'I'm a peaceful person. I wish that I had killed him. '
IT angle missing....
A wheelchair-bound but hardly defenceless Harlem granny is being sued for $5m after popping a .357 Magnum cap into an alleged mugger, the New York Post reports. Margaret Johnson, 59, described as "a retired city bus driver who has a dislocated hip and a ruptured disc", was sitting in her motorised mobility scooter in September …
'I'm a peaceful person. I wish that I had killed him. '
IT angle missing....
Hmmm,I wonder if Granny Gunslinger has some connections associated with her Father?
Seeing that it would be unwise at the moment considering all the attention to further aircondition
said perp if there is retribution i am sure that she could pick up the phone and have some "friends"
take "care" of "it"
Paris,because she takes care of "it"
(ewww,i cringed writing that Paris line)
I think I'd cut my losses if I was that mugger. No doubt granny knows some friends in high places...
Ghandi would be so proud.
/me confused !
How would the landlord be responsible for this ?
She should of just killed the shit head, then he wouldn't have been able to lie to get out of the situation in the first place. Hopefully she'll go psycho granny on him, kill him, his lawyer and anyone else that gets in her way. I mean why the hell not when you're old, gonna die soon anyhow may aswell take some vermin with you.
Don't you just love that. Firstly he was lucky to get away with a damaged elbow, and not end up dead.
Now he wants to sue her for $5M. Even if he won, she hasn't got $5M, so let's find someone with deeper pockets, the apartment block owner, who should of course be frisking the tenants for concealed weapons, as you do.
I just hope this never comes to court.
0.357 inches? Why do they choose such crazy dimensions? Why not 11/16 or 3/8 inch? How is 0.357 better than 0.356, 0.358 or 0.34? Is it the ideal fit in some, easy to specify and drill, bore size?
Paris, cos she knows what'll fit.
Yeah, kill 'em all and let God sort them out!
This is more like Travis Bickle than Harry Callaghan - cruising the mean streets of NY looking for some skunk pussies to blow away. Is her scooter painted yellow too?
(PS - as memory serves, Travis had both the .44 and .357...)
Her case is weak, since almost every court in the land understands what a reasonable response to a purse-snatching is; and it certainly doesn't include lethal force. If he had been armed, she'd likely be in the clear. It appears, however, that Ms. Margaret Johnson is not as bright as Mr. Darren Johnson.
The landlord can reasonably be held accountable, since he is responsible for the safety of anyone who enters into his premises. If he has knowledge of the fact that a person has an unlawful weapon (a concealed weapon permit is not easy to come by in NYC), it is his responsibility to take corrective action. If it can be demonstrated that Mr. Johnson gained access to the premises legally, then the landlord should be concerned.
who once threatened a noisy friend of mine with a shotgun loaded with buckshot.
but just to annoy miss Bee
Whats the It angle on this ??
then he would not be suing. So she is right, she should have killed him. When you pull a gun on someone then you must be prepared to kill to kill them. When you fire it at some one then you must intend to kill them.
Guns are not toys, they are very useful tools.
It's not the angle, it's the trajectory.
Maybe she means she wishes she wasn't so peaceful...
(comparing the elbow shot to the potential one in the head, even though I doubt it was the elbow she was aiming for)
its all a throwback from the black powder days. When the U.S. navy wanted to upgrade their .36 muzzle loading revolvers, the obvious option was to use the .38 cartridge (they were easily bored out to accomodate the slightly larger cartridge). As this was put into use it turned out that it was severly under powered, so the .357 mag was introduced (well the .38/44, then eventually the .357 mag). The major thing to remember that the .38 special and the .357 have exactly the same cartridge diamiter, with the .357 mag being longer. We often put .38 special rounds into our .357 revolver with no probs. With the longer cartridge size of course you can pack more powder into the cartridge, meaning that you can have a heavier bullet going a lot faster.
Cheeky sod. $5M for nerve damage incurred through his own criminal activity. He should count his lucky stars she only got his elbow.
