Woman, .357 blazing, chases intruders from home

[TPaine7]

Of course being an anecdote, this story proves nothing. People here seem to be fascinated with anecdotes however, so here's an interesting one:

Sheriff's Detective Art King, in his report, gave the following account of the crime:

Shortly after 8 a.m. Wednesday, 29-year-old Jennifer Ann Hunley; her 27-year-old boyfriend, Michael Joseph Nash; and Hunley's 11-year-old daughter were inside their home when two men entered through the garage door. Nash, who was coming out of a bathroom at the time, saw one of the intruders holding a nail gun near the television set in the living room.

The man demanded money. At the same time Nash saw that the second suspect, armed with a handgun, was also in the living room. The one with the nail gun hit Nash on the head, and when he fell down both men began beating him.

Hunley came into the living room, saw what was happening, returned to her bedroom for a .357-caliber handgun and fired a warning shot into the ceiling.

The intruder with the nail gun ran outside, while the other one ran into a nearby bedroom. He then pointed his weapon, believed to be a small-caliber handgun, and fired at least one shot at Hunley.

Then Hunley, who is 5-foot-3, emptied her handgun, firing four shots at the intruder. The gunman ran out the front door. Neither Hunley nor her daughter were hurt during the exchange of gunfire.

Source: http://www.ocala.com/article/20080710/NEWS/216986732/0/VOZLATINA

A few points:

a) A "5-foot-3" woman put two larger men to flight.
b) A little woman can protect a man if she is armed.
c) One of the men was armed with a gun. It is often argued that the armed criminal has an insurmountable advantage and will virtually always prevail in a gunfight.
d) The woman didn't shoot the men at the first opportunity, in fact she waited until she was fired upon.
f) It appears that she wasn't motivated by racism, misogyny, or even politics.
g) She didn't shoot her loved ones.
h) She prevailed, protecting her boyfriend and daughter from predators.

Of course, none of this means anything except to those who believe that such outcomes are impossible or very nearly so. Those folks who consider such events fantasies should adjust their thinking.

[Endangered Specie]

1. Did she *hit* the gunman with any of those four shots?

[TPaine7]

4. I don't know.

Probably no one will until the second suspect is caught.

Her defensive gun use was fully successful, however, as she defended her loved ones and eliminated the immediate threat.

[newfie11]

13. Good for her!

That is exactly what she should have done.

[DU Man]

51. Absolutely right!

[Duke Newcombe]

2. Chirp...chirp...chirp... n/t

Duke

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. it's not that those events are fantasies

just that they are in the exception rather than the rule.

[TPaine7]

5. Supporting data?

What do you base this assertion on?

What is the usual outcome? Does the felon usually prevail? Does the defender usually shoot herself or her loved ones? Does she usually hit innocent bystanders? Is she usually killed or wounded?

As I have shown previously, data shows that civilians do better in self-defense situations than do police officers.

[Clovis Sangrail]

6. straw man

nobody has asserted that the 'felon usually prevails' or that the 'defender usually shoots herself of her loved ones'
I'm also unaware of the scads of people claiming that those sort of outcomes are 'impossible or very nearly so'

As for civilians doing better than police... that might be true - it's also irrelevant.

I pointed out that situations like this are the exception rather than the rule because there were 2 armed assailants, 1 armed civilian, 1 attacked civilian, 1 child, shots were fired by both sides and nobody was injured.
(well, apart from the guy who got conked on the head)

[TPaine7]

10. A straw man is a misrepresentation of another's opinion.

I made no representations, I simply asked questions. There is no strawman.

I agree with you that this is probably unusual in several ways. However, no one being hit is not all that unusual.

The part about the police is relevant because there is general societal consensus that it is appropriate for police to be armed. If honest civilians are better than them at handling weapons in self-defense, that should be good enough.

[Clovis Sangrail]

11. bullshit

What is the usual outcome? Does the felon usually prevail? Does the defender usually shoot herself or her loved ones? Does she usually hit innocent bystanders? Is she usually killed or wounded?

Of course, none of this means anything except to those who believe that such outcomes are impossible or very nearly so.

Your statements make it very clear that arguing against a strawman is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Reasoning">exactly what you are doing.

and you might feel your comments on police vs. civilian are important but they are not relevant to whether this case is unusual or 'the norm'.. which is what I commented on.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. You do know what a question mark is don't you?????

The five questions that you say are statements are all followed by question marks. That usually means that they are in fact questions not statements.


