Time to call the police?

[Seth]

...There ain't no stinking time to call the police....

Crime
‘Oh S***’: Mom’s Quick-Thinking Gun Move Sends Carjackers Fleeing
Sep. 9, 2013 8:45am Billy Hallowell

Picture this: You get home after a long day at work, step out of the car and you’re instantaneously held-up by a group of men who attempt to forcibly to steal your vehicle.

This is the exact scenario that Kari Bird, a mother of three who works full-time and is attending law school, encountered when she arrived home around 11:30 p.m. last Wednesday. But rather than cowering, Bird became an unsuspecting hero after she pulled a gun and defended herself, preventing them from taking the vehicle and sending them running.

The Indianapolis, Ind., resident told WXIN-TV that the group of four young men initially approached her, with the lead carjacker smiling and then quickly pulling out a gun. After telling Bird to give him her keys, she complied. But she then realized that all of her books and belongings were in the car, so she took a risk and made a quick decision, reaching into her console and pulling out a gun of her own.

“[He said], ‘Oh s***’ and then ran,” Bird, who appeared to be wearing a pentagram necklace, told the outlet.

She also said that the young men appeared to be teenagers, something that profoundly disturbed her.

“If these were my kids and they were out at 11:30 at night, terrorizing women, I would scare the life out of them,” Bird added.

The situation happened very quickly in her driveway, with Bird telling WTHR-TV that she was in disbelief. While she said that she doesn’t want to be an example of why one should or should not carry a gun, she discussed her own reasons for possessing one.

“I do have a gun carry permit and I do carry a gun. I yanked over my passenger door and pulled it out and at that point, they scattered,” she said in her WTHR-TV interview. “It is personal protection, but I have never had to use it.”

The outlet claims that authorities will likely patrol around her neighborhood in the wake of the incident and that police may also rely upon surveillance video from a nearby gas station to try and find the four young men.

As for Bird, she recommends that women keep their guard up and pay attention to ensure their own self-protection.

[Clinton Huxley]

"Who appeared to be wearing a pentagram necklace". What a weird detail to mention....

[Seth]

"Who appeared to be wearing a pentagram necklace". What a weird detail to mention....

That is a bit strange, isn't it? The reporter must be an evangelical Christian. Perhaps she thinks the victim should have just hexed her way out of trouble with a spell of some kind.

[JimC]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

[Tyrannical]

2 min news video on it.

[Seth]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

[Coito ergo sum]

Good for her.

I found the mention of the pentagram thing to be weird. What was the relevance? Maybe she was wearing hoop earrings and had her hair in a pixie cut too? WTF?

The minor detail that irks me, though, is the insistence on referring to her as a "mom." She's a woman and a person. Why refer to her "a mom?" Do we refer to men who are involved in newsworthy events as "dads?"

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

And a single anecdote proves what, exactly? You might as well hold up a single friendly-fire incident as a reason not to arm soldiers! Or cite Winston Churchill's 91 years as a confirmed smoker as evidence for the safety of cigars.

I'm not arguing on either side here. Just trying to add a little perspective. Anecdote ≠ evidence.

[Collector1337]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

What you should be saying is:

"Risky, though, being a criminal. Not everyone is a potential unarmed victim. You might get shot..."

[Collector1337]

The minor detail that irks me, though, is the insistence on referring to her as a "mom." She's a woman and a person. Why refer to her "a mom?" Do we refer to men who are involved in newsworthy events as "dads?"

Stupid appeal to emotion. The news media does it constantly.

I think they forgot how objective reporting works.

[Coito ergo sum]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

And a single anecdote proves what, exactly?

It proves that in this case, the lady had a good result through the use of a gun in self-defense.

You might as well hold up a single friendly-fire incident as a reason not to arm soldiers! Or cite Winston Churchill's 91 years as a confirmed smoker as evidence for the safety of cigars.

I'm not arguing on either side here. Just trying to add a little perspective. Anecdote ≠ evidence.

Anecdotes do equal evidence. Anecdotal evidence. It's just not particularly persuasive to induce a general proposition from a specific incident.

We can say, however, that had she not had the gun, she almost certainly would have been robbed of her car and other personal belongings and possibly could have had a worse fate at the hands of these criminals. Sometimes we hear from the anti-gun folks that "if it saves one life..." then a given anti-gun regulation would be justified. Well, using that same argument, if it saves one life....

[Collector1337]

You might as well hold up a single friendly-fire incident as a reason not to arm soldiers!

Like when some rampage shooting happens and the emotional "something must be done!" shit starts happening and idiot gun control advocates push for more pointless laws?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

And a single anecdote proves what, exactly?

It proves that in this case, the lady had a good result through the use of a gun in self-defense.

Exactly. A single case proves only what happened in that single case.

You might as well hold up a single friendly-fire incident as a reason not to arm soldiers! Or cite Winston Churchill's 91 years as a confirmed smoker as evidence for the safety of cigars.

I'm not arguing on either side here. Just trying to add a little perspective. Anecdote ≠ evidence.

Anecdotes do equal evidence. Anecdotal evidence. It's just not particularly persuasive to induce a general proposition from a specific incident.

My bad - I meant to write Anecdote ≠ Proof - clearly it is evidence, just not particularly persuasive evidence, except for those looking to confirm their pre-existing bias.

We can say, however, that had she not had the gun, she almost certainly would have been robbed of her car and other personal belongings and possibly could have had a worse fate at the hands of these criminals. Sometimes we hear from the anti-gun folks that "if it saves one life..." then a given anti-gun regulation would be justified. Well, using that same argument, if it saves one life....

That argument is bollocks from both sides. Again, it is equating a single anecdote with proof. Wankery.

[Seth]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

And a single anecdote proves what, exactly?

That the possession and proper use of a handgun has important utility for self defense of course.

You might as well hold up a single friendly-fire incident as a reason not to arm soldiers! Or cite Winston Churchill's 91 years as a confirmed smoker as evidence for the safety of cigars.

I'm not arguing on either side here. Just trying to add a little perspective. Anecdote ≠ evidence.

False dilemma fallacy. The point of the report (not anecdote) is to demonstrate the simple fact that in such situations reliance on "the police" to protect the individual against any particular crime is a stupid notion because the police cannot, and were never intended to be "Johnny-on-the-spot" for every single criminal victimization that does or could occur, and in point of legal fact have NO legal obligation to provide protection to anyone, ever, even if they are standing right there watching the carjackers beat the shit out of the lady.

The report clearly demonstrates the primary self-defense is the purview of the individual under attack. It always has been, since the beginning of time, and will remain that way till the end of time.

The intended implication is that because the affected individual is primarily responsible for his or her own self defense it is prudent therefore that each individual be allowed to decide what tools of self defense are reasonable and necessary for them to possess and use, rather than limiting those choices for political reasons using bogus statistical arguments.

The point is that whether a pistol, OC spray or a tire-iron would have been a better, more effective self-defense weapon in that scenario is irrelevant in the extreme. What's relevant is that it's up to the individual to decide what tools they want, need and are proficient with that succeeds in defending them against criminal victimization.

[Cormac]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

Agreed.