Texan Pulls Pistol on Trespassing Dane
Terkel Svensson, a writer for the Danish News Agency, could not get wireless Internet access at the schoolhouse to file a story. But Svensson could get his cell phone working so he called his editor in Copenhagen and started wandering across a quiet country road as he chatted away.
“I was just so occupied dictating my story that I didn’t really see where I went,” Svensson told me later. “I was just walking and talking.”
What Svensson didn’t realize was that he had stopped walking a couple hundred feet away, on the front lawn of an elderly woman. An elderly woman who looked through her window and didn’t like that a strange man was standing outside her house. An elderly woman who had, um, a gun.
Next thing you know the woman is outside, no more than a few dozen feet from the journalist, demanding that he leave. “Suddenly she comes out and she says, ‘Get off my property. You’re trespassing,’” recalled Svensson.
Svensson was too preoccupied to notice the pistol, and was not aware that Texas law gives homeowners leeway on using a weapon when someone is trespassing on your property. All of us journalists across the street were too far away to see the pistol at first, until a Danish photographer with a telephoto lens announced to a bunch of us that there was indeed a weapon in the elderly woman’s right hand.
Texas law gives homeowners leeway on using a weapon when someone is trespassing on your property
Damn, I bet a lot of kids just chose to write off their errant balls and frisbees in that state.
Or will they change the name of the state to Paranoia?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2008 at 2055 hrs
Wait, we applaud people who pull guns on others who absent-mindedly wander across property lines?
Owen, what am I missing here? Some of the verbal ad hominem present on this blog represents a much greater breach of propriety than an accidental excursion onto someone’s lawn. Would you recommend we settle our difference here by confronting one another with firearms?
Or are you simply saying, “Guns are cool!”?
Posted by Mike on March 02, 2008 at 2128 hrs
Damn, I bet a lot of kids just chose to write off their errant balls and frisbees in that state.
Get real fear-monger
we applaud people who pull guns on others
Being in possesion of a firearm and “pulling a gun” have very different connotations.
I think ‘pulling a gun’ is a bit of an overstatement.
But yeah, Guns are cool. Magnificent pieces of machinery. Everyone should own a dozen or so and familiarize themselves with their usage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2008 at 2138 hrs
Is the gun porno so compelling that you fail to see how this makes our country look like a bunch of damned fools? Not a good thing we owe the rest of the world so much money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2008 at 2234 hrs
You see fools. I see a woman taking responsibility for protecting her private property rights. Look past the gun and to the woman who has a right to her property being unmolested by trespassers.
Posted by Owen on March 02, 2008 at 2247 hrs
Exactly how was the reporter molesting her property? By simply accidentally walking on it?
I would definitely call that an over-reaction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2008 at 2308 hrs
Hindsight is 20/20. If some freak is wandering across my property, you’ll find me on the lawn with a shotgun. I don’t know what his intentions are. If he proves to be harmless, then he can just get the hell off my property. If he has some evil intentions, the he can find a doctor.
Posted by Owen on March 02, 2008 at 2310 hrs
Exactly how was the reporter molesting her property? By simply accidentally walking on it?
I would definitely call that an over-reaction.
Is it over-reaction when a cop unholsters his weapon when he approaches a car on a traffic stop?
Better safe then sorry.
She exercized her right to go armed. Nothing wrong with that.
When I lived in st’allis i was startled awake one night by a noise. Grabbed my glock and went to see wtf was up. Couldn’t find anything wrong, all the doors were closed, locked, windows secure. So I went back to bed.
Was I over-reacting? Well in hindsight perhaps yes, but in foresight i was just be precautious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2008 at 2326 hrs
Yeah… armed resistance is always irrational, right?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_re_us/texas_deaths;_ylt=AhY2cM_FsLZZc6zl2e.eM7ys0NUE
Posted by Owen on March 02, 2008 at 2337 hrs
Why is an elderly woman - with no other means of self defense - considered crazy for showing a gun and telling him to move on? She didn’t shoot him - she warned him. How does she know they guy isn’t a robber or rapist?
