Dave Workman: Gunfights and gun legislation: The unintended consequences

Two violent robbery attempts in Pierce County yesterday may reinforce the notion that the way to fight crime is to shoot back, as police are investigating whether a body dumped in Federal Way may have been one of the suspects in a Lakewood home invasion, and other cops are hunting for suspects in a separate incident who may have been shot up pretty badly by a friend of the victim.

According to an account by KOMO, police apparently suspect that a body dumped outside of a Federal Way apartment complex may be one of three would-be home invaders who traded shots with their intended victim earlier in the evening in Lakewood. This happened a few hours after another caper, in the Midland area south of Tacoma also ended in a rolling gun battle as the suspects sped away from that crime scene, with friends of the victim in hot pursuit.

More Here

FL:Resident Shoots, Misses, Intruder

A Laurel Hill man shot at an intruder late Wednesday morning, but apparently missed.

(snip)

 Deputies later found the bullet in a kitchen microwave, according to a release from the Sheriff’s Office. They found no blood or other evidence that the intruder had been struck.

More Here

OH: Victim "accidentaly fires" Attacker Runs Off

The victim said the suspect pushed him into a door. The victim said as he turned to face the suspect, the victim began pulling his gun out of his jacket in self-defense and then slipped on ice and the victim accidentally discharged the pistol into the ground. The suspect ran away.

More Here

The New Gun Suspect: Every School Child

Five-year-old Elizabeth of Mobile, Alabama learned two new words last month in kindergarten: suicide and homicide. After drawing what resembled a gun, she pointed her crayon at another child and went "pew, pew." Horrified by the outburst of violence, the school required Elizabeth to fill out a "suicide/homicide assessment scoresheet" complete with questions on how often she thought about killing herself. An agreement not to commit suicide or homicide ensued, and psychiatric treatment was recommended. The incident went on her permanent record.

From 'healthy' eating to gun control and the principles of 'social justice,' political agendas dominate the public school systems in Canada and the U.S. The schools are attitude-factories that knead children into the shape of politically-correct citizens.

More Here

WA: Pistol Whipped, Tied, Husband Escapes, Gets Gun, Fights Back

If you cannot effectively fight back immediately, escaping and fighting back may be the next best thing.  The best chance to fight back and prevail is usually before you are put under restraint.   That does not mean that you have no chance after that point.   Your assailants may be sloppy or overconfident.  You many be able to seize an opportunity.  Getting away should be more important than revenge.   If you manage to escape, try not to give yourself up to allies of your assailants, as happened recently in Syria.

Washington State had two home invasions recently.  The first, in Tacoma, involved medical marijuana.   The second was in Lakewood, and fighting back after escape, was necessary.  From q13fox.com:

At some point during the robbery, the suspects stepped outside and the husband was able to free himself and untie his wife, police said. They shut the door and locked the suspects out before running into a back bedroom.

However, the suspects forced themselves back into the house, police said, and ran to the bedroom. 

The husband, who had since armed himself with a handgun he kept in his room, fired two shots as the suspects barged through the door. Police said evidence from the scene suggests one of the suspects was hit by gunfire, and the suspects fled.

Scene of Lakewood home invasion

One of the three suspects had fired at the husband, 62 year old Harry Lodhollm.   Mr. Lodhollm required about a dozen stitches for his head wound from the pistol whipping.  The body of a 20 year old black man was found a short time later, 20 miles  away.  Police determined that a fake 911 call was made to alert them to the location where the dead invader was dropped.

It is a good that Harry did not have to unlock a safe or undo a trigger lock before he could fire his weapon.  Decisive action was necessary.  A firearm equalized multiple assailants, multiple weapons, and age differentials.  Too bad Harry did not have it with him when he answered the door.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Update: Harry Lodhollm is said to have fired five shots, according to the AP.  The suspect who was found dead has been identified as 19-year-old Taijon Voorhees.  Duprea Romon Wilson, also 19, was arrested in conjunction with the home invasion.  Another suspect is still being sought.   The two men above fall into the category of teenagers, but it does not make them less dangerous.   A third suspect is still at large.  

