailed this to me today. Chicago no less... Hell yeah! They're finally learning across the border. It's about a frail looking old lady defending herself against a couple of punks.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-woman-shoots-kid-0930-20100929,0,2723660.story

Woman who shot boy hailed as hero by neighbors
Homeowner has no regrets, said child hit her with brick

Margaret Matthews said the two boys she shot at had been harassing her at her South Side home for months. (Terrence Antonio James, Chicago Tribune / September 29, 2010)

A thin woman with silver hair and dark-rimmed glasses stood Wednesday evening on her front steps, shattered glass at her feet and crowds of neighbors milling around the block and speaking of her in heroic terms.
....

 

[dovedescending]

As far as the praise and support she has gotten from neighbors, Matthews remained humble: "It's not heroic at all. I'm just human and I'm a senior, and I don't like being abused."

Just wow. How awesome is that.

 

[oldbanjo]

The last comment is outstanding, did you read it.

 

[oldbanjo]

Protecting your property gets touchy but the broken window could be considered a break in.

 

[Dnaltrop]

I'm severely disabled, my fingers are braced with metal rings, I use a cane to stay upright over any distance. (edit. Think a 75 year old's Joint problems by my mid-20s)

Literally, a 20 lb child can pull my limbs out of socket with just an Innocent tug.

While I am Obviously not going to advocate the use of armed force against a 20 lb child, The point is that a Threat to life and limb has to be viewed from the eyes of the person being attacked.

The little old lady could have been easily killed with a single brick to the head. 12 or 100 years old, an armed attack, is an armed attack.

If the Youths weren't taught that if they attack a person in our society, that person has the right to defend themselves... that's the parent's fault.

 

[KrisKollins]

I agree, good for her. I just hope those kids don't try to retaliate.

 

[Russ Jackson]

The parent of the creep will sue the Lady now. ...Russ

 

[oldbanjo]

Maybe her neighbors will learn something and defend themselves. No community should have ever let that happen, for a year. Today most people don't control there kids or care, it's a shame. I'm one of the ones that walks with a cane, I'd do what she did except I would have hit both of them.

 

[oldbanjo]

In SC you can not be sued.

 

[Ron James]

It sounds nice but the state can not mandate the courts in regards to a civil suit. Even in SC you can be suit for excessive force or wrong full death. In Arizona it is legal to shoot a burglar, but that only means no legal action will be taken against you. You can still be sued in a civil lawsuit. Doesn't happen very often but it still happens.

 

[SleazyRider]

What's equally bothersome is that it appears that she has to lock herself behind bars like an animal at the zoo. That just ain't right.

 

[oldbanjo]

In SC you are immune to a civil law suit by the Castle Domain Law, stand your ground applies.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

New Hampshire has Castle Doctrine aswell. I love this state!

 

[oldbanjo]

Immunity from civil lawsuit

In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the use of lethal force. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a defender acting lawfully.

The only exceptions to this civil immunity are generally situations of excessive force, where the defender used deadly force on a subdued, cooperative, or disabled assailant. A situation meeting this exception generally invalidates the criminal "castle defense" as well. In addition, someone who uses deadly force in self-defense is still liable for any damages or injuries to third parties who were not acting criminally at the time of the defensive action.

 

[oldbanjo]

I have an out of state CWP from NH. SC does not except GA's CWP so I have a NH CWP which is accepted in GA. I spend a lot of time in GA, Bass Pro Shop, Sams. I try not to shop in this crooked County. They're in Church on Sunday and steal from you on Monday. No one stays in jail here they turn them loose.

 

[mgkdrgn]

It sounds nice but the state can not mandate the courts in regards to a civil suit. Even in SC you can be suit for excessive force or wrong full death. In Arizona it is legal to shoot a burglar, but that only means no legal action will be taken against you. You can still be sued in a civil lawsuit. Doesn't happen very often but it still happens.

Well, the courts in SC apparently didn't get that memo. In SC, if you are any place you have a legal right to be, and you are under the threat of loss of life or grievous bodily harm, you may use deadly force to defend yourself. If then, the shoot is found to be a proper self defense action, as discussed above, you can not be sued in civil court.

