Lawful Gun Owner Arrested For Firing Gun In Air To Scare Daughter’s Attackers – Now Her Daughter’s Missing


A Virginia woman who fired a legally-owned handgun into the air to scare away a group of boys who were attacking her daughter was arrested by local police Saturday for reckless use of a weapon.

A day after the mother’s “reckless” attempt to protect her daughter – whom one of the boys had begun punching in the face before she decided to fire a single warning shot – the 15 year-old girl went missing.

The mom, 35 year-old Lakisha Gaither, said she was simply trying to protect her daughter without hurting anyone.

From The Washington Times’ original story:

“I just wanted this group of guys to disperse,” Ms. Gaither said. “I didn’t know what they were going to do. I wanted him to stop hitting my child.”

The shooting occurred at 9:20 p.m. in the 13600 block of Cridercrest Place. After confronting a teenage girl and her mother in the neighborhood over a prior disagreement, Ms. Gaither and her 15-year-old daughter, Brianna Stewart, began walking home. A group of about 10 boys approached them in the parking lot of their apartment complex. One boy began to swear and insult Ms. Gaither and her daughter, who stood up to the boy.

“The two were face to face,” Ms. Gaither said. “He grabs her shirt, she goes to push him off her.”

Ms. Gaither said she realized she’d be putting the both of them at risk if she jumped into the fray.

“I stopped and turned to walk to the middle of the parking lot. I made sure no one was around me,” she said. “I unholstered my gun, pointed it straight in the air and fired just one shot to get him off my child.”

Ms. Gaither said she didn’t try to get away, and police eventually arrived.

“I didn’t feel like I was wrong,” she said. “I wanted to protect my child.”

But officers arrested her and charged her with reckless use of a weapon.

Effective though the maneuver was, police got their pound of flesh. A police spokesman said Ms. Gaither “should have called police instead of taking matters into her own hands.”

Now Gaither has to contend with a missing child. She had sent her daughter, 15 year-old Brianna Stewart, to stay with her grandmother after the incident because she feared for the young woman’s safety in the immediate aftermath. She disappeared the next day and still hasn’t been found. It’s not known whether her attackers had anything to do with her disappearance.

Personal Liberty

Personal Liberty News Desk

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • nick beck

    shoot the perp and with a FATAL shot

    • Chester

      Then go to jail for life for “unnecessary use of deadly force, resulting in the death of a minor.” Life without would be a miracle.

      • Robert Messmer

        I’m sure her lawyer would get as many parents on the jury as possible. Fathers preferably since we normally are very protective of our precious little girls and are ready to kill boys for looking at them.

        • Chester

          Might, but again, you have a prosecutor who will be looking for a kill zone. Shooting a kid, regardless of why, is far more apt to get you locked away for life than grabbing him up and body slamming him on the ground, preferably head first. May shake your girl up a bit, but far less likely to put you in jail. Even if only charged with manslaughter, or the equivalent, there is still the Armed Criminal Action part to take into account, and here, that is a mandatory three years minimum before parole eligible. Even worse, the very fact that you had, and used, a gun, regardless of why, is sufficient grounds to convict on the ACA.

    • michiganminuteman

      Any time you are driven to pull your gun it better be intended to be fatal.

  • TexRancher

    The Obama way; Punish the victim. Fire into air, get arrested, kill the SOB and justifiable homicide……

    • wavesofgrain

      In this era of gun control pushers, and the militarization of union police by this government, there will be a media/prosecution feeding frenzy any time ANYONE is shot. They will especially try to blame anyone who has used a gun to attempt to defend or protect themselves, especially if the perpetrators were minority.

      • TexRancher

        re: Your last paragraph: Muslims and ILLEGALS processed generously with pig guts; Better than Miracle Grow!
        This is Texas: According to the last booklet on firearms for protection by former Houston DA Johnny Holmes – You can use a firearm to defend your person, family AND property. The catch is, don’t shoot someone running away EMPTY HANDED!

  • manuel

    The cops in Virginia are proving to be as stupid as the obama DOJ(sic). The woman was justified to shoot the turd that was attacking her daughter and hopefully next time she will. Now the daughter is missing and I imagine the worthless cops are wringing their greasy hands. Idiots!

  • snowdog76

    She was in a parking lot. Shooting down could have ricocheted the bullet anywhere.
    Why do some police view self-protection as competition?

    • paendragon

      You just answered your own rhetorical question.

      • Motov

        Better question, why don’t the cops arrest politicians?
        They are the most dangerous criminals!

        • paendragon

          And they’re totaly unneccessary, too!

  • John1943

    She should not have fired into the air, and ground shots can ricochet, but I understand why she was reluctant to shoot the boy hitting her daughter, even though that can easily be considered deadly force. The rule is, don’t pull a gun unless you are actually prepared to use it on someone. I feel for this mother and her daughter. Hard to say what she should have done, but it seems the police may have overreacted. Hope it turns out OK.

