Gun control works!

From the City of Brotherly Love:

Cops: Woman shoots 17-year-old who broke into house, tried to stab her

Sunday, November 25, 2012

A 17-year-old learned the hard way that breaking into houses is a pretty bad idea after police say a woman he attempted to stab during a home-invasion in Northeast Philadelphia shot him early Saturday morning.

Cops said the teen was one of about 10 men who kicked in the door of a house on Greenmount Road near Millbrook shortly after midnight Saturday and started fighting with two men, ages 26 and 42, who were inside. During that fight, one of the thugs threw a 40-ounce beer bottle and hit a 49-year-old woman who was also in the house at the time in the stomach.

Police said the 17-year-old who was shot during the melee went after that woman with a knife, so she pulled out a gun and shot him in the stomach. A private car dropped him off at Aria Health’s Torresdale hospital, where he was listed in critical condition.

Cops said the rest of the pack who broke into the house took off in a gold vehicle. The 26-year-old man who’d been in the house at the time of the incident was bitten several times on his back and suffered lacerations to his face and body, cops said. Police did not report injuries to the woman or the other man who were attacked.

The woman will not be charged in the incident, as she acted in self-defense, authorities said. The 17-year-old is expected to face charges of aggravated assault and related offenses, according to police.

Morgan Zalot @ 4:08 PM 

The woman exhibited good gun control; had she demonstrated better gun control, the 17-year-old would not be consuming community resources at the hospital.

 

6 Comments

  1. In Liberal World, we’d have to empanel a commission to engage in quite a bit of navel gazing to determine what that woman did to make that man attack her, and, you know, responding to violence with violence is never the answer. We should appeal to the better natures of these youths who obviously have had a tough life because the 1% is greedy. Or something.

  2. The report lacks so much basic information it’s impossible to know what actually transpired, or what may have preceeded the event.

    The following is from a comment at the linked article:

    …What the story fails to mention is that neighbors reported 3 gun shots and one of the perps had his face slashed open because the ‘victims’ were armed and waiting for the kids to arrive. Some even said that the shooting occurred the second the teens set foot on the front lawn.

    These people were well aware that the kids were coming to fight the 26yr old. If they felt they were in danger, they should have called the police. Instead, they sat in wait with weapons in hand. This shooting was premeditated. The gun loaded, sitting on the couch ready-to-go. Coincidence? Self-defense? I don’t think so. If his parents don’t even have the full story from the police, what makes you think Philly.com has the full story?

    bmccarron

  3. What transpired was that several men invaded someone else’s property. Whether the people who lived there were bad guys themselves, laying in wait for an attack they knew would occur is irrelevant: the perps still broke into someone else’s home.

  4. Mr Editor, I’ve got no problem with someone defending themselves from home invaders, or anticipating such an assault and preparing to meet it with deadly force, but we have seriously conflicting accounts here.

    Commenter bmccarron says some neighbors said that the shooting occurred the second the teens set foot on the front lawn. If that’s true, then the beer throwing and the knife attack are likely after-the-fact fabrications, which raises the possibility there may have been no kicking down of the door and no home invasion.

    I understand your point that we have the right to defend ourselves and our property. But let’s get the facts first and not rely exclusively on the shooter’s account as reported in a woefully inadequate article.

    My point is we don’t know the sequence of events and the reason we don’t know is because the reporter only got one side of the story.

  5. If they felt they were in danger, they should have called the police.

    Reminds me of the old saying: When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.

  6. Reminds me of the old saying: When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.

    Which doesn’t mean the cops can’t still be helpful.

    When seconds count use them to your best advantage, but if you have time to call the cops, whether they can get there in-time or not, the call itself could prove compelling in case you have to account for your behavior leading up to a shooting incident.

    It’s a golden opportunity to go on-record as being in fear for your life and of attempting to defuse the situation before it turned violent. Your lawyer will be pleased and grateful.

Comments are closed.