If someone comes into my house without permission, they will be looking down the wrong end of a double barrelled 12 gauge.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2008 at 2354 hrs
Is the gun porno so compelling that you fail to see how this makes our country look like a bunch of damned fools?
No, I really don’t care. Why do I care what a Frenchman or a person from Ghana thinks about us. Maybe you do, but that is your problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 0158 hrs
More citizens like this = less crime. When start becoming their own first responders crime will go down. Just common sense. By the way, she didn’t “pull a gun” on anyone. She was merely carrying her firearm. At my house the response would have been exactly the same.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 0537 hrs
Or a person from China or a person from Japan or a person from the UK or a person from Saudi Arabia—who have or will be loaning this country money because, you know, we have a president who can’t balance a budget. That’s OUR problem.
Only a real hick or a child like Mark Belling doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks of us.
Come on Dan. We all know America is not isolated and it would be nice if as a country we could find a way to behave ourselves. Guns don’t stop crime. They cause crime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 0738 hrs
Hey Keith, do you think that Shakespeare is worthy of praise, or the pencil he used? What about your favorite singer? Are they great performers, or is it the CD / Digital Tape they are recorded onto?
>Guns don’t stop crime. They cause crime.
How can an inanimate object be causal in any way? Are you an animist?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 0802 hrs
I repeat:
Some of the verbal ad hominem present on this blog represents a much greater breach of propriety than an accidental excursion onto someone’s lawn. Would you recommend we settle our difference here by confronting one another with firearms?
Is there a response?
Posted by Mike on March 03, 2008 at 0834 hrs
If “our difference” consists of your right to trespass on someone else’s property, than yes, firearms are appropriate. This woman did not shoot the man, she confronted him and sent him on his way. Good.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 0909 hrs
This guy made a mistake. You guys think the proper way to correct someones mistake is to confront them with a lethal weapon? What kind of society have we created where that is the preffered method of conflict resolution?
Wouldn’t the more civil way to deal with it be to stick the gun behind you in your waistband and yell at the guy when he is within earshot to inform him that he was tresspassing and kindly ask him to turn around and get off your property?
Just because you have a right to threaten someone with a weapon does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1001 hrs
She did not threaten anyone with a gun. She merely carried a gun. The man didn’t know she was even armed until after he had left and saw photographs.
She did kindly ask him to leave and he left. I believe, 3rd way, that she acted precisely as you suggest she should have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1016 hrs
She brandished a weapon. According to the story there are witnesses who saw a gun in her hand. I think it is absurd to commend someone for doing that. 99% of the time the tresspasser will apologize and remove themself from your property when asked politely. If they don’t then you display your weapon. Only in an uncivil society would you need to confront someone with a weapon when requesting them to respect your property rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1026 hrs
Where else would an old woman carry a gun? Suggesting she stick a gun in her waistband is absurd.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1041 hrs
C’mon BVBigBro you are now taking absurdity to absurd levels. They don’t have pockets in Texas?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1046 hrs
I don’t know why I am even arguing in this womans defense for toting a weapon at all.
There is nothing in the story to suggest that this guy was some sort of a threat that warranted carrying any weapon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1049 hrs
If they don’t then you display your weapon. Only in an uncivil society would you need to confront someone with a weapon when requesting them to respect your property rights.
Tell this to any police officer in this city. Listen to them laugh at you.
I think it is absurd to commend someone for doing that. 99% of the time the tresspasser will apologize and remove themself from your property when asked politely. If they don’t then you display your weapon.
Good god 3rd Way… You’re grasping for a point here.
This lady didn’t run out waving a gun and threatening anyone.
Perhaps her pants had an elastic waist-band and she had no place to conceal the gun. Highly likely.
Someone was trespassing on her property, she armed herself, walked outside and asked them to leave.
Perhaps in your factitious little world you think she would have gone and changed her pants, or first put on a tactical jacket that would have permitted her to conceal the weapon. Then gone to have a talk with the trespasser.
This really wasn’t that complicated. Someone was trespassing, she had NO idea who it was, she wasn’t going to take any chances and she didn’t stop and think about how some liberal in Wisconsin was going to critique her actions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1052 hrs
If “our difference” consists of your right to trespass on someone else’s property, than yes, firearms are appropriate.
