• 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!

Woman Ends Home Invasion, Saves Lives (Caught on Video)

truthatallcost

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other


Gwinnett County police released 911 audio as well as surveillance video on Thursday of two suspects connected to a home invasion that resulted in the death of a third suspect last week.
Police have said the woman is a local Asian restaurant owner who was staying at the home because it was convenient for business purposes.

The woman fatally shot one of the suspects in the torso, according to police. The deceased suspect was later identified as 28-year-old Atlanta resident Antonio Leeks.

One of the remaining suspects have been described as an approximately 6-foot-tall black male with a thin build and facial hair, who was wearing a WHI baseball cap, dark-colored pants and athletic shoes with an unknown reflective symbol when the crime occurred.

The other suspect has also been described as an approximately 6-foot-tall black male with a thin build and facial hair, but he was also described as having short black hair and wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, dark-colored pants and black athletic shoes during the crime.

Video, 911 audio from fatal home invasion released | Norcross | gwinnettdailypost.com

Good for her, she proves that the 2nd Amendment saves lives.

Thoughts?
 
At least two of them looks to have had a gun too and the moment they heard her they started to go towards her with the gun....at least until she started shooting. So yeah, her having a gun DEFINITELY saved her life and that of the other person that was in there that came out after the shooting stopped. *scratch that...just watched the video again...all three perps had guns. A good reason WHY 10 cap magazine laws are stupid and dangerous for innocent people.

That said, not sure if I agree with her continuing to shoot through the door. Especially that last shot where it seems to be an after thought or a "for good measure". That might get her into trouble.
 
There were four people in that house that evening.

One of them was exceptionally brave and fairly good with a gun.

The other three, eh, not so much.
:(
 
The homeowner was foolish to use a firearm in this situation.

Statistics show that the homeowner is more likely to hurt herself, or other innocent people in these situations.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The homeowner was foolish to use a firearm in this situation.

Statistics show that the homeowner is more likely to hurt herself, or other innocent people in these situations.
Click to expand...

Don't let the NRA hear you...they will send a hit squad out for you.


Btw, what you said is exactly why I own tasers and NOT guns.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The homeowner was foolish to use a firearm in this situation.

Statistics show that the homeowner is more likely to hurt herself, or other innocent people in these situations.
Click to expand...

She's just another statistic that doesn't back up your statistics.
 
DA60 said:
Btw, what you said is exactly why I own tasers and NOT guns.
Click to expand...

Please explain how the Tasers would have worked in this situation against three people with guns. How does she manage that?
 
RetiredUSN said:
The homeowner was foolish to use a firearm in this situation.
Click to expand...

Three armed perps enter the dwelling at night and she was supposed to do what? Spread her legs? No, she had it right, and her justification goes back to antiquity: If a person enters your home at night, you have to assume that the intruder knows that the home is likely occupied and intends to harm you, up to and including killing you.
 
DA60 said:
Don't let the NRA hear you...they will send a hit squad out for you.


Btw, what you said is exactly why I own tasers and NOT guns.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You would recommend the use of taser(s) on three armed home invaders? What if those guns were brought for the express purpose of eliminating any potential witnesses?
 
DA60 said:
Don't let the NRA hear you...they will send a hit squad out for you.


Btw, what you said is exactly why I own tasers and NOT guns.
Click to expand...

A tazer would have likely gotten her killed in that situation. You don't use a tazer on multiple assailants from another room.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The homeowner was foolish to use a firearm in this situation.

Statistics show that the homeowner is more likely to hurt herself, or other innocent people in these situations.
Click to expand...

You're joking.......Right? I certainly hope that you are. There is no taser out there that will take down 3 assailants with guns. Even if you had a taser in each hand and hit a target each you still are not going to get the third person. And then you're dead.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You're joking.......Right? I certainly hope that you are. There is no taser out there that will take down 3 assailants with guns. Even if you had a taser in each hand and hit a target each you still are not going to get the third person. And then you're dead.
Click to expand...

.......... ;) ...........
 
There are always two argument we hear from gun control supporters in regards to private gun ownership:

1. That private gun ownership increases the likelihood of self-injury by gun.

2. There is no real evidence that private gun ownership is useful against armed criminals.

The first argument is an appeal to consequences, like saying "If you live near a volcano you are more likely to die during an eruption," or "If you live near the ocean you are more likely to die from a Tsunami." The point is, just being alive means you are more likely to die from something, but being "more likely" by some infinitely small and random possibility doesn't argue against living does it?