    • angstfountain

      She should have shot his “bleeps” off. If I had a 15 year old daughter and some male started hitting her in the face, they are going down on the ground and they may not get back up again. The police were correct- if she had blasted the perp, being a woman with a minor female child, they wouldn’t have said a thing.

      • John1943

        I don’t see where the police said that, and even then I think it would depend on the circumstances and the D.A.

        Considering the circumstances, if this was a bunch of twentyish year olds, issuing specific threats and obviously hitting to hurt, I would probably shoot too.

        However, if it was a bunch of her fellow fifteen year olds, slapping her around a little just to show off (and in no way am i suggesting that that was the case) then I’d be a little more careful to make sure I did not have some relatively innocent kid’s death on my conscience. It’s a judgement call and to say “She should have shot his bleeps off,” suggests to me that perhaps you have never been in that situation and that maybe a few tactical training sessions might make you think more carefully before you play judge and executioner.

        Not saying she would not have been justified, just saying you need to be careful before taking someone’s life (not to mention the sleepless nights and hell and expense you will go through when the boy’s family sue you and/or if the D.A. decides to make an example of you, a la Zimmerman perhaps).

        • J. Brown

          Perhaps you might consider signing up for those “tactical training” classes. After the first blow has been thrown fights on, age and circumstances are moot. Never started a fight, but several I’ve had to end.

          • John1943

            Actually, I already have, and I am an NRA Instructor, and I have done a lot of role playing with the members of my local sheriff’s department. Anyone who thinks that in any case like this age and circumstance are moot, even in those states that Hoosier refers to, either hasn’t thought it through or is plain ignorant.

            And add on a lot of problems if the deceased is black. Think Zimmerman before you consider that a mild slap is justification for a terminal response.

            When they were growing up, my kids hit each other (and their friends) all the time. Would I, or you, have been justified in shooting them? Really?

          • Robert Messmer

            In this particular case it appears to be more black on black crime. Not sure how you get “mild slap” out of boy punched her hard enough to knock the lens out of her glasses. I have dropped my glasses on concrete without the lens coming out, so it does generally take some force. Plus add in that the thugs confronted her 10 to 1, which should also be considered.

          • John1943

            Yes, it should be considered. But I’m not sure where you got the lens knocked out from, it is not in the article above, and neither is the color of the aggressors or defendants (except for an inference from the mother’s name and comments from other posters above).

            Anyhow, all I’ve said is that is not necessarily an immediate “shoot to kill” situation when even a large group of kids start pushing your daughter around and that you, and the D.A. and the jury (if it comes to that) should take a lot more into consideration than simply, “he hit her so I killed him.” That’s over simplistic and the facts, as reported in the article above, don’t go far enough, to me, to automatically justify a death sentence, together with the inevitable problems that will bring to the shooter, even if the death is, after contemplation, considered justifiable.

            And, I’ve dropped my glasses with, and without, the lens coming out, and I’ve had the lens fall out when simply cleaning them, so that doesn’t prove a lot either way.

          • paendragon

            Criminals don’t have a right to use someone’s subjective definition of “minimal” force without retaliation for their crimes. Nobody’s response is limited to the criminals’ desires nor timetables. Once a criminal has indicated violent intent, even if their first punch misses, there is no valid “reversed onus” legal requirement for a “proportional” response; even merely attempted crimes are still crimes. People don’t have any moral nor legal “responsibilities” to attend to the criminals’ “rights” to continue to be criminals.

          • John1943

            In most places, it is a firm precept of law that you cannot use deadly force unless you can convince a jury (or the D.A., in which case it won’t get to a jury) that you were convinced that you (or someone you are protecting) were in danger of severe injury or death. (there may be variations based on local Castle Doctrine laws).

            A young fit man, slapped on the face by a 90 year old disabled granny, is highly unlikely to be considered entitled to shoot her, however illegal it may be to slap someone. Anything but a proportional response will be hard to justify. That’s why cops have batons, tear gas and stun guns – even they just can’t shoot in cases of minor violence.

            If you think otherwise, you are a deluded mall ninja and will not be happy if and when you put your beliefs into action; and I certainly don’t want to be in the vicinity, or, worse, be a member of your party.

          • paendragon

            Thank you for asserting your right to remain a victim. After all, if I say I’m better than you, then it’s all my fault, and, if it’s all my fault, then none of it’s your fault, so you’re stilll better than me. This is your moral high ground, and you’re welcome to it – bearing in mind, of course, that choosing to do nothing to defend your self &/or innocent others, is still a choice (failing to plan is planning to fail).

            Fred Bastiat noted something like “We all have the natural right to self defense; bad laws are those which try to deprive us of that right.”