No, “our difference[s]” refers to the insults many of us hurl at one another in the course of public discourse. My point was that if I called someone an a-hole, say, that breach of propriety is greater than accidentally stepping onto someone’s property. Do folks commending the gun-toting granny advocate brandishing firearms as a way to settle these breaches of propriety?
Still no direct answer to the question. I am close to assuming there is none.
Posted by Mike on March 03, 2008 at 1054 hrs
She’s on her own property. She doesn’t need your permission, my permission, the government’s permission, the media’s permission or Denmark’s permission to be armed.
Are you really suggesting people carry arms in their pockets or waistbands? There are some basic safety issues involving carrying guns.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1056 hrs
I just reread the story. The claim that she is right to display a weapon is starting to seem even more absurd to me. This elderly woman was within range of a schoolhouse and she was elderly. I would be pissed off if I was dropping my kid off at school and some crazy old coot is confronting a Danish guy with a gun down the road.
The gun culture in this country sometimes does frighten me. Situations like this certainly don’t make us feel proud of how many guns we have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1056 hrs
Only in an uncivil society would you need to confront someone with a weapon when requesting them to respect your property rights.
Sorry… I don’t think you get to decide what makes a society civilized or uncivilized.
C’mon BVBigBro you are now taking absurdity to absurd levels. They don’t have pockets in Texas?
3rd Way, do we really need to argue about wether her pants had pockets or not? Wether her gun would fit in her pocket or not (good grief, have you ever held a gun? Most wouldn’t fit in your typical pants/jeans pocket very well at all)
There is nothing uncivilized about arming yourself and being prepared for someone who has bad intentions.
There is nothing wrong with have that weapon visible so that someone who is trespassing doesn’t get any thoughts about being a wise-guy or worse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1059 hrs
If the default for chasing someone off the lawn is to go armed (Owen’s words, “pulls pistol”) then America is in sadder shape than anyone could imagine. The lunatics are running the asylum.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1117 hrs
In my factitious little world a little old lady leans her heads out the door to the oblivious European wandering down the street from the school where he is reporting and kindly asks him to remove himself from her property. The place I live in is called civilized western society. I am not going to put a label on the sort of society you wish to live where someone that appears to pose no threat should be confronted with firearm.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1118 hrs
doesn’t get any thoughts about being a wise-guy
Huh? She needs to arm herself to defend against snide comments?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1122 hrs
There is nothing wrong with have that weapon visible so that someone who is trespassing doesn’t get any thoughts about being a wise-guy or worse.
So now the second amendment trumps the first? You carry a gun to keep me from mouthing off? A little chilling… not what the fathers likely intended by a well armed militia.
Posted by Mike on March 03, 2008 at 1139 hrs
OK- that last comment was a joke—mostly
Posted by Mike on March 03, 2008 at 1140 hrs
This woman lives near the Bush ranch. For the last seven years she has been subjected to an endless parade of loonballs expressing their opinions with little regard for her desire. Remember the Sheehan circus? Remeber the other media circuses? I fail to recall a similar outcry from Western Civilization for her well-being and her rights when the circus came to town.
Now, because some Dane doesn’t like his cell phone coverage she’s supposed to let the circus on her front lawn, or at least only confront them politely while subjucating her rights to the rights of the circus, even on her own property.
I’m sorry, but no. Traipsing onto someone’s lawn and then making a cell phone call is the height of incivility. For the last seven years her home has been her refuge and now you want to take that too. No thanks. Her home is her castle. Her castle was invaded and she successfully repelled the invaders. Liberty 1, Euroweenies 0.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1204 hrs
Hey, if you don’t want to get shot, then you shouldn’t be in America. Simple as that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1208 hrs
I should have written “can’t get internet service” instead of “doesn’t like his cell phone coverage”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1219 hrs
Hey, if you don’t want to get shot, then you shouldn’t be in America.
Arm yourself or suffer the consequences. This is where we are headed. Good work people, we should all pat ourselves on the back for that one. That is certainly not the America my grandfather grew up in and fought for, but it might be the one that my daughter has to deal with.
