Woman kills intruder with 16-gauge shotgun while 911 listens

[Bill Mattocks]

CNN has the 911 tape recording online.

I've always been an advocate of the shotgun as a home defense weapon. It is handy, easy to use, accuracy is not a requirement, and it has little risk of over-penetration. As this woman demonstrated, it can also be used while talking on the phone to 911.

And I'm a huge fan of the 16 gauge! The 16 is a nice compromise between the 20, which is way underpowered for self-defense in my opinion, and the 12, which is fine but can be too much for some people - too much muzzle blast, too much kick. The 16 is just a fine, fine, weapon. Too bad it is out of favor these days.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091204_11_0_Anintr984663

Lincoln County woman shoots, kills intruder

By MATT BARNARD World Staff Writer
Published: 12/4/2009 8:03 AM
Last Modified: 12/4/2009 2:48 PM

.leadp { font-size:14px; color:#626466; } An intruder who broke into a Lincoln County woman's home was killed early Friday when the woman armed herself and shot him.

Donna Jackson, 57, was asleep when she heard Billy Dean Riley pounding on her back door about 12:45 a.m., Sheriff Chuck Mangion said.

While on the phone with a 911 dispatcher, Jackson went to investigate and Riley tossed a patio table through the glass door before coming inside. She fired one blast from a 16-gauge shotgun, hitting him in the chest, Mangion said.

 

[Stuey]

Man, I wish that in the UK we could keep actual weapons in our own home to defend ourselves. Its seen over here as paraphernalia of drug dealing/abusing (in my experience). Gosh, why would a law abiding person want to defend themselves in their own home I wonder?!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Man, I wish that in the UK we could keep actual weapons in our own home to defend ourselves. Its seen over here as paraphernalia of drug dealing/abusing (in my experience). Gosh, why would a law abiding person want to defend themselves in their own home I wonder?!

In the United States, the US Supreme Court has stated on numerous occasions that it is not the duty of the police to protect citizens:

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

What this means is that self-defense is the responsibility of the individual. In the USA, that has historically been understood, and citizens have not complained that they are 'on their own' to protect themselves, choosing not to rely upon the state to protect them in real-time against whatever random dangers might come their way.

This historical understanding was coupled, however, with an understanding that law-abiding citizens have the right to arm themselves in order that they can provide for their own defense (as well as for other reasons).

In recent decades, both traditional understandings have come under challenge and have been subject to the changing tides of public opinion. Many are those who now feel that the state should indeed be considered the primary protector of the individual citizen, rather than the citizen themselves, and likewise that citizens therefore should not be armed.

In my opinion, one cannot exist without the other. The Supreme Court has always said, and continues to say, that the job of the police is not to protect the individual citizen. If that job falls on the individual themselves, then they must have the means by which to do so. That means access to firearms.

I mean this not as a criticism of any nation or their own system of governance. However, as often as I find the my nation to be messed up, wrong, and sometimes even idiotic, I could not live anywhere else in the world. I keep firearms and I always will. I won't have them taken from me by any legal entity for any reason whatsoever as long as I remain a law-abiding citizen, and I'll defend myself using them if forced to. I am a free man.

 

[Tez3]

Man, I wish that in the UK we could keep actual weapons in our own home to defend ourselves. Its seen over here as paraphernalia of drug dealing/abusing (in my experience). Gosh, why would a law abiding person want to defend themselves in their own home I wonder?!

Why can't you? I have shotguns legally in my house. Along with many others you are under the assumption that we cannot defend ourselves here, well it maybe a surprise but you can. There is absolutely nothing against the law that says you can't defend yourself against someone entering your house if you are in fear of your life, you can even strike first.
Please read up the laws before spouting stuff from The Sun about how defenceless we are and please don't quote the Tony Martin case as that was a whole different situation where he lured young men into his house then shot them as they were escaping, he also made threats to kill his brother among others. His was never a case of self defence. There has been no case of anyone being proscecuted for defending themselves legally in this country despite what the tabloids tell you.
Having weapons is not seen as having anything to do with drugs here, that certainly is your experience not mine or much of the rest of the UK. I live in the country and we all have shotguns to shoot game with and if necessary people too such as poachers and burglars certainly, we just don't have many. All you need to get a shotgun is a certificate and somewhere safe to keep it, no point in having one if a burglar can walk in and pinch it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I live in the country and we all have shotguns to shoot game with and if necessary people too such as poachers and burglars certainly, we just don't have many. All you need to get a shotgun is a certificate and somewhere safe to keep it, no point in having one if a burglar can walk in and pinch it.