            That no-defense nonsense is indeed the current liberal myth – that you are somehow limited to the criminal’s own time-table and plans.

            Liberals assert that we have a duty to Submit to other extortion – islam, for instance.

            What sort of insane “law” pretends one has to accede to the criminals’ timetables and plans?! “If the criminal stops attacking (for whatever reason, known only to them) then you have to immediately stop defending yourself, too!”

            Say a criminal attacks you, but runs out of bullets before managing to finish you off. They then run away, intending to re-load and then return to finish the job.

            Obviously, you don’t know why they stopped, nor what they’ll do next (but the balance of probabilities says that, since they’ve already chosen to attack you first, there’s no reason to imagine they suddenly became enlightened saints) so why shouldn’t you follow them to make sure?!

            They retain all their free-will rights to commit further crimes, while you are limited to their whims and timetables, like some robotic imbecile – the “law” pretends you are limited to immediate defense only, and aren’t allowed to counter-attack at all!

            And yet all crimes are routinely counter-attacked well after the facts, sometimes even years later, in the courts of law: by the time when any criminal gets to trial, they aren’t immediately endangering anyone, their crimes are in the past!

            “So why punish them at all?” (as liberals might argue!)?

            Because they must pay for their past crimes!

            Both the falsely-divided “criminal” and “civil” law branches are based on the same idea: You pay for what you take!

            This is both how and why revenge IS justice!

            All liberal “laws” (What Mark Levin describes as “positivist” laws) are, in fact, crimes.

            The only principle any one ever need agree to, is of course the Golden Rule of Law which defines all situational morality as “Do Not Attack First.”

            From this agreement, we gain trust, progress, and civilization; this “social contract” means our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (therefore innocent) others first. Period.

            The rest are all symptoms, and all sub-sequent valid legislation depends on that Rule: Every law is an if/then warning which says, in effect: If and when you choose to attack first in this, that, or those ways, then this, that, and these punishments will apply to you.

            Bad laws are crimes because they attack first. At “best” they are only ‘ethical’ lists of rules and excuses amerliorating bad, attack-first criminal premises.

            A “Judge’s” only job is to determine rational cause-and-effect (who started it) and all irrational criminal excuses or alibis are based on the opposite, victim-blaming slanderous pretense.

            It should therefore be easy for any judge to see if a law is bad (an attempt to deprive citizens of due process, by disregarding any need for evidence by slanderously insisting on asserting that they are Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent, and so must impossibly prove a negative in order to defend them selves).

            Bad laws are slanderously “pre-emptive” first attacks, like all gun control laws:

            “Since you DO own a gun, therefore you WILL use it to commit some crimes, SO we must now stop you by ‘defensively’ attacking you first – for your own good, of course!” There’s no if/then; they are threats, not valid warnings. Pretty much every “law” any liberal ever passes, is some form of extortion like this.

            Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

            Other bad laws depend not on what your free-will choice of what you might DO might eventually be, but on their subjective yet objectifying definition of what you ARE: in islam’s prejudicially slanderous us-versus-them and might makes right sharia code, all weaker groups – foreign infidels, women, children, slaves – are openly and officially pre-discriminated against, encoded right into their system of criminal laws.

            Bad (“defensively pre-emptive”) laws are crimes because they attack first.

            Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of “Do Not Attack First!” one can address with “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right,(but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that the legislators are actually doing something responsible to earn their pay and to continue to enjoy the right to govern others – a point which, after whence reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.

            It’s this state of immoral inversion we’re at now.

            PS: Even a disabled granny can casually bump you off a curb and into oncoming traffic when you least expect it.

            Or she could be an venerable mall-ninja sensei herself, and have just slapped you with her mall-ninja poison decoder ring spike, in which case, you die!


          • John1943

            Good luck when you come to court. With an attitude like yours, you will need it.

          • paendragon

            Critical thinking logical fallacy: “Appeal to Authority”

            (aka: might-makes-right).


          • John1943

            Just to prove how ridiculous your assertions are, how many disabled grannies have you shot, just in case they “casually bump you off a curb and into oncoming traffic when you least expect it!”

            None? I thought not. You don’t even practice what you preach.

          • paendragon

            Critical thinking logical fallacy: “strawman.”

            You’re talking to yourself – and here in public LOL!


          • paendragon

            PS: Why assume all disabled grannies are innocent?

            That’s just another idolatrous strawman fantasy of yours!

            Even evil people grow old.

            Who’s to say said granny didn’t royally deserve at least a slap (not to mention the executioner’s electric chair)?

            And if you think females can’t be evil nor commit crimes, including murder, then you don’t live on this same planet.


          • John1943

            So, your solution is to shoot disabled grannies who offend you, just in case they are elderly evil people.

            Either you are saying that tongue in cheek (perhaps that’s why the smiley) or you should apply to the Brady Bunch as a poster child for what’s wrong with the NRA.

