I posted some comments on the UTUBE site.

This is a very odd call.

She has almost no anxiety the entire time. It is anything but "chilling". She is annoyed-- not scared. As she waits.... with a gun in her hand...
the one she got ... that very day... odd.

The operator says " Is that him ? " and she says , VERY matter-of-factly " Yep".
(Where they are and what they are doing and how he got there-- all we know is what she said-- the shooter's version.)
Previously she stated she told him to stop repeatedly before firing. This tape shows she fired at the same time she asked " What are you doing?"
He calmly asks " Are you trying to kill me" after he is shot. She claims she was then-- after she shot him-- attacked and choked. I don't hear it and I don't think there was any struggle. I am certain she is lying about any struggle.
From the tone of his voice , I don't think he had any violent intent and I will hypothesize that she knew that.

Then,there is a strange leap from annoyance... to the shooting and then... moaning hysterics , the sound of which is really bogus to me. Its faked, IMO.

So I just did a brief search--

The same cliched media report repeated everywhere-- the stereotype : terrified woman huddles in closet while "mad-dog stalker" attacks.
Problem is-- the only source for that is... the shooter.. who has every reason to lie. Since the police have not filed charges against her-- they need to justify that decision. Hence the relese of this strange tape and a lot of over-heated rhetoric about "terror " and "escalating violence" and obsession-- all solely from the epolice report.. from HER statement. Someone inform the media that quoting a police record is like quoting only one side of a law suit-- its one version, uncontested.

Her version of their "relationship"-- unsubstantiated as far as I read-- No charges were ever filed against this man-- for any action. Her account of his alleged actions preceding the shooting is just that-- her account. And she has a strong motivation to lie.

The man's sister-in-law described him as a "kind and gentle man" and his family found it hard to believe this happened the way she said.. His sister-in-law also also stated the two indeed had a relationship and the woman presented as the man's "girlfriend" at his father's funereal !
Hmmm... seems she is lying about the "one date" and rejection she claimed...

Apparently this man had a great deal of support from friends who knew him at the American Legion Post. I could not read their comments, references to them made them sound very supportive of him. No loner here-- lot of friends.

That tape aint right.

If anyone cares to check-- I bet there is a whole other story thats not being told...
And I bet he has never been arrested and has no history of violence.

seems like a fact to me that he broke in to her house 1986@aol... There are places that still allow the use of force to defend yourself when you are in your own house... regardless of any other circumstance.

IF he did break into her house...

One would have to know if the police had any evidence other than her statement. The media reports I read did not mention any corroborating evidence-- which was very odd.
A sign of forced entry would be definitive-- how come the police report doesn't say anything about that? I am willing to bet there was no sign of forced entry.
I bet there are some folks in that town who doubt her story. Why would the police release the 911 call-- becasue they have no other evidence and someone is asking questions.

And its all " She said..."... or quoting the police report... which contains what 'She said " to the police.

Perhaps there is a fuller account somehwere that is convincing- but I did not see it.

That call really is odd.

" She said..." has been good enough too long

In case someone's interested, all the visuals in the video are by Oleg Volk. His gun & 2nd amendment stuff is here. For his other stuff, just google his name.

My first impression is that there is something fishy also. God knows that presentation was certainly biased. But one more thing rings false: if there were truly this many priors on the guy stalking her (and his family and friends sticking up for him doesn't dissuade me on that score), this is precisely where a restraining order would be effective. First incident, she goes out and gets a restraining order (very easy, it's based soley on the woman's testimony and no reason it shouldn't be given that if she's crazy enough to lie, it'd be in your best interest to stay the fuck away anyway) then incidents 2, 3 and 5 (however many are claimed here)happens and she doesn't have him locked up for breaking that order? This isn't even claiming to be a case where he was and went after her when he got out.

Restraining orders are, again, just pieces of paper.

FYI, here's more on this:

http://nwi.com/articles/2007/11/14/news/top_news/doc2477a38bddd9419c8625739300045d17.txt

Police records show Bergner also had tried to kick in the woman's front door a week earlier after accosting her at her job and being ejected from the business by her co-workers. He also was suspected of slashing her Jeep's tires on at least two occasions, police records show.

"This isn't over yet," Bergner told her Nov. 3, according to police reports of the incident.

Hiding in her closet on Monday night, the woman said she heard Bergner enter the bedroom, then watched as he opened the closet door.

She said she told him to stop, but he kept coming. She fired the 9 mm semiautomatic three times.

"I was shaking so bad, I didn't think I'd hit him," the woman recalled Tuesday afternoon. "He just kept coming."

Now in the closet with her, Bergner grabbed the woman's neck with both hands and began choking her, she said.

"And then he just stopped," she said, finger-shaped bruises still visible on her throat 17 hours after the struggle.

Police found her in her front yard when they arrived moments later, and they found Bergner -- wearing black leather gloves and a brown leather jacket -- lying partially in the bedroom closet, On the bed nearby was a Walther PPK pistol.

The family's defense of the guy is here:

http://www.nwi.com/articles/2007/11/15/news/top_news/doc03135c1e27e2e7038625739400154bf6.txt

Ryan Lee Bergner was a "gentle" and "kind" man, and his family "can't even believe" he would break into a woman's house and try to hurt her, his sister-in-law said Wednesday night.

"It's just so shocking for such a gentle person to die in such a violent way," said Becky Bergner, who is married to Ryan Lee Bergner's brother.

"He did not go there that evening to hurt her, as far as the Ryan that we know."

Bergner's family doubts the version of Bergner's final minutes told by the woman who shot him to death Monday night, Becky Bergner said. Family members hope the investigation continues, she said.

Police have said they forwarded their reports to Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter. Carter could pursue charges against the woman or decline to seek charges, essentially finding the shooting a justifiable homicide.

The 51-year-old woman told police she heard Bergner break a window at her house in the 6900 block of Tennessee Avenue in Hammond's Hessville neighborhood. She called 911 and an operator told her to lock herself in her bedroom. She ran upstairs, grabbed a 9 mm pistol given to her by a friend earlier that day and hid in the closet, she said. When he opened the closet door and moved toward her, she fired three times, she said. He choked her before he lost his strength, she said.