Not to criticize, but in the UK (and in most countries), one has the right to own a firearm if one is permitted to by the government. In the US, one has the right as a basic civil liberty, which can only be infringed by (constitutional) act of law. It's a different way of looking at things.

 

[Tez3]

Not to criticize, but in the UK (and in most countries), one has the right to own a firearm if one is permitted to by the government. In the US, one has the right as a basic civil liberty, which can only be infringed by (constitutional) act of law. It's a different way of looking at things.

No, the right to own a shotgun is given by the police whose oaths are to the Queen not the government.
If we wanted to be armed we can change our government and demand we are armed. If the wish to be armed was universal in the UK how long do you think a government would hold out?

 

[tshadowchaser]

Back to the lady who defended herself and her home.
It may be seen as excessive but I applaud her for doing so

 

[CoryKS]

Back to the lady who defended herself and her home.
It may be seen as excessive but I applaud her for doing so

I don't see how it would be excessive, she only took one shot. Had she taken one fewer, it might have ended badly for her.

 

[Tez3]

Back to the lady who defended herself and her home.
It may be seen as excessive but I applaud her for doing so

As far as I could see she did all the right things, she phoned the police then defended herself as she was in fear of her life. Even here that's allowed.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Kudos to her.

The intruder got what they deserved.

They freely chose to break into her home; therefore, they accepted the risk that the homeowner may be armed and willing to defend themselves.

His death is his fault and nobody elses.

'nuff said.

 

[MA-Caver]

Anybody pounding loudly on the door in the middle of the night and then throwing a patio table through a glass door and entering ... Would in all probability NOT have the best intentions. Granted the guy was smelling of alcohol... and MAYBE thought he was at his house and was trying to get in.
Mistakes happen... but it could've turned out worse if the lady had not shot him.

 

[MJS]

Good for her! Who knows what would've happened had this woman not had the gun. The guy got what he deserved, IMHO. Excessive? I dont think so. I listened to this clip earlier today (link was posted elsewhere) and kinda skimmed thru it, but in this situation, when you dont know what intentinos this guy had, any weapons, etc., she did the right thing.

 

[SensibleManiac]

Anybody pounding loudly on the door in the middle of the night and then throwing a patio table through a glass door and entering ... Granted the guy was smelling of alcohol... and MAYBE thought he was at his house and was trying to get in.
Mistakes happen...

Hey, happens to me all the time, I get ***** faced and throw patio tables through my door instead of just using my keys, (uh not really).

 

[Deaf Smith]

Here in Texas we have the Castle Doctrine and the 'Stand Your Ground' law. That is with the Castle Doctrine you are considered in fear of your life if anyone invades your house. The police MUST consider that to be fact when they come. You can use lethal force to stop the invaders and nether the invaders NOR THEIR KIN, can sue you.

And with the 'Stand Your Ground' law, if, outside your home, you are legally where you are when attacked AND you did not provoke the attack, you have NO DUTY TO RETREAT.

Add our CHL (Concealed Handgun License) which is a 'shall issue' item, then it can be quite dangerous for those wishing to do harm.

But the only question I have to ask the lady with the 16 gauge scattergun is.... was it full choke or modified?

Deaf

 

[seasoned]

A persons home is their castle. This is basic knowledge for everyone. If you force your way into this castle, you are inviting trouble. If you are drunk, deranged or drugged up, it makes no difference. We are required in all situations of physical contact to do all we can to preserve life, and prove our actions in a court of law. Forced entry in the wee hours of the night into a persons castle carries few exceptions. In this situation you cross a line of no return, and risk deadly physical force upon you. My only response to this post would be a resounding "good for you", you kept your cool and did what you had to do faced with the situation at hand. Also, as Bill said, 16ga shot gun, good choice.