IN: Resident Shoots One of Two Invaders

Around 12:30 a.m., police say two men broke into a home near East 35th Street and North Shadeland Avenue. A man inside the home told police he heard the men kick in the front door. The man said he grabbed a gun and shot one of the suspects. The other suspect, he told police, ran out of the home.

More Here

SC: No Charges in Shooting

A man who was taken into custody after a deadly shooting in North Myrtle Beach Tuesday has been released from jail without being charged in connection with the case.

More Here

Il: Bakery Shootout: no Restraints

I teach students to make a decision about being put under restraint before they get into a deadly force situation.   By restraint, I mean that the aggressor/attacker is attempting something, or commanding you to do something, that significantly reduces your options for resistance.  One of the simplest of these is for someone to aim a gun at you from a vehicle, and order you to get into the car.  It is almost always better to run for cover at that point.  Criminals do not want to move you somewhere for your benefit.

Other examples are: they are going to tie you up, move you to another location, put a hood over your head.   It could be as simple as commanding you to lie face down on the floor or go into a cooler at a retail outlet.

It is worth repeating: criminals do not want to put you under restraint for your own good.   It often ends badly for the person put under restraint.  I  recall reading a source that claimed that once you were under restraint, the chances of your survival dropped below 50%.  Academic studies and common sense indicate that resistance with a weapon are far more likely to be successful.

Make the decision now.  At what point will you resist?  I have made my decision.  If the criminal tries to put me under restraint, I will fight.  Pick your moment for optimum resistance.  The recent case in Atlanta is a good example.  Another is this case in Illinois, just south of Chicago.   From nbcchicago.com:

He said a pair of men came into the shop at about 3:30 p.m., took a couple of hundred dollars out of the safe, and then tried to force him and another employee to the back of the bakery. That's when the shop owner fired the weapon, striking one of the robbers.

"They had the money already, why would they ask us to go to the back," the owner said. "It just didn't feel right, everything happened so fast."

The baker acted quickly and decisively.  He shot one  robber seven times.  We do not know if the other robber was hit, because he escaped.  Let this be a lesson for disarmists in New York, such as Governor Cuomo, who claim that no one would ever need more than seven shots to defend themselves.

Another important point is the benefit to society that accrued from the Baker's resistance.  A criminal was put out of action for a considerable period.   It is likely that another will be caught and prosecuted.  Many crimes will be prevented as a result.   The police chief, Edward L. Gilmore,  supported the bakery owner. 

Calumet City Police Chief Edward L. Gilmore said the shop owner is a legal gun owner and was acting well within in his rights. Gilmore said it should serve as a warning to other would-be criminals.

"I think a message should be sent to all would-be criminals out there that business owners have a right to protect themselves," Gilmore said.

Police Chief Gilmore joins the ranks of chiefs who recognize the rights of citizens to self defense.  Perhaps he will join Sheriff Clarke of Milwaukee and Police Chief Craig of Detroit in actively supporting armed citizens.

 Definition of  disarmist 

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

GA:"We is teenagers, don't shoot me"

Has the use of the word "teenager" by the old media given criminal teens a sense of immunity?   You see it again and again. Trayvon Martin is constantly referred to as a teenager, as though that somehow absolved him of his crimes.

Most male children, who are brought up in intact families, do not become predatory creatures in their teens.   But for those who do not have strong, moral, male role models in their lives, especially if this is the default position in their community, predation is a common role.

In a home invasion in Georgia, the homeowner grabbed his gun as his door was broken down.  As he confronted the three invaders, they yelled at him.  From wrdw.com:

"The first thing he hollered, we is teenagers, don't shoot me," Green said.

Green said he didn't care what age they were, they were breaking into his home.

"If you are old enough to do a crime, age doesn't matter. Doesn't matter whether you're a teenager, you're grown. If you can do the crime, your punishment, it shouldn't matter. I had my gun in my hand and I just started firing at them," Green said.

A six foot plus 17 year old can be just as dangerous as an older criminal, maybe more.   As I read media reports, it seems that being 17 should give some special sort of invulnerability to bullets and jail.   The juvenile justice system may give some invulnerability to jail, for a time.   But words do not stop bullets.

