It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mother charged for firing warning shot when daughter is being attacked.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:10 AM

Wonder if the 10 guys were a typical "Flash Mob" of African Americans out having some fun ? cops have to protect them over a harmless mother and her daughter don't they ?

The mother is an African American yet there is no info in the article on those who confronted her daughter. Did you not read the article and then assume that she was all white and pure? Do you no longer care now she is a darkie?

The whole episode is just dirty - she went to start a fight and made sure that she was armed (legally) for whatever reason - kinda stinks to me. It reads in the article like her daughter got punched for being a loudmouth, and mum likes a rumble. They clearly had history with the group of lads in the second confrontation (who may have been of any or all racial make-ups) and should probs try to stop getting in fights so much. I care not for any of them, they all sound like trash.
edit on 24-10-2013 by skalla because: typo

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:10 AM

reply to post by DataWraith

Changes need to be made with regards to conceal carry laws.

We're told that if we're not legally allowed to use our guns, that we're not even permitted to brandish it, which is total BS.

Often times, just brandishing or showing the weapon is enough of a deterrent. Clearly, theres a difference between brandishing a firearm for defensive purposes vs intimidation.

People should be commended not punished.

If no one was injured, this woman should be given a small fine if that, nothing more.

Theres an incredible amount of stress and tension when forced into a situation where you fear for your life or well being,

edit on 24-10-2013 by gladtobehere because: edit

Why do you like my drawing so much??? ha ha

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:11 AM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Man, people advocating killing 10+ people for arguement is silly... who knew what the girl to those guys before.

Also, how to get away with murder advice from a mod.. :/

Next time shoot the sob that's hitting your daughter then leave before the cops come.




posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:32 AM

reply to post by knowledgehunter

I understand your point of view and can accept that carried weapons are for protection and defence but in todays crazy politically correct world where the good guys get criminal records for protecting their own and the criminals get to commit their crimes and get away with barely more than a slap on the wrist, isn't best to pre-empt the law?
Use a blank first to warn off the scum then after the blank is used anything else that comes out the barrel will be the real deal.
The law is an ass and you know it, so why not protect yourself from it at the same time as protecting your kin from the low-lives?

Better change the law. This is not the movies: a blank will not cycle a semi-auto without an adapter that will make it unable to shoot a real round, so your first shot a blank would give you a jammed and useless weapon.

Having the first round as a blank could get you killed if you really, really need that first shot to count.

Mixing blanks and real rounds is very dangerous. You keep them separate so that there is no confusion and you don't have to say "I thought it was a blank" as they take your mate to the morgue.

The real problem is a law that protects the criminals and it should be changed.
edit on 24-10-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by knowledgehunter

What would you have wanted the woman to do? It is situations just like this that evolve into something very ugly, very quick.

You have that right! Ten males against, two females? You know it is going to escalate due to hormones and mob mentality.

If the guy just wanted to TALK he would not need ten buddies to back him up so he had a bit more in mind.

As a female I ALWAYS give a group of young males a wide berth for that reason and I do not even know them.

With luck it goes to a jury and they know about Jury nullification. What lawyers & judges won't tell you about juries

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by DataWraith

It really seems like something is not adding up to me.

First of all, the USA has this thing that folks there like to call, the Second Amendment. Now, because of the unique way that the law is applied to the citizens of the US (i.e. slightly differently depending on which State one happens to be in), I really cannot remember whether the Second Amendment trumps local firearms law in this instance, but it does seem to me that if the USA is to continue to have a Second Amendment, that its citizens should be allowed to actually invoke those rights, and use the tools that such an amendment allows them to carry.

Now, in this scenario the woman and her daughter were engaged by thugs, one of whom was beating up the daughter. A group of ten could quite easily kill a lone female inside of thirty seconds, simply by beating her to death. Hell a lone male could do that. At this point, I feel that the woman would have been justified in double tapping the punk, ordering the rest of the bastards to their knees, and waiting for the police to come and clean the trash away. She chose the less than lethal option, albeit a slightly riskier one, for both herself, her daughter, and any bystanders. She did however, show as little willingness to shoot the attackers, as one could be expected to in those circumstances.

What point is there, in the citizens of the USA having access to weapons under the Second Amendment, if a woman is going to be prosecuted for discharging a weapon without intent to kill? What point is there in a second amendment, if a persons right to carry and use a weapon in self defense, is going to be rendered moot in the legal arena?

This seems idiotic to me.

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 09:06 AM

I dont see what the problem is here, this lady quite rightly diffused the situation in the correct way which resulted in nobody being hurt. Unlike those officers in the case of the 13 year old boy.

Also a bullet fired in the air once it descends can only travel at the speed of its terminal velocity. Which isnt enough to seriously hurt somebody on its way down.

America is a crazy country these days.....