If this woman has a persistent problem with people traipsing on her property the correct way to deal with it is put up a sign or put up a fence. You don’t “pull a pistol” to get your point across.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1227 hrs
No, the incorrect way is to put up a fence, and a sign isn’t necessary. People’s lack of respect for other people’s property doesn’t oblige someone to build a fence.
There’s been no evidence to suggest this woman has a problem with anyone other than one jackass.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1233 hrs
I don’t think we’re going to change 3rd Way’s mind, which seems totally closed on the issue.
If my wife (who’s not yet ‘elderly’) found a trespasser wandering our property she’d call the sheriff, but would then almost surely have to confront the individual herself, as the sheriff’s response would be at least thirty minutes, assuming anyone was available.
And you can bet she’d be armed. As would I in those circumstances. Those who live in cities can kid themselves that they can let the ‘proper authorities’ solve their problems, but most of us in the country know better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1253 hrs
doesn’t get any thoughts about being a wise-guy
Huh? She needs to arm herself to defend against snide comments?
No of course not. My use of the term wise-guy was completely misplaced. I would substitute “a person with bad intentions” in its place. You would never use deadly force in response to verbal attacks.
But anyone who watches the news knows that a situation like this could have just as easily been someone with ill intentions instead of a reporter.
I would be pissed off if I was dropping my kid off at school and some crazy old coot
Sorry.. I must have missed the part where we established she was a crazy old coot, but if you have to exagerate to make your point, maybe you don’t have one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1257 hrs
My point was that if I called someone an a-hole, say, that breach of propriety is greater than accidentally stepping onto someone’s property. Do folks commending the gun-toting granny advocate brandishing firearms as a way to settle these breaches of propriety?
Still no direct answer to the question. I am close to assuming there is none.
Everything is in context Mike.
If I call you an a-hole on a blog, its totally different than if I come running up your driveway calling you an ahole.
To be honest. Yeah, tresspassing is much more a breach of propriety than calling you an ahole.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1300 hrs
Are you people really so paranoid that you believe the proper response to someone on your lawn is to call the Sherrif?
This incident happened in town, near a school. I have to believe that occasionally a school kid wanders onto this woman’s lawn. Should she be chasing them with her pistol as well?
Let’s call this woman what she is, a bully and a thug with no sense of appropriate response. In that she’d fit right in with this comment thread.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1308 hrs
Again… context matters.
If a 10-year old is walking across her lawn with a backpack, I would think that an armed confrontation would be out of line. It would still be her right since it’s her property, but it would be out of line.
In this case, there was a grown man wandering on her property with a handful of technology. Sure, we know that he’s a reporter and was merely not paying attention. We know that now. At the time, all the woman knows is that she’s elderly and there’s a grown man walking around her property. Her being armed is not only her right in this situation, it was entirely appropriate.
Posted by Owen on March 03, 2008 at 1319 hrs
Someone that brandishes a weapon within range of a school, while other people around to witness it fits the definition of “crazy old coot” in my book.
I use my judgement about when I need to use precaution and potentially defend myself. There is nothing in this article that leads me to believe this lady dealt with this situation properly. Our society is built on trust. I am going to continue to live in my little fantasy world where I trust that I don’t have to brandish a weapon when someone traipses onto my property.
I know that the world is a dangerous place. I was once the victim of random violent crime. I grew up in an urban area in a neighborhood that is certainly not lily white. A friend and I were jumped for baseball hats and air jordans. My friends eye socket was nearly broken, his nose and front tooth were not so lucky. Fortunate for me I could evade blows and run faster than he could (its the shoes).
I spend a lot of time on my father in laws 100+ acres in N. Wisconsin. It is bound by weltands and completely secluded. On occassion we have seen people on the property that were inadvertanly tresspassing. It would take a strange set of circumstances for me to run into the house and raid the gun cabinet before I would confront the tresspasser. I trust that your average jackass is not out to do me harm. When that trust is gone from our society I will seriously think about uprooting my family and raising my child somewhere people do trust each other.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1324 hrs
Owen, you are defending the indefensible. The proper response to a man with a cellphone is to ignore him. If you can’t distinguish between that and a threat you should not be arming yourself.
Rule #1 is Know Your Target
All the paranoia in the world doesn’t absolve the gun carrier of that responsibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1333 hrs
If an American visitor was looking for a decent cell phone signal and accidentally wandered into someone’s front yard in a foreign country, only to be confronted by a homeowner brandishing a gun, our reaction would be, “what a strange, violent, uncivilized country,” and we’d write it up on blogs as more proof that we’re superior to the rest of the world.
But when it happens here in the States..yee haw! Guns rock!
Kind of sad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1351 hrs
xxp:
If I call you an a-hole on a blog, its totally different than if I come running up your driveway calling you an ahole.
True. But not what I asked about. I sought to compare calling someone an offensive name because of their legitimately expressed ideas, to someone wandering absent-mindedly across someone’s property. I think the first thing is worse, don’t you? Yet nobody here, nobody, not even the poster himself, seems to want in to that discussion. That is telling to me.
Posted by Mike on March 03, 2008 at 1352 hrs
my apologies xxp. You answered my question:
To be honest. Yeah, tresspassing is much more a breach of propriety than calling you an ahole.
Missed that last paragraph. Sorry.
Posted by Mike on March 03, 2008 at 1419 hrs
The proper response to a man with a cell phone is to ignore him.
Really? So you just let any vagabond with a cell phone wander aimlessly on your property? How nice of you.
If you can’t distinguish between that and a threat you should not be arming yourself.
Can you look at a man from 20 yards away and determine what he has in his pockets and what his intentions are? You’re better than any cop out there, then. Good for you. She didn’t aim the gun at him. She merely had it on her person as she assessed the threat.
Rule #1 is Know Your Target
That only applies when actually aiming at something with the intent to shoot it. Are you suggesting that hunters should keep their guns unloaded and cased until they “know their target?” That’s ridiculous. She was checking to see what this strange man on her property was doing and had a weapon with her in case he was up to no good.
Posted by Owen on March 03, 2008 at 1445 hrs
There is a photograph of the incident. The guy is clearly on her front lawn, but it also looks like a house in suburban, anywhere, usa on a sunny afternoon. 99.99% of the people in the world would open the door and yell at the guy. This woman went and got a lethal weapon. If you think the proper response to someone on your front lawn is to confront them with a firearm you are clearly identifying yourself as a member of the fringe minority.
This is a news story because this woman’s response was absurd.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1457 hrs
It would take a strange set of circumstances for me to run into the house and raid the gun cabinet before I would confront the tresspasser. I trust that your average jackass is not out to do me harm.
I just don’t think its much of a stretch. I watch enough news to know that while most people are good well intentioned people, you never know. There’s no harm in being prepared.
I wouldn’t go waving my gun around, nor do I believe in being irascible when dealing with people.
But to me, having a gun in my hand when I go to investigate a strange noise, or a tresspasser on my property is just a good precaution.
And because I don’t fear guns, because i am often around people who are armed most of the time, I just fail to understand why everyone gets their panties in a wad because someone is holding a gun.
To me, an old lady standing there with a gun straight down at her side asking someone to get off her property is no more or less civilized than a person standing there without a gun.
If she was pointing it at the guy, that’s different, but..
And lastly… If I had my own blog, I’d post a thread just like this one once a week just to watch all the crazy anti-gun weirdo’s get their panties in a bunch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1458 hrs
xxp - You wouldn’t get your panties in a wad if you went over your neighbors house to borrow a cup of sugar and they answered the door with a glock in their hand?
In most places in America if someone approaches a person with a gun on their front lawn it is likely the police will be called to investigate why someone is walking around in their front yard with a pistol.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1513 hrs
If you believe that the proper response to someone walking on your lawn is to grab a gun then you are, for lack of a better word, insane.
Before this rampant paranoia and selfishness took over the people walking past your house were called “neighbors.” If someone was walking past your house your proper response was to either greet them or to JUST LET THEM WALK PAST YOUR HOUSE!
What sick SOBs must you be to think that your first response to a stranger must be to protect yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2008 at 1547 hrs
When you’re reading the news story you already know the guy has no ill-intent and was only there by mistake. You already know that. So when the story gets around to mentioning the woman with the gun, the normal reaction should be “OMG I hope he doesn’t get shot.” It definitely should not be “Cool!”