Yes and no, Amy. Which is why that a guy that doesn't believe he's deserving of one should try and defend himself against it in court and stay the hell away from the crazy lady anyway. It's rather like saying a divorce decree is just a piece of paper. They're legal orders which don't help much if guy tries to shoot you on the street immediately after but in this kind of case where she says he repeatedly came after her, with a restraining order in place, he'd be jailed for the violation. Look, just like a gun, they're one more measure of protection worth getting so you have a record, so you have a recourse if he does something sort of something that makes you shoot in self-defense (as she claims in this case). (Not to mention, if he does kill you, the restraining order will certainly point an accusing finger at him.)

I don't know the truth of this case. If she did have bruises, that's pretty damning evidence and you can sound calm when you're in shock. But, if she had a restraining order, and he accosted her in front of all those witnesses, that's all she needs to have him locked up before it comes to this. If she hadn't got one as soon as he became a problem, she should have.

I don't think one or the other should be relied on as a woman's (or a man's in a similar circumstance) sole means of protection. The restraining order isn't going to stop the crazy who doesn't care about jail. But relying only on a gun, well, you'd better hope that proving self-defense is the least of it. You'd better hope you're faster on the draw than someone you might not even know is there and a good enough shot also. If you do resort to gun ownership, hit that practice range on a regular basis.

When we lived in Denver, a man did shoot his ex-wife down in the street. She never saw it coming. Had the restraining order, don't know if she had a gun. But neither one helped or could have. But neither would staying with him have. Someone that crazy is gonna wind up killing you sooner or later. Or die trying.

Fishy? Hardly.

It sounds right to me.

The woman was numb from his constant harassment. The monotone nature of her voice indicates a severe emotional shut-down due to extreme emotional trauma and fear.

When people are under stress, they don't blubber like in the movies - they shut down. Some get so scared, they cannot even move. The antidote is anger, but in today's PC society, anger is frowned upon, even in life-and-death situations.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Hanguns are the best, but not the only way, for women and men to stop lunatics and criminals from killing them. Handguns are not for everyone, but they are very, very effective.

The fact that he choked her should be rather easily proven. It should be fairly easy to show if the choking was performed post postmortem (by her) as well. I'm pretty sure that someone will now chock this out just to avoid the controversy.

I haven't listened to the tape since I'm at work but tone and tember of the voice is little indication of state of mind unless you know the person. I have seen panic turn a hysteric (bat shit most of the time) into cool calm and collected. Flat toned and calm.

The fact that his friends and family stand behind him mean absolutely nothing. The family maybe the reason that he's a predator, if he is one. I'm not sure since I'm not familiar with the case.

The altercation at work however paints the picture rather clearly. He's stalking her. Showing up at her work with witnesses means he's escalating. He's starting to lose track of reality and has tossed his sense of self preservation. Once anyone crosses that line the danger factor increases.

(Warning I'm about to play conspiracy theorist I doubt this is what happened)
She could have faked all the break ins. The break up during the summer could have been his idea and she wasn't going to let it go. She could have invited him to meet her at work and staged the confrontation by lying to coworkers. Then she could have invited him over and when he showed up put three rounds into his chest.
(End conspiracy mongering)
Now she set him up at her work; called the cops repeatedly on him; accused him of stalking and slashing her tires. If he went to her house after all of this he's got to be either guilty as hell or criminally stupid; terminal criminally stupidity.

The one thing that I was curious about. If this guy was such a menace how come she didn't get an LTC or at least a premises permit. Why would she get a gun from her friend and why of all things the night before. I can't find where this is so I'm not sure if she could have bought a gun legally since all of this started. The date at the funeral is also kind of strange but not out of the realm of possibilities.

Donna is an expert on guns and gunfights, but she does not own any guns? Do the police live in her house waiting for someone to break in?

Its not a matter of being quick on the draw or being a good shot. Most situations are not surprises - the criminal breaks in, or stalks, or evaluates the victim. The victim knows its coming.

Up until that point the criminal has the intiative, but once the victim decides to use her gun, then she needs to move and shoot, and shoot a lot. When this occurs, the criminal is now placed in a new situation and is behind the mental curve of what is occurring and as long at she is hitting the criminal ( all hits count ) she controls the situation - allowing her to flee or to shoot the man to the ground.

Handguns are also effective against dog attacks.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of cases where armed citizens have successfully defended themselves.

A glock 19 with 18+ rounds or a glock 26 with 13+ rounds is very, very effective. The glock 26 is just slightly bigger than a woman's billfold and is easily concealed.

Dad (again) sent this to me this morning, and while it doesn't directly touch the subject at hand, it does make a pretty good point about people in general, and the need for protection.

This letter was written by, Charles Grennel and his comrades who are veterans of the Global War On Terror. Grennel is an Army Reservist who
spent two years in Iraq and was a principal in putting together the first Iraqi elections January of 2005.

It was written to Jill Edwards who is one of the students at the University of Washington who did not want to honor Medal of Honor winner USMC Colonel Greg " Pappy" Boyington because she
does not think those who serve in the U.S. Armed services are good role models.

To: Edwards, Jill (student, UW)

Subject: Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

Miss Edwards, I read of your 'student activity' regarding the proposed memorial to Col Greg Boyington, USMC and a Medal of Honor winner. I
suspect you will receive a bellyful of angry e-mails from conservative folks like me. You may be too young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of servicemen and servicewomen on whose shoulders you and your fellow students stand. I forgive you for the untutored ways of
youth and your naiveté It may be that you are, simply, a sheep.

There's no dishonor in being a sheep - - as long as you know and accept what you are. We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people
who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

Then there are the wolves and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.
There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

Then there are sheepdogs and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep.

If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.

But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the unchartered path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire
sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though,
is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep.
The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the
sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are
wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray
paint himself white, and go, "Baa."....Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids;they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog prepares and lives for that day.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes."
The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference."

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Here is the point I like to emphasize,
especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a
critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be.
It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones may die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you.

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees,a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously.

Its ok to be a sheep, but do not kick the sheep dog. Indeed, the sheep dog may just run a little harder, strive to protect a little better and be fully prepared to pay an ultimate price in battle and spirit with the sheep moving
from "Bhaa" to "thanks". We do not call for gifts or freedoms beyond our lot. We just need a small pat on the head, a smile and a thank you to fill the emotional tank which is drained protecting the sheep. And when our number is called by "The Almighty", and day retreats into night, a small prayer before the heavens just may be in order to say thanks for letting you
continue to be a sheep. And be grateful for the thousands - - millions - - of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men. - Edmund Burke.