The "progressive" position seems to be that "children" are inherently good.  That is not true.  Children are inherently selfish and amoral.  In Christianity, this is recognized as original sin.  Each child is a wild animal that must be civilized and taught moral virtues.  This is much harder to do in a single parent home.    If teenagers are told that they are expected to steal, as many media reports seem to imply; and that it is excused because they are "teenagers", we should not be surprised when large percentages of them become actual criminals.

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Truesbury: Obama Shield Squad

WV:AG’s office files amicus brief in Maryland gun case

It is a compelling argument that state governments cannot simply whittle away at second amendment rights until they are essentially voided.

The amicus brief argues Maryland’s law violates citizens’ core Second Amendment right to keep firearms in their home for self-protection. Plaintiffs in the case, Kolbe, et al., argued that the Maryland ban completely prohibited the possession of commonly used firearms and some of the most popular guns used by citizens for self-defense.

A U.S. District Court ruled the law did not violate the constitution.

“Our office is committed to defending law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights, and we believe this law clearly violates the Constitution,” Morrisey said in a press release. “This law’s broad categorical ban is no different than trying to impose a content-based ban on speech. It simply cannot be done.”

More Here

Eugene Volokh:Can California ban gun stores from advertising handguns on their signs?

This is a long but brilliant legal brief by Eugene Volokh.  I would add that the arguments that he writes about that apply to the first amendment should apply to the second amendment as well, but do not yet do so.

I blogged last week about Tracy Rifle & Pistol LLC. v. Harris (E.D. Cal.), a case in which I’ve been hired to consult, and which the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, The Calguns Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation are supporting. The case is a First Amendment challenge to Cal. Civil Code § 26820 (which was first enacted 1923, but is still being enforced today):

No handgun or imitation handgun, or placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof, shall be displayed in any part of the premises where it can readily be seen from the outside.

Just yesterday, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the statute; you can read the full motion in a PDF, but I also include the text below:

More Here

Kurt Hofmann: Anti-gun, anti-hunting agendas both depend on lies

Kurt does an excellent job at showing the utter disregard for the truth by an anti-hunting activist.

Gun rights advocates have for years been understandably contemptuous of "Fudds"--hunters who cannot be bothered to fight against attacks on gun rights, as long as their hunting guns are left alone. Fudds have even been known to actively participate in the attacks so-called "assault weapons," "high capacity" magazines, etc., presumably hoping that by feeding other gun owners to the crocodile first, they can avoid the jaws forever. The rest of us know better. Anti-gun politicians also get useful cover from the Fudds, when they argue that, "You don't need an 'assault weapon to hunt deer"--as if that makes banning the most effective militia arms acceptable.

That said, it would be equally foolish for gun rights advocates to dismiss hunters--some of whom are also gun rights advocates--as needed allies. While many enemies of gun rights are not enemies of hunting (at least not outwardly, and especially when elections approach), anti-hunting activists tend to be reliably anti-gun. In other words, we share many common enemies. And those enemies share a common strategy--blatant dishonesty.

More Here

OR: Background Checks Ineffective

We now have the Oregon State Police numbers for firearms purchase denials for Oct. 2014. Once again, they demonstrate what a colossal sham the entire process is.

While these numbers are repeatedly used by politicians and anti-gun groups to “prove” that background checks work, they prove exactly the opposite.

Of the 19, 901 background checks run by the Oregon State Police in October, 196 sales were “denied.” Wow, that’s 196 bad guys off the street. Maybe not.

Of the 196 desperadoes denied, a grand total of 5 were “arrested” or “taken into custody.” Not a single one of the people who were denied because they were identified as felons or “otherwise prohibited” was arrested. Of those arrested we have no idea how many were actually charged with a crime.

More Here 

American Gun and Book Review: Gun Control and the Third Reich

American Gun and Book Review: Gun Control = People Control
by
Professor Brian Anse Patrick
University of Toledo

Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State,” Stephen P. Halbrook, Independent Institute, 2014, 247 pages.


