No charges to be filed after man shoots intruder/ex-wife

[Tejas]

The Fourth Judicial District Attorney's office says 46-year-old Cristen Ann Cox went over to her husband's house at just after 1 a.m. on Oct. 9. She had a handgun and investigators say she fired four shots into the front door of the apartment and broke in. She then fired another shot in the living room.

The gunfire woke up Richard Cox and his girlfriend, according to investigators. Richard Cox did not know who was in his home so he got his 12-gauge shotgun and fired a shot at a silhouette that entered the bedroom.


http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=159479&catid=346





Sad, she should've heeded that restraining order.

[ileus]

1. another SD use of a firearm...

good on him.

[saigon68]

4. Down goes Frazier

[proteus_lives]

2. He did the right thing.

She was going to kill him.

[LaurenG]

3. Sad but yes, who in their right mind would shoot their way into someone elses house

and expect to live to tell about it.

[Katya Mullethov]

41. That's easy .

DEA ..ATF .. and the local PD .......It never occurred to me until recently , but the number of wronghouseBUTweshotthedogsandakid raids in Mexico must be absolutely OFF the charts . I couldnt find any news stories in Spanish -or- English on this , of course , but ....

[ProdigalJunkMail]

5. SHE should have had a restraining order????

he did have one. obviously the ex was more than a little unhinged over the whole thing...

guns blazing into someone's house is a good way to get shot. and to be honest, who CARES who the hell it is in the house if they are firing a gun...he did the right thing.

sP

[Democat]

6. The original poster said "should have heeded" the restraining order.

Not should have "had".

[ProdigalJunkMail]

7. HAHAHAHA...damn I suck... n/t

[safeinOhio]

8. Are you implying

handguns bad, Shotguns good?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. for home defense...you can't beat a shot gun...

huge noise...decent stopping power depending on the shell...unlikely to penetrate past intended target...

sP

[B Calm]

10. Pretty hard to miss your target with a shotgun. As a defense weapon in a dark

room the shotgun makes sense..

[PavePusher]

33. Not true.

At in-house ranges, you still have to aim a shotgun pretty accurately. And many/most shot loads will penetrate walls.

[Callisto32]

44. Double Aught, 30 yards, cylinder barrel=~Fist sized pattern.

[safeinOhio]

12. for violent gun crimes

you can't beat a handgun. 90% of violent gun criminals agree.

[Tejas]

21. Then I'd say we should do something about criminals

instead of being cowards by hamstringing law-abiding citizens.

[safeinOhio]

24. criminal with handgun

gets blown away by law-abiding citizen with shotgun. Where is the hamstringing? I'm all for making it very difficult for criminals to get and possess handguns. I'm against any law that would make it so a person that CAN pass a NICS background check can't buy a handgun. Making all handgun sales require a background check is doing something about the criminals, while allowing law abiding citizens able to purchase and carry handguns. Just like anyone buying a handgun from a store.

[Euromutt]

39. Could we not make this thread about your personal hobby horse?

You have yet to explain how your idée-fixe about registering handguns is going to get around existing case law (Haynes v. United States, which determined that a person in illegal possession of a firearm cannot be penalized for not registering it, as that would be self-incrimination).

And we already know that a fair amount of black market firearms are purchased from FFLs by straw purchasers, on behalf of traffickers. Requiring sales between private parties to involve a NICS check, or go through an FFL (as in California) simply means that traffickers will use the same methods in purchases from private parties as they already do in purchases from FFLs. To draw an awkward analogy, the problem we have is that traffickers are climbing over an obstacle that has been placed in their way, and your "solution" is to make the obstacle wider.

[Roon]

23. I don't own a gun

I just wonder if they allow civilians to have those beanbag shells that police use, it is fired from a 12 gauge. That way it doesn't kill the intruder but shuts them down.I think that would be a great idea.

I knew someone that had one of those beanbags and he just gently tossed it onto my chest,it HURT!!! I couldn't imagine having one fired at you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. I believe they are, but are less effective than the larger beanbags from purpose built weapons

which I have not seen on the civilian market.

A 12ga is not the self defense panacea that some claim, it is one of several effective options.

[Lilith Velkor]

29. Use rock salt n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. terrible idea

When using bean bags, rubber bullets, and tasers... all these actions are considered use of deadly force under the law. It requires the SAME amount of scrutiny to use these "less-lethal" weapons as it does to use a firearm. You place yourself at legal jeopardy/risk just the same as if you used a regular firearm.

You're also placing yourself in physical risk because you are purposefully choosing a handicapped weapon to defend yourself with. In a situation that justifies the use of deadly force, why use tools that may not get the job done.

The only situation which I could see your idea being applied is a conscientious objector scenario.
However if victims want to conscientiously resign their self-defense... that's none of my concern.

[Euromutt]

40. The law still treats use of "less lethal" force by private citizens as lethal force

Yes, you can buy "beanbag" rounds as a private citizen. But as 0.1% states above, the law considers the use of "less lethal" weapons to still constitute lethal force. So to be on a firm legal footing, you can't use "less lethal" weapons in situations in which you would not be legally justified in employing lethal force. And lethal rounds are a better bet for rapidly incapacitating an assailant than beanbags or rubber bullets or whatnot.