 

[Archangel M]

Good comments. The only thing I can comment on Bill is the "accuracy is not a requirement" line. Accuracy is always a requirement IMO. At social ranges 00-Buck only spreads a few inches and I want all pellets hitting the BG...a pellet is pretty much equal to a .38 cal round and can travel through a wall and hit someone in the next room. People can and have missed with the SG.

And Tez..Bill is right as I see it. "The Police give permission not the Gvt" seems a bit of semantic slieght of hand. The Police are a representative of some form of authority with the power to limit the freedom of the populace. "Queen" or "government"...here in the USA for all practical purposes..if they have the power to grant or deny they are "the government".

The point is that here in the USA the gvt has to provide a reason for NOT letting you have a weapon. Even in our more restrictive states, a person WILL get a weapon unless the gvt can state a valid reason for not granting a permit. While where you are someone has to "give permission" to have one.

 

[Tez3]

Archangel, it may be semantics tue enough but the problem is that everyone, including some English it seems, think that we arent allowed weapons at all and it annoys me a bit that 'foreigners' think that but it appalls me that my own countrymen don't know their own laws so I get somewhat fed up at criticism.
I'm tired of the UK being portrayed as some place where crime is rampant and the people powerless. Only lazy people are powerless. We get a couple of burglaries here and everyone is blaming the police but when you look at the facts you'll find the householders practically invited them in, windows left open or unlocked, doors with flimsy locks, ladders left in sight, keys left tied to the door so they can be pulled out through the letterbox to open it, valuables left within sight. Prevention is the first and easiest step to take but seemingly the hardest for many. There's Neighbourhood Watch but many people are 'too busy' to bother. Many people are also too busy to help the police when it comes to helping them when they ask for witnesses something which really annoys me.
On the subject of firearms the truth is that only a few are in favour of being armed here, its not the government. It doesn't come up in political debates, no one is petitioning their MPs nor is any newspaper campaigning. TBH it's a non issue here, only outsiders think it is., Now rightly or wrongly thats how we are, we don't have firearms for all. We rioted not so long ago and got rid of the hated Poll tax, if owning firearms was an issue here, we'd riot again and force the government to change the laws especially now with a General Election on the horizon next year. I can tell you now the electorate will not be clamouring for us to all be armed if we wish, in fact I think the Afghan war and the budget will be the big issues, politicial forecasters are predicting some dirty campaigns and of course as the BNP (the Nazis) are going to be involved I think there will be violence on the streets.

 

[Stuey]

Why can't you? I have shotguns legally in my house. Along with many others you are under the assumption that we cannot defend ourselves here, well it maybe a surprise but you can. There is absolutely nothing against the law that says you can't defend yourself against someone entering your house if you are in fear of your life, you can even strike first.
Please read up the laws before spouting stuff from The Sun about how defenceless we are and please don't quote the Tony Martin case as that was a whole different situation where he lured young men into his house then shot them as they were escaping, he also made threats to kill his brother among others. His was never a case of self defence. There has been no case of anyone being proscecuted for defending themselves legally in this country despite what the tabloids tell you.
Having weapons is not seen as having anything to do with drugs here, that certainly is your experience not mine or much of the rest of the UK. I live in the country and we all have shotguns to shoot game with and if necessary people too such as poachers and burglars certainly, we just don't have many. All you need to get a shotgun is a certificate and somewhere safe to keep it, no point in having one if a burglar can walk in and pinch it.