          • paendragon

            There you go with your strawman (and ad-hominem) fantasies again! Who said anything about “just in case!”?
            What if I already know said granny in question is a criminal who justly deserves worse, and she opens herself up to it by slapping a small child in front of witnesses?

            Besides, do elderly people get a pass for their violence, simply because they’re now past their best before / due dates? Are executions stayed because the convict is too frail to be killed?!

            As for “what’s wrong with the NRA!” didn’t you yourself just claim, above, to be a NRA shooting instructor? Tsk tsk.

          • John1943

            As usual, you completely misinterpret everything I say, And it would be an ad hominem attack if I said you were an idiot, stupid or ugly. It’s not an ad hominem attack if I restate for clarification what appears to be your solution, even if I might well think you are stupid or an idiot in private.

            And I don’t really care whether you know Granny is a serial ax murderer or not. Unless she is doing something now, this instant, to deserve it, such as swinging an ax around and threatening to use it (or something somewhat equivalent), it is NOT your place to shoot her. Talk about fantasies!

            And, IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the NRA except there are people in it, and out of it, (and I don’t know which you are) who seem to go out of their way to put forward views that can be used by anti-gun groups to discredit the NRA. From your expressed views here (this is a factual attack, not a fantasy or ad hominem) you appear to fall into that category.

          • paendragon

            How can it “appear” to be my solution, if I didn’t actually say nor imply I wanted to shoot a granny “just in case” she might be a criminal (beyond the prima-facie obvious assault she’s committing in the scenario)?

            Since there’s nothing whatsoever factual behind your pretended interpretation of what I actually said, a reasonable person could only assume it is meant as an ad-hominem.

            If, on the other hand, you simply have problems reading or processing information, I guess I could excuse you if you brought a note from a qualified Doctor or psychiatrist.

          • John1943

            You certainly implied it, and you called me a cowardly wet liberal wimp (now that is an ad hominem attack) if I would not shoot unless I was certain there was an imminent risk of serious injury or death.

            And, I have survived a lifetime in a high level job demanding my understanding of the written word, so I don’t think I have problems reading or processing information.

            You keep hedging around my original assertion with distractions of hypothetical and hidden knowledge, The core of the issue is, would you shoot someone if you did not have a convincing belief that you, or someone else, was, at that time, in immediate risk of serious injury or death from the person you shot.

            Because, if you would, you could expect serious problems from the law.

            Man up, yes or no. Put up or shut up.

          • Merle Dickey

            I think we are getting off track here guys. We have went from 10 boys slapping one young girl to an evil granny.

          • paendragon

            That’s what liberals do – when the facts don’t suit their cowardice and instant-surrender-stance, they’ll try to change the subject, usually by blaming their victim while pretending to not understand clear, obvious logic and facts.

          • J. Brown

            Don’t intend to take a beating from anyone just because of their desires.
            Once they bother me as I said “the fight is on”. Have role played with the sheriffs department and have been attacked by strangers ( who, of course meant no harm ). Some of them were in war zones. Altercations ended in my favor, in fact I still have the weapon ( Smith .357 ) from one of them, long story of no interest to any one save me.

          • John1943

            I don’t intend to take a beating from anyone either. but your statement “(Who, of course meant no harm)” is frankly just ridiculous grandstanding.

            If someone is threatening you, or anyone for that matter, with sufficient violence to risk causing serious harm or death, of course you should shoot. All I am saying is that this isn’t proven in this case by the report above, and anyone who (on the basis of the report above) who thinks the mother would have automatically gotten a free pass for killing one or more of the boys – and never had a sleepless night for doing so – is just another mall ninja.

            And another point. Ten of them, in a huddle around her daughter, her on the outside. How could she safely just take out the one hitting her daughter, or would she have been justified in hitting any of them at random?

          • J. Brown

            “My ridiculous grandstanding” makes your points decidedly left leaning, assuming that you have read and comprehended my statement. The falacious point is in the writers eye and I can’t imagine that that the “circle” around
            the victim wasn’t poorly structured information by some writer. Lesson I learned in RVN about “journalist”.

          • Average_Joe56

            Pay close attention to numbers 4 and 5 on the list….
            If you do that, you are not likely to take a beating from anyone….ever.

            13 rules of gunfighting that everyone should know:

            1) Guns have only two enemies, rust and politicians.

            2) It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

            3) Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

            4) Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arm’s length.

            5) Never say,”I’ve got a gun.” The first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off. (Glocks exempted)

            6) The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 magnum is 1400 feet per second.

            7) The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win- cheat if necessary.

            8) Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets…you may get killed with your own gun, be he will have to beat you to death with it, because it will be empty.

