(TX) Austin woman shoots attacker in the face

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shadow, LightingJoe,

My criticism is not aimed at the woman but at my fellow highroaders who seem a little blood thirsty. The moment news like this one hits the board people just go nuts as if living in the victim some unfulfilled fantasy. There is nothing to be learned from the experience of this woman or how she handled the situation. Every text book mistake is in her scenario but somehow she is a hero. Are our standards so low? Are we so eager to shoot someone, maybe even provoke a situation and call it self defense. I'm not.
 
QUOTE:

Shadow, LightingJoe,

My criticism is not aimed at the woman but at my fellow highroaders who seem a little blood thirsty. The moment news like this one hits the board people just go nuts as if living in the victim some unfulfilled fantasy. There is nothing to be learned from the experience of this woman or how she handled the situation. Every text book mistake is in her scenario but somehow she is a hero. Are our standards so low? Are we so eager to shoot someone, maybe even provoke a situation and call it self defense. I'm not.

~~~~~

I think that your statement is VERY wrong on the people who posted here, including perhaps what I wrote previously on this thread, but you have the right to your own opinion.

Unfulfilled fantasy?!? Go nuts? Eager to shoot someone? Blood thirsty? Provoke a situation? He was the bad guy not her! Etc.?

Geesh, if I didn't know better I would think that this is a page out of a Brady Bunch media release! NO offense.

I would write a long post about my experience/situation but I have already written it on this board and on other boards in the past. I did not go OUTSIDE @ 1:15AM but I did have the firearm ready, I did have my German Shepherd, I did have all of the security items, I did have to dial O for operator since there was no 911 back then and in my rural area, the operator and the Sheriff's HQ stayed on the telephone with me, etc. I did all of the 'right' things @ 1:15AM. I didn't go looking for trouble but I sure as H would not have backed away if the 2 guys decided to try to come through my front or back door or through any window. I did not lust for blood and I did not shoot anyone. The response time was 45 Minutes! I just don't think it is quite 'normal' for 2 guys to pull up in a lady's driveway, close up to the garage and turn off their headlights @ 1:15AM. I had private property signs and NO trespassing signs up too. I lived very rural... country road off of many country roads. My late husband was overseas at the time. WE had a previous attempted break in (In our breezeway, he did not get in our house or garage.) that same year in BROAD daylight while we were at work. My GS dog nailed/chewed up the criminal and he was later caught. The criminal was a man who robbed many places in that rural area when people were gone @ all hours. Homes, especially new homes-ours was NEW, farm houses and barns with elderly people and some rural businesses.

If it was BROAD daylight and I had to go to work in the city or mow my lawn... I would call for the sheriff's department back there if the people seemed suspicious... otherwise I would go out and ask what someone was doing in my driveway, on my property, with my firearm and my GS dog, etc. I have questioned people in the past on my OWN property/land in broad daylight and I did not call the deputies every single time I found a trespasser or a 'township' man working on my grass putting up a sign close to the VERY rural road. It depended on the situation.

Some of us would have handled some points a BIT differently but the point is this: Lady = victim in this case. Man = criminal in this case. He had NO business being there, if he was there by mistake and was so innocent - why ATTACK her? He attacked her, he wanted to steal from her and perhaps even do more harm to her and anyone else around there.

If a person roots for the good gal or guy who is a victim and is ticked off at the criminal... I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps if more criminals knew that people were "mad as ___ and wouldn't take their threats, their preying on innocent people, their criminal activities/bull anymore" - they might just STOP IT, end up hurt or dead or live in fear because people like this lady would FIGHT BACK instead of rolling over and playing dead!

No offense but I do disagree with your analysis of the posters on this thread.

Catherine - Armed and Female
 
Last edited:
My criticism is not aimed at the woman but at my fellow highroaders who seem a little blood thirsty. The moment news like this one hits the board people just go nuts as if living in the victim some unfulfilled fantasy. There is nothing to be learned from the experience of this woman or how she handled the situation. Every text book mistake is in her scenario but somehow she is a hero. Are our standards so low? Are we so eager to shoot someone, maybe even provoke a situation and call it self defense. I'm not.
In this case she "provoked" a situation by walking out her front door. I'm not saying it's was a tactically sound move, but I don't see how going somewhere you have a right to be, whether you know someone is there who may be out to harm you is there or not, is morally wrong.
 
Yes, yes. But she did not miss 3 times.

Which is great, I guess, given that she could not have been shooting at much closer range. She was in physical contact with the guy when she fired, missing him, twice.


Anyway, I don't know why all these posters are criticizing her. She won the fight. It's whoever has the most points on the board at the end of the game. She was the so-called "man in the arena." Would these Monday morning quarterbacks have done as well?

They are critical because she won a fight she didn't have to fight. Going outside was a strategic blunder. The idea of scaring away the bad guy was pretty naive. In the end, the two parts and her inaction left her in a position to be grabbed by the bad guy and struggle.

It does not matter if others would have done so well or not and many would have done better. What others would have done or not doesn't change the smartness or validity of what she did.