The second argument is refuted by the rare examples we have of successful uses of firearms in self-defense, like this video. The rarity comes from the fact that simple display of weapons by citizens preventing a crime are often not reported by the gun owner. Rarer still, recorded on video to demonstrate a successful use (other than those we see in store robberies). And yet, as we see from one forum member, even when such evidence exists they deny it's validity and use argument number one to denigrate it.

That's the problem with gun control arguments; even clear evidence that gun ownership does serve a useful purpose cannot convince people who oppose private ownership that the right to keep and bear arms has any merit at all.
 
Last edited:
BrewerBob said:
A tazer would have likely gotten her killed in that situation. You don't use a tazer on multiple assailants from another room.
Click to expand...

Right.

Realistically, a petite woman has only 1 chance of surviving against 3 six ft tall males who may be violent/rapists, which does occur in home invasions.

That 1 chance is for her to be armed with a gun and know how to use it.
 
DA60 said:
Don't let the NRA hear you...they will send a hit squad out for you.


Btw, what you said is exactly why I own tasers and NOT guns.
Click to expand...

Taking a taser to a gunfight is an excellent way to get killed.
 
Kal'Stang said:
At least two of them looks to have had a gun too and the moment they heard her they started to go towards her with the gun....at least until she started shooting. So yeah, her having a gun DEFINITELY saved her life and that of the other person that was in there that came out after the shooting stopped. *scratch that...just watched the video again...all three perps had guns. A good reason WHY 10 cap magazine laws are stupid and dangerous for innocent people.

That said, not sure if I agree with her continuing to shoot through the door. Especially that last shot where it seems to be an after thought or a "for good measure". That might get her into trouble.
Click to expand...

True, but it still makes me smile.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The homeowner was foolish to use a firearm in this situation.

Statistics show that the homeowner is more likely to hurt herself, or other innocent people in these situations.
Click to expand...

Two guys with guns were walking towards her pointing guns at her... and you say that using the gun was foolish?

EDIT: You got me. Just saw your later post. :lol:
 
truthatallcost said:
Right.

Realistically, a petite woman has only 1 chance of surviving against 3 six ft tall males who may be violent/rapists.
Click to expand...

One guy looked to be under six feet tall...
 
BrewerBob said:
A tazer would have likely gotten her killed in that situation. You don't use a tazer on multiple assailants from another room.
Click to expand...

Correct. The best way to stop a person(s) with a gun, bent on doing you harm, is to have your own....and use it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
There are always two argument we hear from gun control supporters in regards to private gun ownership:

1. That private gun ownership increases the likelihood of self-injury by gun.

2. There is no real evidence that private gun ownership is useful against armed criminals.

The first argument is an appeal to consequences, like saying "If you live near a volcano you are more likely to die during an eruption," or "If you live near the ocean you are more likely to die from a Tsunami." The point is, just being alive means you are more likely to die from something, but being "more likely" by some infinitely small and random possibility doesn't argue against living does it?

The second argument is refuted by the rare examples we have of successful uses of firearms in self-defense, like this video. The rarity comes from the fact that simple display of weapons by citizens preventing a crime are often not reported by the gun owner. Rarer still, recorded on video to demonstrate a successful use (other than those we see in store robberies). And yet, as we see from one forum member, even when such evidence exists they deny it's validity and use argument number one to denigrate it.

That's the problem with gun control arguments; even clear evidence that gun ownership does serve a useful purpose cannot convince people who oppose private ownership that the right to keep and bear arms has any merit at all.
Click to expand...

You can lead a horse to water......

truthatallcost said:
Right.

Realistically, a petite woman has only 1 chance of surviving against 3 six ft tall males who may be violent/rapists, which does occur in home invasions.

That 1 chance is for her to be armed with a gun and know how to use it.
Click to expand...

No matter how tall they are, the situation would be the same.

SMTA said:
Taking a taser to a gunfight is an excellent way to get killed.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Ahlevah said:
Or at least get beaten unconscious by an "unarmed" suspect.



WATCH: Chicago cop beaten unconscious after refusing to shoot - NY Daily News

He can keep his Taser. I'll keep my 9mm.
Click to expand...


Smart decision.

Bodhisattva said:
One guy looked to be under six feet tall...
Click to expand...

Haaaaaaaaaaa!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom