Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Understatement Of The Year

By Greg L | 14 January 2009 | Crime, Prince William County | 64 Comments

I know it’s only January, but bear with me.  A woman stays home from work, and the alarm goes off.  She investigates and finds three men trying to get in her basement door.  They see her and run off, except for one that turns back and advances towards the woman.  The woman, being a Prince William County resident after all, shoots the attacker and apparently displayed some strong marksmanship skills and good resolve as the attacker was admitted to the hospital with “life-threatening injuries.”  After all of that, with a woman defending her home and a burglar advancing on her, the police respond with this:

Police say it appears the homeowner was within her rights to shoot the suspect, however, police are still investigating.


If a homeowner is not within their rights to defend themselves in their own home from a burglar advancing on her, then no one has legal justification to protect their own life.  C’mon, what would it take for it to be clear that shooting a burglar in your own home is justified?  Do they have to wear a T-shirt announcing that they’re actually a rapist, but will settle for burglary on slow days?

Kudos to this woman who refused to be a victim, and has practiced enough with her favored defensive firearm sufficiently to put one (I would assume) center-of-mass while under stress. Provided this criminal thug survives, I’ll bet he will think twice before trying to pull a stunt like this again, after he’s out of prison.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

64 Comments

  1. me said on 14 Jan 2009 at 11:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am sure that comment you have in quotes was just a “routine” response to any open case and perhaps used to calm the nerves of all the nit whits who think we should not be able to protect ourselves. If it ever happened to me I would imagine even though it was a good shoot there must be some sort of paperwork and follow up and I would prefer to have that done and officially signed off on by the PD so I could have that in hand for when the crap head recovers (that would indicate I need more range time) or their family decides they want to sue me.

    I thought, perhaps I am wrong but I thought PWC PD usually does a good job over all recognizing and respecting our 2nd amendment rights.

  2. Anonymous said on 15 Jan 2009 at 12:19 am:
    Flag comment

    The perp, if he survives will probably file a lawsuit against her for using “excessive” force. The sad part, he would probably win.

  3. AWCheney said on 15 Jan 2009 at 12:41 am:
    Flag comment

    Would that be before or after he gets out of prison, Anonymous?

  4. Anonymous said on 15 Jan 2009 at 12:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Yes, because the police investigating to make sure the woman’s story checks out before closing the case is obviously outrageous.

    Seriously, what else are the police supposed to do here. If everything is as she told them are there are no outstanding questions, as is probably 99 percent likely, then yes, congratulations to this brave woman for defending herself and her home. But the idea that you should be able to shoot someone in the your house in the night, tell the police that it was self defense and be cleared by the next afternoon is nuts.

  5. Cheetah said on 15 Jan 2009 at 2:46 am:
    Flag comment

    he wont win,

    he entered the home (twice) and she was in fear of her life. the fact that he came back sealed the deal here. He can file all he wants, it’s gonna be a waste of money.

    Way to Go I say! To bad the guy lived, we could have saved the taxpayers medical expenses for the creep.

  6. Cheetah said on 15 Jan 2009 at 5:40 am:
    Flag comment

    too bad she didnt have a desert eagle .50 cal :)

  7. Typical UN Idiot said on 15 Jan 2009 at 6:39 am:
    Flag comment

    A rape is not necessarily life-threatening, that was a completely disproportionate response on her part.

  8. BattleCat said on 15 Jan 2009 at 6:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Typical UN Idiot, while being jocular, has actually hit the nail on the head. Without a Castle Doctrine on the books, homeowners will always be rolling the dice when defending their home, their family, and themselves. It’s all up to the whims of local officials, many of which are turning Obama-blue. I cannot fathom how orgs like vcdl are piddling around with carrying in restaurants, when we’re not even absolutely safe in our own homes. I’ll say it again, folks…..castle doctrine…on the books, should be our focus until it’s done.