            9) If you are in a gunfight; If you are not shooting, you should be loading. If you are not loading, you should be moving. If you aren’t shooting, moving or loading; you’re probably dead.

            10) In a life and death situation, do something…it may be wrong…but do…something!

            11) If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid…Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?

            12) You can say ‘stop’ ‘alto’ or any other word, but a largebore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.

            13) You cannot save the world, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.

          • J. Brown

            After having violated rule four I became a firm advocate of number five. It only happened once though. Probably be convicted of not having a safety to click off as a warning sign, many antogists don’t always understand English. I speak a warning and then act.

          • Average_Joe56

            “many antogists don’t always understand English. I speak a warning and then act.”
            Please refer to rule # 12.

        • Hoosier Daddy

          In many states, assaulting a juvenile is a felony….and the use of deadly force against the perpetrator, while in the commission of the assault, is justified.

  • Dcp5674

    Yeah, call the cops and wait for God knows how long.

  • Hoosier Daddy

    Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

  • Hoosier Daddy

    The boy was black and unarmed. We should all know by now that it is ILLEGAL to defend yourself from an attack by an unarmed black, especially a black teenager.

  • CWA

    That’s right, she should have called the police and stood there for twenty minutes or more watching the bullies beat her daughter senseless. This is America, where you have a God-given right to be a victim.

  • Dmac74

    These cops are goofy. In a parking lot you can’t shoot into the ground or have flying concrete chips and maybe shrapnel from the ammo. Shoot at one of the attackers and miss and hit someone else or a car & possible ricochet. Sounds like a split second decision and not wanting to kill or maim so in the air as a warning must have been the best reaction in her mind. And then VP Biden advised doing just that. Me, I’d have taken the chance of shooting the attacker. Different people handle situations differently. With 10 attackers, yes, I’d have shot and who ever got in the way tough s-^t. Now what is going to happen to those 10 animal pack mentality (gang) attackers? They are the ones that should be in jail. No bail.
    I hope they find the girl unharmed. With 10 animals looking for her say a prayer.

  • jdn

    Ten black boys beating one girl . Mom had two other choices , one was to start shooting them , the second would only have worked if she had a basketball handy .

  • JRR

    Perhaps this mother should move herself and her daughter to a more victim-friendly state or city. Hopefully to someplace where victim status is decided by something other than skin color. If there is any such place left in America.

    • jdelcjr

      Yeah. Move to NJ. they’re “victim friendly”. Everyones a victim there. Why should SHE have to move. The thugs ought to be moved. to prison.

  • trugrits

    firing into a parking lot the bullet will more than likely ricochet off the hard pavement. Even rock hard dirt will cause a bullet to ricochet. I have had neighbors kids prove that to me as the bullet could be heard going over my head.
    She probably should have shot the kid if she could have gotten a good shot on him alone.

  • pissed off conservative

    up is down black is white i feel like im living in the twilight zone..we patriotic Americans,have no choice from here on out,,fight back our die in a fema ill die a free man before i bow down to the antichrist Obama.whether he is or not?? he is pushing us around like the school yard bully..its time to fight back..enough talk…are there anyone else out there who feels the same way??or are we to much of cowards to die for your children and our grand children??.. i will not stand in front of god on judgement day a coward.. do i wanna die?? of coarse not,but sometime you have to make a decision as a person who will you fight for good or evil

    • michiganminuteman

      I think we are intentionally being driven into a corner by this communist muslim. I don’t plan on playing his game. We are close to being up against the wall but I think he has underestimated the resolve of constitutional conservatives and he has misjuged our numbers. Any attempt to subvert the 2nd Amendment will be bloody beyond anyones imagination.

      • Motov

        I think you are right, Obozo needs to go!,..NOW

      • jdelcjr

        I HOPE you are right. I have been and will continue to do what I can. I doesn’t look like were making much progress but I do believe we at least slowed them down. i.e. the failure of the federal gun control laws and the recall of several representatives. The bikers did a great job scaring away the muslim protesters. I’m sure our representatives felt the ground shaking that day. we’ll see what happens in 2014 and 2016. Conservatives are going to have to make a choice of the Tea Party or the regular Republican party otherwise the conservative vote will become splintered and the Democrats will continue to win elections, which is what they are hoping will happen. If the conservative vote becomes split by several parties the minority will control the Government.

    • Linda Pells

      Thank you. Today everything is so crazy and out of control. You are right on.

    • 1baronrichsnot1

      Yep! I feel like we are fighting a third world marxist country! That’s exactly my feeling! And guess what, that is what our gov’t representives is becoming, notice, I said gov’t reps not the type of gov’t which we are supposed to have!

  • dan

    What goes up ,must come down somewhere….I’m thinking she would have been better off shooting any target ….but go to the center of a parking lot and see what choices you have.
    Hope it works out for them.

