I probably gave away too much in the headline. A Georgia woman found herself unexpectedly dealing with the life and death issue of having to defend herself and her children from a man who invaded their home. First, she and her children hid from him in an attic. But then he found them and opened their hiding place with a crowbar.
A crowbar is a common tool that can be used as a deadly weapon. More Americans died in 2012 from blunt force hammer blows than from rifle shots.
Trapped and facing an intruder who was armed with a deadly weapon, she thought quickly, and shot the intruder five times with a six-shooter .38 revolver. The gun was her equalizer in a life and death situation. Obviously, if handguns were illegal, she would not have been in a position to defend herself and her 9-year-old twin children. If she and her husband had not made the decision to have a handgun in their home, and if they had not learned how to shoot it, she could not have defended herself and the children. Her husband was on the phone with her as the man broke in, and says he is proud of her.
The alleged perpetrator is 32-year-old Paul Slater of Atlanta. He is reportedly expected to live, despite being shot five times including in the face and the neck. After he was shot, he even attempted to flee but crashed his car. He was arrested in February 2012 on battery, and has six other arrests in the same county since 2008. He was most recently released in August 2012. He is currently charged with burglary in this case. He may have other arrests on his record in other jurisdictions. “Catch and release” may apply to his relationship to the legal system.
The mother’s successful actions point up one under reported fact about guns and confrontations with criminals: One shot does not always stop intruders. Many on the gun control side of the debate question why anyone needs a firearm with “high-capacity” magazines. In this case, the woman fired six shots, hitting her assailant five times and missing once, with a .38 — not a small bullet. Revolvers tend to be slower to fire than semiautos. Had there been a second intruder, she would have had to reload after those six shots, and may not have had time to do that. A higher capacity semiautomatic firearm might have been a better option. If you’re facing two intruders, a 10-round magazine offers you five shots per attacker. More rounds in your magazine obviously offer you more chances to save your life and the lives of your family.
There’s an aspect to this story that I haven’t seen spoken about that I think merits some discussion. This woman was confronted in the middle of the night by someone that clearly intended to harm her and her children, which I think we can all agree counts as a stressful situation. Under those conditions she fired six times and scored five hits, which is a hit rate of 83%.
Now compare that to all the stories we hear about cops who empty their 15 round Glocks at a suspect and score 2 or 3 hits. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any validity at all to the oft-made argument that cops are by definition more qualified than civilians to defend themselves. A badge doesn’t give you skill, motivation and practice do.
Great points.
The takeaway from this story that everyone is missing is that you do NOT load your defense weapon with Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds, you use Semi-Jacketed Hollow Points (JSP). While it is not stated in any of the accounts I’ve read, anyone shot 5 times and has 4 exit wounds was likely shot with FMJ, especially if they can get up and flee afterwards.
Two .38 JSP in the center of mass should have done the trick.
It would appear that you are mistaken. Please read this.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm
The .38 spl just isn’t much of a cartrige. Then too we don’t really know, except that news people persistently get shooting info wrong, where the wounds were inflicted. A shot to the face should “do it” but a grazing wound to the face would not.
Anyway I had to change my mind about what type of bullets were best for self defense.
There are three reasons a person goes down after being shot.
1. A major disruption of the central nervous system. They go down immediatly and die shortly thereafter.
2. Cutting a major artery. They may go down but they also may be abulent for up to 10 seconds. A lot of bad can happen in those seconds.
3. Psychological. “Oh, my God I’m shot,” and they fall down.
That’s exactly right. FMJ is for target practice, JHP is for protection. You would do well to keep your magazines full of JHP except when practicing. You’ll not likely be robbed when target shooting, I have to assume.
Hehehe…paging Zeke da troll, paging Zeke da troll….someone, somewhere, used a gun legitimately to defend themselves and their children. Come in Zeke da troll, where are you Zeke da troll?
Where is Zeke to tell us how it’s so horrible that private citizens own firearms in this country – or perhaps Techno?
And horror of horrors, it’s one of those fierce rapid fire (it will shoot just as fast as you pull the trigger) HANDguns that are designed for only one purpose.
That purpose is to KILLLLLLLL people!!!!
Think about that people, she had in her possession something intended for only one purpose – and that purpose was to take human lives.
Oh the horror….I must sit now….