There is definitely one thing to be said in favor of beanbags, and that's that there's very little risk of overpenetration. If you live in a densely built neighborhood, or a townhouse or apartment, that might be a reason to use those instead (though if you do so, I'd recommend keeping some buckshot rounds readily accessible, say in one of those elastic cuffs you can slip onto the stock that hold five rounds).

[Callisto32]

45. Here:

http://mkballistics.com/specs/MKB12%20GAUGE%20Ammo.htm

[Euromutt]

38. Shotguns' role is limited, though they do that very well

As Massad Ayoob argues, if you're going to own only one gun for home defense, it should be a handgun. While it may not be as intimidating or as incapacitating as a shotgun, its smaller size makes it much more versatile.

In an HD situation, long guns are excellent as "blocking position" weapons; to cover a door or corridor. But if you have to maneuver (e.g. to retrieve a child from his bedroom and bring him behind the "blocking position"), answer the front door to an unknown knock, or use a telephone to call 911, a handgun is much more versatile.

You do need to be careful regarding overpenetration with shotguns, though, depending on choice of ammunition. Most "reduced recoil" shotgun loads are made with hardened pellets (to ensure sufficient penetration), which are actually more likely to penetrate building materials than unhardened pellets fired at higher velocity.

Interestingly, and somewhat counter-intuitively, a round that has comparatively little risk of overpenetration is the 55-grain .223, in some kind of hollowpoint configuration. Despite the velocity being much higher than that of handgun bullets, the much smaller mass means the bullets break up much more readily.

[SteveM]

42. .357: No awkwardness, no magazine, no cocking, no safety.

[Tejas]

11. Well duh, at least you stand the chance of

putting an eye out.

[RagAss]

13. This had to be rough on the carpet.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Gun toting ex-wife killed by gun-toting ex-hubby....

Boy, that sure makes me want to buy a gun and support laxer gun laws.

[Tejas]

16. Um, yeah, should've shot to wound just like on TV

Or better yet, in your land of rainbows and unicorns, he should've simply dialed 911.

I take it you don't have children in your home that are worth protecting from an armed intruder, much less care to protect/preserve your own life?

[pipi_k]

22. Well, like the other person above me...

I have to ask...if a very pissed-off someone breaks into your home in the dead of night, guns blazing away, what is your best option?

Hide in the closet and take the chance of being cornered there and shot?

Hide under the bed and hope the person doesn't figure out all she has to do is stick the gun under the bed and shoot blindly?

Sit there and reason with the enraged person?

Hide in the bathroom (if you can get to it) and hope the enraged person doesn't set fire to the bedding and then wait for you come come out so she can shoot you?


Seriously...

[PavePusher]

34. Miss the point often, do you? n/t

[WolverineDG]

15. cue the "women are always victims of men" chorus.... nt

[Darth_Kitten]

17. Meaning what?

Where is this chorus? :eyes: I see you are REALLY sorry that violence against women actually exists?

[Tejas]

18. Wait at least more than a lousy 16 minutes

Patience, it's a virtue.





edit - vertue virtue verchoo versheau pick one whatever

[Darth_Kitten]

19. You proved my point, thanks.

Misogyny, such a bad thing, don't you think?

[Tejas]

20. What, that violence against both sexes actually exists?

[WolverineDG]

25. No

I'm just tired of the "women are always victims of men & therefore should never be held accountable for anything they do" brigade. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this somehow gets turned into the latest thing I'm supposed to be "outraged" about by those who make their living off of sensationalizing stuff like this & conveniently leaving out the facts that it was the wife who shot her way into the home & had a restraining order against her.

dg

[JustAnotherGen]

26. Amen

Anyone remember Betty Broderick? If Dan Broderick had a gun - maybe just maybe he could have shot Betty prior to her killing his pregnant wife.

Justanothergen - a woman who had a relationship end because of a cheating guy - but did not run him over with my car when I had the chance.


Regardless of why she was so angry - violence is not the answer. Waiting for things to come full circle always makes things right.

[SteveM]

43. "I was like 'ack'!" Should be in jail for the rest of her stinky life. nt

[Lilith Velkor]

30. That's one ferocious strawfeminist you got there.

Nice that you burned it real good; I needed a light. :smoke:

[WolverineDG]

35. Wow, I must have struck a nerve

bullseye! Just love how when I do that, I get "strawman" responses. I'm not sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable. I've seen this type of thing too many times on DU to think otherwise.

dg

[superduperfarleft]

32. You seem bitter about something.

I'm male, and I 110% support the right of a homeowner to blast an intruder with a shotgun, yet I read the entire thread and not once did "Damn feminazis" pop into my head, until your post.

[WolverineDG]

36. Did I say that?

No. You did.

What I'm tired of are those who make their living off of keeping women in "victim mode" spinning incidents like this into something I'm supposed to be "outraged" about. And there are those out there who believe that women are always the victims & that somehow, no matter what a woman does, it's because she's a "victim" & her behavior should be excused, no matter what the facts are. This is how these folks make their money because there are no women out there feeling "oppressed," then they'd got to go find real jobs.

dg

[dimbear]

28. Wonder if Dick Cox was teased in school. n/t

[underseasurveyor]

31. i guess she was wrong

And stupid and paid for it.