Posted on 06/22/2002 4:03:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The understanding I got from the article was that the 10 year old,her sister,and a friend or two were in her driveway "chillin" when the other girls drove by. They shouted obscenities and insults at the other girls,and they came back to "see what your problem is". That's when the fight broke out.
Yup,nobody's life was in danger,and nobody was even being attacked when she went and got the gun. It doesn't say,but I strongly suspect she may have pulled the trigger a time or two.
Either she comited a crime, or she tried to resolve a problem, meaning she did not commit the crime. THe form to solve the problem is irrelevant if crime is the issue. I don't understand that judge.
A four-against-one fight is usually a sufficient "disparity of force" to allow one to draw a gun. If I came at you with three of my friends, I guarantee you that we would be in a position to kill you if we chose to
I think I could find several thousand judges and attorneys who would disagree with you, especially in the case of this schoolyard spat.
If I came at you with three of my friends, I guarantee you that we would be in a position to kill you if we chose to
In my case, that is possible but improbable as I would likely no longer be in the vicinity if four people attempted to murder me with their bare hands.
Depending on the locale of these attacks, there is a wide variance of case law concerning the "duty" of a victim of a potential crime to retreat to safety in cases such as these. However, I suspect that nowhere in this case law was there any provision that allowed this juvenile to do a Dirty Harry on her attackers in such a case. Please provide one or more cites to the contrary if you believe I'm mistaken about this.
I seriously doubt that. Like other bloviating Internet Rambos, you have no clue how and where I grew up and the environment in which I lived. I'll provide you with a free clue though; in my community, any juvenile who stole Daddy's .38 special to try to end any sort of childhood squabble would have quickly ended up in juvenile hall, and Daddy himself would quite possibly have been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
I suspect that many where you grew up ended up in some form of state-run correctional facility for a very long time if their standard advice to a son who came home with a black eye was to hand them the family Smith and Wesson and tell them to go "take care of it."
I guess you don't understand the ramifications of cowardice.
I guess you don't understand the potential consequences of the unlawful brandishing of a firearm, especially among juveniles. And I spit on your attempted characterization of law-abiding citizens as "cowards."
As well it would appear that you approve of the state's summary decision to play nanny and to indoctrinate children into being sheep.
Let me get this straight - your definition of a "sheep" is someone who does not brandish a firearm during a fistfight? What a remarkably dangerous and stupid observation.
May heaven help your family and your neighbors.
You are correct in that I have no clue how and where you grew up, however I never stated such, that is your mistaken assumption. If you recall, I stated what might have happened had you grew up where I did. It is your assumption, not mine, and you are free to assume what you like, but that does not make you correct.
I'll provide you with a free clue though; in my community, any juvenile who stole Daddy's .38 special to try to end any sort of childhood squabble would have quickly ended up in juvenile hall, and Daddy himself would quite possibly have been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Once again, I never stated I assumed anything about where you grew up despite what you think. However, you are correct in that firearms would not have been used to end a "childhood squabble" (yet another assumption on you part), baseball bats would have been the norm.
I suspect that many where you grew up ended up in some form of state-run correctional facility for a very long time if their standard advice to a son who came home with a black eye was to hand them the family Smith and Wesson and tell them to go "take care of it."
Assumption must be your forte, but yes you are correct in your assumption that a number of childhood associates have ended up in state facilities.
I guess you don't understand the potential consequences of the unlawful brandishing of a firearm, especially among juveniles. And I spit on your attempted characterization of law-abiding citizens as "cowards."
Apparently it is you who misunderstands that the primary purpose of a firearm is self defense. It sure appears that would be the case in this incident, which ended without violence or harm on all sides (could you have possibly missed this fact or do you simply deem it irrelevant?), why should that be considered "unlawful"?, it is in effect exactly what the purpose of a firearm is for. Your recommendation to "take the beating" would not fall into that category though would it?. Ironically enough, a child is punished for preventing any type of violence from occuring, what a great message to send. Maybe you would feel better had the 10 year old watched her sister potentially get beat up.
