NYC granny shoots mugger with .357 Magnum

"I'm a peaceful person. I wish that I had killed him"

Ghandi would be so proud.

Landlord

/me confused !

How would the landlord be responsible for this ?

darn

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.

@ Darn

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...)

The landlord

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.

reminds me of my mother

who once threatened a noisy friend of mine with a shotgun loaded with buckshot.

If she had killed him...

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.

@ comments on "I'm a peaceful person. I wish that I had killed him"

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)

re: What is it about gunmakers

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.

WHAT???!

Cheeky sod. $5M for nerve damage incurred through his own criminal activity. He should count his lucky stars she only got his elbow.

Hoodlum

>She said of grandpa, immortalised as Bumpy Jonas in the 1971 blaxploitation classic Shaft:

Or as Ellsworth "Bumpy" Johnson" in Hoodlum (1997)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119311/

Re: Hmm...

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.

Re: What is it about gunmakers?

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"

Not a mugger

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.

She's lucky she didn't live in the UK

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.

@Sarah Bee

That was brilliant!

I love you.

RE: Utter psychopath

"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".

.357 Magnum

Is very effective when used with a 38 special round.

@Not a mugger

"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.

Regarding the landlord

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?

Bring back hanging...

...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.

@lIsRT

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.

@Taxi driver comments

'You talkin to me?'

'You talkin to me?'

'Seriously - I am asking - The battery is low on my hearing aid.'

Standard of Proof

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.

The Last Gun Moll

The last of an era! "Gun moll shoots scum in NYC"... ROFLMAO!

Bah!

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.

It's a pity she didn't kill this bastard

Let's hope ma still has some connections and that this mugger gets what he deserves.

@Andy Cummings

I believe what the original poster meant when he said "You must be prepared to kill them" is that even if there is no alternative (say, they've got weapons, are in the middle of robbing your house, and they start coming after you) but shooting to stop them, and they're in the middle of committing the crime, if they survive being shot, in America they can still sue you for all you've got, because of course criminals shouldn't be injured by the victims defending themselves... and I'm not talking about just this situation, there have been similar incidents before when a criminal sued the victim for being injured in self-defense. Our legal system is seriously screwed up.

But ...

"But according to the Comentards on El Reg she should have killed him! What if it was you who kicked her vicious little dog?"

According to PETA, reason enough.

As to all that.

Good ol' Harry actually had a 41.

(because, eh, like you could tell.)

A 357 is a pansy ass hand gun folks; pick something that won't allow them to sue you.

Or be like the French (not the face, not the face) or the British (Pardon me whilst I bend over).

Come to New York with enough money to keep you alive during a mugging or stay out.

(have I insulted everyone yet? . . . wait, the Russians; Nah, they have their own problems.)

@As to all that

>>"have I insulted everyone yet?"

Oh, is *that* what you were trying to do?

So..

Guns dont kill people.. grannies do?

If she sits outside her residence long enough with a small dog and her pocket book in her lap she'll bag herself one at some point.

Hmmm

First, I don't let the folks on El Reg's Comments page do my thinking for me ;)

Second, I agree that nobody should be killed for what amounts to a bag-snatching; where I come from, it's always been "as a last resort in the gravest extreme".

Third, while it's just wonderful that you're prepared to forgo a sport "for the greater good", I believe that it's naive in the extreme to think that criminals will follow suit - I'm more worried about their deliberate misuse of a firearm than your sporting use thereof.

Fourth - ahhh, crime and punishment. If someone's busy beating my wife to a pulp, I am absolutely not going to let her die first and then patiently wait for a court to render their verdict 3 or 4 years later - nope, I'm going to do whatever is necessary right there and then to save her life, up to and including the shooting of her attacker should he not submit toot-sweet. Every human being has the right to protect themselves - and it's an innate right ie. *not* one "granted" to us by a government, but an innate right.

Don't confuse the sheepdogs with the wolves simply because we share canine teeth ;)

@Andy Cummings

>>"If someone's busy beating my wife to a pulp, I am absolutely not going to let her die first and then patiently wait for a court to render their verdict 3 or 4 years later."

But nor would people generally opposed to retribution, or in favour of weapon control - most people would just pile in with whatever they had.

