Nashville liquor store owner, 88, explains why she shot shoplifter.

The way I view that is as an unfortunate fact of life just like parents are responsible for feeding, housing, and taking care of their children. Somebody’s gotta have responsibility over them because the government cannot take care of everyone who just doesn’t want their children anymore.

In the case of the elderly, I know it seems unfair for the children to take care of their parents as they did not ask to be brought into existence, but all humans have a natural urge to have sex, and we all know that with sex comes more humans. It’s a complicated case that may some day be solved, but for now, it’s fair to say that the children should have an obligation to take care of their aging parents. Again, it’s not a perfect world.

 

If the kids and parents still get along, I can agree. If the kid hasn't spoken to or seen the parents in years, how's it the kids problem to deal with the parent's actions?

 

but you were talking about MY NEPHEW when you made your comment. they are a very tight family.

you assumed WRONG about my nephew. i don;t really believe you even read all my comments, but just butted in to add something useless.

i could care less a family that doesn't get along.

 

There are parents today who don’t want their children. There needs to be some obligation for the parents to take care of their children (and there is). If we don’t force parents, then all taxpayers will need to support these kids. In the same way, we cannot fully support all of the elderly through social security. I mean, we try, but I doubt it’s enough money. We need the children to help take care of their parents like the parents took care of them when they were kids. Fortunately, some states have laws in place to force the children to take care of their aging parents.

 

I'll preface this by saying I am typically in agreement with most of your postings and I definitely have a lot of respect for your contributions.

In post 102 you quoted a question I had asked. Upon re-reading that post, I probably could have clarified it better in hindsight. The scenario I was talking about had nothing to do with the situation with your nephew and rather one where the parents and kids had severed ties years prior. In a scenario like that I don't feel its fair to hang that responsibility on someone who has had zero to do with the parents in many years.

My apologies for not explaining my thoughts more clearly.

 

this is how we ended up with millennial's.

 

ok, i went back and re-read that as well.

we really do not know about this little old lady and any children she may or may not have. yes, there are families that are estranged from one another, so of course, in that situation, the children or at least the estranged one(s) have no responsibility.

as a result, the law cannot pursue them for any claims.....unless.......there is a WILL involved, and that the parents never changed it. an outside possibility for the parent to have never changed anything after any estrangement took place. thinking that someday, all will be better.

now what happens in any lawsuits against the parent? do the people mentioned in the WILL still get the items/money, etc?

or does any pending lawsuit, suck it up..???

this i don't know, i'd be wondering myself.

 

Aggrivated assault with s deadly weapon is a class C felony In Murfreesboro with a minimum of 3 years in jail and a maximum of 15 years.

You want to put some money on that?

 

Actually sure. They will have to find 13 people that agrees with the charge. I doubt they will.
Yes I know. Technically juries are finders of fact. Simple fact is, no jury will convict an 88 year old woman who was simply tired of getting robbed.

 

Even if she doesn’t get convicted there’s also the possibility of a lawsuit from the family of the person she shot(yes,it can and has happened ),which can bury her physically,financially and mentally.

There’s also the possibility that it may not be a jury trial,but just in front of a judge.