Donna Hopper had first fired warning shots at the man after she was awakened by the sound of him trying to break into her Branstetter Lane bedroom window just before 4 a.m., Shasta County Chief Deputy District Attorney Josh Lowery said.
She shot him when he came back and tried to climb inside the window a second time, Lowery said.
Does that add up to you? I realize when seconds count the cops are minutes away, but does that mean the guy came back a second time only seconds later. And besides that, what kind of home invader comes back after being shot at? Didn't the gun-rights folks tell us having a gun in the home deters that kind of thing?
Now, wait just a dog gone minute. By blaming this on the overcrowded jails and early release of this guy Jesse, are they saying everyone locked up for a misdemeanor should stay in jail? "Obstructing a public officer and trespassing, both misdemeanors" should result in no bail, and what, a life sentence?Theis [Jesse Edward Theis, the intruder] had been released from the Shasta County jail the morning before the shooting after he was arrested Thursday on suspicion of obstructing a public officer and trespassing, both misdemeanors.
Capt. Don Van Buskirk, the jail's top administrator, said Theis was released before posting $6,000 bail because the jail was at capacity. Because jailers have limited bed space, every day they're required to release those they determine to be the least-risky inmates to stave off overcrowding.
The guy who wrote this story seems to have a passing familiarity with all the gun-rights arguments about home defense, but not quite enough to put it together properly.
As an aside, doesn't Jesse Theis look like the homeless guy McNulty kidnapped in Season 5 of the Wire?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
If you break into my home I will kill you. No matter who you are. I own multiple weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition; haven't killed anyone. YET!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, Emmanuel. You sound like a right neighborly guy. I hope none of the local teens get get drunk and mistake your house for theirs. If you killed one of them I'm sure you'd have no trouble justifying it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Emmanuel's comment has the supposition that he would be home when someone broke in, which is unlikely since most criminals may be stupid, but they aren't that stupid to break into a home with someone there.
ReplyDeleteThey prefer to burglarise places where there AREN'T occupants.
More likely, Emmanuel's home would be burglarised and the firearms find their way to the criminal segment of society.
Which will then use them against Emmanuel.
When jesse wants in your house open the door so he wont be a criminal and have to break it down. Then say you poor homless vic of society baby take my food, wife whatever you want to make you feel better. HELL take my Life!
ReplyDelete*Note: You Sappsuckers deserve what you want.
How come he did not take the gun from her?
ReplyDeleteThat is what is supposed to happen?
Wha? wrote:
ReplyDelete"How come he did not take the gun from her?
That is what is supposed to happen?"
That is what happens, Wha? in some cases,arguably many cases. We post examples of those cases here regularly; if you've missed them, check our archive.
Does it happen in EVERY case? No. But it happens often enough to be a legitimate concern, a legitimate argument about the effectiveness of firearms for personal defense. The attitudes of people like our commenter Emmanual (interesting name, interesting attitude,in the context of our series on the old and new testamenttexts supporting gun control, a very non-Christian attitude) assume, as Laci pointed out, that you are home at the time,to be the first person who has access to your firearm in a conflict.
In this instance, the woman used her weapon, with the warning shots, while it still gave her the advantage offered by a firearm of distance from an attacker. On the other hand, I was taught that one doesn't DO 'warning shots', which has me wondering at 4 a.m. when it is dark, how much she was able to know where those shots might end up. It would seem to me questionable that she could fire off warning shots without putting other people at risk. Beyond that, I was taught you don't shoot unless your intent is to kill - no warning shots, no wounding shots.
I also wonder from the wording fo this report, if before she fired, OR after she fired those warning shots, Ms. Hopper called 911. Because if she had done so, at either time, and Theis was still in the area (which he must have been if he returned so soon after his first attempt) then why didn't the police come across him, and why wasn't he deterred by the presence of poice at her home?
So, NO, this doesn't 'add up' to me, not at all. The prog-gun lunatics like commenter Emmanuel, are so excited over the apparent use of a gun for self defense they practically wet themselves.
What they don't do is apply cool, logical critical thinking to asking questions. Because they don't want to know the truth and they probably wouldn't like the answers.
So I'm wondering about the lighting on the premises - why would this guy try to get in the same window? Why not try some other location, or simply retreat to try someone else, somewhere else, another time.
I'd find this another instance where in order to believe Ms. Hopper's story, I would first want to know if there was any connection between her and Theis that might provide a more plausible explanation for this series of events.
I'm skeptical that way of what I read. More people should be about what they believe; we'd have fewer gullible people among us if they did.
Once again, a post that looks at the idiocy of gunzloonz' ridiculous assertions about DGU's and the like seems to attract the burnin' stoopit like shit does flies.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile the story about some asshole killing his wife and then not even having the decency to swallow his gun attracts...crickets.
Fellas, you're really, really not fooling anybody except yourselves.