Woman Kills Home Intruder, Now Media Outraged at Her!

Story tells of a shooting in Florida ... First paragraph follows.

54-year-old Gwendolyn Jenrette shot and killed a 17-year-old
teen that broke into her Liberty City home on Thursday and
now the teen’s family members are calling for the state’s
attorney to file charges against the woman. What’s more,
The Washington Post is using the incident to criticize Florida’s
homeowner protection laws.

Complete story at this link:
Woman Kills Home Intruder, Now Media Outraged at Her! | LawNewz

*****

Bekeart

Yeah I guess she was supposed to just allow herself to be assaulted and/or murdered in her own home.

I don't want to see anyone get shot, but if you either can't raise your kids right (or you tried, and they just turned out bad anyway), it very rarely can be helped. If this 17 year old went out into the woods and kicked a bobcat in the junk and then ends up mauled to death, that's not the bobcat's fault.

Literally this morning/last night, a similar thing happened in Ontario. i'm wondering how long before stupid people start calling on the California AG to come after the homeowner that had to blast the person that broke into their home, and then proceeded to the bedroom of one of the female occupants?

This is why I pay for the legal insurance available from one of the NRA's partner providers. If I ever have to do this, I'm not going to hope that basic intelligence and common sense are going to prevail.

Yeah, but from the feeble liberal mind - she'd have the moral high ground!

Back in the late 90's, I participated in a "phone attack" on the Oakland DA when he charged a man there with murder. The man was a WW2 veteran, in his home when a thug/robber broke in. The homeowner locked himelf in his bedroom and armed himself with his gun, As the thug was breaking through the bedroom door with a crowbar, the homeowner fired one shot and killed him. The DA charged him with murder saying a gun is too much force to use against a crowbar (?) We lit up the DA's phone so bad that he ended up having to get a new phone number and he heard us. The homeowner was released after about three weeks and charges dropped.

California is supposed to have Castle Doctrine but DA's are free to abuse their powers by bringing charges against anybody who uses a gun. They say:

You will beat the charges but you won't like the ride.

Sometimes the process is the punishment.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Life's tough...it's even tougher if you're stupid. If this little snowflake's records were released to the public (as a juvenile, that is unlikely) 10-1 he has had previous brushes with the law. This event wasn't the result of a spontaneous thought...."Gee, forget going to the library, I think I'll just bust into that house over there."

D.A. in that case doesn't stand for district attorney.

Some people just need killing. End of discussion. No need to wait for the perpetrator to move on to bigger and better things.

I remember some years back a lawyer saying that Texas was the one state where a legitimate defense to shooting somebody was that the *** just needed killing.........

No question there are a bunch of people who would grace this world by leaving it.

Boom, boom, another bad guy bites the dust. Fight crime shoot back.

Looks like the "Michael Moore Wannabe" from the Washington Post pretty much summed up the case for the intruder/burglar (emphasis added):

"The newspaper even goes so far as to highlight a comment from Johnson’s cousin that seems to blame Janrette for failing to recognize that maybe Johnson didn’t have another way to get money school clothes.

“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” Johnson cousin Naukita Harris said. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

Seriously???? I don't believe that the W-P editor allowed this article to be published!!!

__________________
That's what we do!

I give more credit to the W-P Editor. The Editor did an excellent job of pointing out that the dead guys family, at least this person, is a ***. And those *** do not read......ummm, The Washington Post.

I say Bravo for publishing that quote.

__________________
Just hanging with my dogs

Her name should not be in the news

Edit:
Think about this, she was the original victim

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

Unless I am misunderstanding the article, she wasn't in her home and the burglar was climbing out the window attempting to get away. So, while I believe in the right to defend oneself, I also think the argument might be made that she was in no danger until she voluntarily chose to put herself in jeopardy by confronting the burglar.