A few years ago the American voluntary association, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, issued a poster showing Adolf Hitler giving the sieg heil salute and captioned: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A truism throughout America’s Gun Culture is that gun registration leads in time to confiscation, and confiscation to just about anything. Despite this generally held perception, few persons, however, are armed with particulars on how this slippery slope, lubricated by statist bureaucrats, came to operate under the centralized, collectivist state that we know as Nazi Germany. Since we Americans seem perhaps to be developing our own version of a collectivist state, it may benefit us to learn some lessons about how such things were done in the Fatherland.

Dr. Stephen Halbrook’s well-researched book provides the dreadful particulars. Oppressive controls blossomed under the Nazi regime, excepting of course for ranking Nazis who were allowed to purchase, own and carry guns. This led not only to mass confiscations but also quite directly to imprisonment and death for many Jews and other designated enemies of the state, who were seen as potential terrorists or “politically unreliable.” For example, the Nazis imprisoned in concentration camps approximately 20,000 Jews in the immediate aftermath of the government sponsored home invasions and weapon searches that took place on Reichskristallnacht, aka the “Night of Broken Glass,” on November 9-10 of 1938.

Halbrook documents the Nazi gun and people-control agenda with the aid of numerous, mainly primary source documents: diaries, letters, arrest records and memoranda of German police and bureaucrat-regulators, as they legalistically took advantage of open-ended legislation and the existence of registration lists to disarm those whom they considered politically or socially suspect. This meant Social Democrats, Communists and especially Jews, all of whom were systematically identified from registration lists kept by police agencies, who acted under directives from higher officials. Gypsies and other “wandering peoples” were also banned from gun ownership. In addition to gun permits, Jews saw their hunting licenses revoked.

All along, the Nazis had special plans for the Jews. The confiscation agenda included not only the searches of Jewish homes at or around Reichskristallnacht, but also Jewish homes and businesses were targeted by spontaneous “mobs” of the folk. In reality these were planned actions by SA (Sturmabteilung, aka Storm Troopers). Civil police had been ordered to stand aside, and did. Thousands of Jewish homes were searched for weapons and often looted by searchers. The fact that many Jews were German army military veterans of the First World War did not matter. Stabbing and hitting weapons, dirks, military swords, bayonets and even the knives used for kosher slaughter were banned and confiscated. The Nazis ever-legalistic officialdom had even engineered a devilish Catch 22 into the system: banned weapons became automatically property of the state, so that if a Jew had gotten rid of weapons that he once had, he was guilty of stealing from the state. In effect he couldn’t have a weapon and couldn’t not have it either.

Firearms banned under the earlier Weimer Republic gun controls included the military style assault weapons of the day, which in those days were Mauser 98 rifles and Luger Model 08 semiautomatic pistols. Much of this had to do with Germany’s uneasy political situation where communists, who had insurrection plans of their own, fought in the streets with nationalist factions. There was some provision for hunting and target weapons in the laws. Once the Nazis ascended, however, interpretations of the gun laws changed. Plus additional laws were decreed. Guns of all sorts were specifically banned for Jews. As of 1938 any Jew possessing a firearm was subject to 20 years imprisonment in a concentration camp, with no process of appeal, which meant, as Halbrook notes, that he would not be getting out until 1958 (if at all).

Attempted cooperation did not engender mercy or rational treatment. Halbrook personalizes his dread history with the sad example of Mr. Alfred Flatow, an 1896 gymnastics Olympic gold medal winner for Germany, who, as a Jew, surrendered his registered handguns and 22 rounds of ammunition in obedience with new 1938 law, and was then taken into custody by the Gestapo at the police station (noted on the arrest reports as the scene of the crime). Flatow died of starvation in a concentration camp in 1942. He earned this punishment through trying to obey the law, and of course by being a Jew.

It can’t happen here? Good question. Perhaps not in this exact same way, as a number of important differences exist between Nazi Germany and the U.S. political system, including a Bill of Rights and a Second Amendment, but there are worrisome similarities and trends too. Remember recently how the IRS acting apparently under orders of very high officials targeted conservative non-profit organizations for “special” treatment? Or how so-called Operation Choke Point has financially hampered businesses that have been administratively identified as suspect often, apparently, for the thought-crime of not agreeing with the social agendas of appointed officials? We also have at the moment an executive branch that enthusiastically enters into (hopefully) unratifiable treaties with centralist political organizations that oppose U.S. Constitutional rights, i.e., the U.N. Arms treaty.