>She said of grandpa, immortalised as Bumpy Jonas in the 1971 blaxploitation classic Shaft:
Or as Ellsworth "Bumpy" Johnson" in Hoodlum (1997)
She didn't use lethal force, merely perforated his elbow. I'd say that if you're confined to a wheelchair and someone tries to mug you, a bit of an advantage in the heater department is only fair.
The .357 is (oddly enough) identical diameter to the .38 and in fact the .38-44 rounds were almost identical to the .357 and you could load early .357 rounds into .38 revolvers (if you didn't mind them blowing up sometimes), conversely .38 rounds are usually fine in .357 revolvers (and are cheaper, give far less kick).
Which of course still begs the question, why .357? simply the chamber and barrel has to be larger than the round (snug but not to much), the .38 was designed to go through a degree of sheilding (car doors, bullet resistant jackets) and still reliably punch big holes in people, it doesn't need to be bigger, bigger would give you less control, smaller would mean peformance reduction, it's the optimum size to kill people.
Given granny harry probably knew that the .38/.357 is designed to kill (not wound or scare) she carried it with the express purpose to kill, the opportunity she was given (either a dog kicker or bag snatcher) was used to attempt to kill someone, he might be a bad man but all this teaches anyone is to be worse than the bad guys and that the bad guys should carry guns and shoot first.
You may get killed by a mugger, because they will shoot first and doesn't want to take the risk of you having a gun, this woman has just made the world a little less safe.
>> Her case is weak, since almost every court in the land understands what a reasonable response to a purse-snatching is; and it certainly doesn't include lethal force.
Guess it is waving at the retreating robber with an umbrella. Some people have more style, it seems.
Just to confuse you a .38 Special has the same bore as a .357 Magnum. You can use 38 Special rounds in a 357 Magnum but not 357 Magnum in a 38 Special (well you can but your be needing a new hand at least). It is all to do with how they measure the bore. If the diameter was .355 then the round would be a 9mm . Unless of course its a 9mm Marakov in which case the diameter is .365"
rappers do. I seen it on a documentary on BBC2.
You've all missed the point. He was aquitted at trial, so he is not a mugger, just someone who defended himself against an attacking dog. Well, at any rate, that's what the law says; being shot for that gives him the right to sue.
If it happened over here she's have been arrested for :
owning the gun in the first place (must be a terrorist)
firing it public (definitely a terrorist)
resisting being mugged (a serious offence now)
being a law abiding citizen
The alleged mugger would be due compensation for his injuries and would be able to sue her for hurting his feelings by not handing over all her possessions and letting him beat her up a lot.
... will I get one of those on my state pension when I get to that age ....
I just have this cartoonesque image of Granny flying backwards out the door in her chair under the recoil from the .357...
Whatever happened to just keeping a shotgun and a gamekeepers load?
Deron Johnson says he didn't try to mug her, there is insufficient evidence to convict him of having done so. Perhaps he is telling the truth and this Uzi wielding women really is a psychopath, after all she was firing a gun in the street and hit someone at elbow hight! who would she have killed if she had missed? Not all Black men are muggers and not all Grannies a sweet little old ladies, perhaps she shot him in a rage and made up the mugging to avoid doing jail time.
But according to the Comentards on El Reg she should have killed him! What if it was you who kicked her vicious little dog?
You are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY not a responsible Gun owner if you are prepared to point a gun at a human being let alone shot at them.
Regardless of who is telling the truth this women should be locked away for the safety of everyone else.
That was brilliant!
I love you.
A .38 doesn't have the stopping power of the .357 Magnum. Police used to carry the .38 then the .38 special. One problem of the .38 is that it *didn't* have the stopping power so Police started carrying larger caliber and more powerful rounds. Also Police have a nasty issue of 'over penetration' that they have to worry about. Criminals? Not so much. With today's bullets, you can have more lethality in a lower powered shell. If you want a decent round with stopping power, look at a .40 S&W.
With respect to the lawsuit... He was acquitted so there is the issue that the story could have happened the way he said it did. (Reasonable doubt). You sue the landlord because he's got the deeper pockets and should have insurance to cover this. 5 Million USD? Because that's probably the limit of his (landlord's) insurance.
