Thursday, June 13, 2013

Go Granny Go!

This story was sent in by a bunch of people:

Grandma, 72, shoots at home intruder in California, defends actions
STANTON, Calif. – A 72-year-old Southern California grandmother who shot at -- and narrowly missed -- a man trying to break into her home said Tuesday she was shocked at the attention her action was getting but does not regret defending herself and her husband, an 85-year-old World War II veteran who uses a wheelchair.

Jan Cooper, of Anaheim, fired one shot from her .357-magnum Smith & Wesson revolver around 12:30 a.m. Sunday as a man attempted to break into her home. During a 911 call of the incident, Cooper can be heard begging with the dispatcher to send deputies and warns that she has a gun at the ready as her Rottweiler barks furiously in the background.
She shot at the intruder a few minutes after calling 911. Again, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Now, granted, they arrived shortly after the shot was fired, so in this case they might have arrived in time. I'm not a fan of firing warning shots in general; I'm firmly of the opinion that if the danger isn't enough to fire at the perpetrator, it's not enough to fire a warning shot. She mentioned not being sure if she hit the intruder or not, so I can chalk this up to a miss rather than a warning shot, though.

What is interesting, though, is that the intruder was not deterred by the barking dog - nor by the fact that he had a lengthy rap sheet and was out on parole - but he was deterred by knowing that his potential victims were armed and unafraid to take shots at him. The dog part disturbs me - although they don't mention if this was a real dog a la German Shepherd or something like a toy poodle, which is technically part of the pillow family rather than canine - the dude just ignores a Rottweiler? Really?. Seriously, though, if he's willing to deal with a dog inside the house, he's not terribly concerned about the consequences of going in.

And again, it's worth noting that the forces against freedom would have preferred this 72 year old woman be unarmed against an intruder more than half her age. They would rather she cower in her home, disarmed, while a convicted felon forces his way inside. They would prefer that she not have the best tool for self defense possible, relying instead on the kindness of the man breaking into her house. That's not a winning strategy in anyone's book. This person is not dissuaded by the laws on the books against breaking and entering - why on earth should you assume that they aren't going to do you harm?

In the end, it was the best of all possible outcomes. The intruder was deterred, failing to gain access to the house where she and her war hero husband live. She was not forced to kill or injure the intruder, sparing her a trial, civil court, or even the self-doubt and general recriminations that can come from even the most righteous of shootings. With any luck she won't be prosecuted - this is California, after all; perhaps the distress of the loud gun shot might have scared a few hippies, and the crooks will steer clear of the little ol' lady with a .357 Magnum.

And if one of them does come back, I really hope she asks them if they feel lucky...

That is all.

7 comments:

Tass said...

I think the dog was a Rottie...that should have been enough of a deterrant! No telling what would have happened if the guy was willing to face off with a rottie going nuts.

Cormac said...

It also doesn't say whether the dog was secured in the back yard, or in a cage, or something like that...

jetfxr69 said...

Um. Yeah.

As Tass said, Rottweiler. It's mentioned in the quoted piece of the article.

My Beagles, on the other hand, would lick an intruder to death after they barked...

Need moar coffee!

Jay G said...

Why, that it does. Reading comprehension fail on my part I guess...

Bob S. said...

Let's not forget the 'duty to retreat' so many anti-rights cultists like to push.

And the fact her husband is a 85 year old disabled vet that needs a wheel chair. Think that might make it a tad difficult for them to get safely out of the house?

Ed said...

If she had used the archery equipment, thrown a knife, or even jabbed at the intruder with a fire-hardened pointed stick, how much effort would have been made on identifying whether she was "qualified" to possess and use the weapon by either the police or the media?

Use a gun to defend yourself in your home? Be prepared to defend yourself from the government.

TOTWTYTR said...

The police should immediately take this women into custody. Then they should driver her to the range and make her practice until she can hit the bastard at ten feet.

That's the only thing she did wrong, she missed.