  • squeeze127

    When are people going to realize that the Police are NOT there to Serve and Protect? They are there to uphold the law and their weapon is for their protection, not yours! They don’t respond immediately until there is a crime that has already been committed.

    • wavesofgrain

      You are so right! Since the Unionization of Public Employees, taxpayers are paying more for less services. The Unionized employee no longer work for the taxpayer, but for their union boss. They do not feel that taxpayers should tell them what to do.

      Well, Houston just got sick of the crime rate and hired private security team…their crime rate went down 50%!!! We will NOT have proper protection until we abolish public unions. They have become a corrupt, militant left arm mafia brotherhood of the goverment.

      • jdelcjr

        You don’t know much about public employee unions. First let me say Im conservative but Im also pro union. public employee unions are not much more then bargaining units for the employees. They negotiate raises and benefits and intervene on grievances. A public employee does not work for or through the union. He works under the terms and conditions of his employer. If he is fired for violating a condition of employment he has a right to appeal and be represented by his union. If the appeal is lost he is no longer a member of the union.The union will not get him another job. public employee union Presidents and officers are elected by the members, so in fact the union bosses work for the members. although more then likely most public employees don’t even know who the “union boss” is. Not every public employee joins the union. Thats optional. If you opt not to join you are still covered under the union contract that is negotiated every few years so a smaller negotiating fee is taken from your check but you are not assisted in grievances.

  • Motov

    This is liberalism. It is a disease. It destroys common sense. It causes brain farts, and brain fade. it is expensive. If it is allowed to progress, it will grow the government. When government grows, so does corruption, crime, deception, and loss of GOD given rights (like the right to defend yourself).
    When you see liberalism, resist it with logic, truth, and with your fundamental rights.
    This message is intended to be aware of liberalism. If you see symptoms, ie, Living beyond your means, a desire to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s hard labors, etc.
    Please rush to your nearest Liberals Anonymous. Before you become an addict of governmental programs.
    If you are an addict to government, please move to Kalifornia.

    • ibn insha

      This disease is the worst of all. It has no cure. People are born with it. I have tried logic and truth, trust me it does not work. It is like talking to a wall. They always have a Butt, sorry, But factor, “But what if, but you know this and that, etc”.

    • Jeff


      Have another cocktail. This happened in Virginia. Don’t the Repugs control the entire state gov’t there? But why should that matter to a wingnut. Go ahead and blame Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and FDR. On this site idiocy makes you a hero.

      • Motov

        Explain why you support a monster government intent on telling what we the people must do with our lives. I thought the intent of the founding fathers was to get government off our backs, So we could individually excel, or fail without some busy-body who thinks they know better what happiness is, and through legislation forces us to do their bidding.
        The great american experiment had made us the envy of the world. We are supposed to be the employer of government, not the other way around.

        • Jeff

          You make a lot of assumptions, but there’s a reason we haven’t seen a lot of immigration from Western Europe in the past half century. The Brits, the French, and the Germans are quite happy with the post-war societies they’ve built. Everyone has healthcare, they live well, and they don’t care that their likelihood of becoming a billionaire might be a bit higher in the U.S. The U.S. now offers less class mobility than previously class-conscious Britain. I think of Big Government as the Viet Nam and Iraq Wars, not helping poor people get health care.

          • Motov

            It isn’t the governments job to stick their noses in other people’s lives to make sure everything is taken care of.
            Our government has a poor track record when it comes to “the war on poverty”, war on drugs, and any other wars they declared over the years. In fact these situations have gotten worse after they declared war.
            And now they want to take over medicine. I don’t think they will improve upon it, based on the fact they haven’t improved on anything else they get their hands on.

            I have friends in Europe that aren’t too happy with their government policies towards a certain group of people.
            They consume their limited resources, and do not contribute back to society. They insist on clinging to their previous ways of life even though they fled from it.

            Europe is not doing too well. France is discovering they cannot sustain their current path. Spain and Greece are in need of bail outs. Germany is worried on how to deal with its neighbors.

      • jdelcjr

        We call them RINO”s. If you want to see what liberals will do, elect McAulliff for your next Governor. He is being financially supported by Bloomberg. Remember him? He’s the Billionaire anti gun Mayor of NYC that came to your Common wealth and committed gun crimes in rural South Boston VA and other rural areas of the country then tried to charge the dealers. Virginia passed a law against what he did and had the courage to send him a warning to not try it again or be arrested. Now he has a vendetta against Virginia. Why else would he spend 1.1 Million to support McAulliff? If you live in Virginia now you have the luxury of not knowing much about nanny laws and Big Government control. Do everything you can to keep it. If you want the Government to run your life for you move to Kalifornia, NY or NJ.

  • Wellarmed

    If gun leaves holster, then it is game on.

    Red dot sights on one’s head or chest are an excellent deterrent.

    If that does not stop the threat then she should by all means have taken the shot.