  9. Cheetah said on 15 Jan 2009 at 7:52 am:
    Flag comment

    UN Idiot,

    tell that to rape victims.

    the victim shooting a burglar who RETURNED TO THE SCENE can easily proclaim she was in danger for her life. What would you have done? stood there and called the police and waited for the burglar to rape and/or kill you? or maybe you could have got down on your knee’s and prayed and hoped he went away?

    sorry, a person who returns to the scene when the had the opportunity to escape without being shot is obviously planning something more nefarious than a simple burglary.

  10. junes_reston said on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:02 am:
    Flag comment

    You go girlfriend! My heart skipped a joyful beat when I read this story - she is an inspiration.

    This is what gun ownership is about - a lawful gun owner, who knows how to use it, and uses it responsibly in a justifiable situation.

    However, I will not be at all surprised if some bleeding-heart liberal lawyer will try to launch an “excessive force” allegation.

    Unfortunately, I know a few women who “bought a gun for protection,” and the only time they ever touched it was the day they bought it. I am terrified if they are ever placed in a situation where they need to use it, it will be used against them.

  11. Johnson said on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Good for her. Shoot a few more and break-ins will dwindle. Somebody supply her with another gun to replace the one that the cops took for evidence. Make it at least a .357 or better yet, a shotgun. I’ll be glad to come over and scrape up the next one.

  12. junes_reston said on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Typical UN Idiot said on 15 Jan 2009 at 6:39 am:

    A rape is not necessarily life-threatening, that was a completely disproportionate response on her part.
    —————

    Today that is not necessarily so! Rape today CAN be life-threatening.

    I seriously doubt a rapist today would want to take his chances with a jury.

  13. AWCheney said on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Besides, Idiot, what makes you assume that the perpetrator only had rape in mind? This is a classic self-defense situation.

  14. Pat.Herve said on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:46 am:
    Flag comment

    When was the quote taken from the Police Dept?

    It is not the task of the Police Dept to decide whether the person was justified or not. Wouldn’t you want them to investigate the situation before making a determination?

    If the facts are true, as I have read them, I believe the homeowner was within her rights - but I may not have all the facts.

  15. BothPartiesColludeAgainstYou said on 15 Jan 2009 at 9:06 am:
    Flag comment

    I don’t see any bleeding-heart liberals anywhere condemning this or politicizing this, just a couple of you here.

    But anyway, on to making a joke of anything and everything, I am reminded of this classic dialogue from Quentin Tarantino’s “Death Proof”. I am paraphrasing it, from memory.

    “Yes I know Kim has a gun. Do I approve of it? No.”

    “[Woman] if I go to do my laundry at night, where I live, there’s a good chance I’ll get attacked”.

    “Well you could carry pepper spray”.

    “M*****F***er tries to rape me, I don’t want to give him a rash. I want to shoot him”.

    “Well, you could carry a knife”.

    “[Woman], do you know what happens to m*****f***ers who carry knives?”

    “No, what?”

    “They get shot”.

  16. Advocator said on 15 Jan 2009 at 9:19 am:
    Flag comment

    You’re right, Pat. It’s the Commonwealth Attorney’s office that should have commented on this situation. An appropriate comment would have been, “The victim in this case has no reason to anticipate ANY charges being filed against her.”

  17. I Bleed Obama Blue said on 15 Jan 2009 at 10:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Junes –

    I’ll bet that were you given the opportunity to discharge your weapon to thwart an alleged assailant, you would:

    1) Not hesitate for a moment to choose a head shot, regardless the need to kill v. maim; and,

    2) Become sexually aroused, at the least, if not experience the biggest orgasm of your life.

    Didn’t you mean to say: This is what gun ownership is about (in PWC) - a hayseed vigilante, armed to the teeth, enjoying the exercise of the only power available in her terrified, pathetic life.

