Can’t argue with those stats.
So now do they charge her with the illegal use of a firearm? This was NorCal after all.
I don’t believe so. As someone who used to live in California, I seem to remember that the use of deadly force in a home invasion was one of the few situations where the victim wasn’t likely to be charged as the villain. I could be mistaken, of course, but the article doesn’t mention anything about her being charged with anything.
I found this part of the story hilarious:
the crime-infested, liberal cesspool of Oakland, California.
The article goes on to say the thugs shot 17-20 rounds of return fire missing her completely. I bet they had a switch and blindly sprayed in her general direction.
I haven’t looked into all the potential variables since I just try to avoid all big cities whenever possible. There might be a potential argument for correlation vs causation. Is it that liberal leadership leads to high murder rates or is it that cities with high murder rates elect liberal leaders for some reason?
I suspect that it is a mutual, self perpetuating feedback loop. But you’d have to dig through more than just that one stat to determine cause and effect. I’m always leery of making decisions based on one stat whether that stat agrees with my point of view or not.
At any rate it seems pretty clear that liberal leaders and their anti self defense policies are not reducing murder rates in urban areas, regardless of the underlying causes for those high rates.
I believe the law in CA still reads this way but CA has a reputation for not enforcing self defense and firearms laws the way they were originally written or intended.
Then there are all the other ownership and storage laws CA keeps passing every year. It seems like if you even think about purchasing a firearm in CA the LEOs and prosecutors assume you are an imminent threat and will look for any excuse to charge you for something whether it was illegal or not.
If this was a middle aged white guy I suspect the Oakland prosecutor would be currently investigating him and potentially charging him for the illegal use of deadly force, illegally discharging a firearm in city limits or some other nonsense. But the optics of charging a little old lady for defending herself make that a little harder to get away with in this case so I would expect her to be cleared of “wrongdoing” more quickly than the typical self defender.
I’d say it depends on whether she was completely legal to own the firearm, magazines, ammo, etc, that she used. If we are to enforce the laws on the books and hold people accountable, she might be guilty if she had a mag that holds too much ammo, etc. Lots of laws to potentially run afoul of in CA in particular
You are thinking of New York
The thugs were agents of The Matrix and this lady is really one of the incarnations of The One. She did not have to dodge bullets.
I say good for her. It always pisses me off when the elderly are targeted by these thugs.
I gotta take my hat off to any 75 year old lady that can effectively handle a 357 revolver and come out on the other side of that unharmed, while the thugs sprayed bullets all over her house. God bless her! I wish she’d join USCCA and the community here
Thankfully, “elderly woman” still means something even in progressive liberal left-leaning leftist democrat-controlled Oakland.
Good for her.
It always pisses me off when thugs target anybody. The existence of a thug pisses me off…