David

[Clovis Sangrail]

22. blah blah blah

what has been written very clearly indicates that the poster is arguing against a their own invention of a 'gun grabber' - hence strawman

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. So you can't substantially answer any of his questions, okay we understand.

That is what is very clear in this thread.

David

[Clovis Sangrail]

31. why the hell *would* I answer any of those questions???

if your use of 'we' indicates you speak for a group then it's a group of idiots with poor reading skills.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. You made an assertion he asked for supporting data, that's why.

They are simple questions. It really isn't that hard.

David

[Clovis Sangrail]

34. but but but but but

I don't address strawmen (and you shouldn't either) ... it's a waste of time

[Dimensio0]

36. To what "strawmen" do you refer?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. So to clarify for everyone.

You don't think it's unusual for law abiding citizens to use firearms successfully for self defense. You do think it's rare for them to use them against two assailants 1 armed with a firearm and 1 with a nail gun and for there to be shots fired and for no one to be injured. Is that your point?

David

[Clovis Sangrail]

41. I think my point about the OP was made very succinctly

it's not that those events are fantasies
just that they are in the exception rather than the rule.

you've gotten your knickers in a knot over a very benign and true statement

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. As I said before I agree.

This specific situation has probably never happened before. Since home defense is now a constitutionally protected it's really silly to even discuss cases like this.

David

[iverglas]

33. you're stealing all my lines!

Stick around a bit, I'm kinda busy with work today. ;)

[WWFZD]

37. You have another job?

Besides this?
Good Lord woman, you're a dynamo!
I pop up here and post something every few days..., then again I'm kinda lazy:)

[iverglas]

39. yeah, and

A good chunk of it was up for bid, closing today, so please cross some toes for me. About half of my income for the next 3 years is on the line.

You wouldn't want me spending twice as much time here, I'm sure.

[WWFZD]

46. Spend as much time here

as you want. You're on the wrong side of the future but you like it and so do we.
So how did it go, did you get contract? I crossed all digits that were crossable.
I passed all my exams for that professional certification. I bet you got that job dijntya:)

[iverglas]

55. Yes! thank you

I forgot I'd mentioned it here. Yes, got the word on Friday; all income now secure for three years (this contract is about 1/2 to 1/3 of total needed, other smaller long-term and ad hoc contracts make up the rest), and even at a slightly higher price. Although nowhere near what I'm worth. ;)

And congrats on your own success. Did you take my advice then?

[WWFZD]

57. Of course I took your advice

you Capitalist you. Mucho Congratulations.
We never get paid what we're worth do we?:) I could tell you a recent story that would knock our socks off, provided you deal in high level negotiations and know the difference between a debit and a credit.
And those rates are always negotiable, that's why they mod contracts.

[iverglas]

58. heh heh

And those rates are always negotiable, that's why they mod contracts.

You're not in my biz, and your customer isn't the Gummint of Canada. ;)

You do recall my advice, right? Hitchhike a couple of hundred miles, drink a bottle of red wine, smoke a couple of joints, get up and write the exam ...

[TPaine7]

44. I have a few thoughts on Straw Men, Bullshit, and Reading Comprehension

and consistency but they take more time to put down than I have now. Real life gets in the way sometimes.

[TPaine7]

48. Of Straw men, Consistency, Bullshit, Reading Comprehension and Reality Avoidance

On Straw men


First let's look at the definition of straw man from your source:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).

I said at the outset that anecdotes prove nothing, but that some people seemed to like them. I also stated that the OP's story should impress no one but those with a very weak positions--the belief that such events are fantasies, (or an unwarranted reliance on anecdotal evidence).

Both of these statements diametrically oppose straw man strategy. Were I advancing a straw man, I would be claiming that my anecdote was strong evidence and trying to increase (as opposed to explicitly limiting) the class of people and arguments covered.

A person who actually knew what a straw man was would pick this up immediately, or at least after my first comment on straw men.

Such a person would have gotten the point: "If you are really impressed by anecdotal evidence or if you think such things virtually never happen, this post is for you."

It turns out there is history behind this. I have repeatedly pointed out that people on this site over-value anecdotes. I have also read comments saying (or strongly implying) everything you claim no one said. (Believe what you will, I don't care enough to hunt down quotations.)

On Consistency, Bullshit, Reading Comprehension and Reality Avoidance

Besides not having the foggiest notion of what a straw man is and lacking the reading comprehension to understand the OP or even your own source, you can't seem to agree with yourself.

First you responded to the OP, which you claim is a straw man. Not only that, but you answered the exact portion of the OP that you cited as offensive (see the second quote block of post 11).

Then, when you were asked to provide data to back one of your claims, you suddenly remembered that you don't answer straw men. Bullshit. You can't even agree with yourself.

Honest people--at least honest people who don't need bibs to soak up the drool--shouldn't have that much difficulty being consistent. It appears you are using an all too common alternate definition of straw man:

straw man, n: a get out of difficulty card that can be played against an opponent who raises points or asks questions one wishes to avoid.

The most likely reason you cried "straw man" is that you didn't like the answer to the request for data; you didn't want to admit that your claim is just a personal hunch.

The studies I have read leave me with the impression that, in relevant ways, this anecdote is not that unusual. Two people being protected by a third isn't unusual in my informed opinion. Multiple shots being fired by defender and perpetrator isn't the normal situation (zero shots is much more common) but neither is it rare for shots to be fired by both sides with no hits. So though I have never read a study directly addressing the intersection of these sets, I doubt that it is as small as many suspect.

Since that is my informed opinion (though one I was not arguing in this thread--an anecdote cannot sustain it), I am interested in any data that might tend to refute it. I was also interested in avoiding BS arguments that I have heard stated or strongly implied here and elsewhere. (If you haven't good for you.)

Instead of reviewing interesting data, however, I find myself refuting drivel from someone who can't comprehend the OP or his (or her) own cited source (and accuses someone who does of poor reading comprehension), who doesn't agree with himself (or herself), who doesn't understand the meaning of the term straw man, but arrogantly calls bullshit on me for giving and correctly applying the real definition, and who misuses the term apparently to avoid facing the unpleasant reality that his (or her) assertion was a unsubstantiated hunch.

It is so depressing to have spent these minutes of my life answering utter nonsense. Thanks for nothing.

[Clovis Sangrail]

53. you're most heartily welcome ;)

but get over yourself.
You didn't start this thread because you were 'interested' in anything other than a group circle jerk about how cool and tough guns are.

[TPaine7]

54. clovis thinks falsely attributing feelings to somebody makes you look like an ass

Source: post 52

[SteveM]

69. Ah, the truth outs: you wish to gas-huff your own farts (nt)

[aspergris]

47. I agree

And I'm a cop AND a firearms instructor.

A lot of this is cultural. Cops who come from areas where guns are common and part of the culture DO tend to be pretty darn good shots.

Cops from cultures where guns are rare, at least among law abiding folks, tend to be more likely to be mediocre shots.

At least that's my experience.

I have fwiw, never dealt with a citizen CCW'er who committed any crime with their handgun.

I've dealt with numerous ones who used their firearm lawfully. The VAST majority never fired it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. So it's not rare for a citizen to defend themselves successfully with a firearm?

You seem to be saying that this exact scenario, in and of itself, is rare? In that case, I would have to agree it is rare that one of the two home intruders in this case was armed with a nail gun.

David

[eilen]

14. I think criminal have crappy aim in general

They tend to hold the gun sideways, rendering the sights inoperable and just point in the general direction of their target. I think that is due to Hollywood, they think it looks cool. This explains why there are so many innocent bystander killings. Unless they are at close range (drive-by), the bullet per target ratio is very high.

My intuition is that the woman did not wish to kill the intruders, only to threaten them sufficiently to cause them to leave. Also, the information does not tell us if she had actually trained on this weapon. I know that I would have a difficult time pointing and shooting a 357 with any degree of accuracy, unless I had practiced quite a bit. The heft and the kickback would interfere. My dh's Python is heavy and seems very large and bulky compared to the 22. I could use a smaller/lighter firearm with better precision.

[spin]

28. Sights for sideways gun...

While this is merely a joke, and somewhat in bad taste because of a racist element, I wonder if this concept would work.

[jeepnstein]

29. She did as well as most

When you get into a gunfight the adrenaline really gets pumping. The first thing to go is fine motor skills. The old saying is "You fight like you train". The only thing you have to rely upon is muscle memory and coarse motor skills. It wasn't the recoil, muzzle blast, or weight of the gun that impeded here. She was just pumping at a million miles an hour and didn't have any muscle memory built up from shooting a lot.

Some guns are more forgiving in situations like this than others. If she would have had a shotgun or a carbine the bad guy would have been carried out of there in a bag.