Has this woman no conscience, bringing such a LETHAL weapon into her home with her children?
Why, it could have murdered them all in their sleep – or at the very least sent her over the edge of sanity and caused her to commit unimaginable crimes of passion!
HOW DARE SHE!
She should have relied completely on calling 911 instead and waited for however long it took for the law to arrive and handle the situation. Private citizens should NOT take the law into their own hands!
Such vigilante justice must not be tolerated as only the almighty STATE has a right to wield dangerous weapons!
Since retreating with her twin children to her attic was not sufficient,she should have planned ahead to climb further up onto the roof!
I mean, she actually SHOT this poor man!
I’m SURE he had a valid reason for confronting her while she hid in her attic. He must have just heard her commotion and wanted to make sure she was alright – and then the ungrateful wench SHOT him for his trouble!
Oh the humanity!!!!
His shooting must now be added to the carnage statistics these inanimate objects inflict upon our barbaric society…sniff….I need a tissue….
/s
I’d be curious if there is more to this story. This was 1pm (afternoon) and in broad daylight this guy just decides to check out this house, break in, and actively try to attack this woman in an attic by using a crowbar to get at her? Doesn’t sound like a robbery. A random attack? Was the house cased earlier?
That said, absolutely applaud this woman for having the wits to grab a gun, move her kids to safety, and line up her shots for some clean hits.
Keep in mind he’s a life-long thug with an escalating history of violence. His motives may have just been that he likes being violent. This *may* be the shock to his system that changes his life; more likely he’ll end up on a slab a few years from now, unremarked and unremarkable.
Yes, all hugs to this lady. And there’s another aspect to this I believe. I talked with a South African man a long many years ago who had fought the Germans in North Africa. His unit was taught that when strafed by German planes to lay on your back and fire back even if it was only a pistol (it was good to see that done in the movie Patton) so that there would no creeping in of the idea that “I am cowed, I am a victim”.
It seemed like good advice then and good advice now.
A scumbag perp messed with the wrong Mama Grizz . . . a pistol-packin’ Mama Grizz. Way to go, girl.
Personally, I commend her though, she obviously lacks appropriate training for confrontation at close range with a firearm. This represents what ‘private citizen’ gun ownership is about — self protection and not overthowing a
self- defined and declared tyrannical government.
Thus spoke Zeus! Oh wait I read that wrong. It’s just Zeke. I guess, since nearly every firearm of any military utility and the all magazines and ammunition for same have been snapped up in about 2 weeks, that a sizeable chunk of people disagree with you on that defense against tyranny thing. Fortunately everyone seems to be working around the clock to produce product to fulfill the now enormous backlog of orders.
She got into a good defensive position and scored hits with 83% of her shots, including at least one head shot. How in the hell is it obvious she lacks appropriate training? What, in your world, constitutes appropriate training?
No. It only underscores the need for normal capacity magazines. Poking holes in paper on a sunny day at the range is as easy as holding forth with meaningless expostulation on your keyboard. But when it’s dark, you’re scared, your adrenaline spike makes you shake, the target is moving and presents an imminent threat to your life, you have to protect 2 other victims which he may veer off to grab in hopes of getting you into a bargaining position (“maybe she thinks I’ll just rape her if I let the brat go, haha”), hitting 5 of 6 is amazing.
Exactly what, pray tell, kind of training would the oh so asanine Zeke suggest for this woman?
She was aware of her surroundings.
She identified the threat in time to take defensive action.
She called for help (her husband) who in turn called the police.
She retreated from the danger to a safe location.
She got her children into a position behind ber so she could protect them.
She armed herself against the threat.
When the threat confronted her within her own home – inside her own frickin ATTIC no less – she began firing in self defense.
She placed 4 out of 5 shots on target – a HIGHER ratio than the average police shooting.
She kept her wits about her after she shoots the intruder to the extent she knows she is out of ammo and yet still bluffs convincingly enough that the home intruder decides it’s better to find greener pastures.
She takes her kids and removes herself and them from the home and retreats with an empty gun to another home.
The only suggestion I would make is she should invest in a quality pump action 12 gauge shotgun with an 18 inch barrel, extended magazine, and folding stock.
You know, that arm thingy that swings up.
What, oh so great tactician, do you suggest she needed further training on?????