I guess the only IT angle is that a lot of us computer geeks are also gun enthusiasts. I'm the guy who loves to shoot 7mm Rem Mag and .300 Win Mag 'bean field' rifles... ;-)
"You are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY not a responsible Gun owner if you are prepared to point a gun at a human being let alone shot at them."
Did you even bother to read what you were writing? The whole POINT of owning a gun is to point at someone and shoot them! (yes, yes, some people buy them purely for target shooting, or shooting animals of various kinds, but by and large, shooting people is what pistols, at least, are for). A responsible gun owner is one who doesn't shoot random people in the street, but only shoots people in self defence. (Whether shooting a purse snatcher, when, as a disabled OAP, you have no other option except to let him take it, is an interesting debate, but not one I want to get into now...)
The fact that he was aquitted does not necessarily mean that he wasn't a mugger, it means that the prosecution has failed to find enough evidence to satisfy a jury that he was, beyond reasonable doubt, a mugger. The fact that this was not proved does not prove the opposite fact, that she is an "utter psychopath".
to check out the linked article for the picture of granny with her UZI, complete with shades and flash-induced Terminator-glow. Picture of the day!
This is the way civil law is applied in the states. If your intended defendant hasn't the means, you go after anyone or anything connected to that person. If it wasn't the landlord it would have been the wheelchair manufacturer. Why? No reason than that's where the money is. Civil attorneys in the states are of the most unethical money grubbing people in all of society besides politicians who generally started as civil attorneys only to move up to unethical, corruption and greed in power.
Is very effective when used with a 38 special round.
"He was aquitted at trial, so he is not a mugger"
The outcome of his criminal trial really doesn't matter - the $5 million is part of a civil suit. I don't know if the "OJ Simpson Trial" made the news in the UK, but it's the same situation - he was acquitted of murder in the criminal trial, but still had to pay restitution to the family of the victims due to the civil trial.
The incident took place in the street, not in an apartment building.
Is a landlord supposed to be liable for what his tenants do outside the building?
As I understand it from reading other websites:
1/ The granny had a residence permit which allows the gun to be kept indoors, not carried on the street. Her excuse was she was off for a little target practice at a local range. Maybe, maybe not, but it's a legal reason to be carrying the gun outdoors.
2/ Mr Deron Johnson has nine previous arrests on his record, but then I'm sure that was never mentioned in court. No doubt a clever lawyer would have made much of Ms Johnson's family history, though.
3/ The shooting took place outside the building, which is why the local police were on the scene very quickly, which then rasies the question of how Mr Johnson's lawyer expects to sue the landlord. It may simply be because Ms Johnson doesn't have much money, but the Lennox Terrace Apartment Complex company does.
4/ Most damning of all - Ms Johnson's dog was in her lap at the time, so how it is supposed to have attacked Mr Johnson is questionable. In fact, the only way for a small dog to "attack" Mr Johnson from the granny's lap was if he was leaning over her, like he would be if he was choking her whilst trying to steal her necklace.
5/ If Mr Johnson was not in contact with the granny, only standing there being attacked by her dog, how come the granny had to go to hospital too for "treatment for injuries" (note, not shock but injuries).
6/ The NYPD are not pressing charges against the granny, which suggests they don't believe Mr Johnson either.
Looks to me like Ms Johnson had the misfortune to get a poor prosecutor appointed, whereas Mr Johnson can now use the lure of a big payday to get a bigger and meaner shark like Mr Craig Davidowizt to chase her and the landlord company.
...for all the people who are assuming that the peaceful, defenceless old granny is telling the truth and the Shih Tzu kicker is lying. Personally, taking a swipe at a Shih Tzu seems perfectly justifiable to me.
Anyway, back to the Daily Mail forums with the lot of you.
In an interview on tv once, I heard an extremely dodgy Pakistani chap describe the Dragunov SVD he was indulging in a spot of target practice with, as syringe for injecting peace into bad men....... A unique view.
Problem with this case is of course that it would appear that the guy bringing the suit got off the mugging charge because like many muggers (if of course this is what happened) he ensured he made his move when there were no witnesses. I have no doubt that the law suit would not have existed if chummy had been blown away.