People are shot and killed on a regular basis in the United States by gunfire into the air. The numbers aren't dramatic compared to other categories and ways to die, but they are particularly tragic. Falling bullets *DO* kill people and firing a warning shot is absolute ignorance to an extreme. The training for CCW is absolute on that point. NO warning shots. EVER. Period.

It isn't to be dirty harry and the rest of a CCW class is focused 100% opposite that image. It's for the very reason I note above. What goes up, must come down..and unfortunately, too many people believe falling bullets can't hurt anyone.

This one was a 7 year old boy fatally shot by what police believe was gunfire into the air, quite some distance from where the boy died from it.

Boy, 7, shot dead by stray bullet 'fired into the air in celebration' as he walked to July 4 fireworks display with his dad

Mythbusters even got this one about right, IMO.

Bullets fired into the air maintain their lethal capability when they eventually fall back down.

If people are carrying a firearm for any reason but the use of deadly force? Leave it at home.

If a gun is drawn to warn, scare or otherwise do something other than shoot someone in defense? It never should have BEEN drawn. Leave it at home.

That's my view, anyway.

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 09:28 AM
These were kids so would she have actually started shooting if they wouldn't have run off? If your going to use a gun be prepared to use it for its intended purpose - to save yourself from a life threatening situation or to hunt. It's stories like these that make me an advocate for a required course before being able to own a gun.

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 09:42 AM
reply to post by Dianec

While I think it's actually a good idea to have a firearm training course when purchasing one, I don't fully see how this incident the mother faced couldn't have potentially been a life threatening incident?

You weren't there, and I doubt the mother would have just pulled a gun if it was just some kids having an argument. I personally believe she feared for her daughters safety. I've seen things go sour real quick involving a group of "kids" (teens) when they get the herd mentality.

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by Auricom

Your right - wasn't there and I should not assume. I got the impression that there were other people around and cell service was available - parking lot. Maybe it was remote and she felt trapped and hopeless for assistance. In that case I can see a gun coming in handy.

In that situation I would probably have my gun in hand and warn while being ready. I was trained to target the threat - shoot to cause harm/kill. Of course I was trained by a Marine so maybe that's a bit dramatic but the situation would need to be extremely dire for me to pull out a gun to begin with (no other option at all and true threat) so to me it makes sense.

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 10:59 AM
First never admit to firing a warning shot.
You fired to take them out but missed.

The boys should be charged with criminal stocking or other charges

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

F=mg(force of gravity)-1/2D(drag coefficient of bullet)rho(density of air, varies with altitude if you want to be precise)A(cross sectional area perpendicular to direction of motion)v^2(velocity)

or: F=mg-1/2DrhoAv^2

If you are looking at terminal "felocity" we should take the equation one more step by inserting ma where F is (newton's second law)

we get:


However we are looking for terminal velocity, so our acceleration would be zero rendering the left side of the equation to be zero. Solving for v we get:


If you plug in the mass, acceleration due to gravity, density of air, drag coefficient, cross sectional area and you can find the terminal velocity. The actual equation is much more difficult due to the fact that gravity and air density change with altitude, the formula will get you close though.

I have heard the same thing Wrabbit about terminal velocity of a bullet if fired straight up could kill yet It really depends on the grain of the bullet and several other factors. If a bullet is fired in an arc there is no question however straight up, some are no worse than a hail stone falling.

I did not hear the caliber of the pistol but if it was a .380, .22, and probably even a 9mm the falling round (shot straight up) might have given someone a knot on the head or put an eye out of a sky watcher but I seriously doubt it could have killed anyone regardless as it is used to justify arresting someone. Something's repeated, even if wrong, becomes a norm and people who do not check but take the "wrong" at face value are bamboozled all the time.. Warning shots work in some circumstances but unfortunately are against the law in most states. If a situation is bad enough to pull a fire arm then it is bad enough to shoot in the eyes of the law.

There is a difference between what is right in a particular circumstance and a broad law for all cases. I did not read the article but did here the woman on the radio this morning along with much discussion.

Disparity of force (10 on two) could be used to justify shooting the attacker along with aggravated assault. The attacker from what the lady said hit her daughter which broke her glasses and was coming back for another punch when the women fired. She was afraid for her daughters life and/or severe bodily harm.

Next the way the laws in Texas are written you do not pull a gun (even though it happens to defuse an attack; cops are not usually called for problem went away) unless you are one trigger pull from firing at an attacker in fear for your life. Otherwise you can be accused of brandishing.