YMMV o_O

"Handguns are not for everyone, but they are very, very effective." Only in calm and steady hand. If you are using a fire arms have the courtesy to actually be able to use one. I have a friend that if there were a situation where he pulled his weapon I'm in more danger standing next to him then the guy he's trying to shot. Get a permit and take the weapon to the range at leasts once a week. If you can't get above a certain level of proficiency with the weapon don't carry it.

P.S. A business down the block (with a huge steel door and a camera to buzz people in) took a restraining order out against me. Why? I went there twice to complain that the business was leaving their gated parking lot empty and parking up our neighborhood (tight parking situation and we can't get permit parking because of the Coastal Commission, although we're working on it). Anyway, the second time I went there and the snotty business manager, Katherine Morgan, informed me that they would take our parking whether we like it or not, I said, "You know what, you're really a cunt." Hello, restraining order. Of course, it was later dismissed. These things are handed out basically to anyone who wants one (some nutbag got one against David Letterman) and are often used to snake men out of custody of their children.

Amy,

Thanks for the hat tip on this story. I can't believe what I'm reading here. This guy broke into this woman's home. He then kicked in her bedroom door. He then attacked HER. That guy got what he deserved. Why does self-defense make people so uncomfortable?

The people in this string that criticise her would be more comfortable had this woman been killed by this guy?

You can't talk sense to gun control nutjobs.

Tom

http://mrdribbly.wordpress.com/

Donna

Where you live maybe they arrest people who violate restraining orders, where I live they dont.

I met my best friend through her ex-boyfriend, he was my boyfriend after she finally managed to eject him from her life. lucky me. After I wound up at the women's shelter we started talking, and over the years we became close friends. While ending their relationship she got a restraining order and he violated it over and over. Everythime she called police, and they always just gave him a ride back to wherever he was staying. no arrests, no jail time no nothing. So, it is just a piece of paper. If you live in a jurisdiction that enforces them, lucky. many dont.

I didnt need a restraining order, because I zipped on out when he was sent to jail. For forged checks, not the violence. meh.

One other thing to ponder. The counselors at the womens shelter do not advocate a blanket procedure taking out restraining orders. They quoted studies that women are statistially more likely to be killed or injured in the few weeks after a court issues one. They take it one case at a time.

Oh, one more item to consider is rural vs urban/suburban police response times. It can take longer than urbanites imagine for the sheriff to respond to calls out in the county boondocks. Better to be able to rely on yourself while waiting for the cops to show.

Thanks, Tom...I think what people are responding to is the predisposition to believe that women are only victims of violence, and are never perpetrators themselves -- which is not the case. I wrote about that here, in a response to a woman who threw an ashtray at her husband-to-be's head:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/10/marrying_the_ha.html

If your husband tossed an ashtray at your head, do you think he’d be describing himself as “Still So Angry Inside” or “Still In Court Trying To Get The Charges Reduced”?

It doesn’t take much for domestic violence against men to be taken seriously…usually, just a chalk outline where a man’s body used to be. The rest of the time, people tend to shrug it off or even find it cute: “Well, well, well, she’s quite the firecracker!” Granted, male abusers can do much more damage with their fists, but put a heavy object in a woman’s hands, and good morning brain damage! (Just wondering…has your husband gotten the ashtray out of his skull, or does he have to hang around smoking areas with his head bent down so people have someplace to flick their ash?)

Also, there are women's shelters, but few shelters that will take male victims of domestic violence. A few are listed here:

http://batteredmen.com/bathelpnatl.htm

Amy, I understand your point that violence by women is generally dismissed.

However, this woman was a victim of violence. She just chose to defend herself. She didn't just freak out and whip an ashtray at some poor guy's head. She was ATTACKED in her OWN HOME.

I understand that. I was merely explaining what may be behind the reaction of some above.

The strangest thing about this story is the fact that he only had three holes in him. Was there only three rounds in the handgun?

No, Amy - the serial misogynists are keen to take any story of female violence and sidmiss any potential self-defense aspect of it.

I suspect it's reflection - the man can't possibly be guilty because all women are crazy bitches.

That is clearly not the case here. She's got bruises on her neck. A quick look at them will tell whose hands made them. I suspect she's not strong enough to cause bruises on her own neck.

You'd have to be a conspiracy theorist of the highest order to think she'd set this up just to kill him. Especially with the evidence against him.

Also - the snippet here doesn't say she DIDN'T have a restraining or protective order. Thing is, there's only so much the cops can do.

You are responsible for your own defense.

Austin: Let me make sure I'm hearing you correctly. Your advising spraying the area of your intended target? Just empty the clip while running with not training? Have you actually tried doing this, especially a pistol and with no training. It's easy to see it as simple if you have served, it's not. If you have served in the Armed forces then my only comment is most of us civies don't have a chance in hell of hitting a target while moving.

If you own a gun and carry it you should only ever draw the weapon with the absolute intent of killing someone or thing. Unless you plan to kill what you are shooting at drawing the weapon is not a good idea. Though it does happen and it CAN be effective you can also kill innocent bystanders.

If you have any qualms with killing a person in self defense, don't carry a gun. Carry mace, or a stun gun. If you hesitate with your fire arm in front of an assailant now you have a more pissed off and possible armed assailant.

I saw that about the marks on her neck. Watch CSI. They can measure whose hands they came from.

I some serious problems with this story.

• She should have shot him long before he could get close enough to choke her.


• She should abandon the use of the 9mm round, unless they are specialty hollow points loads.


• He shouldn't have been able to say anything after he was shot, because she should have continued firing until she say the physiological signs of death.


• Where were the men in this woman's life? Father? Brother? Uncle? Maybe this is the kind of woman no man deems worthy of protection? I dunno. Before this guy Bergner got so fucking crazy, why wasn't he dealt with in the manly style: a nice, hard boot-heel to the teeth until body parts start coming off.
  

She should sue his estate for the cost of the rounds to put down this thug.

Where were the men in this woman's life?

So, you're suggesting a woman can't be safe in this society unless she lives a mile from her parents' home, and unless she has a brother or other family living nearby?

We're a transient society. I happen to have a boyfriend, but my family lives thousands of miles away. And I don't have a brother, and my dad is almost 80.

"They quoted studies that women are statistially more likely to be killed or injured in the few weeks after a court issues one. "

It seems to me that women who are issued a restraining order are more likely to be involved with a violent man, so a correllation with women killed or injured would obviousley be high. This doesn't suggest that getting the restraining order causes the death or injury.