  18. Old Soldier said on 15 Jan 2009 at 10:31 am:
    Flag comment

    I think everyone is over reacting to the Police statement. It is a reasonable assessment of the situation. The cops only know what they are told and have to investigate any shooting (or other crime). Should they have believed Lexie Glover’s mom’s word and dropped the investigation (as an analog).

    On the other hand, if brandishing doesn’t discourage someone from attacking you and you are going to pull the trigger, shoot to kill (preferably with a high caliber weapon that will do more than just irritate the perp).

  19. DPortM said on 15 Jan 2009 at 10:52 am:
    Flag comment

    Another alternative firearm until she gets hers back would be the Taurus “JUDGE” .45 caliber

    http://www.taurususa.com/whatsnew/revolvers.cfm

  20. Anonymous said on 15 Jan 2009 at 11:02 am:
    Flag comment

    AWCheney said on 15 Jan 2009 at 12:41 am: Flag comment

    Would that be before or after he gets out of prison, Anonymous?

    During!

  21. Johnson said on 15 Jan 2009 at 11:05 am:
    Flag comment

    “Never bring a knife to a gun fight.”

    Jeez, that Judge is unwieldy.(sp?) It does the job, though. I wonder what the trigger pull on that monster is?

  22. Anonymous said on 15 Jan 2009 at 11:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Cheetah said on 15 Jan 2009 at 7:52 am: Flag comment

    UN Idiot,

    tell that to rape victims.

    the victim shooting a burglar who RETURNED TO THE SCENE can easily proclaim she was in danger for her life.

    What kind of weapon was he brandishing? If he had none, then the case can be made that excessive force was used. It would be up to a jury to determine that because “she feared for her life” shooting him was justified. I think she was justified in shooting, but we have seen many crazy things and verdicts placed by juries. The McDonald’s hot coffee episode comes to mind.

  23. Rocky said on 15 Jan 2009 at 11:24 am:
    Flag comment

    DPortM, the “Judge” looks like a fine gun, however, I find
    its 5rd cap to be limited. I’d take my Walther P-38 with a
    couple extra mags.

  24. BattleCat said on 15 Jan 2009 at 11:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Pat,

    Interesting point, the “I doubt a rapist would want to take his chances with a jury” thing.
    Is that what you suppose rapists think about before committing their act? I would suggest that it is only the law-abiding homeowner that has to spend time thinking about the legal ramifications of using deadly force to protect their home/lives. Even if you are in the right, you might lose everything you own in legal fees to prove that in court.

  25. Cheetah said on 15 Jan 2009 at 12:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Glock Model 29. 10mm compact. It’s tough to shoot for most (sort of like trying to get ahold of a wild mustang), but it will obliterate most anything it hits. it’s what I carry daily. i would highly recommend a glock model 27 for Concealed carry, excellent firearm with a popular caliber. Many agencies use this as a solid off-duty firearm.

  26. Pat.Herve said on 15 Jan 2009 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Battlecat,

    can you elaborate, I do not know what you are talking about. I did not mention a rapist (or racist).

  27. Citizen12 said on 15 Jan 2009 at 12:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    BattleCat-

    I would agree it’s the law abiding citizen who thinks about the legal ramifications.

    Depending how the commonwealth views this, the homeowner could be facing more serious charges than the criminal.

    Most would view that an outrageous injustice, but stranger things have happened.

  28. Anchor Baby said on 15 Jan 2009 at 1:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    We need Castle Doctrine in Virginia that will provide for;

    1. Presumption that a homeowner is justified in using force upto and including lethal force to protect life (you cannot use force to protect property in the Commonwealth of Virginia). The burden is on the state to prove that the citizen was not justified vice the citizing having to prove justifiable homicide.

    2. Civil immunity to any person deploying force against the agressor, accomlices, agents of, or the family of the agressor.

    3. Upon an investigation of the local Sheriff or County Police; if the homeowner loses access to his/her weapon, the Sheriff shall provide a firearm to the homeowner until the original is returned.

  29. Pat.Herve said on 15 Jan 2009 at 2:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anchor,

    so my tax dollars will go to
    1) The sherrif to purchase weapons to be distributed.
    2) To administar a gun loan program
    3) To be responsible for the care and maint of said weapons.
    4) The liability of providing said weapon to an individual.

    Sorry - NO.

  30. Johnson said on 15 Jan 2009 at 2:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Pat.Herve-
    C’mon, how much could the budget for a loaner program be? One of the Firearms Instructor/Armorers could handle it, part time. Liability could be handled with a release form. Our tax dollars go for much weirder stuff now.

  31. Cheetah said on 15 Jan 2009 at 2:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    buy your bushmasters while you can! I hear they are going like hotcakes these days :)

  32. Anchor Baby said on 15 Jan 2009 at 2:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    We’re not talking about ’state of the art’ LEO issued AR-15s here - we’re talking about simple 9mm, .40 or .45 Glocks that the police armory already has excess of. If ‘more’ were needed we’re still looking at only a few hundred dollars each - and we wouldn’t need more than five I figure.

    Responsibility of care and maintenance would be handled by the armorer, like all other firearms and would be ’signed out’ to the citizen.

    If the citizen ‘loses’ or has the pistol stolen he’s responsible for paying the retail price of the firearm.

    The pistol would only be loaned out the length of time to determine that there is no reason to prosecute the homeowner. The homeowner would then check the firearm back into the police armory.

    I don’t forsee any ‘liability’ issue as the owner already had a firearm and the county is mearly providing a loaner until an investigation is completed. The homeowner would be ‘liable’ if he goes off and does something illegal.

  33. Anonymous said on 15 Jan 2009 at 3:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Civil immunity is fair, though, on Anchor Baby’s list. Why should the family of a felon get to sue the citizen who defended himself or others? Not fair. And you know the criminals have all got a grieving mama waiting in the wings. (Where the heck mama was when they were growing up rotten and running the streets is a mystery to me, but now she’s here with her hand out trying to shake down her baby’s victims!)

  34. Anonymous said on 15 Jan 2009 at 3:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Most people who own a weapon… own two or more. I would rather just make sure they get their own property back promptly, after the police no longer need it. Should be pretty quick, really. These aren’t the kind of investigations the police like to drag out, unless they really think they smell a lie.

  35. Anonymous said on 15 Jan 2009 at 3:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh and I thought the person posting under Typical UN was trying to be sarcastic? It sounded sarcastic to me. But I guess not to others.

  36. BattleCat said on 15 Jan 2009 at 4:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Pat,

    Sorry, I meant junes_reston. My fault.

  37. Pat.Herve said on 15 Jan 2009 at 5:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, it is ok to increase taxes for a gun loaner program - not in my book, and I am accused of being a liberal. I do agree that there are many many more programs that waste/abuse tax payer money.

    So, the person owns a shotgun, what do we loan them - a 9mm?
    and are we going to train them, excess guns in the PD, well, why are there excess guns in the PD? And when they are returned, who will clean them, make sure they are not damaged, etc - a highly trained gun carrying PO (or sherrif)?

    No, do not increase my taxes for that. If they want another gun, let them go buy one, or better yet, a new business can be created by private enterprise to loan (rent) you an appropriate replacement.

    Does the county loan a car, if they take mine if it is part of an investigation (say if I was carjacked)?

    You would also be surprised at how much it can cost to implement a program that should be easy.

  38. me said on 15 Jan 2009 at 5:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Taking a loner gun from the government? No way! Own multiple ones and there is NEVER an issue…… :)

  39. citizenofmanassas said on 15 Jan 2009 at 5:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Three against one is enough to use a gun for self defense particularly when it is three men against one women is a pretty good case of self defense threat of rape or not. She was in fear of her life, and the fact the stupid a$$ came back is additional proof they meant to do her harm.

