If Donna Hopper, a 66 year old Redding, California, woman had listened to police during a 911 call, she may have been killed by an intruder. During a 911 call, a police operator told Hopper not to shoot the intruder breaking into her home. She was told to put down the gun and wait for police. Hopper instead shot and killed the man with a recently purchased .38 handgun. The incident is another example demonstrating that police are unable to protect citizens from criminals. Not only are police incapable of protecting citizens, they have no duty to do so. Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens were expected to arm and protect themselves. In fact, self defense was considered a civic duty. In America, armed police were considered no different than the dreaded prospect of a standing army. By the mid-1800s, however, cities began forming police forces and gradually the idea that the citizen is responsible for his self defense diminished. It is now virtually illegal in many large cities to own a firearm for self defense. As Operation Fast and Furious demonstrated, the government is actively involved in efforts to disarm the public. On Wednesday, we reported on documents obtained by CBS that prove the government launched Fast and Furious specifically as a pretense to argue for more restrictive gun laws. The governments efforts to gut the Second Amendment and disarm the public have nothing to do with citizens killing intruders in self defense or even violent Mexican drug cartels. Government is invariably mistrustful of an armed public, especially when that government begins acting tyrannically. Video Comment: Good for her, surprised the nuts in the State of CA didn't try and arrest her for protecting herself. Good thing the intruder wasn't gay or a minority, cuz they probably would have... the State of California hates whites and people who have Christian values.
My widowed 86 year old grandmother lived on a farm in rural Mississippi. late one night an intruder was cutting the screen to gain access to her porch.. She shot him with birdshot and didn't even bother to call the Sheriff 's office. I always thought she was extremely sensible...
WTF? Don't shoot? just stand there and HOPE the police get there in time? God Bless Texas - where if you step on our property, we CAN shoot your ass. Honestly, I would want to wait for police if I thought I could. But things happen very quickly. If someone invaded my home, I would not wait to be raped or killed. how stupid.
Well thats how we use to take care of things. Today the State and Fed want us to be sheeple to the slaughter. Police have no duty to protect us, they just write reports after someone has already been hurt or murdered
Thats right, we do need the ability to protect us, because no one else can. Like you said, things happen fast.
The cops are public service union employees. They get paid the same no matter whose dead body they bring out of the house. The crook or the honest citizen who lives there. It's all the same to them.
Good for her! (*)(*)(*)(*) the cops. How long would it have taken them to get to her house? 10 to 20 minutes? And what could happen to a 66 year old woman vs an intruder in that time?
You cannot use deadly force to protect your property The Police http://www.copblock.org/9937/you-cannot-use-deadly-force-to-protect-your-property-the-police/
lmao of course the cops arent going to tell some old lady to start a gun battle without knowinig if shes sane or hallucinating... can you imagine the liabilty???
Besides what difference does it make to government workers which body is at the crime scene? The public employee will get paid the same either way.
we get it you don't like unions, anything else to add ? My 2p... In the UK we have had folk prosecuted for defending themselves against intruders, something I find disgusting. Perhaps out on the street there is room for deciding what is or is not excessive, but when someone enters your home they should be taking their life in their hands. Home is where you should be SAFE and a place you should be able to defend that safety by whatever means necessary.
Thank you for those comments. I don't know about the UK but here in America the unelected judges have said the the police have no responsibility to protect citizens from violent criminals. Legally they only have to make sure that the bodies are hauled away properly. So we do value our Constitutional right to own firearms and defend ourselves.
No... they actively tried to discourage her from defending herself, they could have just said nothing about that, they took a position on it ... the negative position and IMHO that's as stupid as taking the affirmative position on it... ie. giving her the green light. Their first concern should be her safety, not the safety of the intruder
im sure the first concern is liability. and with the right always looking to attack public sector workers thats hardly surprising
If someone breaks into my house, they are only going to get one (loud and clear) warning to leave. If they don't, they're going to get what's coming to them... I might be more graceful if it is a criminally delinquent youth or a drunk — that's what taser guns are for Oh, and yes, I do believe in "affirmative action":
