"IMO, this one incident in which possession of an "assault style" firearm potentially saved the lives of a law-abiding family NEGATES every bit of the constant "press" aimed at barring ownership of such gun s. A Florida woman defended her husband and child when she shot and killed an armed suspect who broke into her home. The male victim, later identified as Jeremy King, told Bay 9 News that the suspects pointed guns at him, demanded money and threatened him. King was pistol-whipped and beaten when he refused, police said. He was later transported to the hospital following the incident. King's wife, who he said is 8 months pregnant, was in the back bedroom when the suspects broke in. When she opened the bedroom door to see what was going on, one of the suspects shot at her, King said. That's when the wife returned fire with an AR-style assault rifle, striking the suspect, a source told ABC News. The gun was legally owned by the family, police said." See: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/wife-defe...r-assault-180800855--abc-news-topstories.html
If the criminal was actually INSIDE the house, I'm not sure anyone can do anything about her choice to shoot him. She was defending herself, her family and her unborn child.
@Beth Gallagher It doesn't, of course. Since the first schoolyard killings in CA almost 30 years ago, the Feds have attacked the "assault rifles" with a ridiculous, almost comical vengeance. First, BATF ruled they cannot be legally sold if they possess 2 or more of these absurd qualities: A collapsible stock; a pistol grip; a bayonet lug (!); a threaded barrel; black in color (!!!??). Then, CA ruled a published list of rifles which they posted cannot be privately owned in that state. There were about 12 on the list. So absurd was it, that it named brands, which meant AR-15s with the Colt name were illegal, while identical rifles made by others were not! They failed to include a whole raft of military rifles in their list, among them Baretta AR-70, Fabrique Nationale FN-FAL and FN-FNQ, etc. Soon enough, the politicians realized they were not gun-savvy at all, and the loophole guns were banned across the board. Being an avid member of the Gun Culture, I of course followed these shenanigans for years. I conversed with folks at gun shows in Phoenix who were buying such rifles, California residents, taking them back home with them! Spoke at great length several times with a very stern young man, Japanese-American, Californian, who swore his remains would someday be planted in Japan, rather than here, though he was born here! It's been an astounding trip! Frank
I get the irony of your post. I too expect what you question to be the next bit of news with this story.
@Frank Sanoica Will you keep us posted on any follow up news on this story? As @Shirley Martin suggested, it would be interesting to see in what direction the media takes this story.
That's not the sort of story that will play well or often in the mainstream media. Had she shot her husband and daughter, we'd hear about it for at least a week or two.
Guns are illegal here in Britain but we get many shooting incidents and when the police have shot armed villain their career is on hold while they are investigated. I think your laws in America are realistic. If someone enters your home with intent on robbery or violence you should be able to shoot with no questions.
'Way to go' might have been our reaction a couple of decades back. I'm glad she knew how to use it and apparently without hesitation, did. Oughta be a gun in every home, a gun of choice, so more than one might be on hand, the occupants should know how to use it, and it be the rule of thumb, if you break into a home or attempt to, the outcome is likely to be your sudden death.
One problem here is that our laws differ sharply from state to state, or even from city to city. Even within the same city, it can be a flip of coin as to how a shooting incident is going to be handled. While police are generally given the benefit of the doubt when they shoot and kill someone who turns out to have been armed only with a cellphone, or who was reaching for his wallet rather than a handgun, citizens are held to a much higher standard, and would almost certainly be charged, convicted, and sentenced under similar circumstances. Consider this. While a large percentage of the homes in Maine have firearms and, largely because of this, we don't have a high level of violent crimes, actually taking action to halt an intruder isn't without serious consequences. Let's say my wife and I were upstairs in our home. Someone breaks down our door and starts coming up the stairs toward us. I have a firearm. I don't know if the home invader is armed or not, but if he's doing home invasions, he's probably considerably younger than my 67 years, and wouldn't need a firearm to hurt me. I don't know what he intends to do. Even without a gun or a knife, he could beat me to death, and he could do the same to my wife. I wouldn't stand a chance taking him on in a fight. Yet, if I shoot him and it turns out he isn't harmed, I would probably be charged. That would depend on the cops who respond to the call because the way they write it up will have a big effect on what a prosecutor decides to do, but it would also depend on the prosecutor. Since we have only one prosecuting attorney who would handle such cases here, I know who that would be and I have sparred with him politically and won about fifteen years ago, so he would probably enjoy prosecuting me as long as he thought he could make a case. They would argue that deadly force was unjustified when used against someone who was not armed. If I were a cop, I could say that I had reason to believe that he was reaching for a firearm, and that would be accepted. In fact, only a few years ago, a half dozen cops were confronted with someone who they knew to be mentally ill, and who had a knife. Although he wasn't even close to being near enough to anyone to do them harm with the knife and wasn't approaching them, when he refused to drop the knife after about twenty minutes, they shot him to death. They got tired of waiting. It was considered justified. Citizens are almost always held to a higher standard, and there's a very good chance that I would be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced. The last couple of steps would depend on the jury, which is where I'd have the best chance, but that would depend on whether or not they were able to stack the jury with gun banners.