Replies

Perhaps thankfully she didn't. If the perp had been unarmed (as the article insinuates) and she popped a cap in his face, what would the headline have read? "Racially motivated slaying in Warren"? "Race is the subject in Warren shooting"? "Warren woman goes on trial for killing unarmed black teen"? I shudder to think about the media's response then.

Mind you, I learned firearm handling from professionals and learned "Don't pull it unless you're going to use it."

I carried a firearm for work for about 2 years, and only ever had it out of the holster once (almost got "ATM jacked" about 2 blocks from the Detroit Police's 9th Precinct.. sheesh. So much for "police presence"). The mere sight of the loud end of my Glock removed the threat and didn't require its use (again, thankfully), but if I'd have followed my training and used the weapon once it was clear of the holster, you know the liberal rags in town would have been trumpting "Unarmed teen shot by white thug" or "Innocent victim of shooting was church-going angel" or worse.

YMMV. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn this woman for not shooting the guy. With any luck, after he cleans out his pants, the guy will think twice before he yanks the door open on someone and maybe find a line of work more conducive to long-term survival, like putting out burning oil wells or something. (heh.. don't do that to my old man.. the business end of his .45 is a LOT nastier looking than a 9mm..)