Really? Then why can one no longer buy things like swords etc? Because they are, or can be offensive weapons. Sure we can defend our selves and be within the law, but offensive weapons are frowned upon. I have no land to shoot game off of. Do you think I could get a permit for a weapon? It is not my birth right to own and use a gun by virtue of being a citizen of the UK. It is an application, which by my understanding is judged in a case by case way. The question asked is 'why do you need a shot gun'. The emphasis is on the do you NEED one? If the answer is no will you get one: NO!
On to defense. I didnt say that it was illegal to protect oneself. In fact I said the opposite. But it will need to be proven that you need to justify the feeling of threat. I know the law, maybe not in depth, but I know what I need to. I know that offensive weapons are frowned upon, and in my experience mostly associated with drug abuse.
I used to be in the armed forces. Every guard duty I got dicked with I got informed of the limit of my powers. If someone steals your stuff you dont have authority to shoot them unless you feel you are under threat or in danger. You must use the Minimum force necessary.

 

[Tez3]

Really? Then why can one no longer buy things like swords etc? Because they are, or can be offensive weapons. Sure we can defend our selves and be within the law, but offensive weapons are frowned upon. I have no land to shoot game off of. Do you think I could get a permit for a weapon? It is not my birth right to own and use a gun by virtue of being a citizen of the UK. It is an application, which by my understanding is judged in a case by case way. The question asked is 'why do you need a shot gun'. The emphasis is on the do you NEED one? If the answer is no will you get one: NO!
On to defense. I didnt say that it was illegal to protect oneself. In fact I said the opposite. But it will need to be proven that you need to justify the feeling of threat. I know the law, maybe not in depth, but I know what I need to. I know that offensive weapons are frowned upon, and in my experience mostly associated with drug abuse.
I used to be in the armed forces. Every guard duty I got dicked with I got informed of the limit of my powers. If someone steals your stuff you dont have authority to shoot them unless you feel you are under threat or in danger. You must use the Minimum force necessary.

No, minimum force was replaced by reasonable force. You can buy swords actually quite easily what you can't buy is the cheap replicas off market stalls. As you used to be in the forces you will know as a 'modplod' I know the law and it's as I said. By the way you aren't a citizen of the UK you are a subject of the Queen, we don't have a constitution and any rights you have are granted by parliament and the Queen, thats the difference between the States and us.
You don't need land to shoot off, many people are either in syndicates or just go off and shoot on common land so besides having a weapon to defnd yourself with you also get food for cheap.
Shooting people because they steal your stuff is hardly the best solution as you well know, in certain regiment's barrack blocks we'd have no soldiers left if they got shot for stealing kit, we are also talking about the 'gizits', a soldier sees something and its 'give it here it's mine now', a common problem.
Military law is different from civil law, I was also in the forces before doing my present job, if you go to this thread I have already shown what our laws are regarding self defence and weapons.
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82614&page=2

 

[Stuey]

No, minimum force was replaced by reasonable force. You can buy swords actually quite easily what you can't buy is the cheap replicas off market stalls. As you used to be in the forces you will know as a 'modplod' I know the law and it's as I said. By the way you aren't a citizen of the UK you are a subject of the Queen, we don't have a constitution and any rights you have are granted by parliament and the Queen, thats the difference between the States and us.
You don't need land to shoot off, many people are either in syndicates or just go off and shoot on common land so besides having a weapon to defnd yourself with you also get food for cheap.
Shooting people because they steal your stuff is hardly the best solution as you well know, in certain regiment's barrack blocks we'd have no soldiers left if they got shot for stealing kit, we are also talking about the 'gizits', a soldier sees something and its 'give it here it's mine now', a common problem.
Military law is different from civil law, I was also in the forces before doing my present job, if you go to this thread I have already shown what our laws are regarding self defence and weapons.
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82614&page=2

Now your just mocking me. lol
As a MODplod both military AND civil law applies to these instances. My point with shooting licenses is that they are not just handed out. They are designed to keep guns out of hands. The emphasis is on not giving licenses.
Had I a license and shotgun I doubt if I would actually use it in a robbery situation unless really pushed to. If I were an old lady awoken in the middle of the night by a robber I would certainly feel threatened enough to shoot someone.
Also, keeping things like a baseball bat behind the door would be frowned upon and perhaps seen as offensive. Lucky you and the rest of the UK who you speak for that you have no experience with drug abusers.