Vlad said:

"Only in calm and steady hand. If you are using a fire arms have the courtesy to actually be able to use one. I have a friend that if there were a situation where he pulled his weapon I'm in more danger standing next to him then the guy he's trying to shot. "

We have another expert on guns!!

Ever done FoF (Force on Force) training with BB pistols and no body armor?

The first thing you do is move. The second thing you do is shoot and shoot a lot. Even in untrained hands, most people will hit the target 80% of the time. Most fights occur withing 15 feet and are over with in seconds.

Guns are a lot easier to use than driving a car. You can practice dry firing in your house with the weapon unloaded rather than going to a range. I go out to the range once a month at most. Most of my training is moving and shooting with an empty pistol.

So, you're suggesting a woman can't be safe in this society unless she lives a mile from her parents' home, and unless she has a brother or other family living nearby?

Eh, you're being a bit hyperbolic, but yes. You've characterized my position with a reasonable accuracy. Women are safer around men who are capable of using violence virtuously. In fact, men are safer too.

But don't get me wrong. If I was a woman, I'd pack a pistol. Hell, I'm a man, and I still pack a pistol.

Brian:

"Austin: Let me make sure I'm hearing you correctly. Your advising spraying the area of your intended target? Just empty the clip while running with not training? Have you actually tried doing this, especially a pistol and with no training. "

Yes. If someone is going after you, the first thing you have to do is get away from them. This is even more important if they have a gun or a knife or are really big. If you stand there, then they will get their hands on you or stab you or shoot you. The chances of you dying go way up.

The next step is to stop them if they are still a threat. By moving, you have reduced their ability to target you and have bought yourself time to either get away or to draw your pistol.

You do not just shoot in the direction of the target. You put your pistol on the target and once it covers it, you pull the trigger and keep pulling the trigger until the target stops or the pistol no longer covers the target.

There are a number of trainers who teach the GOTX (get off the X ) method and they offer classes that include FoF.

"If you own a gun and carry it you should only ever draw the weapon with the absolute intent of killing someone or thing. Unless you plan to kill what you are shooting at drawing the weapon is not a good idea. Though it does happen and it CAN be effective you can also kill innocent bystanders."

The laws on the use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force vary by state. Some states require reasonable retreat while others dont.

All laws require you to shoot until the threat is stopped and no more. Most gunshot criminals will recover - you don't have to kill them to stop them in most cases. The ones that do continue to come most certainly would have killed you. This changes the moral equation.

As for innocent bystanders - its very,very rare for bystanders to be hit even in crowded urban areas. Obviously, you do not shoot into a crowd and most people are pretty clear about this.

"If you have any qualms with killing a person in self defense, don't carry a gun. Carry mace, or a stun gun. If you hesitate with your fire arm in front of an assailant now you have a more pissed off and possible armed assailant."

95% of the time when the victim pulls the gun, the criminal will run. Mace or a stun gun is not going to stop some men and many dogs. Neither mace nor a stun gun works past a few feet and the stun gun does not shoot a lot. In a life and death situation, it may take up to 10 hits to stop a very hopped up criminal.

"...he'd be jailed for the violation.." [of the restraining order] --- Now that's funny.

When, exactly, would they jail him? After they found her dead in the closet after he strangled her?

Considering that courts have found the police have no responsibility to respond to your 911 call or even to protect you as an individual, I find it reprehensible that anyone would suggest a restraining order is sufficient to stop a violent stalker like that.

Self-defense is your responsibility.

"Ever done FoF (Force on Force) training with BB pistols and no body armor?" So how many times have you been hit during fof? How much ammo were you carrying and how many by standers were standing around?

You advocating spraying a fire arm in the general direction of the target. I don't know a single fire arms instructor who would actually agree with you. Now if you are in a fire fight in Bagdad sure that would be the approach you take, but in you home or in public you want un-aimed random fire?

If the assailant is approaching you with his gun out and they know how to use it, your dead before you draw. If you surprise them and have your weapon pointed at them (say from behind) and they know how to use it, you might get one shot.

To drive my point home. After she put 3 rounds into him (or at least fired 3 rounds) he still manged to crawl over and choke her. One well aimed shot to the chest or face would prevented him from choking her. Why would you be against someone knowing how to use the weapon?

BTW I'm going to the local gun club to practice what I preach.

"Brian:

"Austin: Let me make sure I'm hearing you correctly. Your advising" Wrong person.

"She should abandon the use of the 9mm round, unless they are specialty hollow points loads."

Hollow points can cause misfeeds in some autos. Doesn't matter how good your round is, if it's stuck.

But I do agree that any defense revolver (the revolver is not obsolete btw) should be loaded with hollow points. Wadcutters are not too bad either. Keeping a loaded speedloader with it is not a bad idea.

Vlad:

"If the assailant is approaching you with his gun out and they know how to use it, your dead before you draw. If you surprise them and have your weapon pointed at them (say from behind) and they know how to use it, you might get one shot."

LOL. I don't think so.

Anytime you want to meet, Vlad, I will kick your ass. Let's use airsoft pistols. I'll even let you draw first. Or start with your pistol on me with your finger on the trigger.

From training I've done I know I will put about 10 welts on your side and back as I move, draw, shoot, and then circle you.

Here is an example of the state of the art. Even Modern Technique instructors are starting to incorporate this into their classes.

http://www.suarezinternational.com/igfdebriefing.html

Steamer:

Dont have the actual studies they quoted to me. sorry. Might want to check out gavin beckers book The Gift of Fear. He hammers on that point too.

I do believe there is a valid point to what you are saying, but it isnt the whole story. many times a protecive/restraining order is a trigger for the abuser. abusee is leaving, time to escalate. plus the complacency some people have about how safe they are. As amy keeps saying

It is just a piece of paper.

The three things restraining orders are good for

1.Nothing

2.Legal manuvers in divorce and custody provedings

3.Providing the prosocution with a pattern of conduct in the murder trail of your killer

Amy is correct. A restraining order expresses the intent of the law --- on paper. But paper doesn't make a civilization nor make civilized men. Civilization exists because good men are willing to do violence to enforce order. Both logically and chronologically, civilized men precede civilization itself.

You can't count on police or other government authorities to protect you. Federal courts have repeatedly held that police are not obligated to come to your aid. This makes gun control all the more odious. As the government sheds responsibility for your protection, it also removes you ability to defend yourself and your neighbors.

The law is written on paper. Paper doesn't protect your rights. Civilized men capable of violence will protect your rights.

