• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grandma, 72, shoots at home intruder in California, defends actions

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
As if she had to defend her actions:

Jan Cooper, of Anaheim, fired one shot from her .357-magnum Smith & Wesson revolver around 12:30 a.m. Sunday as a man attempted to break into her home. During a 911 call of the incident, Cooper can be heard begging with the dispatcher to send deputies and warns that she has a gun at the ready as her Rottweiler barks furiously in the background.Minutes later, a breathless Cooper says the man has come to the back porch and is trying to get in the house through a sliding door. Through the vertical blinds, Cooper saw his silhouette just inches away through the glass as he began to slide open the door.


"I'm firing!" Cooper shouts to the dispatcher as a loud band goes off. Cooper then curses at the suspect, shouting at him to "back up."


"You'd better get the police here. I don't know whether I hit him or not. I'm not sure. He's standing at my door, my back door. He's in my yard," she said.


The suspect, 31-year-old Brandon Alexander Perez, was not hit and was arrested a short while later by responding deputies, who heard the gunshot, said Jim Amormino, spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Read more: Grandma, 72, shoots at home intruder in California, defends actions | Fox News

Sans her gun, we'd be reading a very different story about Gram and her 85-year-old husband.

If we're going to report horror stories, we need to report when the good guys win. Thoughts?
 
I think that whenever someone shoots at someone, they better have a good explanation for it. That being said, in this case it sounds like a justified shooting.
 
As if she had to defend her actions:



Sans her gun, we'd be reading a very different story about Gram and her 85-year-old husband.

If we're going to report horror stories, we need to report when the good guys win. Thoughts?

I'm glad she had the weapon.
Too bad she missed.

I'm a little surprised that she had a gun in Anaheim.
 
As if she had to defend her actions:



Sans her gun, we'd be reading a very different story about Gram and her 85-year-old husband.

If we're going to report horror stories, we need to report when the good guys win. Thoughts?

Good for her.
 
I'm glad she had the weapon.
Too bad she missed.

I'm a little surprised that she had a gun in Anaheim.

"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."[19] This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197.[20] CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."

^^This is the California law that will no doubt prevent the criminal from filing a civil suit without immediate dismissal. Without it, she could well be sued civilly. That's the real benefit of Castle Laws and Stand-Your-Ground Laws. She didn't have to wait for him to punch her in the face.
 
Does it not stand to reason that liberals wanted her and her husband to die?

I mean, I feel like I'm constantly reading liberals accusing conservatives of wanting children to die because they support the Second Amendment. Shouldn't the opposite be true?
 
Good for her.
 
On a side note, is anyone else tied of reading stories about repeat offender criminals?

Maybe it's time we start having a discussion as to whether our sentences are too lenient.
 
On a side note, is anyone else tied of reading stories about repeat offender criminals?

Maybe it's time we start having a discussion as to whether our sentences are too lenient.

There is no doubt in my mind that this home was targeted by this jerk. Two old people. That's no coincidence.

My mom is 83, her partner is 82. There are some druggies across the street who asked her one day who lives with her. I take that very seriously. I don't know what she could do to counter that, but I will never forget they asked.
 
On a side note, is anyone else tied of reading stories about repeat offender criminals?

Maybe it's time we start having a discussion as to whether our sentences are too lenient.

To balance the books, and to meet court mandates to relieve overcrowding, Governor Brown has forced the transfer of crimminals from state prisons to county prisons. Already suffering significant budget deficits, the counties have been releasing hardcore criminals back onto the streets.

The bottom line is that preserve the pay and benefits of public employees, and to do a smoke and mirror job on the budget deficits, liberal/progressives who control the state prefer felons be on the street, rather than have citizens protected.
 
Self defense can be achieved without a high powered assault rifle! If a 72 year old woman can defend herself with a revolver than anybody can.
 
DA you forgot taxes. Remember death and taxes. They'd want the old lady to pay more taxes, depend on her grubbynut, and of course die when they (grubbynut) fail to save her they'd want her estate and form a committee to determine why they failed to save her. The committee would determine the offender's village failed at raising him and adjust their taxes accordingly for an in school toy gun buy back program (yes that's happening).


Does it not stand to reason that liberals wanted her and her husband to die?

I mean, I feel like I'm constantly reading liberals accusing conservatives of wanting children to die because they support the Second Amendment. Shouldn't the opposite be true?
 
Shotguns!

If you shoot a pistol in a populated area you could inadvertently kill a neighbor.

Buck shot or bird shot is all you need. (preferably bird shot, then you probably won't kill them)

That said, I'm surprised someone in Anaheim even has a gun. lol
 
Self defense can be achieved without a high powered assault rifle!

There are no such things as high powered assault rifles, assault rifles use an intermediate cartridge like a .223/5.56, high powered rifles (.306, .308, 338 lapua, 7.62x54R) if semi/fully automatic are called Battle Rifles, like the AR-10, FAL, M14 etc...

