Dirty Harriet Granny shoots mugger

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/31/dirty_harriet/

**JD21290**

so she gets fined for this?
what a fething joke

the guy was obviously using old and dissabled people as a way of making quick money, i call it instant justice and a shame he is still alive

just for the note here:

going back a few years in england, an old woman had been terrorised by a group of kids for 3 weeks, they kept breaking her windows and threatening her with a knife.
one day she shot one of them in the leg with an aif rife, and got taken to court for it (yet the kids got away free)
it was only thanks to the outrage about it that she was also released.

if you want to break the law and try and mug an old person then you cant go and cry when something like this happens

**Kilkrazy**

She's being sued, not fined. It's different because the suit might not succeed.

**reds8n**

To prove the point, she shot the would-be robber in his left elbow, and he was quickly detained by cops. He was acquitted at trial, however, after claiming in his defence that he'd simply kicked his alleged victim's Shih Tzu, (named Malika, for the record), after it attacked him - an act of self-defence which provoked granny to whip out her piece.

If he was acquited at trial then surely he isn't and (presumably) never was a mugger, IF all he did was kick her dog and she shot him then power to him.

$5 million seems a bit OTT, but I'd imagine this wouldn't be the fianl amount, but that's pure guesswork on my part.

**JD21290**

same thing ish

but still, i hope she gets away with it

**CaptainCommunsism**

note to self: Don't rob grannies. they're bad mother frackers.

**Frazzled**

Barbarians. In proper jurisidctions this suit would not be entertained.

**Kilkrazy**

reds8n wrote:
To prove the point, she shot the would-be robber in his left elbow, and he was quickly detained by cops. He was acquitted at trial, however, after claiming in his defence that he'd simply kicked his alleged victim's Shih Tzu, (named Malika, for the record), after it attacked him - an act of self-defence which provoked granny to whip out her piece.

If he was acquited at trial then surely he isn't and (presumably) never was a mugger, IF all he did was kick her dog and she shot him then power to him.

$5 million seems a bit OTT, but I'd imagine this wouldn't be the fianl amount, but that's pure guesswork on my part.

The jury may not think he deserves anything.

**sebster**

Granny shoots mugger and gets sued! It's outrageous, but only a headline.

The actual story is that a 59 year old woman with strong mob connections shot a 48 year old man after they had an altercation. She claims it was a mugging. He claims she shot him after he defended himself from an attack from her dog. Both are fairly reasonable, on the face of it.

But that'll never stop people on the internet reading a headline and make a snap judgement, then moaning when the courts don't follow the facts they decided must be true.

**Frazzled**

Yea right. She was wheelchair bound. Her grandfather was a mobster. Heck my mom knew Al Capone-so what?

**sexiest_hero**

My question is who would aquit a man who robbed an old lady unless there was enough reason not to belive her. Does anybody know what aquit even means? Is a person guilty even if they beat thier charge? I'm sure this fellow had a public defender, so if he still managed to win with that dragging him down, then maybe she is just an old angry lady who shot somebody over her dog.

**Frazzled**

Acquit means they weren't convicted for whatever reason.

**JD21290**

ill make this short and sweet.

OJ

**sexiest_hero**

"In criminal law, an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. The opposite result is a conviction."

Aquittal means Not Guilty. He was found not guilty by a group of his peers. Think about it, how solid must the evidence have been to covince people that he didn't do anything wrong. The article calls him a mugger, even though he was found not guilty.

"i call it instant justice and a shame he is still alive."

Since he was proven innocent beyond doubt, what you call instant justice is better known as cold blooded, first-degree murder.

The O.J case is a whole different beast from this. complete with tampered evidince and million dollar lawyers.

**Frazzled**

You are brilliantly wrong SH. he wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He was not convicted. Failure to convict means anything from not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, down to an imperfection int he arrest warrant or method of actual arrest. They are not the same.

**Kilkrazy**

Does the USA have a verdict like Scotland's "Not Proven"?

**JD21290**

lets face it, the law is never 100% right with what they do.
there will allways be "slip ups" and either innocent people do time, or killers walk free.
lets face it, i wouldnt trust a judge, he doesent even pay tax!

if this one goes through then even the old will feel worried about walking about alone.
she carried something to protect herself, and she is in trouble for defending herself now.

everyone is too busy looking through tinted glasses and thinking the worsed all the time.
put yourself in that womans possition now and have a think about it.

**Frazzled**

No KK. ON the criminal side its generally guilty beyond a reasonaable doubt. However IIRC (its been awhile) that standard is not always there, depending on the criminal item. You lean into grey areas of criminal vs. regulatory and things change. Polonius is a young legal beagle and probably more up on this.

**Ozymandias**

Not entirely true. We do have summary judgment, in which the defense can state that the prosecution failed to prove their case and if the Judge agrees, he can throw out the case. It doesn't happen often but it is there.

**Frazzled**

Thats true although is that applicable on the criminal side? Again its been a while and thats not my bailiwick.

**Ozymandias**

Eh, dunno. I seem to recall something like it on Law and Order...

**reds8n**

JD21290 wrote:
put yourself in that womans possition now and have a think about it.

But that's the key thing : we don't know if her position was one of being mugged or one of shooting someone who kicked out at her dog.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
JD21290 wrote:

or one of shooting someone who kicked out at her dog.

What you're not supposed to do that?

**reds8n**

You were handsome in your younger days* Mr. Frazzled.

* Well, alright, "eras" then.

**Frazzled**

**reds8n**

You're just a big cuddly panda Bear at heart.

..... uh oh !

**Frazzled**

Our founder:

**sexiest_hero**

OK this is from the law books. "In criminal law, an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. The opposite result is a conviction.

In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is abandoned nolle prosequi. Under the rules of double jeopardy and autrefois acquit, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict, or whether it results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused."

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:Yea right. She was wheelchair bound. Her grandfather was a mobster. Heck my mom knew Al Capone-so what?

You’ve said yourself that a gun is a great leveller. Now, if you’re in a wheelchair and a guy is mugging you then yes, it would be hard to draw a weapon and fire. But if your dog has bitten a guy, he’s turned his attention to the dog and struck it, then drawing a weapon and firing would be possible.

Not saying the granny is telling the truth, because I don’t know. But you assumption that she is telling the truth is quite bizarre.

**Kilkrazy**

Years ago I read about a most bizarre case. It involved a wheelchair bound little old lady who had another little old lady as a lodger.

One day a disagreement arose and things escalated to the point where LOL1 attacked LOL2 with scissors. LOL2 then fled the house, fairly slowly, pursued by LOL1 riding her motorised wheelchair.

This was in the days when that kind of outdoor mobility vehicle had a 2-stroke petrol engine. The chase went down the road and into the local park, where LOL1 pursued her victim over lawns and flower beds, attempting to run her over, until the chair capsized and set on fire.