Del. Woman Fatally Shoots Ex-Husband

It happened Thursday about 11:30 p.m., when police received a 911 call from the woman. Police say Thompson, who was wanted for violating a protective order his ex-wife had against him, used a ladder to get into the victim’s third-floor bedroom.

Police say Thompson entered the home through a window and began punching the woman in the head she was in her bed. The woman got a gun and shot Thompson.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2010/10/29/del-woman-fatally-shoots-ex-husband/

Makes me wonder, if not for her being armed would she be the dead person in this story?

Self defense.

Sad, very sad.

as a protective measure. They are at best a means of warning the restrainee that he is on probation.


"Well she finally got the nerve to file for divorce
She let the law take it from there
But Earl walked right through that restraining order
And put her in intensive care"

As such, they'll only work to ward off the merely annoying.

but the truly violent ones could not care less and in many cases it just enrages them further. Of course the truly violent ones are exactly the ones you have to worry about.

And that's why, among other reasons, I strongly support the right to keep and bear arms. An individual ultimately is responsible for protecting themselves.

They also up the penalty. For example, what would be a gross misdemeanor assault becomes a felony assualt if committed in violation of a protective order (At least where I live , restraining orders are issued pursuant to seperation and divorce and there need not be even allegations of prior domestic violence, protection orders are petitioner initiated and have those allegations, and no contact orders are issued by a judge without petitioner request , pursuant to arrest)

also, ime the vast majority of order violations are non-violent. They are phone calls, and other violations of the "contact" clause.

Note also that having a protective order, especially in cases where the residence was mutually inhabited prior, eliminates any possible defense due to tenancy or otherwise and makes the shoot "clean" in that by merely being there there is evidence of criminal intent and there can be no argument as to that.

would have had this woman unarmed and at the mercy of her ex-husband. When will they ever learn?

it amazes me how you people get such satisfaction from someone dying at the barrel of a gun and cheer it here.

I guess it's OK for you folks to scream that your 2nd amendment rights are being violated, but when it comes to dissent on DU, you find it amazingly easy to complain and have that dissent squelched.


We're supposed to be Progressives not cave people who only support violence as a means to an end.


How sad for you all .

rather than use a horrid object for defense.

How very sad.

The right for people to keep and bear arms. What a wonderful progressive idea.

:puke:

:nopity:


Forgot to thank you for the bump.

:toast:

You are so easy.

Merry Merry Christmas Phil, and the boat you loaded your guns on.

Sorry but I don't have a boat. I do have a 4 X 4 with racks to safely store and transport firearms while hunting though.

Please have a great new year and stay safe. Just keep in mind that when seconds count police are minutes away. The woman in the O.P. knew that, and was prepared.

:D

are you seriously suggesting that this would have been the preferable result?

If you bothered to read the story you would realize that the ex violated a restraining order when he used a ladder to enter her 3rd story bedroom. Then he proceeded to punch her in the head!

You may consider yourself a compassionate person but seriously why is your compassion only for a man who would have seriously injured or killed his wife?

What do you suggest the woman should have done?

1) Call 911 while she was being beaten?

2) Fight back against a stronger opponent?

3) Begged for forgiveness and mercy.

4) Talked kindly to her ex about his emotional problems?

5) Attempted to get out of bed and run to the bathroom and lock the door?

The "cave person" in this situation was the ex-husband and he was not armed.

"Was the woman supporting violence as a means to an end?" If we are talking about the end being her personal survival, then the answer is yes!

There's nothing intrinsically wrong, let alone anathema to being progressive, about using violence as a means to an end. Do you want to tell me the Spanish Republicans, and the foreign volunteers who fought on their side, were not Progressives because they used violence to resist Franco's Nationalists?

And spare me the persecution complex. If your posts are getting deleted, it's because a mod reckoned you violated the forum rules. We pro-RKBA types don't actually have any special influence on the mods.

You know, the ones that make you see everything 180 deg. out of context.

Have you offered to help provide security for someone who needs it? That would do much to give you some amount of credibility.

is that when he/she shoots the violator, fewer questions are asked.

My daughter attracted a stalker for a while. She got a restraining order and reported each and every violation. Fortunately she already had a concealed weapons license and carries. Had her stalker attacked her, she would have simply shot him without any hesitation. Fortunately for him, he never became physical with her.

The stalker finally violated the restraining order once too often and there were witnesses (including me). He was arrested and had to serve a number of weekends in the county lock up. The judge told him that he would be looking at a year in prison the next time he violated the order.

That appears to have worked. My daughter does see him occasionally, but that is no surprise as we live in a small town.