Armed California homeowner foils home invasion.

[rnmcguire]

I'm surprised they didn't arrest her for shooting at those fine young boys. It's good to see some positive gun news coming from that state although I wonder what she blew the hell out of when she discharged her weapon, lol.

California homeowner foils home invasion attempt by firing shotgun, police say | Fox News

 

[Bfish]

Good for her!

 

[David D]

Biden should be proud of her. Unfortunately it seems that she didn't hit either the bad guys or their car, making it easier to identify them.

Maybe their next victim will finish the job.

 

[gjclark]

No crime for firing in a city? She didn't seem to be in fear for her life.

 

[femurphy77]

So, have they scheduled her execution yet?

 

[MCgrease08]

Good for her for not being a "sitting duck." - her words.

Too bad there aren't more like her in that wacky state. According to the LA tv station, the robbers said, "crazy b*-t¢h has a gun."

It sounds to me like she's the sane one in this story.

 

[Expat]

They need to hurry up with the gun confiscation rounds up out there. You can't allow this sort of thing. If people start thinking they don't have to just be a victim it's untelling what might come next.

 

[cook4army]

Good for her for not being a "sitting duck." - her words.

Too bad there aren't more like her in that wacky state. According to the LA tv station, the robbers said, "crazy b*-t¢h has a gun."

It sounds to me like she's the sane one in this story.

Well in a state that's well on its way to criminalizing gun owners, confiscating said guns, I'm sure it was a complete surprise to these robbers that she actually had a gun. Ill be they thought the state had completely disarmed the populace, making their job of acquiring other peoples stuff easier.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm glad she was able to change would-be home invaders' minds. I hope she's not charged. But she woke up out of a dead sleep because of a dog's barking and then saw a man in her back yard and another man standing by a car. She knew nothing of their previous illegal activities at that point but shot her shot gun "at them" anyway. It's a good thing for her they probably were up to no-good and not some guys out looking for a lost dog or child. It's entirely possible she saw and/or heard something not mentioned in the story but just shooting at somebody that happens to be in your backyard seems kind of reckless in the context provided.

 

[gjclark]

I'm glad she was able to change would-be home invaders' minds. I hope she's not charged. But she woke up out of a dead sleep because of a dog's barking and then saw a man in her back yard and another man standing by a car. She knew nothing of their previous illegal activities at that point but shot her shot gun "at them" anyway. It's a good thing for her they probably were up to no-good and not some guys out looking for a lost dog or child. It's entirely possible she saw and/or heard something not mentioned in the story but just shooting at somebody that happens to be in your backyard seems kind of reckless in the context provided.

Thats what I mean... I am sure that if I just went outside, saw a guy in my driveway/backyard and I fired a shot that I would have at least violated a city ordinance. I thought we could only fire when our life was in danger, not because our stuff was being taken.

 

[87iroc]

I'm surprised she isn't in jail already.

 

[k1500]

It is good she wasn't harmed, but I have to bring up a point here. Why would anyone fire a "warning" shot? I'm not advocating the wild west and just start shooting any body in your yard, but the warning shot is wasteful at the least and highly dangerous at the worst.

1. She now has one less round in her weapon. The attacker and his buddy could start running toward the house. She has effectively "warned" them to move and take cover. The muzzle flip on that shotgun has thrown her off target, losing precious seconds to re-acquire a sight picture of the predator.
2. What if the weapon malfunctions after one shot (it isn't impossible)? She has used the one and only shot which could have stopped the threat had he been advancing.
3. What if the guy was simply at the wrong house where he was invited to a party and he was trying to determine the address while his buddy waited at the car? She now just used deadly assault on someone.

 

[ryknoll3]

It is good she wasn't harmed, but I have to bring up a point here. Why would anyone fire a "warning" shot? I'm not advocating the wild west and just start shooting any body in your yard, but the warning shot is wasteful at the least and highly dangerous at the worst.

1. She now has one less round in her weapon. The attacker and his buddy could start running toward the house. She has effectively "warned" them to move and take cover. The muzzle flip on that shotgun has thrown her off target, losing precious seconds to re-acquire a sight picture of the predator.
2. What if the weapon malfunctions after one shot (it isn't impossible)? She has used the one and only shot which could have stopped the threat had he been advancing.
3. What if the guy was simply at the wrong house where he was invited to a party and he was trying to determine the address while his buddy waited at the car? She now just used deadly assault on someone.

She's an old lady who has probably learned all she knows about armed self-defense from television.

ETA: I wonder if the homeowner had been a 40-year old able-bodied male if the warning shot would have been received the same by LEO.