I understand the desire to protect your property, but, speaking only for myself, if I'm outside and the burglar is trying to get out of the house to get away, and I can back off and let him get away without endangering myself or anyone else, I'm going to let him go rather than shoot. Burglary and theft are not violent acts that I would be willing to take someone's life over.

If after she drew down on him the criminal was continuing to menace or threaten violence, and she had no way to get to safety, then sure, if I were her I'd shoot rather than let them follow through on the threat too.

If I could escape unharmed and not have to take a life, I would prefer to choose that alternative instead. But that is just me. Each person has to make up their mind for themselves what they feel is the right thing to do under those circumstances. I certainly wouldn't condemn her for her choice. Neither does the law.

I absolutely agree with this post...assuming the story played out this way, I would have let him go and called the police. I do have a concealed carry permit, but would never take action (shoot to kill) unless I, or someone nearby, was threatened with deadly force. But, that is just me, I know others feel differently, but you have to be able to live with yourself. I can't shoot someone for steeling my tv, or dvd or anything else that can be replaced. I CAN shoot them for attempting to take from me something that can't be replaced. A life.

I believe you've described the correct action she should have taken if it can be assumed that the individual was indeed exiting the house and posed no threat. If she came home and confronted him (seems not to be a good course of action) then maybe the incident was changed to a more dangerous situation for her. In any case, reading the article leads one to believe she could have avoided the whole thing by allowing him to leave.

Another case of maybe making a bad decision. We really need all the facts and they'll come out after a police investigation. Statements like the problems of growing up in then hood and just needing money are totally ridiculous.

Well... if she wasn't in the home, had she gone around back to first see if anyone had broken in her home? And if so, at that moment had the criminal come out the back window and confronted her?

Generally, I'm not much for defining someone who is on their own property as the one 'confronting' the criminal. The way I see these things is that the moment the criminal decided to break into the home I view him as the aggressor, period. I believe castle laws and stand your own ground come from that general sentiment.

IMO, the family of the criminal should be apologizing to the homeowner and asking forgiveness on behalf of the criminal, not pursuing prosecution of the homeowner who has been victimized by their kin.

The laws of self defense are not clearly defined and the most subtle variations can profoundly affect the legal outcome of an otherwise justifiable shooting.

In this instance, the intruder was in the act of fleeing, the victim was not in her home but responding to an alarm and the police were on the scene.

You always stand in a more favorable light with the law when you are IN YOUR HOME and your bullets are in the intruder's front half rather than in his back.

A sheriff once told me" Just drag the body inside.'' Don't know if that's good advice or not? but makes a bit of sense too.

Ringo I hope you said that in jest. Any detective or long time street cop will be able to figure that ploy out in a few minuets.

Now you could go from justifiable homicide to lying to a LEO, disturbing a crime scene to who knows. It really "aint'' a good idea!

__________________
14 S&W Revs none with locks!

Ha, I get that. Kinda like the joke that if you hit someone with your car then back over them so they can't sue you. Not likely to work out so well in the real world. ☺ Better Call Saul.

__________________
Just hanging with my dogs

That's generally not good advice, as forensics can easily tell the story. If - however - the sheriff wants that punk gone & isn't inclined to ask many question......

It's an excellent way to end up in prison... or worse.

Given the similar things I've heard cops say over the years, I file legal advice from police in the same place I file advice on firearms use from Joe Biden.

I heard the police tell my mom the same thing when I was a child.


Remember the story about the California man who shot and killed a woman who had broken into his house (with an accomplice) and beat him? He got to his gun and chased them into the ally where she fell. She pleaded that she was pregnant, which was untrue, and he shot her anyway. EVERYONE on the forum said he was going to jail for sure - especially since it happened in California...and yet he was not charged!

I think people are slowly getting tired of criminals getting away with crime, despite what the laws may say.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

I don't think a criminals life is worth as much as a victims life, and I am disgusted with a society that pretends that it is...

Not surprising.
We all know the media has a love affair with bullies and thugs.