I had a buddy who served as a contractor on a US ship swinging at anchor off the Lebanon in the eighties. At the time, the locals used to load weapons such as HMGs and RPGs onto Zodiacs and make high speed passes spraying the decks of these ships with gunfire. He heard the briefing for security personnel where the security guys were told that they absolutely should defend the ship, but for gods sake, leave no wounded as the law suits and diplomatic complications would go on for ever.
'You talkin to me?'
'You talkin to me?'
'Seriously - I am asking - The battery is low on my hearing aid.'
That's all I can say.
Yes, if he was found innocent of the mugging charges, then he can sue. However, he can be found innocent in criminal court and still be found guilty in civil- The standards of evidence are very different.
In criminal court, "We are pretty sure he did it" means innocent. In civil, it's guilty. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Preponderance of the Evidence", I beleive are the technical terms. Same reason OJ was innocent in criminal court, but guilty in civil.
Owning an Uzi, Advocating on the spot death penalty for bag snatchers (elbow hight is a kill shot) and firing a projectile weapon at elbow hight in a NYC street aren't exactly indicators of a well balanced personality.
But then again....
If all it takes to be a responsible gun owner is....
"A responsible gun owner is one who doesn't shoot random people in the street"
Then perhaps my standards of responsibility are a little higher then yours.
Thank God I live in a country where guns are illegal, rather then a country where "The whole POINT of owning a gun is to point at someone and shoot them! "
almost as f**cked up as UK gun laws. She got mugged, she had the right to shoot him. I'd only advise her to sped a bit more time at the range so she has better shot placement next time.
Oh, and the landlord is being sued for the same reason. Instead of putting thugs in jail, NYC laws are designed to keep citizens afraid. If they can't do it through direct intimidation, then you intimidate businesses into intimidating people for you.
Oddly enough, every time they do an unbiased study they always seem to turn up the same result: the more guns and concealed carry permits available, the safer the streets are.
The last of an era! "Gun moll shoots scum in NYC"... ROFLMAO!
@Wayland Sothcott - "When you pull a gun on someone then you must be prepared to kill to kill them. When you fire it at some one then you must intend to kill them."
Not so fast there, son - you're way off-track there. When you draw, you should be *prepared* to shoot if necessary ie. don't draw it in order to wave it around as a threat. Second, it's not legal in any state in the US to "shoot to kill" - you shoot to stop the attack; in other words, while you *may* shoot the guy to stop him (if there's no alternative), you *may not* execute him.
@Mike - It's all about bullet diameter - it has to be of *some* size or other, so why not .357?
.38 Special bullet = .357" in diameter
.357 Mag bullet = .357"
9mm Parabellum (aka 9mm NATO) bullet = .355"
.44 Mag = .429"
.45ACP = .451"
@Anonymous Coward - "You are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY not a responsible Gun owner if you are prepared to point a gun at a human being let alone shot at them."
I’m suppressed that she has not yet been arrested for having the gall to defend herself and not beg for help from the government.
Mine is the one with the .44 Magnum.
I see the "Reiser is Innocent" brigade is out in force again.
Once again, for the terminally thick (including WTF? AC): The fact that he wasn't prosecuted for mugging does NOT show a lack of evidence, merely that the judge or jury had a reasonable doubt - although I'll give you that the public's ability to tell "reasonable doubt" from "remotely possible in an episode of the Twilight Zone" is getting worse by the day as the Reiser debate proved in spades.
Once the whole thing moves into the civil courts (as it will) the test becomes preponderance of evidence. This is why someone who gets off a murder charge can be easily prosecuted under the civil rights statutes.
Since we only have a newspaper (and Murdoch newspaper to boot) report to go on, nothing is known as fact. But I'd lay money on this going the same way as the Bernie Getz fiasco did.
Pesonally, I think he is a proven recidivist criminal who is lucky to be alive, and she is a loudmouth with an unfortunate family tree, who is probably guilty of contravening the local handgun laws. But I wasn't there and I know only as much as you do.
Let's hope ma still has some connections and that this mugger gets what he deserves.