In the matter of centralized American record keeping, for example, there are good reasons why the National Instant Check System, the computerized FBI-run background check into all purchasers from gun dealers, does not, allegedly, by law keep permanent records of sales. But digital data being what they are—transmissible, storable, penetrable, hideable—one always wonders about their capacity to ever truly disappear. Incidentally, most people, and some gun owners, seem unaware of the existence of NICS, which has been in operation since 1998 and which has conducted more than 100 million background checks on gun purchasers (So much for the mythology behind the current antigun slogan of “universal background checks”: such checks have been done for years). NICS aside, many states and police departments also maintain records of gun owners, especially handgun owners. And then there are hunting licenses, which in many states are electronically linked to voter registration lists. The inviolability of gun owners’ privacy rights thus becomes a questionable proposition.

The Nazis provide an early example of the avidity with which the bureaucratic minded seizes upon the latest data collection and processing methods. An IBM subsidiary, Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gellsellschaft, provided the punch cards and sorting systems used to sift and collate data on every person in the Reich. For those of you too young to have seen a punch card, it was a piece of paper cardstock about 4X6 inches used to record and collate data by means of little rectangular holes punched in specified areas. Jewishness was indicated by a punched out hole 3. Jews were also required to inventory their assets if they were over 5,000 marks, “yet another job for the punch card machines,” writes Halbrook. The Nazis even seized a Jewish owned firearms manufacturing firm.

Some leftist gun controllers have interpreted the German experience in astonishing ways. Authors Joshua Horowitz and Casey Anderson avowed that the big problem of Nazi Germany was lack of a strong centralized government that could have protected the Jews from the Nazis. This claim seems nonsensical on its face, i.e., instead of merely a totalitarian state would a mega-totalitarian state have achieved liberty? They also try to claim that the 1938 law represented a liberalization of gun policy (which it did, but only for the Nazis). Such considerations apparently didn’t stop University of Michigan Press from publishing their book, Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea (2004). The authors pooh-pooh the notion that a Second Amendment-like right of insurrection could have protected Germany’s Jews from the Nazis. And possibly they are right to some extent in this regard. As some of Halbrook’s documentation reveals, however, the Nazis themselves feared armed Jews or, for that matter, any possible armed or even informed domestic opposition. This is exactly why the Nazis set about disarming them. Authors/attorneys Horowitz and Anderson are professionally associated with the anti-gun movement, however, so I read them as making sophistic arguments on behalf of their primary client. Their book seems to be an example of what might be called attached scholarship. Horowitz is or was executive director of the DC-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, although the book blurb merely identifies him as a visiting public health scholar at Johns Hopkins. Anderson, listed only as a DC lawyer in private practice, also happened to be CSGV’s public affairs director. We probably should not be surprised, then, if their arguments seem strained.

The Nazis not only feared guns in the hands of victims or the politically unreliable, they also loathed uncoordinated (by themselves) social action and organizations. In this latter regard they were much like their totalitarian counterparts in the Soviet Union. If you recollect, Hannah Arendt lucidly demonstrated in her landmark Origins of Totalitarianism, that the bullies of the alleged left in Russia and the bullies of the alleged right, the Nazis or so-called fascists, were really essentially the same kind of bully, i.e., collectivist statists. In The Road to Serfdom F.A. Hayek identified the collectivist statist mindset as an essentially Germanic innovation/hermeneutic that burgeoned during the Bismarckian era and diffused widely. Hayek, offended by the eclipse of liberty in the West, wrote, “Individualism is thus an attitude of humility . . . and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of the social process.” And there is little doubt that the Germans had more than their share of hubris. And socialism, too.