"Anytime you want to meet, Vlad, I will kick your ass." At the moment, holy shit I hope so. Just finished grad school and now back to doing things other than sitting at a desk. Should be going for training at the local club in the next few months. I don't have training as yet, thus I don't carry a gun. Would you be so sure of success with a member of US Spec. Ops. I pretty sure they'll put that round between you eyes before you yell "Ok Go".

A restraining order can be very useful...against someone who doesn't want to kill you. Against someone who wants to do violence against you, it's worse than just a piece of paper - it gives you a false sense of security, and it can cause the person targeting you to get even angrier, as he/she feels as though you're trying to emasculate him/her. (Yes, I know you can't literally emasculate women, but you get the idea.) If someone is really threatening you, your best course of action isn't to get a restraining order - it's to get as far away from that person as possible. If you can't do that in a reliable way, well, then, there are guns and shooting classes, plus security systems, big dogs, etc. Gavin de Becker, who does all this stuff for a living, doesn't say that restraining orders can NEVER do any good...just that they're not effective at protecting people against threats of violence.

This story makes me glad I live in a state with a castle law - had the woman lived here, unless it turned out that she had invited the guy over and staged the attack (unlikely given the finger-sized bruises around her neck, but anything's possible), there would have been no question about whether the homicide was justifiable. He was in her house, threatening her. However, if she's ever going to use that gun again, she should get some training.

"3.Providing the prosocution with a pattern of conduct in the murder trail of your killer"

You forgot:
4. Providing your attorney with a pattern of conduct for your assailants trial.

One thing 1986@aol is forgetting is the mindset of people who stalk. Basically normal people interpret events, conversations, behaviors, etc. in like ways. People who mentally have the ability to stalk, do not think rationally, so they do not interpret events, conversations, behaviors, etc. in a way that is (often) even fathomable. It is stressful to have someone show up at your house uninvited or out of the blue. It is worse when they are already inside when you get home. You don't sleep well and you don't view life the same afterward. If you have children living in your home, it is worse. Police intervention and restraining orders can give those being stalked a false sense of security, and it is my experience that those things only further anger the stalker. It is viewed as another personal insult to them, and here they are just checking on you, just making sure you are safe, just showing you how much they love you by sticking it out and waiting for you to come around. Physical violence by the stalker on the stalked is viewed in a similar way by the stalker, except the stalked (of course) made the stalker do it. "You wouldn't listen to me. I had to make you listen to me. You won't quit telling me to leave and I haven't gotten the chance to make you understand. I had to choke you to shut you up so you would just listen. I'm sorry you made me hurt you but please just listen."

I haven't heard the 911 audio yet, but it's not surprising that she seems monotone. It takes an amazing amount of mental restraint to learn to communicate with someone who interprets life like that. A monotone voice helps remind yourself that you are still in control. It helps keep emotions down. Highly charged emotions are contagious, and no one wants to insight higher charged emotions in a stalker.

And to answer why she didn't shoot the whole round? Maybe she was trying to pull his hands of her throat. The fact that he got so close to her indicates to me she didn't want to have to shoot him. People who stalk look and act like normal people...at first.

steamer - the statistic you cite doesn't say that restraining orders lead to death. It says that they fail to prevent it.

austin - step away from the testosterone. Most people aren't going to train sufficiently to shoot like you do in Counterstrike. And counterstrike isn't the real world. And a Glock 17C has a hell of a lot more kick than an Airsoft. Besides, spraying bullets in a dense neighborhood is a good way to get a negligent homicide rap since you're likely to shoot right through your house and into someone else's.

From what I'm told by people who know, a .20 shotgun is probably the best home defense weapon there is. The sound of a shotgun being racked is often enough to get an intruder to shit himself. And if it doesn't, you don't need to be anywhere near as accurate when using bird or buck shot.

Plus, if you're squeamish about putting someone in a body bag, it can be converted to a less-than-lethal weapon. Getting hit with one of those bean bags hurts like a mofo from what I'm told.

kg is 100% correct. bastard who choked me was only "trying to get [me] to listen!" Once I got him off me (by a firmly placed kick in the groin, I got my girls and got the hell outta there! My boss took me to the courthouse, after taking pictures of my neck, and had me swear out a temporary restraining order that day. He was removed from the house the following day (the girls and I stayed at my mother's that night). Two weeks later, I went back to court and made the TRO a permanent one. Haven't seen the bastard since, and I know he knows better, because he got the word from a LOT of people that if he ever came near me or the girls in this lifetime, it would be the end of his. I now have in my possesion a rifle, a handgun (with permits) and a Celtic broadsword. And I know how to use them. Funny though, the guy I'm with now would never raise a finger to me or my girls, so I don't really need them. He's very protective of us. o_O

The gun expertise exhibited in this thread is fascinating.

Seriously. As someone who only a few weeks ago fired a weapon at the range for the very first time, I'd be paralyzed by indecision should I ever decide to actually become a trained, licensed gun-owner. I've been doing hand-to-hand self-defense for seven years, including gun take-aways, but have never actually taken a gun safety course.

Is there a consensus choice in SoCal for basic gun-handling lessons?

". . . .and a Celtic broadsword"

Wow. Flynne - feeding my adolescent geek one fantasy at a time.

"You forgot:
4. Providing your attorney with a pattern of conduct for your assailants trial." That came out totaly wrong. is should have said:

4. Providing your defense attorney with a pattern of conduct for your assailants murder trial.

The relative merits of firearms is an interesting discussion, but all this way down, I find the lack of belief in the situation as stated to be curious. Down the road at some point they will decide if there is a reason to suspect or prosecute the shooter. It is possible that somewhere things don't quite add up.

But why would anyone make that assumption off the bat? Based on the almost nothing that you know? What happened to presumption of innocence?

Don't worry that they will figure something out, unless the worst case scenario is what happened. That she is the one who is to blame.

The question of such speculation is: what're the odds that the first thing you assume is that she is lying? Especially if you don't know the person.

Occam's razor and all that.

As far as guns and such, I am for them, HOWEVER. There are many things that people don't seek to do, that are easy, and people are kind of odd about that. In such situations, you don't go home alone, or you don't go home. Take opportunity away. Change the locks. Have the locksmith do a bit o' security assessment. Like the window that the guy went through. Plan a route to get OUT. Talk to your neighbors. Tell them the sitch. In case you need to pound on their door in the middle of the night.