If a 72 year old woman can defend herself with a revolver than anybody can.

A situation where a revolver works, like a single attacker/intruder, does not render the revolver ideal in all situations where the capacity of a semi-automatic would be warranted, or multiple magazines, or even a shotgun/rifle. Your logic is quite non-sequitur here.

Revolver rounds like the .357 Magnum are in fact overkill and runs the risk of over penetrating and hitting resident or neighbor compared to a 115 grain 9mm hollow point or even better, shotgun shot.
 
Last edited:
Does it not stand to reason that liberals wanted her and her husband to die?

I mean, I feel like I'm constantly reading liberals accusing conservatives of wanting children to die because they support the Second Amendment. Shouldn't the opposite be true?

Yeah, let's go ahead and politicize this thread as quickly as we can. There always seems to be a rush to be the first to throw the words "liberals" or "conservatives" around in every thread. We recognize you got to be first on this thread. You must be proud. :roll:
 
Does it not stand to reason that liberals wanted her and her husband to die?

How do you come to such an idiotic conclusion?

I mean, I feel like I'm constantly reading liberals accusing conservatives of wanting children to die

Ah, you feel like this is the case...

Do you have any evidence of these dastardly liberals making such claims?

Shouldn't the opposite be true?

Not to a rational person, no.

In any case, I can't possibly fathom the purpose of this thread.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that this home was targeted by this jerk. Two old people. That's no coincidence.

My mom is 83, her partner is 82. There are some druggies across the street who asked her one day who lives with her. I take that very seriously. I don't know what she could do to counter that, but I will never forget they asked.

She could have said. "Well, there's me, my partner, there's Smith & Wesson, and there's Mr. Mossberg. Why do you ask?"
 
Self defense can be achieved without a high powered assault rifle! If a 72 year old woman can defend herself with a revolver than anybody can.

Revolvers are nice. My primary carry gun is a revolver (with 2 speed loaders). HOWEVER, she's fortunate that there was a single intruder and that the one shot scared him enough to stop his advance. When I go into more urban areas I don't carry the revolver. I carry my Smith & Wesson M&P9 semi-auto and AT LEAST one additional magazine. In the rare circumstance that I have to go into a bad enough areas I'll carry BOTH guns and the additional ammo.

Shotguns!

If you shoot a pistol in a populated area you could inadvertently kill a neighbor.

Buck shot or bird shot is all you need. (preferably bird shot, then you probably won't kill them)

Shotguns have their advantages. Not terribly concealable and not covered by most CCW laws for carry on the street, but in home defense they are useful. HOWEVER, you do not EVER shoot to wound. If you need to fire it is with the intent to KILL. If you aren't in a position to need to KILL, then you don't pull out the gun in the first place.
 
Good thing the missed shot didn't end up in a neighbors house.
 
Revolvers are nice. My primary carry gun is a revolver (with 2 speed loaders). HOWEVER, she's fortunate that there was a single intruder and that the one shot scared him enough to stop his advance. When I go into more urban areas I don't carry the revolver. I carry my Smith & Wesson M&P9 semi-auto and AT LEAST one additional magazine. In the rare circumstance that I have to go into a bad enough areas I'll carry BOTH guns and the additional ammo.

Shotguns have their advantages. Not terribly concealable and not covered by most CCW laws for carry on the street, but in home defense they are useful. HOWEVER, you do not EVER shoot to wound. If you need to fire it is with the intent to KILL. If you aren't in a position to need to KILL, then you don't pull out the gun in the first place.

If she made a mistake, it was in not emptying her gun, in my opinion. I wouldn't have had the confidence she did that my one shot would stop him.
 
If California cannot afford to house all their prisoners, then instead of releasing them, they should dedicate more tax dollars to the task or kill them in the order of severity of the crime. Releasing doesn't sounds like a helpful option for anyone except the prisoner.
 
If she made a mistake, it was in not emptying her gun, in my opinion. I wouldn't have had the confidence she did that my one shot would stop him.

A .357 is a pretty stout gun and not all that easy to handle. Certainly, however, there was no doubt in the home robber's mind that he was been targeted by BIG gun. The noise alone would have told him that.
 
On a side note, is anyone else tied of reading stories about repeat offender criminals?

Maybe it's time we start having a discussion as to whether our sentences are too lenient.

It's not about crime. It's about control and spite. They want to demonize gun owners to disarm us. They don't give a rats ass about crime. If they did they would be addressing it and not useless gun laws.
 
It's not about crime. It's about control and spite. They want to demonize gun owners to disarm us. They don't give a rats ass about crime. If they did they would be addressing it and not useless gun laws.

Conspiracy: I would also argue that when the dollar collapses (mathematical certainty) they want us disarmed for easier population control.

Beyond that they want a servile population whose God is the state, which an armed populace will resist. Basically force us to rely on them rather than ourselves. (security being the primary reliance)
 
Back
Top Bottom