Furthermore, IF the attach involves breaking into your home, hotel room, car, truck cab, etc, while you are there, it is =assumed= by the law that your life is in danger ... there is not need to provide any support that belief on your part.

 

[Girodin]

It sounds nice but the state can not mandate the courts in regards to a civil suit.

Are you suggesting that the Legislature cannot pass tort laws and preempt older common law principles? That is not correct. A state legislature can carve out exemptions and defenses to tort liability all it likes or even do away with causes of action completely if they like. There are many examples of them having done so.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I'm severely disabled, my fingers are braced with metal rings, I use a cane to stay upright over any distance. (edit. Think a 75 year old's Joint problems by my mid-20s)

Literally, a 20 lb child can pull my limbs out of socket with just an Innocent tug.

Sounds like my wife, an RA patient for 30 years now.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

We are in a fight right now in Pa. to pass such a law. Our gun owners are on it with the NRA.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Folks,

This is S&T, not Legal & Political. Either keep this on topic for S&T or it's gonna go bye-bye.

lpl

 

[Manco]

I agree, good for her. I just hope those kids don't try to retaliate.

That was my first thought, too. If the punks make an attempt on her life in retaliation, then I hope that she doesn't miss this time around. If I were her, I'd take extra security precautions and carry my gun at all times. I'd also get some training if I hadn't done so already.

 

[duns]

Maybe this should be in Legal rather than S&T? It seems more about what may be considered justified in the eyes of the law than about S&T.

For me, her gong out to confront assailants seems a very poor strategy. Surely staying under cover in her house and calling the police would have been a better strategy?

Also it seemed she knew the assailants and knew that they were children. I can't see on the basis of the reported facts that her actions were moral. That they seem to be considered legal, leaves me bewildered.

 

[WardenWolf]

It sounds nice but the state can not mandate the courts in regards to a civil suit. Even in SC you can be suit for excessive force or wrong full death. In Arizona it is legal to shoot a burglar, but that only means no legal action will be taken against you. You can still be sued in a civil lawsuit. Doesn't happen very often but it still happens.

Arizona has a statute that you cannot sue for any injuries or losses you suffer during the commission of a crime. This covers everything from trespassing to violent crime, and also excludes claims by relatives / family.

I'm glad this woman was able to protect herself, and hope she isn't charged.

 

[MrWesson]

I was looking for a source where this happened.. Anyone know?


It was from the chicago tribune but I would imagine if this happened in chicago they would that thrown that lil old lady in jail.

 

[Manco]

Maybe this should be in Legal rather than S&T? It seems more about what may be considered justified in the eyes of the law than about S&T.

Both aspects are interesting, as I see it.

For me, her gong out to confront assailants seems a very poor strategy. Surely staying under cover in her house and calling the police would have been a better strategy?

That's what we as a group would have suggested, but it's possible that she feared for her life enough that she thought the boys would come in after her anyway. Once she decided to repel them with a gun, I guess she stopped thinking about anything else at that point. Maybe people in her area consider her such a "hero" because she did go above and beyond what was strictly necessary in order to stop the constant harassment that she and probably others were getting from those delinquents. In that case, perhaps her thought process was broader than ours rather than narrower.

The way I've described the possible scenarios and the public reaction to what took place does make this seem like a potential case of vigilante justice, although that's not necessarily true. Even if it were, though, I can't help but think those boys got what was coming to them. Whether or not the woman's actions were legally or morally justifiable, the perps won't get any sympathy from me because they asked for it.

Also it seemed she knew the assailants and knew that they were children. I can't see on the basis of the reported facts that her actions were moral. That they seem to be considered legal, leaves me bewildered.

That they were children may have legal relevance (or not, depending on the law), but they're well past the age of reason as far as I'm concerned, and in my view criminals are defined by their actions just like everybody else. If a mostly-grown child forcibly broke into my home in the middle of the night, he'd get two in the COM and one in the head if he doesn't stop, just like everybody else. I'm sorry if that offends anybody, but I'm hardly going to check his driver license to see whether he's one day short of his 18th birthday and give him a free pass.