Posted by scott on March 03, 2008 at 1920 hrs
xxp - You wouldn’t get your panties in a wad if you went over your neighbors house to borrow a cup of sugar and they answered the door with a glock in their hand?
Hell no.
In my neighborhood I think its a bit superfluous, but then again, no harm in being prepared.
You never know who could be knocking. If you go armed, you don’t have to worry about it.
I have a friend who lives in Tulsa who works from home (he’s a system admin and works remotely) and he carries all day long.
Carrying a concealled weapon is just good practice. I highly recommend it.
Citizens becoming responsible gun owners and going armed. Good for america. Its as our founding fathers intended.
Its what criminals fear. Its a good thing!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 0007 hrs
If you believe that the proper response to someone walking on your lawn is to grab a gun then you are, for lack of a better word, insane.
One guys opinion.
You’re certainly entitled to it, but lets not pretend you set the standards on sane vs insane ok?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 0009 hrs
So when the story gets around to mentioning the woman with the gun, the normal reaction should be “OMG I hope he doesn’t get shot.” It definitely should not be “Cool!”
An elderly woman who takes her personal protection under her own control. That’s damn cool.
She didn’t do anything wrong. She didn’t threaten anyone with the gun.
She was merely holding a gun at her side.
I think its DAMN cool.
Then again, I like seeing people take control of their life, their safety and their destiny, not sitting around waiting for someone else to protect them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 0011 hrs
Yeah damn cool, like the guy from Louisiana who shot and killed the Japanese exchange student who was pulling a harmless prank.
This is where the rubber meets the road. At that age, how is that old woman’s faculties? You all get all jiggly because she is packing heat. Imagine how she would have felt if she would have unloaded on the guy.
The guy in Louisiana had to live with this.
So someone strayed onto someone’s lawn. Maturity requires an appreciation of perspective. Somewhat lacking here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 0726 hrs
I could sort of see where a personal protection enthusiast (for lack of a better term) would say “cool” to an old lady challenging a trespasser while armed. I could see that. I might not entirely share that sentiment, but I can see where it’s coming from.
What I cannot see is saying “cool” to a story where you already know the trespasser means no harm and is there quite accidentally. I’m not saying there’s necessarily something wrong with the old lady’s response. She didn’t know what the guy was up to. But you do. You, the reader. You know. You know that if the situation ratchets up one more notch an innocent man is going to get shot. The only response that make sense is “I hope the poor guy doesn’t get shot,” or “I hope the old lady has her wits about her and doesn’t shoot the poor bastard.” It is definitely not “cool!”
Enthusiasm for challenging trespassers with guns, I get that. Enthusiasm for challenging with a gun an unintentional trespasser who mean absolutely no harm? No, that’s nuts.
Posted by scott on March 04, 2008 at 0920 hrs
I could sort of see where a personal protection enthusiast (for lack of a better term) would say “cool” to an old lady challenging a trespasser while armed. I could see that.
Well thats what I think is cool.
If I went over to my friends house unannounced at 10pm, rang the doorbell and she answered the door in sweats with a gun held behind her and down by her side I’d say “cool” and be proud of her.
You know that if the situation ratchets up one more notch an innocent man is going to get shot. The only response that make sense is “I hope the poor guy doesn’t get shot,” or “I hope the old lady has her wits about her and doesn’t shoot the poor bastard.” It is definitely not “cool!”
Well none of that happened. And the scenario that would “not be cool” doesn’t happen.
Yeah damn cool, like the guy from Louisiana who shot and killed the Japanese exchange student who was pulling a harmless prank.
Not familiar with the story, but ‘pulling a harmless prank’ again, sounds like retro-speak.
If someone barges thru my door at my house and I’m not expecting company there’s a good chance they are going to get shot. If it turns out later they were just ‘pulling a prank’, that’s a pretty stupid thing to do and no offense, but you can expect to get shot.
If someone comes up to car-jack me and sticks a replica gun in the window they better hope its in wisconsin, cause if its in a state i travel to where my cc permit allows me to exercise my god-given (and costitutional guaranteed right) to protect myself, they are going to get shot.