[cliffordu]

7. Yep. Proof???

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. of what???

that a conflict involving 5 people, 3 of them armed, where shots are fired by both factions and nobody gets hurt is the exception rather than the rule?

[cliffordu]

9. Uh nope. I was simply talking about self defense with a firearm.

That's what I thought you were referring to.

[krispos42]

12. Very true

Most of the time, no shots are fired at all. Several thousand times a day, that is how the confrontation ends.

[SteveM]

21. Quite being so hostile and explain what you mean by

"they are in the exception rather than the rule." So many times people get on this site and starting playing "logic" games. So, explain what you mean rather than blaring "bullshit" down thread.

"One always feels towards logic as Virgil bade Dante feel towards those who have been damned because of their colorless neutrality"
Non ragionam di lor, ma guarda e passa -- 'Let us think no more about them, but look once and pass on.'" The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant.

[Clovis Sangrail]

23. I'm sorry you feel logic is something to fear

must be a tough life

[SteveM]

24. You missed the intent of Durant's comments....

How can you fear logic when it's impact is so limited and (more importantly) misused? Misuse being so often the case, I become BORED at the stale joke, not fearful. If logic were alive and saw itself surrounded by its Lilliputian practitioners, it would conclude its life was the toughest.

[Clovis Sangrail]

26. Durant's comments were only part of your post /nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. Pot meet kettle.

[biermeister]

15. good for her- too bad she wasn't a better shot

dead criminals tend to rob a lot less in the future

[tburnsten]

16. Why I don't believe in "warning shots"

She had a 5-shot revolver, so it was almost without a doubt a Smith and Wesson J-frame or clone. She used one of her five shots firing at a non-target. A shot to the armed man's chest would have been far more effective, and probably safer as well. Bullets tend to stop pretty quickly in tissue, especially defense designed expanding ammunition, but all bullets will go through many many layers of all common construction materials like drywall, making her "warning shot" a potential hazard to people outside. Then when he was still inside her home she used the last four of her shots before he was out. It is admirable that she didn't want to shoot someone until he had forced her too, and that she had the gumption to fire at him when he made it unavoidable, but it would have probably been better for her if she had just shot him right off the bat. He was already a lethal threat to her and her family, it would not have been wrong to kill him.

[JMackT]

19. She did good

The only thing she could have done better is have more practice and stop with the warning shot.

[tburnsten]

20. She did very well

Especially for someone who is indoors after firing off a round, that is one of the most unforgettable experiences in and of itself (don't ask), but she is still pretty lucky that the guy with the pistol didn't press the attack, since she blew through her five shots in my opinion prematurely.

[slackmaster]

25. Don't bring a nail gun to a gun fight

:shrug:

[Clovis Sangrail]

27. now if he'd had the plasma gun... /nt

[Otto DeFay]

35. Clovis, please

restate your point, if you do not mind.
Are you saying that the fact that no one (that we know of) was hit is the exception?
Or that it is exceptional that a civilian drove off intruders successfully?
I honestly think that either point can be disproven, but I want to make sure that I am addressing what you actually mean to state.
Thank you.

[Clovis Sangrail]

43. it's not complicated

the op said

A few points:

a) A "5-foot-3" woman put two larger men to flight.
b) A little woman can protect a man if she is armed.
c) One of the men was armed with a gun. It is often argued that the armed criminal has an insurmountable advantage and will virtually always prevail in a gunfight.
d) The woman didn't shoot the men at the first opportunity, in fact she waited until she was fired upon.
f) It appears that she wasn't motivated by racism, misogyny, or even politics.
g) She didn't shoot her loved ones.
h) She prevailed, protecting her boyfriend and daughter from predators.

Of course, none of this means anything except to those who believe that such outcomes are impossible or very nearly so. Those folks who consider such events fantasies should adjust their thinking.

to which I responded

it's not that those events are fantasies
just that they are in the exception rather than the rule.

that was my "point".
The event in the article and the 'points' taken from it are 'in the exception' on multiple levels.


on edit:
I still think the plasma gun would have been a better choice

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. Clovis thinks self defense happens successfully all the time.

She just doesn't think it happens against 2 perpetrators when one is armed with a nail gun very often.

David

[Clovis Sangrail]

52. clovis thinks falsely attributing feelings to somebody makes you look like an ass /nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. You could of answered the questions if you actually wanted your point known.