Have any of you ever been through a good police academy or the FBI academy or trained with the Israeli’s? The concept of ‘point shooting’ at very close range is certainly the most effective when practiced to perfect. Likewise, practicing to perfect allows for conservation of ammo when actually in a real confrontational element. In my opinion — one simply has no shooting skills if all they can do is “mow” their target down with large capacity magazines. In a public element, using a mowing technique you subject innocent bystanders to a risk of being shot or otherwise wounded. All law enforcement agencies have great concern for this possibilty and great departments and agencies train endlessly (more in the past) for this kind of senario. Likewise, so does the military in urban warfare elements.
In this case, the woman was in her home and confronted at close range with a perp that pressumably was not armed with a gun — which was most likely, fortunate for the woman and her children.
“Law enforcement agencies shall ensure that all law enforcement officials are provided with training and are tested in accordance with appropriate proficiency standards in the use of force. Those law enforcement officials who are required to carry firearms should be authorized to do so only upon completion of special training in their use.”
Since I agreed with the woman in this instance and some of you decided it was still not enough and jumped in to throw more nonsensical comments my way, I think “private” gun owners should have to at least meet the minimum U.S. and international laws of law enforcement officers in their discharge of office with guns — as stated above.
Zeke may I take issue with you on a number of points and please forgive that I will be brief as it is late.
1. You original post indicates that you don’t think that the people of a country can or should indicate when a government is tyrannical. But you’re wrong, constitutionally and in principle. Our Constitution, by the way the most radical and revolutionary compact ever to be attempted, in fact is premised that we are sovereign as individuals and this woman as in her sovereignty defended her home, her life and the life of her children. Self defense is the most basic right any human can have and is beyond the ken of legislatures. And further, it is premised that we as a people are sovereign, the right to govern, the power to govern, comes from us not from the government and can be taken away at and by the will of the people. Period! The government doesn’t decide if it is tyrannical but the people decide it. A breath taking set of premises in the First Ten.
2. You state in your second post that “private” gun owners should have to meet the same standards as police (more about that shortly) but your wrong again. Making rules out of thin air means that you can destroy all of the great Ten just by making them so inconvenient or difficult to qualify that they no longer exist for the sovereign people. Tricky, Zeke, just pulling that training one out of thin air but pretty thin BS huh? I guess you might also think that in order to exercise the rights of the First Amendment a person shall have to pass a reading and writing test, submit to the authorities ten book reports… a thousand book reports if your black or if your white or if we just don’t like the way you look?
3. Oh, yes, and the minimum training of law enforcement in order to have the basic right to defend your life. Please check out this famous or infamous shoot out in Mami.
http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html
Yes, the perps had a rifle etc. but the highly trained FBI agents sent 90 (going by memory here it’s too late to read the whole thing again) rounds down range and made less than half a dozen hits.
4. The real question here, Zeke, is do you bother to find out anything about what you assert, make even the smallest effort? You lack integrity Zeke and if you like I’d be happy to explain that to you tomorrow.
But the bottom line is that it is a waste of time to exchange conversation or posts with a person who lacks integrity. Yup, a waste but too delicious to pass up.
You present a lot of opinions and questions!
Let me just leave you with a very short response to ponder — one that has certainly withstood constitutional tests.
18 USC 2331
18 USC 2385
Since we’re going anecdotal, just let me leave you with one thing to ponder:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/26/nypd-officers-wound-9-bystanders-during-shootout/
36 rounds shot by cops, 9 wounded bystanders. Yep, cops are better trained and so they hit their target more often. 25% hit rate is standard, but according to Zeeeek, that’s better than 83% hit rate by a terrified woman.
You point too a well recognized sad state of affairs in much of todays law enforcement. After all it takes a mob rushing tactic to subdue and control even an unarmed person who may be offering minimal resistance (or not) these days — even a scant little female. Just this past weekend I attempted to stop a patrol unit to report a severely impaired drunk driver. I used my lights, my horn, hand signals, etc., while pulling off the road. The officer, on his cell pnone, passed me by, made a U-turn for which I also did. Followed him to the parking lot of Wendy’s where he got out and went inside to get something to eat. As I approached him in line to order and still talking on the cell phone while I was relating my story, he pulled the cell phone away from his ear just long enough to say, “they’re probably home by now, so don’t worry about it.”