Many years ago I was in Dallas with a friend who was driving a Corvette.. A young Buck was tailgating then pulling along side wanting to race. My friend did not take the bait which made the racer mad. The guy pulled in front of the Corvette and started slowing down wanting the vette to pass. This game went on for several minutes and finally it progressed to the racer pulling along side cussing and using "not nice finger gestures". The friend pulled his nickel plated 1911 45acp and aimed it out the window at the racer... Game was over.. The friend was a deputy sheriff... By law, if he were a normal pedestrian, he could have been arrested for brandishing.

Woodbridge Va. is where the lady was with her daughter; she was open carrying!..

What kind of animals punch a girl in front of her mother and then want to continue the attack? How much further would the attack progressed? The daughter is missing now because after the arrest of mom she supposedly was walking to her grandmothers house. Even before this incidence the daughter was afraid of living in that apartment complex due to prior problems. With the lady/mom open carrying a pistol what kind of brain dead idiots would start this B.S. to begin with?

You have to wonder if she would have pulled her weapon and screamed, told the attacker to get on the ground or take one to the head what would have happened? I doubt she will be convicted in a fair court of law.

At this stage I am more concerned about the whereabouts of the daughter. The police did not arrest any of the 10 guys. They arrested the daughter's protector; the daughter is missing.. If the daughter is harmed I would hope a lawyer could go after the cops for dereliction of duty and not taking all the situation into a consideration before the arrest of the mom and the daughters protector.

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:11 AM
Warning shots are NEVER appropriate and are ALWAYS a bad idea. Even if the bullet doesn't harm anyone or cause any property damage and the confrontation is defused, you will still be charged with something. Discharging a firearm within city (township, village, whatever) limits, if your lucky. Reckless endangerment if they really want to make a point.

But let's say that the "warning" shot does not work and the confrontation escalates. When you go to court to defend your actions (and that is a guarantee, you will be in court) it will be pointed out that you did not think the situation was serious enough to use deadly force (because you fired a warning shot). Before you know it, YOU are the aggressor and you just won the reverse lottery. Say goodbye to all your possessions. And say goodbye to your freedom for a very long time.

If you have to defend your life (or someone else's life) with deadly force, you shoot to kill, not to scare.

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:20 AM

reply to post by DataWraith

If this is not considered self defense because she was able to walk away but her daughter wasn't, what was she to do? Toss the gun to her daughter to fire?

And let me get this straight. A mother can't fire upon the boys (I would have said i just missed) but the pigs can kill a 13 y/o in cold blood? Just another example of rules for them and rules for us. It's getting so blatant that I know of no one who trusts any cop anymore. You guys (cops) created this atmosphere of the us vs. them mentality. I hope you reap what you sow.

edit on 24-10-2013 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)

Self defense laws are also including defense of another. That is a part of the same law. And any attempt to water that down is unlawful no matter what corrupt judge dares to try and misfire justice.

She did the right thing and I would have done the same thing.

An alternative response would be to tell them to back away from her now or you will shoot and then if they aim for their legs.
edit on 24-10-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by mazzroth

Yes. It is rather weird. There seems to be a feeling amongst law enforcement that 'defending yourself' is just not alright. They don't seem to understand that a person has to do what a person has to do.

Sometimes I think they just want to see 'one party' on the floor dead or bleeding so that they don't have to use their brains to investigate. Sometimes I think it is a deliberate ploy to make people more sheeplike which is not going to happen as long as we all make adrenalin!

But as Benjamin Franklin said: 'Those who beat their swords into ploughshares end up ploughing for those who kept their swords'.

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:30 AM
Are the male attackers of the young girl being arrested and investigated or are they now the 'injured party'?

Hammurabi has a lot to answer for, for when he made justice into a money making enterprise!

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 12:06 PM
Warning shots are always a no no. Either way its a simple misdemenor, probably discharging within city limits. And blanks are a no no also. They wont even cycle a semi-auto weapon. Technically if you are in fear for your life you don't shoot in the air you shoot the threat. So her actions were a bit irresponsible.

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by luciddream

I suppose you're all for letting a mob of 10 punch a girl in the face then?
How is a mother supposed to make that stop?
If it were an assault serious enough to warrant drawing a weapon then yes, you shoot to kill.
You don't shoot to wound. You shoot to defend the lives of innocent people, otherwise keep it in your holster.
If you think these kinds of people need to be running loose then invite them over to dinner at your mother's.

10 random men start beating a member of my family I would not hesitate to shoot the person committing the assault.

You don't like my answer so what's yours?

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:07 PM
She should've pulled a cop move and fired into the crowd of 10.

Dome a few of them, some how I doubt we'd loose a cancer cure.
edit on 24-10-2013 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:43 PM
So the moral of the story is she needed to shot one of the boys in self defense? Every thing else, warning shot, waiting for police (assuming they magically knew there was trouble at that location) would leave her in danger or in commission a crime.


Every one leaving alive or without serious injury seem to be an unacceptable outcome. Someone must die or go to jail.
edit on 10/24/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in