Mainly the dead ones, or the ones roughed up by the police, it seems.

$.02, She was trying to hold him for the cops and he wasn't having it. Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

Don't do the crime if ya' can't do the time.
I have ZERO remorse for the idiot shot.
Hope she tells the media to go pound sand.

Chuck

__________________
They hold no Quarter

I wouldn't have shot unless there was a threat that justified me using lethal force. If I knew the police were on the way and there were no family members home, I would have stayed back and let them do their jobs.

In regard to the shooting, I need more information on this one of who was where and when. Both homeowner and intruder outside with the intruder laying in the yard shot after reportedly to try to flee is troubling.

But maybe there was a threat but maybe the news folks elected to leave that out to create another trayvonn martin-like story. The media loves doing that instead of merely reporting facts.

Anyway, no sympathy for the deceased crook, and if his sister actually said what she said? seriously!!!???!?!?!

Whether or not this was a good shoot is for the authorities in Florida to decide. When I read the details, I had my doubts. Having said that, what amazes me is the notion that if someone's poor, they're entitled to steal from anyone that has more. I'm doubly amazed, (but I guess I shouldn't be), this is endorsed by the flagship of the liberal media, the Washington Compost. The only thing scarier is if the woman who voiced this belief is old enough to vote.

Good for her. One less criminal on the loose. Who knows if the home invader was coming or going. He was in the window and that is all that matters. Should she wait until he pulls a gun or knife to shoot him. Or until he decides to charge her and take her down. It is not her job to read this fools mind and give him the benefit of any possible doubt. He was fair game the moment he broke in, end of story.

No reasonable jury or grand jury should indict or convict her. No sensible prosecutor should pursue it.

We might as well put a sign on our front door that says "Door is unlocked, come in and take anything you want and if we don't have everything you want sue us in civil court because you didn't ask to be born and therefore you are entitled! I know it's a little verbose for a door sign but I think it is all-inclusive!

She rehabilitated him.

Might be dicey. Depends on who wants to get involved. Wouldn't be the first time...

Did he attempt to attack her while she was holding a gun on him? There could have been a reason for her to shoot other than the breaking and entering thing. More info is needed before forming an opinion on the situation.

It would be wrong to expect a woman that age to wait until he laid hands on her before shooting in self defense.

The neighborhood in question requires constant vigilance.

While I firmly believe in the right to defend home and hearth, I think this video from Thunder ranch lays out the boundaries
The perp was in the wrong, however the shooter was in a safe place when she became aware of the break-in and the police had been alerted. She took it upon herself to do law enforcement's job. Now she will face the consequences at least socially and financially if the law-breakers family chooses to sue. If a family member had been in the home or in danger it would be a different story. As it is she has given the antis more fodder for their assault on gun ownership.
Flame me if you like, this case (as I read it in the report) illustrates the line between self-defense and vigilantism and puts responsible gun ownership in a potential bad light. She also put herself at needless risk; in a life or death struggle a 17 year old may have been able to wrest the gun away from a 58 year old woman and injure or kill her.

Believe me I understand the frustration and emotions of having one's home and property broken into and one's sense of security violated but she chose to place herself at risk.

Overall a very sad case because right wrong one young man is dead and one citizen will be vilified in the media.
I am not saying she is a bad person
, I feel sorry for her; in the heat of the incident she made a poor decision. At any given time I might have made the same decision however I hope that I don't .And obviously these things are easy to judge from where we sit, just my opinion from what I read of the story.

Prayers for all involved.

__________________
Jim in Iowa

It is this type of blame the victim that gives the anti-gun nuts their support. This liberal minded attitude towards criminals is absurd. Leave it to the police is an attitude for the weak and fearful. The police are at best a support and mostly what they do is arrive late and fill out forms for the morgue or insurance company and then make a feeble effort to catch the perpetrator. YOU are responsible for your safety not the police. And when someone breaks into YOUR home, the last thing we need is some liberal worrying about supposed rights of the criminal and second guessing a homeowner who is defending his or her home.