Let me get this right, you think it is lawful for someone to threaten you or your family in your driveway?. What kind of nut are you?. Additionally, what exactly is your attitude problem with juveniles and firearms?. Are you another gun control freak?.
Let me get this straight - your definition of a "sheep" is someone who does not brandish a firearm during a fistfight? What a remarkably dangerous and stupid observation.
Yet more assumption, can you discern a pattern here?. No "fight" or violence of any kind took place did it?, resulting from a 10 year old's action in defense of a perceived threat to a sibling.
Frankly, it is you who appears to be stupid and dangerous, you've advocated a violent solution because of your feeling that the threat of deadly force was unwarranted. I've applauded an act which prevented violence of any kind. Hmmmm.
May heaven help your family and your neighbors.
Heaven helps those who help themselves, not those who submit to threats and intimidation. I'm curious to know how many times in your youth did you watch your siblings get beat up?.
---max
In your post, your very own words were:
"As well it would appear that you approve of the state's summary decision to play nanny and to indoctrinate children into being sheep."
To which I replied:
"Let me get this straight - your definition of a "sheep" is someone who does not brandish a firearm during a fistfight?"
I'd still like an answer to that - do you believe that a "sheep" is someone who does not brandish a firearm during a fistfight? Yes or no, please.
I'll stand by my statements, apparently you prefer to spin yours.
In your post, your very own words were:
"As well it would appear that you approve of the state's summary decision to play nanny and to indoctrinate children into being sheep."
Maybe I was not clear enough here, this statement addresses the fact that the school system (as reported) summarily expelled this 10 year old for an incident that did not take place on school property or school time. Again, did you agree or disagree with an expulsion for an incident that did not take place on school property?. And if you agree with it, how do you justify it?. It was your mistaken characterization that it was a school yard incident, and as it states in the article, it was in the children's driveway.
I'd still like an answer to that - do you believe that a "sheep" is someone who does not brandish a firearm during a fistfight? Yes or no, please.
It would appear that I am mistaken in stating that there was no violence as it appears that a fight was underway, however I will maintain that the 10 year old action in defense of her sibling was justified.
Sheep do not employ firearms, they are dependent upon someone else for their own defense, which it appears seems to be the case here as the school system, prosecutor and judge's message seems to be "use a firearm in self defense anywhere and you get expelled".
I'm still curious to know how many times you watched your siblings get beat up.
---max
The four older girls were preparing to drive away when the 10-year-old ran into her house. She testified that she kicked down her mother's locked bedroom door and grabbed the Smith & Wesson handgun from its zippered pouch.
When 4 teens, ages 16 conspire (they got in the car and drove to the scene of the crime) to attack children aged 10 and 12, it's not just a fist fight. I suspect a 10-year old is entirely justified in doing whatever they think is right to end the assault. And I don't expect them to completely conform to the "lawful" or "adult" norms wrt to controlling the level of response - a girl age 10 is truly a minor child. That's a risk the attacker bears.
Suppose the attackers were 16-year old boys or the perhaps were 18? Would that alter your perception of the young girl's actions? This young girl was in fact an actual victim of assault, but you and the legal system refuse to recognise it because she pulled a gun.
Of course, there is an element of the hypothetical to this entire discussion, because we do not know the whole story, only what the news deigns to tell us. Given the report, I am dismayed by the implications.
I sincerely hope you don't have children.
And, I suspect that the 10-year old and her homies should NOT have provoked the incident to begin with. The "four alleged victims" in this snippet from the story WERE the older girls you apparently believe should have been summarily shot for being sworn at by the 10-year old and her friends.
According to court testimony, the four alleged victims in the case were hanging out in the driveway of a friend's house in the area of Longfellow Street and Tennyson Point in Homosassa when the 10-year-old, her 14-year-old sister and two other friends walked by on their way to the 10-year-old's house and yelled obscenities.
I do NOT apologize for my opinion that the 16-year old group's response to the younger children walking by them and cursing at them was perfectly understandable. The younger group of kids started this entire mess and should be made to pay the consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.