  40. Deadeye said on 15 Jan 2009 at 5:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Practice in firing two or three times in quick succession - the “double tap” or “triple tap” - eliminates the possibility of a later lawsuit and seems perfectly justifiable in developing good shooting and self-defense skills. I always work on that at the range. (And doing it with a Remington 870 sounds sooo cool!) If the first shot doesn’t stop ‘em, it’ll certainly slow them long enough to make the second and third more effective! Seriously I keep my 9mm loaded with Hydra-Shok jacketed hollow points.

    Personally I like the loaner ideas given above and would have no problem with my tax dollars spent on such a program. I’d even donate to it if possible. Hell, I’d even be willing to buy this lady a new piece out of my own pocket for what she’s done.

    I won’t call 911 until the smoke clears…

  41. es_la_ley said on 15 Jan 2009 at 7:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anchor Baby said on 15 Jan 2009 at 1:17 pm:

    We need Castle Doctrine in Virginia that will provide for…

    The Castle Doctrine was up for votes in the General Assembly a year ago (Feb ‘08). The House voted 80 yea - 19 nay.

    It went to the Senate “Courts of justice” committee and died there. 4 yea (all Republicans) - 11 nay (3 Reps, 8 Dems).

    I won’t happen until it can get out of that committee.

    http://hoodathunk.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/virginia-senate-leaves-you-vulnerable-to-crushing-lawsuits-for-shooting-an-intruder/

  42. Cheetah said on 16 Jan 2009 at 12:45 am:
    Flag comment

    in a self-defense situation you should unload as many rounds to center mass as humanly possible in that short of a time-line. Shoot with precision at the range of course, but you’ll likely be all over the place in a stressful situation so aim for the largest portion of the body.

    for home, as mentioned before, a shotgun is awesome. Easy to handle, makes a nice racking noise (warning) and the spray pattern gives you some wiggle room as far as aim.

  43. Anonymous said on 16 Jan 2009 at 9:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Cheetah said on 16 Jan 2009 at 12:45 am: Flag comment
    ….a shotgun is awesome. Easy to handle, makes a nice racking noise (warning) and the spray pattern gives you some wiggle room as far as aim.

    But it sure makes a big mess and it’s aftermath takes a lot of cleanup.

  44. junes_reston said on 16 Jan 2009 at 11:36 am:
    Flag comment

    I Bleed Obama Blue said on 15 Jan 2009 at 10:15 am:

    As a matter of reference: People who have nothing logical to contribute resort to adhominens.

  45. Cheetah said on 16 Jan 2009 at 12:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    a big mess yes..but it’s all OK if it’s someone else and not you :)

  46. Johnson said on 16 Jan 2009 at 12:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Thank you, Junes. I will be using that phrase liberally. (yikes!)

    ‘Tis true, though. A lack of logic or reason quickly turns to name calling and personal attacks.

  47. Johnson said on 16 Jan 2009 at 12:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2009/01/15/2009-01-15_she_wants_hubby_deported__but_hes_here_t-3.html

    Shades of the Anti site!

  48. Johnson said on 16 Jan 2009 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beer-bride15-2009jan15,0,6809985.story?track=rss

    Ah, the culture…

  49. citizenofmanassas said on 16 Jan 2009 at 1:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Using a shotgun just means you will have some hamburger to clean up, dry wall to replace and a new paint job. Seriously if anyone does not head the other way after hearing the racking of a shotgun, they deserve to get killed.

  50. citizenofmanassas said on 16 Jan 2009 at 1:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    I bleed Obama blue,

    If we did not have liberals in the County, there would be no need to worry about crime. Thanks for proving once again that liberals hate the Bill of Rights.

