I guarantee they took her handgun as evidence in the case. Tell ya what, if I were a local gunshop owner, I would publicly invite her and her husband to my shop for their choice of 1 free handgun to replace the one taken in evidence.

Hopefully Gwinnett Co will take this to Grand Jury. It will get No Billed in the Grand Jury, then, when this POS gets some ambulance-chasing scumbag like Ken Nugent and sues the woman, they won't have a pot to piss in: she will already have been cleared of all wrong-doing by a jury of her peers.

This event occured in Walton County not Gwinnett.  It should be the Alcovy District Attorneys office.



 

You think if everyone on here threw in 5-10 bucks we could buy her something better than a .38 revolver to replace it with?
I'd be down for that.

ETA: since a straw purchase is against the law. We could throw in and buy her a gift certificate for a local store, and maybe she could get some training with it also.

I personally wouldn't leave a person who uses a firearm in self defense without one to replace it with...
Nothing devestates a victim more than being disarmed AFTER lawfully using a firearm to protect themselves...
I have done it before....twice....

I thought GA has a law where if the shoot was justified which clearly the was the perp or the perp's family could not sue.

 

Hopefully, after having this happen, if they don't have one already, they can afford/ have an alarm system installed in the house.  You sure don't need someone trying to get "revenge" in the weeh hours of the night.  Or get a good yappie dog.


  Semper Fi

This story has now hit the national stage at foxnews.com

Fox News Story

I'm willing to bet that wasn't her only firearm.  It was mentioned earlier that she left one weapon behind while retreating to her hiding place, but I don't have a link to back it up.  Even so, of the people I know that have guns, no one only has one.

Is there any statutory law permitting the Sheriff or other agency to seize the weapon in a situation such as this?  If there is please cite it, or list reasons to defend the seizure, because I'd like to know.

I agree, her husband sounded like someone who was QUITE comfortable with firearms and shooting, I suspect if another gun wasn't already available, he's picked one up by now.



 

Technically that was a homicide scene, albeit on its face a justified one, and the local officers have the right to seize any evidence of the crime they are investigating.  Im willing to bet that they even got a search warrant for the home before doing anything.

I'd argue it's not a right to seize, but authority permitted by laws governing search warrants.  What's the "process" and why would a (defensive) weapon be seized?  What can the police do with a seized weapon at a crime lab (where the owner might need it again) that can't be done at a justifiable homicide scene?

If a woman was to use her weapon against an intruder how likely would it be that the agency seizing the weapon would lend another temporarily?

I talked to the lead investigator in the case and he said the bullets could have been reloaded.  No GAP for me

Word is that the victim's 38 was loaded with  (quoting exactly what I was told) "cheap ball ammo"

All persons are secure against "unreasonable" searches and seizures and once a search warrant has been issued (which will include the evidence that police are looking for and intend to seize) then i would argue that police DO have a right to seize evidence of a crime and could even charge a person with hindering an investigation or evidence tampering if they tried to refuse turning something over.  

All that said, the weapon (or object) that caused death is probably one of, if not the, most important piece of evidence and an investigator would be neglectful just to assume what happened on scene and leave without securing any evidence.  It seems like you have an issue with police taking property, but remember that investigation is as much for her benefit as anyones.  Once ballistic information (that obviously can't be done on scene) reveals that the gun she was holding was indeed the gun that was used to shoot the intruder then her story checks out and all that information would be to justify the shooting and even protect her from civil litigation.    

Imagine the outcry if police officers just walked through a crime scene, determined what they thought happened and just left.  Thats absolutely neglectful and would not be tolerated by anyone.  Officers have a duty and responsibility to process a crime scene thoroughly, take evidence, and determine what charges, if any, should be filed and prosecuted.  Thats just the way it is.  Sometimes it seems silly, like in this case, but its the way things are done.  You can't be too thorough in an investigation, especially when someone has been shot or killed.  

Ive seen police officers relieved of their weapon when they were the only shooter and the incident was caught on several different cameras.  It seems silly, but its the way business is handled.  

Ive never head of any police agency giving a civilian a firearm after seizing one and i suspect its probably never happened.  Why would they?

that is what i expected, especially with the 4 through and throughs.

did the bad guy expire?

I dont know.  Just for sake of argument I was calling it a homicide.

I just found out a few details.
It was FMJ bullets.
The burgular was shot in the teeth & exited the cheek. Also was hit in the waddle or in his double chin as he turned from the gun.
Also the perp was bad breath close to the shooter.
Last I heard he was still alive...
7mm

Because they are a good officer of the law and want their citizens to be protected.

Not sure if you found it this way, but its on the home page/main page now.

Heard about a 2nd gun on a late night, live update the night of the incident.  This is the video of the report @ 2:18 here  @2:00 it shows the husband speaking.  I thought he represented gun owners and his wife well.

Made it to my favorite mil blog, Blackfive

I've got a good friend from gwinett county who survived several hits center mass from a 223. Went straight thru his vest at close range.

 

Good national coverage where the anti gun moderate seems to finally get it....

All I see is a big white square.....

yeah same, I found it though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEpEoWLkKMc

VERY GOOD POINT, But he should have pointed out that many home invasions are carried out by more than one attacker.

911 tape released

Wonder how many people would have been able to stay calm and collected?

I think i was in this situation my wife would have spent most if the time Arguing with me about where to hide

"If he kills me, it's your fault!"

More of the 911 call


I can't get over how calm her husband is during all this. I'm loving the part where he tells her to "shoot him again". Lol.

I know, right? I'd be freaking out!

He did remain calm during the call.  Towards the end he was getting pretty antsy and wanted to get the hell home.  Can't blame him after 7+ min on the phone during the ordeal.

Preachin' to the choir here, but one thing I like to pay attention to in these situations is the police response time.  Seems that is one very important part many gun grabbers ignore about these scenarios and Sandy Hook.  

Using the second link above.  She started shooting at 2:15 into the call.  At ~2:45 it appears the husband couldn't hear anything and had lost contact with his wife.  

He asked the dispatcher if the police had arrived several times.  He ended the call shortly after finding out his wife and kids were safe and with the neighbors.  Police were still not on scene yet and it had been over 7 minutes.

Now, I'm not bringing this up to take a dig at the police response times.  My guess would be that 5-7 min is pretty average in many cases.    

7 min is an eternity when you need help right effing now.  Good thing she was prepared and knew how to use the gun.  It's also very fortunate that he wasn't armed and/or able to fight back after being shot.  With her gun being empty that could have been bad.

Faux News and BSNBC are the "news manipulators" who slant and ignore stories to fit the agenda.   CNN covered it.

How much of this statement is spin, and how much is reality:

Its probably a pretty accurate statement.  But if we use liberal logic the response would be "but hey...if it saves JUST ONE LIFE then its worth it."

We've heard this for YEARS.  Yet I have never seen a creditable statistical study showing the details of this "report".  And it also depends on their parameters of their data.  Does an "armed homeowner" include gang-banners who have unlicensed / illegal guns in their home?  If so then sure, I can *maybe* see this, but it's also skeying the facts as your including illegal ownership in with legal ownership and it doesn't paint the true picture.  

But I have a very hard time believing RESPONSIBLE, legal and contributing members of society are what's represented in this statement.

Has anyone here ever seen any actual study that collaborates this?

Kellermann is a hack who has been producing biased research for years, there are some pretty significant structural issues with the "studies" he has been doing (no determination of whether the gun in the home was involved in the homicide or assault, relying on accurate surveys of gun ownership, and considering the only successful self-defense to be one in which the homeowner shot someone).