Having known and protected against a few completely psycho people of both genders, all this stuff is hard... and my ultra-cynical side says the everyone is better off him dead, because people who are really out there, Don't. Stop. Ever. I helped a friend out of a jam once, and her ex- girlfriend started slashing MY tires, and making various threats. Fortunately for me, she got thrown into prison for something else, but I was at wit's end about how to make her stop. The only redeeming thing was that I felt better that I was the target than my friend... There is a certain amount of protection afforded by being 6'/250 and shaped like a bear...

"There is a certain amount of protection afforded by being 6'/250 and shaped like a bear..." It's worked for me so far.

"In such situations, you don't go home alone, or you don't go home." If you won't go home out of fear they win. A majority of the time the whole thing is about power, you will listen to me, if I can't have you no one will etc. Changing your routine gives them that power.
Now change the locks and up grade your security system is different, that's something we should all do. If for no other reason than that all the firepower in the world won't help if they get into the house without waking you up.

PIT BULLS.

Snakeman,
"Seriously. As someone who only a few weeks ago fired a weapon at the range for the very first time, I'd be paralyzed by indecision should I ever decide to actually become a trained, licensed gun-owner."

It is my belief that if you are going to own a gun for self defense then you better have decided that you are willing to use it before the time to do so comes. In my mind, I've gone through the scenarios I am most likely to face in my home and determined what and when I would fire.

You should also avoid the mistake of the "I'll shoot them in the leg to stop them" mentality. Studies (which I can't put my figures on right now) of police gunfights show that most of them take place at very close distances and the hit percentage is somewhere around 15% (If I'm remembering correctly.) Many police cannot even remember how many shots they've fired and often think they have fired far less than they actually did. The level of stress involved in a potentially fatal confrontation cannot be imagined by someone who has not been there.

Know the laws of your state, go through the possible scenarios you can run into and be prepared to aim for the center of mass for the purpose of killing whoever you aim at.

As an example one of my scenarios is "what if an intruder is between me and my children." Another one is, "What if the intruder is close enough to grapple with me and possibly remove the gun from my hand." You'll hear a lot of macho, shoot them at all costs, talk but in many states that is illegal and most people don't want to guilt of killing someone on the heads. In some of my scenarios I am willing to give up my house or property so as to avoid a deadly confrontation, in many I am not. My goal is to save my (or my family's) life and stay out of prison.

I feel sorry for you Californians, being in a place with shitty gun laws. Are you even allowed to keep a gun in the home? I can't remember. Some states require a special permit for that.

Yes, take the beginning course and the intermediate course, and shoot lots, and go out for practical shooting competitions. Over time you will wonder how you ever lived without guns. I had friends and family murdered and was myself mugged in No. Hollywood at knifepoint when I lived in SoCal. Helplessness sucks.

Wow, Amy. We seem to have struck a nerve!

To those of you who have neither the time nor the inclination for consistent practice with a handgun, get a shotgun. Preferably a pump. I have a Mossberg 500A 12ga for home protection. It has an 18-1/2" barrel on it. (most barrels are 26 to 28" long - 18.5" is the shortest you can have in MI and still be legal.)

I have it loaded with 00 Buckshot. Each shell contains 9 .32 caliber balls. If I have to use it someday I don't want the guy getting up. One or two shots from this at close range (15'-20' or less) and they are going to need dental records to ID him.

Tom

"austin - Most people aren't going to train sufficiently to shoot like you do in Counterstrike. And counterstrike isn't the real world."

Counterstike is a videogame. I am talking the real world.

BS on the rest.

Its real easy to stand and shoot paper targets on a range. But they don't move and they don't try to kill you. That is realistic?

If you look at the videotapes of most gunfights, people are moving. Even a five-year old kid knows that if someone is after you, then run!!!

You should train the way that you need to.

The whole point is to survive. Not getting hit in is the first step. Standing there doing the high-noon is going to get you shot or stabbed. Move!

Next, people should be mentally prepared to shoot at a moving target at less than 15 feet while moving themselves.

Practing this using dry fire supplemented with one-handed shooting at the range or two-handed while standing at an angle should be sufficient for most people.

"Besides, spraying bullets in a dense neighborhood is a good way to get a negligent homicide rap since you're likely to shoot right through your house and into someone else's."

More BS.

Show me the statistics. How many rounds fired in gunfights vs hits on bystanders? Its so vanishingly small that its almost unmeasurable. Then show me the lawsuits.

Will you bet a 50% chance that you will die on a .1% chance that you will be sued?

Guns and using them are not Voodoo or Rocket Science. They are easy to use and learn. You do not need a lot of training - just enough to be confident that you can prevail in certain circumstances and to learn how to practice on your own.

A lot of people Lord over others about "its a big gun that takes a lot of practice" and "you have to be ready to use them". MYTHS. This is so much psycho-babble.

The most important thing is the mindset that you will take responsibility for protecting yourself.

A model 870 12G pump shotgun is also good and inexpensive.

Revolvers have their place as well.

But the best choice for most people is a Glock 19 or Glock 26. They are very easy to use and handle very well.

The local gun shop can tell you where to get classes. You can do local classes or travel to the established training centers like Gunsite or SI.

Dale -

The indecision I was referring to has to do with the world of gun-owning options and the varying opinions (sampled right here on this thread) relating to "proper" defense of one's body/home.

That said, I agree with everything in your post.

Vlad:

"Anytime you want to meet, Vlad, I will kick your ass." At the moment, holy shit I hope so. Just finished grad school and now back to doing things other than sitting at a desk. Should be going for training at the local club in the next few months. I don't have training as yet, thus I don't carry a gun. Would you be so sure of success with a member of US Spec. Ops. I pretty sure they'll put that round between you eyes before you yell "Ok Go"."

LOL.

I did shoot up an SOF guy when I took a class that involved FoF. He stood there like most people do and I got to move. He could not follow me as I moved to his right. Even when he had the pistol out and I did not, the same thing occurred. This was our first drill and I had it down. Its very easy to do.

The criminal has committed to a certain mental script as to how it will go. Once you start to move and act, he is forced to react. It will take him 1-2 seconds to respond to your actions and the intiative will rest with you for at least 1-3 more seconds after that. Since most fights are over with in 5 sec, you have dominated the fight time and though you may not have hit him, you most likely did not get shot yourself - which is the primary goal.

Austin - the 870 would be my first choice, but I'm left handed and the safety on the Mossberg is on the top. You can buy a Mossberg, or an 870 for that matter, for less than $300. Most people can run less than 10 rounds through it and be comfortable enough to use it for home protection. Plus, most states don't require permits for long guns.