  51. es_la_ley said on 16 Jan 2009 at 2:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Cheetah said on 16 Jan 2009 at 12:07 pm:

    a big mess yes..but it’s all OK if it’s someone else and not you :)

    Like my daddy used to say… better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6. :-)

    #4 buckshot is good for a shotgun in the home. It won’t alter the floor or wall design of the house, but it will give a perp a really bad decision-altering rash at the least. 00-buck would be nuts, IMHO, in the home. One should save that for hitting someone THROUGH walls, or car doors, if/when the need arises. :-)

  52. Johnson said on 16 Jan 2009 at 2:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/654847.html

    I love how he “wanted to get a job to support his wife and daughter” but instead was a car thief. Apparently, he wasn’t any good at that either.

  53. Howard the Duck said on 16 Jan 2009 at 4:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    That Taurus Judge looks interesting. Anyone try it? How about recoil, price?

  54. Cheetah said on 16 Jan 2009 at 6:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m getting a bushmaster soon, just for fun :)

  55. Cheetah said on 16 Jan 2009 at 6:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    hey all,

    the anti’s are having another one of their pity parties and guess what??? it’s at a mexican restaurant (again)! apparently the hispanics are the only one’s threatened by the crappy economy. You should check out the youtube video they posted. They are all drinking up with their children present. It was a pretty motley looking crew there too, some of those people look extremely weird too, especially the old lady with no neck (wonder if it’s dolph)

  56. US Citizen said on 17 Jan 2009 at 11:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    The lesson for every US citizen defending his or her life is to ONLY state:

    “I believed the assailant intended to kill me.”

    Let the defense attorney pull together the additional supporting facts. Politically correct law enforcement authorities will misinterpret any futher utterances to the disadvantage of the US citizen defending his or her life.

    While the vast majority of American law enforcement officers are outstanding, don’t let the very few candidates not correctly assessed for a law enforcement career reduce your chance for justice. And when it comes to prosecuting attorneys, well, they are politicians at the end of the day. . .

    And if you think the 2nd Amendment is for someone else, well, you and your family can enjoy the gap between the time local law enforcement are notified of an emergency and the time of their arrival. . .

  57. John Kerry said on 18 Jan 2009 at 1:27 am:
    Flag comment

    No! Stomach shot? C’mon! 2 pops to the head next time!!!

  58. Johnson said on 18 Jan 2009 at 9:33 am:
    Flag comment

    US Citizen-

    “I was in fear for my life”, “I shot him until he stopped”.

    It’s all good.

  59. Cheetah said on 18 Jan 2009 at 1:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m surprised the hysterical hippo’s of haymarket are not chatting about how we should take away everyone’s guns and stuff…interesting

  60. es_la_ley said on 18 Jan 2009 at 3:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    US Citizen said on 17 Jan 2009 at 11:06 pm:

    The lesson for every US citizen defending his or her life is to ONLY state:

    “I believed the assailant intended to kill me.”

    Let the defense attorney pull together the additional supporting facts. Politically correct law enforcement authorities will misinterpret any futher utterances to the disadvantage of the US citizen defending his or her life.

    Good advice! Needs repeated.

  61. Dave in PWC said on 19 Jan 2009 at 9:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Too bad this young lady wasn’t packing in Gaithersburg or maybe she could have avoided being kidnapped and raped.

    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1578873

  62. chicko said on 19 Jan 2009 at 10:28 am:
    Flag comment

    es,

    my wife has a mossburg on her side, loaded with 00 buck. Want to ensure she only has to make one shot and one shot only. I personally keep my trust 10mm with me on a daily basis, it took awhile to get used to but for stopping power totally awesome.

  63. FOIA said on 19 Jan 2009 at 2:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    The most painful and organ destroying is a shot about 5-8 inches above the groin, this is also known as a gut shot. It doesn’t kill immediately, causes intense pain, usually results in death by infection or blood loss. If by infection takes only a few days, if by blood loss only takes about 15 minutes. If the perp survives he/she will usually be crapping into a plastic bag the rest of its life.

  64. Cynic said on 1 Feb 2009 at 3:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    1 - We should throw a party for this woman.
    2 - I would think that she was not only responding to the fear of
    being raped but also the fear of being murdered. So, deadly
    forced was justified.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2027