Now would it be a tragedy if there was a camera crew hiding behind the bus-stop and Ashton Kutcher was going to jump out and say “you’ve been punked”.. Sure…
But when you are in legitimate fear for your life or safety, you need to respond.
People who consider ‘harmless pranks’ need to think about what harmless really is.
Again… I’m not familiar with your particular citation.
Enthusiasm for challenging trespassers with guns, I get that. Enthusiasm for challenging with a gun an unintentional trespasser who mean absolutely no harm? No, that’s nuts.
I think its very cool that she was aware of her right to go armed, she went armed, she behaved exactly as she ought to have, and the situation ended in kind.
What if she went outside and some guy was talking on his cell phone on her lawn. She asked him to leave and the guy is some bi-polar lunatic off his meds that follows the president around. She asks him to get off her property and he says f’you old lady and flies into a rage and starts charging towards her… You can never tell.
And its not paranoia. If you go armed, you don’t HAVE to worry. Not being armed is cause for worry.
When you go armed, you know you can protect yourself and your life against threats twice or 3 times your size, strenght, etc.
So you can sit here and say “I sure hope the lady has her wits about her at her age” and I can just as easily say “I sure hope the guy on her lawn IS a reporter and not an off-his-meds wack-job who thinks bush is to blame for everything. Tell me you don’t believe those types are out there?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 1055 hrs
If I went over to my friends house unannounced at 10pm, rang the doorbell and she answered the door in sweats with a gun held behind her and down by her side I’d say “cool” and be proud of her.
You just conceded the first point I was trying to make. Displaying a gun is threatening. If she felt she needed to be armed I have no problem with her bringing her gun along, as long as it is concealed and not used to intimidate the oblivious offender. Good for her taking her safety into her own hands, but it is rude and uncivilized to display a gun unless you have a really good reason to feel that you need to defend yourself.
Have you seen the picture of the incident xxp? After I saw the picture any argument about her acting appropriately became completely absurd to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 1228 hrs
You just conceded the first point I was trying to make. Displaying a gun is threatening. If she felt she needed to be armed I have no problem with her bringing her gun along, as long as it is concealed and not used to intimidate the oblivious offender. Good for her taking her safety into her own hands, but it is rude and uncivilized to display a gun unless you have a really good reason to feel that you need to defend yourself.
Thanks 3rd way but I’ll let you know when I concede a point.
When you are walking in your front yard, there isn’t much place to conceal the handgun. I’m not going to sit and play mamby-pamby games with ‘exactly’ how or where or whatever the gun is held. Its irrelevant. Anyplace but pointed at the guy is acceptable (imo)
YES, I did see the picture. She was holding the gun straight down at her side.
A textbook “safe” position to hold a firearm. Pointed straight at the ground. I think thats “cool” too.
And my scenario is different than this one. In my scenario I go to a friends house, she has no idea who is at the door.
In the TX scenario, this lady already saw the guy, already knew she didn’t know him and had already established that he was trespassing.
Its “cool” to let someone know you have a gun. Its a deterent.
Its not “cool” to point a gun at anyone until you are prepared to shoot them. But her handling of the gun was textbook.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 1235 hrs
One last question and then I am done with this. From the photograph we can see that she would have been able to communicate with the guy just as easily if she would have opened her front door. Would it have been a “cooler” way to deal with this if she would have opened the door with one hand and kept the gun cocealed with the other while asking the guy to get off of her property?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 1259 hrs
I think it would be cool if every time a homeowner in exercising their god-given and constitutional guaranteed right to defend themselves and their property in a safe and legal manner it didn’t have to be deconstructed to the n’th degree by a couple keyboard jockeys (myself included) 4 states away.
Exercising your rights, without having it deconstructed and over-anal-ized is by far the coolest thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2008 at 1358 hrs
OK, for the oblivious boneheads here, she has the right to carry a weapon, but as she saw the man on her lawn, using a PHONE AND TALKING IN WHAT WAS MOST LIKELY AN ANIMATED FASHION, the brandishing of a fire arm to ask him to leave her property was unwarranted.
A police officer at a traffic stop was used as an example, this would be an example of stupidity by the way, a cop in a traffic stop can not see the hands of the person they are stopping, and more often than not, a cop only unbuttons their weapon for easier access during stops so it is there if needed, the old lady could see the fellows hands, HE WAS ON THE PHONE!I am a former soldier, an active member of the NRA and an avid gun collector, and even to me, what she did was wrong, the weapon should have been kept out of sight unless the circumstances showed a need for it, and the guy should have just been asked if she could help him or if there was some reason he was there without pointing a gun at him.
Maybe if society learned some of the manners we were taught in earlier generations, some reporter wouldn’t have needed new shorts after accidently walking on someones grass, whats going to happen when she does that to a child who’s frisbee lands in her yard? Still going to say it’s her right when she scares some poor kid into crapping their pants? I’d be willing to bet she loses that ensuing lawsuit in court….....
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2008 at 0912 hrs
“the weapon should have been kept out of sight unless the circumstances showed a need for it, and the guy should have just been asked if she could help him or if there was some reason he was there without pointing a gun at him.”
Read the original article, not the frenzied frothing from the anti-gun types that have hijacked the thread.
She didn’t point the gun at him. She did tell him to leave. There was no ‘brandishing.” If my wife found a strange male wandering outside the house it would be the height of foolishness for her to confront him without being armed. Do you think that an elderly woman has the physical strength to fight off a younger male?
Consider that you are dealing with more information than was available to her; you know that he’s a reporter with no respect for private property. All she knew was that a strange male was wandering about and speaking intelligibly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2008 at 1113 hrs
Make that last “unintelligibly”...fingers faster than mind this morning.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2008 at 1115 hrs
Consider that you are dealing with more information than was available to
herI think this is really the crux of what bugs me about this thread and the post that initiated it. We are dealing with more information than she was. Therefore I do not fault her in any way. But since we are dealing with more information, I find it odd that anyone would respond with glee and delight at the situation: “cool!” etc.
Frankly, such sentiments are a lot more “frenzied” and “frothy” than anything I’ve written.
Posted by scott on March 05, 2008 at 1141 hrs
using a PHONE AND TALKING IN WHAT WAS MOST LIKELY AN ANIMATED FASHION
Was “most likely an animated fashion” What? You get to make shit up to make your point? That’s fresh…
You don’t know dude… you can’t sit here and presume shit just to make your point? Tired of stupidity??? Apparently not.
the old lady could see the fellows hands, HE WAS ON THE PHONE!
Last time I checked pal, most people don’t use 2 hands to talk on the phone.
Last time I checked MOST people have a hands free blue-tooth phone too.
there without pointing a gun at him.
Again, you are factually innaccurate. She NEVER according to the story every pointed a gun at him.
For a guy who’s jumping on here calling people “oblivious boneheads” you’re making a damn lot of assumptions/presumtions and factual errors. Before you go on your little verbal tirade with all of us “oblivious boneheads” perhaps you should get your shit straight pal?
I’d be willing to bet
Given your proclivity for assuming things, factual innaccuracy, etc, I think that’s a bet I’d be happy to take.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2008 at 1142 hrs
OWEN WROTE: Hindsight is 20/20. If some freak is wandering across my property, you’ll find me on the lawn with a shotgun. I don’t know what his intentions are. If he proves to be harmless, then he can just get the hell off my property. If he has some evil intentions, the he can find a doctor.
owen
Owen, I agree with you and the rest of the people who believe in the right to defend themselves from scum. The other mealy mouthed liberals can just pack up and leave.
My brother must constantly tell tresspassers to get off his private property. They are almost always armed where he lives, but a few well placed IED’s blew most of them up. The rest he sent back to the USA without arms or legs or faces. He lives in Iraq.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 1148 hrs
In response to the elderly lady who pulled a gun on a trespassers…My husband took a gun outside and shot it once into the air to scare off trespassers that had been warned before not to be on our property. They called the police and my husband was taken into custody along with the trespasser. We thought it was legal to do what he did in the state of Texas? Are we wrong?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2008 at 0643 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134054
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 01:25 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 116
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:27 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).