This is huge for me, as I have a serious problem with registering my guns. That's a big reason I don't own a handgun. What business is it of the goverment whether I have guns at home? Let alone what kind of guns. Registration leads to confiscation...every time.

For a house pistol my opinion (been shooting guns since I was a toddler) a .357 revolver is best. They are simpler and more reliable than an automatic. Easier to clean and maintain. No switches, slides or safeties to worry about. Just point and shoot.

A .357 will also shoot the less powerful (but less recoil producing) .38 special cartridge.

The disadvantage is they hold less ammo. But at the short distances inside a home one shouldn't need more than 2 or 3 shots. One torso shot with a .357 hollow point and the danger should be eliminated.

This advice is for a HOME gun. Concealed carry is a different story.

I think it's very important that anyone who owns a gun practice frequently with it at a target range. But not because of the 'hitting what you aim at' issue.

As any DI could tell you, how you train is how you react. So if you train in the way you would like to react in a situation, it greatly improves the odds that you will react in that way. So if on the target range you practice bringing you firearm up, squeezing off two or three shots and rapid succession, and keeping the barrel aimed at the center of mass (even better if using a human silohuette target), then if you find yourself in a position of needing to do that you will.

To this end, games like Counterstrike *are* actually useful simulators. They have prepped your brain for 'humanoid threat - shoot!' It's not the same as actual practice, not any more than a flight simulator replaces actual time in the air. There are many things that a game can't teach you (such as safety). But they do implant in your 'lizard brain' things like 'aim for the center of mass' and 'if it jumps around the corner with a knife - shoot it.'

You know, I thought this was an interesting situation (though I don't quite believe the woman), but all my interest and excitement left when Amy, you showed once again that you HATE WOMEN by using the c word, and have NO RESPECT for your readers, by assuming that it's okay with us.

It's absolutely not okay, and my personal timeout with you begins now, Amy. Grow up and show some class and good manners.

Donna B., are you seriously telling Amy what language she's allowed to use on her own blog? And, really, deciding for all women what words we're allowed to say? Fuck you.

I'd call you a cunt, but that's a word I save for really extreme situations. Has more power that way.

Kimberly,

Awesome.

Tom

OK, the awareness is here. Time for some points.

A shotgun's pattern is only a couple of inches wide across a living room. Yes, you still have to aim.

CA has a 15-day waiting period. Hold your breath. Check out the real laws at packing.org. DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE TOLD BY OTHERS about the law. Look up the laws yourself. Sometimes, you'd better have a "sporting arm" to look better in court. The state of MD will always try you for murder. It costs money. You'd better be right if you pull the trigger on somebody. That's why the, "DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE TOLD BY OTHERS about the law" is above.

Shoot a .357 at night and you'll be deaf. Don't miss. Some ammo flashes brightly enough to blind you. Better find out first. You must HIT with what you shoot.

Pros teach things you'll never guess on your own. See thunderranch.com, gunsite.com, frontsight.com and ayoob.com.

-----

And always remember that shooting isn't about killing. It's about being able to cope, to provide for yourself, and about sport. If you wanted to kill you'd get a job at the slaughterhouse.

I'm with Kimberly regarding Amy's ideas and word choices. It's her own friggin' blog.

> It's absolutely not okay, and my
> personal timeout with you begins

Isn't that priggish and inane?

Oh, no, not a personal time out! I got a pretty good laugh out of that one. It's always an absolute giggle to see the kind of bloated ego some people carry around when it comes to how they just know their one, personal reprimand can somehow chide those who consistently show backbone.

To the woman who was attacked: I think she should have gotten the restraining order and the gun, just to nip naysayers in the bud. Plus some. It's a pretty sad world out there when you have to do all of that, but, unfortunately, it seems necessary.

But, have to think... Say he was in her house and wasn't intending to kill her, hurt her, etc.: Why didn't he just get the hell outta dodge? My husband, love his soul, is pretty dense, but I know (or at least believe and sincerely hope) that he'd turn around and haul ass if I pulled a gun on him (which we each have).

I don't know. Maybe as they look into it it'll turn out that she really was the bad guy after all, or something. Either way, though, there are probably situations like that that do happen, and they make a very good case for why everyone should choose to arm themselves somehow.

Amy, you showed once again that you HATE WOMEN by using the c word, and have NO RESPECT for your readers, by assuming that it's okay with us. It's absolutely not okay, and my personal timeout with you begins now, Amy. Grow up and show some class and good manners.

Uh, what's okay here is whatever I say okay. I'm not sure how using "cunt" indicates hatred for women, but when you sneak back to see how I've replied to your little snittyfit, perhaps you'll see fit to tell us all.

My use of the word "cunt" (I'm now tempted to type it 40 times) is actually Supreme Court-approved...if not Supreme Court-advocated! (Cohen v. California, 1971 -- the "Fuck The Draft" case). The Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Harlan is just beautiful. I love his use of the word "lyric":

For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.

...much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated.

In short, sometimes the "wrong" word is precisely the right word to convey a message. This woman was willfully fucking the neighborhood over, and she needed to be told in the strongest way possible that that was not okay. Somehow, stamping my feet and howling, "You're a big hairy vagina!" didn't seem to cut it.

here's the thing about shooting people in the abdomen. the only way they die is if they bleed to death. that takes awhile, even with 3 bullets, (even in the chest, for that matter, you'd have to hit the aorta or the heart directly otherwise) so it's very conceivable the guy would've had the strength to choke her.

kg - my dog is half german shepherd and half pit bull. we wanted a guard dog. she might lick you to death, she loves everyone. you have to train them to be vicious, which you can do just as well with a golden retriever (actually, cocker spaniels bite more people every year than any other breed - mind i said bite, not maul, which only trained fighting dogs will do - next in line are chihuahuas, collies, and golden retrievers)(yes i have too much time on my hands)

I have three handguns at home,.357 mag, .38 special, .45 auto and a few collectible rifles. I have been trained to shoot and have expert ribbons from the Navy both pistol and rifle. I bought my mom a .38 snubnose which is a small gun but it's better than nothing. I also took her to the range and taught her to shoot. I told her, if she ever finds herself in a position where she might be threatened, get the gun, make sure it's loaded and the safety is off, then point at the asshole, if he gets withing ten feet, shoot for center of mass and don't stop till he drops. That's what they teach you in the military. She's dating a firearms weapons instructor now, that makes me feel good. Last christmas we were out shooting assault rifles in the desert.