As for Monday morning quarterbacking, I looked at your posts and I can see that you do the same thing, being critical of the decisions of others, after the fact. So why is it okay for you to MMQB and not others?

With that said...
In this case she "provoked" a situation by walking out her front door.

No, she did not. You provoke living entities, not contexts or non-living things. By suggesting that she did the provocation, you are suggesting she is at fault for the attack. She is not at fault for the attack based on the information provided. She might have been able to avoid the attack had she stayed inside, but that does not make the attack her fault.
 
Catherine,

I take no offense from your comments. My posts are not meant to be Bradyish, either. The situation you describe above and the situation of this woman are completely different. She was already in the safety of her apartment and chose to go out. This endangered her life unnecessarily. It's not her fault that she got attacked, but her poor judgment facilitated the Prep's actions.

You handled your situation defensively and that gave you the upper hand. In the case of this woman, she went on the offensive landing in the BGs turf. It was a bad decision that landed her in a tough situation.

I'm glad she survived. But if she were my neighbor, sister, mother, etc., I'd would recommend a course in personal security instead of giving her job well done pat on the back. Not because I'm a cold SOB but because I would not want her to be in that situation again.
 
Chalk one up for the good guys.

One thing that bothers me is the assumption that this guy was drugged up. It is entirely possible that these thugs don't even need to be stoned in order to brazenly attack.
 
This woman has received nothing but praise for doing all the wrong things. She could have locked her door and called the cops. Instead she went out and got jumped. Lets all give her a round of applause.

This woman should at the very least get a ticket for stupidity. She put herself in eminent danger. Sounds horrible but she sort of brought this upon herself.

Third, once in panic and with the perp on top of her, she tries to scare him off. When she finally can't, she fires three times missing twice (who knows where the bullets went) and hits the perp in the face non-lethally. At the very least if you are going to grab a gun and face the perp , be prepared to shoot decisively.

As I said you dont use a gun to scare somebody.

She should've gone inside and locked the door, retrieved her gun and called the police.

Quote:
It may be that she should have locked herself inside and called the cops, but why? Why should she live in fear?
I'm not sure why calling the cops from a secure place equates to "living in fear". Perhaps you can explain that.

Sounds like some of you pacifists need to stay up in the crime-infested northern territories and continue to huddle in fear.

Down here, we'll by-God walk where we want to, when we want to. There's a reason we do not have a duty to retreat, by law, and may stand our ground. That's because we're sick and damned tired of liberal, touchy-feely, cowardly and apologetic attitudes towards the criminal element dictating how honest citizens lead their daily lives.

Add to the fact that the police have a dismal record of getting ANYWHERE in time to either intervene or prevent a bad thing from happening.

So if some of y'all want to huddle like little scared lambs and trust in 9-1-1 and buzzwords like "tactical" and "territory" and whatnot, be our guest.

Most of our crime problems down here anyhow can be DIRECTLY attributed to northern, liberal, pacifist attitudes that have permeated our larger cities. Some of the comments here continue to drive that point home.

Jeff
 
Down here, we'll by-God walk where we want to, when we want to. There's a reason we do not have a duty to retreat, by law, and may stand our ground. That's because we're sick and damned tired of liberal, touchy-feely, cowardly and apologetic attitudes towards the criminal element dictating how honest citizens lead their daily lives.

You tell em' SkyHawk


Christopher Benavides,20

and the Brady Bunch will now count this as a "child being shot" because the perp. was <21
 
Open Observation to my THR Family:

We are an open forum, and as such, all who may choose are free to observe our words. We need to weigh our written words.

While I am glad that the woman is well, I see no reason for the celebration of blood spilled. Allow me to explain. A fellow human being was both physically and emotionally traumatized. She will likely end up with medical costs for therapy, and could yet end up being sued by a family member claiming unreasonable conduct. I certainly would disagree with that. I am not speaking uninformed here.

One of my very dearest friends recently shot and killed an attempted carjacker who held a gun to his head here in Michigan. My friend is rough and tumble, and extremely capable with weapons. Even though the perp had a pistol to his head, and the shooting was fully justified (was actually caught of the Detroit Police Department’s security video) he is “dealing” with emotions that he never felt he would deal.

One human being was physically assaulted. Another human being was shot in the head. How is that grounds to celebrate?

Doc2005
 
Chess

Chess has been described as a game where "the winner is the guy who makes the fewest mistakes." In a variation on that, it is also said that, "the loser is the guy who makes the last (or biggest) mistake."

Of course, that's just a game.

In real life, however, similar things can be said to happen.

In this case, the perp made more and bigger mistakes than his intended prey. The "victim apparent" made fewer mistakes.

The post-game study can be useful for analysis in one's own preparations and training.

In the end, though, the righteous party prevailed, and part of that was a result of a) being prepared for defense, along with b) not being so intimidated by a fear of retribution from her government that she dithered herself into a failure to act.

She was equipped, she was not cowed, and she acted when the moment came. No, it wasn't perfect, but it was enough to carry the day.

I'm not gonna pontificate on how she did it wrong.

What she did was right enough in the circumstances.

I'll take the wins I can get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top