    Should she have waited for the police while they (10 attackers) beaten and possibly raped her?

    It has happened to a former friend that I attended school with. She is now dead, but before she was killed she was not only raped (both ways, by multiple attackers) but tortured before-hand for who knows how many hours (I will not go into those details because children may be reading this).

    The last person I know to see her alive testified against these animals, and thankfully they (the accused) are still hopefully being gang raped in prison to this day. May they never see the light of day outside of prison walls.

    For all of those who do not understand what 10 on 1, or 15 on 1, etc feels like, go try it on for size and see if you give a rats ass about gun “laws” after that point.

    Until then no one has a right to make a decision one way or another about this women’s method of defending her daughter.

    I may disagree with her method, but she is by no means a criminal. I will keep good thoughts that her daughter is found safe and unharmed.

    • jdelcjr

      Very sorry that terrible thing happened to your friend. Thats Horrible.

  • Ernest Ocepek

    Don’t the police have to fire a warning shot before they shoot someone? Where do they fire the shot ??

    • IBCAMN

      they don’t do that anymore,they deemed it unnecessary!
      now they just murder unarmed people,at an alarming rate!

      • Merle Dickey

        And they no longer shot for the arm or leg. they are taught to shoot for the torso. Bigger target.

    • jdelcjr

      In reality police do not fire warning shots. Thats only on TV. If you are trained in the proper use of a gun for self defense the first lesson you learn is NOT to fire warning shots or attempt to shoot for limbs to disable someone or use less lethal ammo. If you fire your weapon you shoot to kill. I am not judging what this woman did. If her daughter was near them maybe she was afraid of hitting her. If she had to react fast maybe she didn’t have time to look for or move to grass. I had to use a weapon once in my 60 year life when I arrived home and found someone in my house. I was fortunate and didn’t need to fire a shot. He was compliant and waited for the police while I held him at gun point. Someone else may have just shot him. We each will react differently. If I did need to fire I would have shot for the center of his torso. She did do the wrong thing firing in the air which could have hurt someone else but her reasons were not reckless. Maybe she needs more training, Maybe I would have had to do the same thing. I wasn’t there. I don’t know.


    this is just another case of corrupt cops being thugs!they are not peace officers anymore,they are armed revenue generators,period!she should have split,the second the boys ran,grabbed her kid and got the hell outta there!
    because the police arrested her,either the paper gave the boys an address in daily arrest column or they hung around overheard the address,whatever happened the girls dissapearance is related to that arrest,time wise or information wise!
    because these cops had to be [expletive deleted] instead of telling her”good job”(which is what the law says she can do)they gave access to the girl for her to be taken!this story is just bad all the way around,(accept the mother defending her daughter)..ALL COPS ARE CORRUPT!

  • Average_Joe56

    I agree that the woman should have fired the warning shot. However, I cannot agree with her firing it into the air. By firing it into the air, the charge levied was appropriate, although I think that the police should have simply issued a citation to appear in court and released the woman with a stern lecture on firearm safety.
    What goes up…must eventually come down. In the case of bullets, it could be deadly in it’s consequences. If a person feels the need to fire a warning shot, the correct and safest way to do so…fire it down…into the ground. There is a complete lack of common sense in firing it into the air, that is a tragedy in the making….especially in a populated area.
    Always fire a warning shot in a SAFE direction…and down is usually the safest direction possible. Firearm safety…first and foremost!

    • Robert Messmer

      Can’t count the number of movies, etc showing people, including so-called well trained local and federal police firing warning shots into the air. Depending on local conditions where the attack was taking place might not have been any dirt to fire into, just concrete.

      • Average_Joe56

        “Depending on local conditions where the attack was taking place might not have been any dirt to fire into, just concrete.”

        I’m not much into speculation about what was or wasn’t there but,
        No matter what was there or was not there, there is always a better alternative…than firing into the air.

        According to the story, she did have enough time (apparently) to walk to the middle of the parking lot (road) before firing the shot. She could have just as easily walked to a safer place to fire into the ground.
        After looking up a map of the area, Cridercrest Place appears to be on a a Cul-de-sac, which means individual houses or apartments on each side of the street. With either, there is usually some grassy areas in the area between the sidewalks and the buildings (buffer zones)….that is usually the case. (I am a Land Surveyor by trade and have laid out several subdivisions).

        • ibn insha

          You are contradicting yourself. First you said that you did not want to speculate and then you started to speculate what the area might look like and what the woman could do. How do you know that? Who cares what your trade was in your previous life but you were not in that scared woman’s shoes at that particular moment.