Regarding the Nazi mania for centralization, we can correlate some of Halbrook’s findings with the observations of American social ethicist James Luther Adams, who wrote on the vitalizing central role of voluntary associations in American pluralistic society. Freedom of association is incorporated into the First Amendment precisely because it is the root the American social ethic. The Nazis of course, as well as their rival firm, Lenin, Stalin & Company, simply couldn’t abide freedom of association. If people were allowed to associate, to participate in reasonable democratic forums without overriding direction from above, why, anything might come of it! Adams, who was present in Germany while the Nazis were grubbing for power, attributed the virtually unopposed Nazi rise to the lack of a meaningful tradition of voluntary association in Germany. Halbrook discusses the Nazi’s program of Gleichschaltung to bring all organizations and associations into alignment with the goals of the state. Even shooting clubs, essentially hobby groups, but some of which dated back to the Middle Ages, were reorganized and saddled with swastika emblems and leaders handpicked by the state. Clubs that resisted were suppressed. The Fuhrer Principle, Führerprinzip, required a brand of leadership that made sure that all was ultimately in service to the state. Murdering Mao Tse-Tung, another of Collectivism’s famous goons, thought much the same way. The only time he tolerated freedom of association and the resultant articulation of ideas, was during the infamous 100 Flowers period of the Chinese revolution, when he cynically encouraged such association and expression in order to identify and later snuff out the sources, which he did through censure, imprisonment and death. Not only was the Party’s associational structure the only one tolerated, it was also linked firmly to guns, just as it was with the Nazis: “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun, our principle is that the Party commands the gun”, so it is written in Mao’s Little Red Book.

The only negative aspects that I see in the book owe to the essential ugliness of its subject matter. Seeing the bureaucratic maw at work is not for the fainthearted. Halbrook has undertaken the description of the social anatomy of an objectionable process. The book cites numerous memos and letters to and from grey little men whose nit nattering decisions, in the end, destroyed Life, Love and Liberty. It reminds in so many ways of Hannah Arendt’s famous description when she beheld Adolph Eichmann, the banality of evil, as embodied by the grey little Nazi accountant of Death that the Israelis kidnapped from Argentina and hanged in Israel in 1962 after a fair and necessary show trial. Also troubling, are the polysyllabic fortifications, the conceptual jargon, behind which evil shelters and legitimizes its doings, terms like Gleichshaltung and Führerprinzip.

An important thing to bear in mind about Nazi Germany is that the Germans were undoubtedly the most civilized, literate, educated, technically advanced and cultured people in the world. And they knew it, just like Americans today. So it can’t happen here. Yeah, right. History seems to show that the collectivist bureaucratic mind is always seeking human grist for its mill.

Source

CA:Home Invader Shot by Occupant

Berry Creek >> A man was shot twice Monday night after he allegedly forced his way into a Berry Creek home, according to authorities.

Deputies found Albert Sprague with at least two gunshot wounds outside a residence on Simpson Ranch Road, according to a press release from the Butte County Sheriff’s Office.

(snip)

 The man, who was not identified in the press release, told dispatchers he was receiving threats from Sprague and asked for extra patrol since he feared for his safety.

More Here

WA: "Rolling Gun Battle" with Robbers

The man was wounded while chasing robbers in a "rolling gun battle":
The shooting victim’s condition was not immediately known. Troyer said he emptied a gun into the Suburban, so the robbers might have suffered gunshot wounds.

The robbery is similar to the assault of a 72-year-old woman last month in University Place, Troyer said.

In that robbery, two men entered the woman’s home Oct. 24, demanded cash from her at gunpoint, tied her up, and hit her in the head with a firearm, police said. They took money and a safe, where the woman’s grandson and son kept cash from a pot store they own.

“We’re definitely looking at that,” Troyer said, when asked if the robberies could be connected.

More Here

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/11/18/3495314_one-shot-after-home-invasion-robbery.html?sp=/99/296/&rh=1#storylink=cpy

OH: Suspected Burglar shot in Scuffle with Homeowner

A man who identified himself as the homeowner told newsnet5 he saw the suspect trying to enter his home through his back porch. He wished to not be identified.

The man added he called police, grabbed his weapon and then ran out the front door where he says his gun fired after a tussle with the suspect.

More Here

VA: Domestic Shooting may be Self Defense

Police say the person accused of shooting him has not been charged because they believe the shooting may have been in self-defense.

More Here

OK: Woman Cleared in Domestic Killing

The sheriff's office says investigators determined that Hopper was being assaulted and acted in self defense when she shot Williams.

More Here