I listened to that tape and I heard nothing odd at all. My father died when I was five and mom had six kids to raise on her own. She was still very young and she dated while we were teenagers. My mother was a very attractive woman and attracted all kinds of assholes. As for the tone of that womans voice on the 911 recording, I recognize that tone all too well. She is not panicking or scared but she knows what's coming, she is steeling her nerves for a confrontation. She's getting mentally ready for a fight and she is damn sick of it. There is nothing in that audio that sounds out of the ordinary. Her whispering into the phone when she knows he's getting close to hearing range, the short talking when he grabs her and her crying after she shoots him are all exactly what these things usually entail. You have to remember, she's probably dropped the phone when he opened the closet door. You're not going to hear as well as if she was holding it up to his mouth. And I dont think it's unusual for his to say something like, are you gonna kill me or something like that.

Some guys are not that afraid of guns. I have had one in my face eight times in my life, three by cops, two of those in the same night, and five by various people who were just surprised and defending themselves. I was never really afraid of them, they usually had some reason to be afraid of something, once I talked to them, they were cool. The only time I thought I would get shot was by a rookie female San Diego cop who pulled me over for a stolen car. It actually was my car and was stolen but I got it back, it just hadn't cleard the hot sheet yet. She stuck her gun in my face and she was shakin and sweatin bullets. I tried to make fun of the situation and blurted out, "I really meant to call the next day!" She didn't laugh. But when another unit came up and I showed my license and registration, they realized it was my car and they let me go, but she was still really shaken up. The reason I tell that story is I don't think that woman should have been a cop. She wasn't right for that job. I really think if I was a crook, I could've grabbed it out of her hand and shot her. Anybody sticks a gun in my face anymore and my attitude is shoot up or shut up. You can't do anything about it anyway.

Rad, I generally have my .38 taped to the back of my headboard for home protection, but I wouldn't use the .357 in the house for fear of shooting through walls and killing an innocent neighboor. They are too powerful and will go through a few wall like melted butter.

Tom, I have the mossberg 500, with the very same barrel (though I also have a long barrel for hunting.

Radwaste -

The spread with a short barrel is rather wider than that. At nine or ten feet, mine spreads better than a foot with steel shot. As a family man, that is why I actually won't use it for home defense, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Marion -

Against someone who wants to do violence against you, it's worse than just a piece of paper - it gives you a false sense of security, and it can cause the person targeting you to get even angrier, as he/she feels as though you're trying to emasculate him/her.

There is only the matter of pissing the recipient off. When I had to get one against a women who was stalking the children of my lover at the time, I was warned repeatedly not to assume this would prevent her from attempting to kidnap the kids. Everyone knew what she seemed to be all about, which in itself was a criminal offense.

The important thing that a restraining order does, is to create a paper trail. It could easily become the difference between going on trial for murder or not. If it still goes to hearing and or trial (which apparently in some states it would, regardless of restraining orders), it can only work to your advantage.

A restraining order means that if the stalker/attacker is dead in your house, they were breaking the law before they attacked you. I know in the state of Michigan, it is not even close to certain, that you will get off after killing an intruder. I believe the law requires you make a reasonable attempt to get away from an intruder, that deadly force is only acceptable if there is absolutely no way to get away or secure your family.

"At nine or ten feet, mine spreads better than a foot with steel shot."

Where does the shot cup end up? And you won't use it unless absolutely necessary? When do you get to decide what weapon to use?

The choices for personal defense are still quite varied, despite some political efforts to disarm everyone. My main point about aiming is that shooting for effect, or in cases where bystanders are involved, require aim.

And what a sad thing that the state of Michigan may require you to flee your own home - perhaps to the waiting arms of an accomplice. "Please don't hurt the twisted goon." Oh, yes, you will always be faster than your attacker, and you can leave everyone else in your family behind. You wouldn't do that.

But Rad, we have the police to protect us. We have no need to use force to defend ourselves. (Sweet merciful crap. I can't even *type* that without choking on bile)

"Why must I be so misunderstood?" (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

But I do seem to be. At no point was I advocating relying on a restraining order instead of physically defending yourself. I did say I don't know what happened in this case and I don't. Frankly, sitting on a jury, I would never find a defendent guilty unless I was 97% (let's face it, you can't be 100%) sure.

I don't buy into the hype of let's not piss him off by getting a restraining order at all. On several counts: it's a show of strength, it is another measure of defense (take all measures available: restraining order, gun or other weapon, alarms and locks, dogs, burly friend staying over for a bit, etc., use your imaginations), there is at least a slim chance the cops will actually do their jobs if it is violated (frankly depends on the cops and how much they're checked up on, I also don't buy that all redneck sheriffs are assholes who are going to ignore one, that's like saying all guys are stalkers, cops are people too, some good, some bad), while it won't deter all it will deter some, and, finally, as others have said, it creates the foundation for your defense should it come to that.

I never claimed to be an expert on guns but common sense says you have to know how to use the dang thing. I've been fortunate in that I haven't had to use it. I also proferred my ex's machette when I kicked him the hell out and had it by my bed until I got on the plane to Denver. He and my brother have taught me some pretty good self defense tactics including some judo and karate and I've taken some basic self defense classes too.

I believe in killing someone to prevent them from raping you let alone to prevent them from killing you. Said ex has held a knife to my throat and I'm here to tell about it. Someone once tried to drown me and I'm here to tell about it (thanks to a large rather vicious dog named Colonel, German shepherd collie mix, this was when I was a kid and proves that white neighborhoods can be rough).

My ex, when we were splitting up, told me they'd find me dead in the street being sure no one else was within earshot. I looked him in the eye and said try it and we'll see who they find dead in the street. 10 years later, they found one of us exactly that (well, not quite, died later on the operating table after a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the stomach so it was unconnected to me; well, unless you count my aiding the police in finding him and being willing to testify in court connected).

Just for the benefit of any of you who think I'm this helpless little naif. Nope, I wouldn't be alive today if that were the case. I used to joke I was like a cat with nine lives but that was approximately 15 years ago when I'd had eight scrapes with the Grim Reaper and still come out on top. The count's gone up a few.

Being less than naive, I must add that I'm a big believer in fight or flight and that flight is preferrable to fight whenver possible. Fight's a risk. You never know when the asshole you're facing might be the better fighter, no matter how big and bad you are.

Right, Donna? He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day! o_O