Even where concealed weapon carrying *is* allowed, a great many people who could carry a weapon don't carry one, and that isn't because they don't love their other halves any less than you might do.

The problem with hypothetical scenarios is that they're often trivially easy to invent, but they don't actually shed much light on an issue, unless they help us think about things that aren't obvious.

Anecdotes are tricky enough, but hypotheticals can end up being like exaggerated anecdotes about things that didn't actually happen.

@david wilson

Quote = "But nor would people generally opposed to retribution, or in favour of weapon control - most people would just pile in with whatever they had."

David, you seem sincere, but I know from bitter experience that is simply not true, having over the years:

intervened when someone's life was in danger (sadly they later died from their accidental injuries),

been threatened with weapons when preventing a young woman being robbed,

been attacked in the street for not according some violent twat the 'respect' wanted.

(My attacker was younger and much larger, naturally and I'm short, pudgy, unfit and was at the time on my way to hospital for treatment of a long-term illness - so I'm not going to take any guff from the likes of the 'oh-so-virtuous' AC who seems to think people going about their normal business are 'asking for it'. What a prat!)

In every case there were many other people around, of various ages, and every time, every single fricking time, they just stood around gormlessly as if they were watching tv.

And I didn't escape violent injury by being nicey-nice, but by convincing those who threatened me that I wouldn't be the only one to be injured, and by physically resisting the man who attacked me.

David I know I can offer only anecdotal evidence, but for me they were real heart-in-mouth experiences. So, in time of trouble my approach now is only to aid family, friends or those who will act to defend themselves (regardless of age, sex, race etc - its the attitude that counts). I'm sure the politically-correct ACs will once more be able to pontificate - I just hope that sometime they are directly on the receiving end so they are that the ones that suffer for their uselessness.

Depending upon the legal system to remove personal involvement from punishing attackers may be worthy of discussion, but clearly even in the UK such a system does not itself actually protect or defend.

The IT angle = Binary?

One or zero, reason or force?

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

I don't necessarily go along with everything this guy says, but I do think he puts forward quite a good argument which is relevant to the situation of a wheelchair-bound elderly woman being attacked by a criminal.

@AC

Who said "Jesus Andy...Leave the fantasies of heroic gun use to the dubious talents of Hollywood.......Stop trying to elevate yourself above us sheep, the only person who thinks you are qualified for the job is you."

I'll happily match qualifications with you any time, mate ;)

I'm ex-military, served as an armed-response officer for a number of years then moved on to executive protection. More recently, I spent a year in Iraq doing PSD work - I have used weapons in the defence of myself and others. My opinions are born of experience, a lot of it bitter - where do you get yours? Television?

@david wilson

>>> "Even where concealed weapon carrying *is* allowed, a great many people who could carry a weapon don't carry one, and that isn't because they don't love their other halves any less than you might do."

And that's absolutely fine - I support their freedom of choice to do so. However, where I live I happen to enjoy the freedom to choose as well; our respective choices do not infringe on others' choices - which is the way it should be, IMO.

I also acknowledge the fact that the police in this country are under no legal obligation to come to the aid of any specific individual (google "Castle Rock vs Gonzalez" or "DeShaney v. Winnebago County" or, most famously, "Warren v. District of Columbia"). So, if the cops are under no legal obligation to help my family in a time of crisis, the responsibility then falls upon me - and it's one which I have no intention of shirking.

>>>"The problem with hypothetical scenarios is that they're often trivially easy to invent, but they don't actually shed much light on an issue, unless they help us think about things that aren't obvious. Anecdotes are tricky enough, but hypotheticals can end up being like exaggerated anecdotes about things that didn't actually happen."

I agree totally :)

@Pat

The comment was about people defending their spouse, not about people intervening generally in altercations between third parties.

When it comes to situations where a bystander doesn't know the people involved, especially if they didn't witness the start of the trouble, it's often a much trickier decision to pile in and try to stop things, especially for people with no experience in stopping fights.

@david wilson, 2

As an isolated or independent post I could regard your comments about 'bystanders to a fight' as reasonable, but someone reading them as you have posted might think they actually relate to the experiences I described above.