We know though that you got caught making a ridiculously stupid assertion that you couldn't back up and now have done everything in your power to distract from the obvious.

David

[Clovis Sangrail]

59. ridiculous?

are you fucking serious???

I stated that the events the OP described were "in the exception rather than the rule"

Are you saying that "A "5-foot-3" woman put two larger men to flight" is the rule?
Or maybe that a woman protecting her "boyfriend and daughter from predators" is the rule?
How about somebody having a fricken' nailgun ... is that the general rule as well?
That's without even considering how many shots were fired or how many people were involved or anything else.

You can't be this stupid.
The events in the OP were in the exception on many levels.

My statement was correct and you admitted as much yourself.
The only reason this turned into any kind of online spat is because of the ingrates who think anybody who says anything not in agreement must be some kind of mythical 'gun grabber'.

Are you thinking you can sneak in and score some points after everybody has left?
You already lost this agrument and it's closed.

Time to move on and learn from it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. You lost the argument long ago.

The specific events are unusual. That is not what you meant when this thread started. When you found out that the facts disproved your idiotic assertion, then you said you were only speaking of these specific events. Any person with half a brain can see that by reading all of the posts. Case closed you lose.

David

[Clovis Sangrail]

61. this is kinda fun

so.. my initial statements when this thread started were fraught with meaning and were wrong.. :

it's not that those events are fantasies

just that they are in the exception rather than the rule.

:rofl:

[Malidictus Maximus]

62. Well,

"just that they are in the exception rather than the rule."

You need to prove that, not just state it.

There are many, many incidents of armed homeowners defending themselves against criminals. That the specifics are not 'average', that is a small woman, two men, use of a .357, etc, has no more meaning than the moon being in Sagittarius or the fact that one burglar had freckles; the salient fact is that a small female, with a firearm routed two thugs while if she had not been armed things would have quite likely turned out otherwise.

[Clovis Sangrail]

63. lol

you say "you need to prove it, not just state it" ... and then acknowledge my statement was correct by saying "that the specifics are not 'average'.. has not more meaning"

The 'salient fact' is that I said the events described weren't the rule, and I was correct.
Are you saying that most incidents involving somebody firing a gun are a small female defending herself, her boyfriend, and child?
:rofl:

[Malidictus Maximus]

64. There is no"average"

The fact is that without a firearm, she would have been a victim, with a firearm the thugs were run off. The specifics make the example more vivid, but I don't know if there is a 'typical' self defense situation.

The salient point is that if the gun grabbers had had their way she would have been quite possibly raped and/or dead.

here are two , out of 592 that came back in the first quickie search I did.

East Valley Tribune, Scottsdale, AZ, 3/25/08
State: AZ
An elderly Scottsdale, AZ woman was still recovering from a break-in late Thursday night by an intruder who demanded money and threatened to set fire to her garage, when the same intruder turned up early Saturday morning. When the 78-year-old woman heard him breaking into her house for the second time, she grabbed her handgun and fired two shots, scaring him away. Police caught up with the uninjured intruder and took him into custody.

The Record, West Paterson, NJ, 09/26/07
State: TX
Returning home to find a man rooting around in her living room, a 22-year-old woman quickly fled to the bedroom. She locked the door behind her and obtained her husband's handgun and ammunition. According to authorities, the young woman fled to an adjacent bathroom and turned the door's lock while the intruder forcefully entered the bedroom. She quickly loaded her husband's gun and, when the intruder began pounding on the bathroom door, she fired a single shot. Upon realizing his intended victim was armed, the once-brazen thug fled the home.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. No, there is no rule,

beyond 'a firearm was used to protect human life'.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Well it's like this.

When you wrote, "it's not that those events are fantasies just that they are in the exception rather than the rule." It was clear to everyone that you were talking about defensive use of firearms in general. When other posters made you aware how misinformed you were, you said you were only talking about home invasions with nail guns by 2 perpetrators where shots were fired and no one was injured, as if anyone actually thought that the exact circumstances of this event were common. Your arguments have been quite comical though so I applaud your work.

David

[radioburning]

45. She must've been trying to turn America into the wild west and doesn't care about the safety of...

...anybody else. Total rabid right-wing republican gun nut. She should do prison time. I'm being sarcastic.

[Scout]

65. where did the 5 bullets go? n/t

[tburnsten]

66. Into the walls

And hopefully they all hit studs, appliances, or furniture so they didn't go anywhere. If they did exit the house, apparently they didn't get far.