It certainly is a different time and a different breed of mentality for law enforcement today, than my experiences a lifetime long ago. I have long agreed with Oklahoma’s state troopers policy setting age 25 for application. It allows for some matuity, a level of life experience and common sence development. If it were up to me I’d raise the age limit to 30 and an exit retirement at 50 or 55 today.
Howard, I appreciate all your points of debate on gun ownership and controls but simply don’t agree with many of them.
Clicked before intened. Also check some of these out.
2383 Rebellion or insurrection.
2384 Seditious conspiracy.
2386 Registration of certain organizations.
You didn’t respond to any portion of my post. You haven’t made a coherent argument with what you’ve posted here.
@ Zeke,
Deference to the rule of law only works when all parties defer to the rule of law.
The supreme law of the land – which all are obliged to abide by – is the US Constitution.
When the federal government blatantly ceases to abide by that supreme law….what is your suggested solution?
“The supreme law of the land – which all are obliged to abide by – is the US Constitution.”
So, let me see if I have ‘your’ intellectual analysis correct. Most, if not all, statutory laws are unconstitutional — right?
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof….shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”
What do you supose the founders intent was when they established the “legislative branch” of the government and spoke to the “laws of the United States.”
Laws are only legitimate when they are in compliance with the restrictions set out in the constitution.
When a law goes against the constitution – it’s is ruled unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.
We currently have a government that has refused to pass a budget for YEARS. That law requiring it was passed and signed according to the constitution – yet you have half the congress and the full executive branch ignoring it.
You have an executive branch actively and knowingly exporting firearms to Mexico, in violation of both Mexican and US firearms laws, that resulted in death and chaos on both sides of the border simply to try to create a crises under which they could pass still more laws.
How is that law abiding?
“Point shooting”….lol…..sure, go ahead and use that approach. I doubt the FBI or Israelis will back you on that technique in any but the most extreme circumstances when the use of a front sight is impossible.
I’d prefer to use Jeff Cooper’s approach myself….and use the front sight.
But more to the point – are you suggesting that a larger magazine capacity was not necessary in this instance?
She was facing a lethal threat with an empty gun and I seriously doubt she would agree with you that she had enough ammo capacity in her weapon.
“In my opinion — one simply has no shooting skills if all they can do is “mow” their target down with large capacity magazines.”
So then in your opinion then virtually the entire NYPD should be immediately disarmed. It is an understatement to say you are astoundingly misinformed about how much and how often the average cop is required to train with his pistol.
I’ll repeat this once more because you obviously don’t get it: SHE HIT WITH 83% OF HER SHOTS. You don’t have to train with Israelis, cops or hostage rescue to effectively handle a gun any more than you have to train for nascar to drive to work. If your practice regimen has enabled you to hit 83% under stress then your training is adequate by any reasonable definition.
And as far as “mowing down” goes the rule is once you’ve made the decision to shoot you keep shooting till the threat is neutralized or your gun goes dry. That’s what she did.
Your position on standard capacity magazines is nonsensical. They’re needed for civilian defensive gun use for the same reason they’re needed for governmental defensive gun use, which is that there’s no way to predict how many bad guys you’ll face or how many shots it will take to put them down. I’ll consider giving mine up when Obama’s secret service detail gives up theirs.
Lets speculate just for the fun of it. Had the perp been armed with a gun, it is very possible (maybe probable) the lady at least, would have been killed before firing all of her six rounds. See how this; if a frog didn’t jump, it wouldn’t bump its butt, game can be played? Seems the pro gun argument for HC magazines, is based not on responsible firearms skills but rather, a game of, lets see who can ‘shred’ something or somebody up in the most little pieces. What a sport, eh? IF your feared perpetrator didn’t have access to anything known as HC magaines and you didn’t either, all outcomes would be founded upon ones real skills to own and fire weapons.
Care to point us to a scientific and peer reviewed study from an unbiased source that backs up your assertion that it is “very possible (maybe probable)” that the intended victim would have been killed?
Bet ya can’t, cuz ya see – I already know that statistically speaking those victims who resist are less likely to be injured, raped, or killed, and those who resist with a gun are even more less likely to be injured, raped, or killed.
Feel free to research it on your own….hows that bumped butt of yours feeling right now?