          • Average_Joe56

            There was no speculation on my part…The map is there for you to see…try Zooming in on the map. Next, as a Registered Land Surveyor, I have never, I repeat..NEVER laid out any subdivision that did not incorporate “buffer zones”…never. Got it? That is experience talking…not speculation. There is a thing called “Set backs”…it means that there must be a specific amount of distance between the right of way of the road and the buildings and between the buildings themselves. There are also “set backs” from property lines.
            You probably shouldn’t make comments on subjects that you know nothing about (Land Surveying… in this case)…you only serve to prove your ignorance when you do so.

            Of course, sometimes…it helps, if you simply follow the links in the story……(pssst…watch the video.)
            Oh look….grassy areas…all over the place…
            Also, if you own a firearm…seek out a basic safety course or sell the firearm…so that you don’t shoot yourself in the foot anymore.

    • ibn insha

      How many times have you been in that woman’s situation? I bet never. Fired bullet into the ground? Have you ever heard of bullet ricochet? Unless she was standing on soil and not hard surface. One of the firearm safety rules is “Never shoot at flat, hard surface.” Sometimes ricocheting bullet can return to the shooter. Be careful what you teach other people.

      Firing bullet in the air is not safe but considering that few people know that firing bullet in the air can be fatal, that her daughter was in danger and that nobody got hurt because of the fired bullet the woman should not have been arrested.

      • Average_Joe56

        “How many times have you been in that woman’s situation?”

        I fail to see the relevance of your question. Regardless…I certainly wouldn’t shoot into the air.

        “Fired bullet into the ground? ”
        Yes actually…while shooting venomous snakes, while surveying….you?

        ” Have you ever heard of bullet ricochet? ”
        I sure have. I’ll bet you didn’t know that asphalt isn’t very dense and that if you fire a bullet straight into it…the bullet will penetrate it. However, if you fire it at an angle, it will ricochet…just like skipping stones on water….drop a rock straight down, the rock sinks…fling it at an angle…and it will skim across the surface of the water.


        “Just before school dismissal at 2 p.m. Tuesday, a 3rd-grade student took a gun out of his backpack and fired it into the ground (asphalt), according to El Monte police. ”


        “Never shoot at flat, hard surface.” ”

        Where in my comment did I say anything about shooting at a “flat, hard surface”? Answer: nowhere.

        “Unless she was standing on soil and not hard surface.”

        You have no idea where she was standing…but she did have time to “walk to the middle of the parking lot”. She could have just as easily walked to a different destination. Logic eludes you…..

        “Firing bullet in the air is not safe but considering that few people know that firing bullet in the air can be fatal”
        Anyone who doesn’t, doesn’t understand the laws of gravity and is probably under the age of 5. What goes up….eventually comes down…pretty simple concept…see if you can grasp it….. Oh wait…even a 5 year old knows that if you throw a ball up in the air…it comes back down…..


        From Mythbusters Episode 50: “Bullets Fired Up”

        Bullets fired into the air maintain their lethal capability when they eventually fall back down.

        busted / plausible / confirmed

        In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.

        BTW, I also never suggested that she should have been arrested…I said, “I think that the police should have simply issued a citation to appear in court and released the woman with a stern lecture on firearm safety.” (which apparently, they did).
        Firing a gun into the air IS reckless endangerment….period.
        She is extremely lucky that someone wasn’t injured or worse…killed by that bullet.

        Please confine your diatribe to my actual comments and not your made up delusions and “what ifs”.

        I implore you to put more thought into your responses…lest you continue to look foolish.

  • ibn insha

    She should have called police. Really? And in the mean time the thugs could do all they wanted. No law abiding citizen should have to be afraid of anything or anybody. She should have been able to soot all the boys and still walk free. Now her daughter is missing. Lack of respect for good behavior and twisted laws is the reason bad people are able to commit and perpetuate crimes.

    How many people on the face of this earth actually know that a bullet fired in the air can cause serious injury when it falls back? It is easy to judge the mother in hindsight. Put yourself in her shoes. She was scared and nervous and just wanted to scare the boys.

    Considering that nobody got hurt and the mother had fired the gun to scar the boys who were trying to hurt her daughter mother should not have been arrested. Insult to injury.

  • CommonSense4America

    Bad move on her part. Ammunition is too expensive nowadays. NO warning shots!! IF self defense for oneself or family is necessary, so be it. The police can then be called to take down the facts. Bring chalk.

  • Don

    Just more proof that the police are not there to protect you at all, they show up after the crime has been committed, and then they get involved by writing a
    report that may or mat not be filed or followed up especially if the best witness
    aka the victim is dead or beaten senseless.

    The only way crime rates will ever be reduced is if they think the victim could be armed, because these gutless cowards like uneven odds, and our government seems to bent on turning our citizens into sheep for the slaughter by telling us to not fight back, NOW THAT IS A REAL CRIME, AND ANY OF THEM THAT VOTE FOR THAT SCENARIO NEEDS TO BE DROPPED OFF DAY OR NIGHT, SAY