Not wishing to risk being misrepresented, I'd like to make clear that for your comments to relate to my post you would have to:

- Remove the term altercation, as I described no arguments which could have been defused or aggravated - just imminent physical danger, armed threat in the pursuit of a robbery, and an attack on a much weaker victim;

- Replace the term 'bystander' with 'viewer' or 'onlooker', or something approaching the comparison I made about people choosing to watch tv;

- The word 'fights' might be taken as all parties involved being to blame - 'attacks' would be the more accurate word unless you think I am culpable in some way.

- Remove your phrasing about piling in to stop fights, as if that was the only option. I'm pretty sure I didn't even imply that direct physical action was the only option - shouting a warning or turning up to the coroner's court, calling the police on their mobiles, yelling out that they were witnesses, or even just hanging around to speak to the police as witnesses, well, these would all have been a big improvement over the watch-and-fuck-off in which they indulged themselves.

@Pat

You took me to task about what I originally said, but what I originally said was relating to a specific hypothetical situation (an attack on someone's spouse) which was quite different to the situations you used as examples to suggest I was wrong or naive.

It's different in the USA

A lot of commenters here seem to be under the impression that the USA is like Britain, except with accents and cowboy hats. It isn't. There have been numerous European visitors who made that mistake, challenged a mugger, and went home in a box.

You're responsible for your own safety over here - armed robbers are the rule, not the exception, and the police never show up until it's all over. I would have shot to kill.

@andy cummins

" in America they can still sue you for all you've got, because of course criminals shouldn't be injured by the victims defending themselves... and I'm not talking about just this situation, there have been similar incidents before when a criminal sued the victim for being injured in self-defense. "

In Britain the criminal doesn't need to go to the expense of prosecuting an individual who defends himself. The majesty of the law does it for him. Injure a burglar or mugger and it's far more likely that you, rather than the robber, will end up in the dock. Unless of course you have carried out a full Health and Safety assessment of your proposed method of defence whilst being beaten to a pulp by a drug addict intent on selling your Breitling for the price of a wrap.

@PT

Wherever people are in the world, it's pretty likely that in a mugging, police will only show up when it's over, unless a mugger is dumb enough to pick a target who's standing in front of a policeman.

If a mugger is armed, isn't it rather more likely that they'll have their weapon closer to hand than a victim would?

Since it's not the kind of story that tends to travels over here, how often is it in the US that someone carrying a gun for protection does use it to foil a mugging?

@Stratman

The only two cases that *immediately* spring to mind of people being prosecuted are where people killed escaping burglars (shot in the back, chased and stabbed in the street), and ended up being found guilty by a jury.

In practice, you have to have *some* kind of concept of acceptable and excessive force, if only to stop cases of people being beaten or killed more in revenge than in self-defence.

>>"Injure a burglar or mugger and it's far more likely that you, rather than the robber, will end up in the dock.."

And your supporting statistics for that claim would be...?

@ david wilson

"And your supporting statistics for that claim would be...?"

Heresy Daily Mail articles, obviously ;-)

@Stratman

So, no actual *evidence* then, just prejudice loosely masquerading as journalism?

@Stratman

>>>By Stratman Posted Tuesday 7th April 2009 15:37 GMT

" in America they can still sue you for all you've got, because of course criminals shouldn't be injured by the victims defending themselves... and I'm not talking about just this situation, there have been similar incidents before when a criminal sued the victim for being injured in self-defense. "

Well, it depends on the specific state; a large number of states have the so-called "Castle Doctrine" law in place, where a defender first and foremost is not obliged to flee their own home (a man's home is his castle, etc) - and second, the criminal may not sue the defender in civil court should that shooting be judged as justifiable self-defense by a criminal court.

>>>In Britain the criminal doesn't need to go to the expense of prosecuting an individual who defends himself. The majesty of the law does it for him. Injure a burglar or mugger and it's far more likely that you, rather than the robber, will end up in the dock. Unless of course you have carried out a full Health and Safety assessment of your proposed method of defence whilst being beaten to a pulp by a drug addict intent on selling your Breitling for the price of a wrap.

Yep, the law is an ass that way sometimes.