Send a notice loud and clear stay out of other people’s homes. Rewarding some fool or his family for his criminal actions is just beyond all reason.

My prayers are not for the dead burglar. I expect he got his justice in full.

I'm patiently waiting for more information (ideally, facts) to be reported. I believe that everyone who is a member of this forum knows that the media selectively report information to intentionally serve their own causes and agenda.

I am thinking that Joe (pharmer) in post #12 may have provided us with an important clue. Not trusting the media, after I submitted my post, I ran a "Search" of the Internet to determine what other additional information might exist regarding this incident. At this time I can't verify the accuracy, but one news source has reported that the perpetrator was shot in the chest (and not in the back as in a situation in which he was shot fleeing from the scene). This ties in with Joe's comments. I did read that there was a confrontation between the two, whatever that means.

Our LEO members may also know about this or comment, but when you are confronting an assailant, especially if one of you is armed, both (or all) parties are often continuously in motion. While the homeowner MAY have caught the perpetrator in the act and attempted to convince him to stay put until the police arrived, he may have had other ideas. Additionally, while she may have only fired a shot to convince him that she meant business and just to wound him, IF he was moving, her round may have been fatal when she never intended for it to be.

My overall opinions regarding this case have not changed. My home is not an open source of valuable property for anyone who prefers to use their "Five-Finger-Discount" activities to obtain (steal) my property so that they can buy Oxy, coke, etc.

__________________
That's what we do!

It seems to me you miss the point of bgrone's thoughtful, nuanced post, which wasn't victim blaming, anti-gun, or soft on criminals.

Quite the contrary, I read it to be entirely sympathetic to the homeowner, given the circumstances, and clearly anti-crime and criminal, but appropriately questioning of the wisdom and legality of the homeowner's actions in the context of genuine self-defense.

We all need to wait for more facts to roll in, but basing our responses on the available information, there are a lot of pro-gun jurisdictions across the land that wouldn't call this a clean shoot based at minimum on the fact that the homeowner knowingly went from a safe place to a dangerous place to protect -- to the best of our knowledge so far -- nothing more than material goods. If that version of events holds, that isn't self-defense.

We should all -- especially those of us who carry and take responsible, legal self-defense seriously -- be able to look coldly and rationally at disputed cases of self-defense and discuss the merits or lack thereof without resorting to broad disparaging remarks, especially when those remarks don't logically connect to the post being disparaged.

Then one of us needs to go back to school and learn to read.

My father says we have gotten too soft in our society. I can still remember when a person was a hero for shooting a burglar because he "got what was coming," and when "fleeing felons" could be shot by police. And, when even your own family would turn on you when you did something like break in to steal from someone else.

We live now in a "kinder, gentler society" now. And everything is someone else's fault.

and another thug bites the dust!

If he was leaving and not carrying the family fortune or guns it is most prudent to let them leave. A hole in the back is usually trouble.

However if you remind them they forgot the good stuff, they might turn and come back in.....

Crime is crime. Because you want is not a license to steal.

The world is full of screamers, usually on the payroll of some 2 bit imaginary wrong loving paper or live media.

They screamed when criminals could invade a home and we had to flee out the back door because the police can't be with us 24x7.

Now they scream when criminals are killed in a criminal act.

The pendulum on their clock reverses quicker than a normal cuckoo clock.

From the perspective of the perpetrator, his life was forfeit when he chose to burglarize a dwelling.

But the woman still had the responsibility to do the right thing from her perspective.

The protection of property does not justify murder -- but it was her home and we do not know all of the circumstances.

This is why we have jury trials guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. That woman is not going to be convicted of a crime unless a jury of her peers finds her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

Murder is usually legally defined as malice of forethought. That said, lethal force is (depending on the jurisdiction) justified in defense of property (see: castle doctrine).

It really is disconcerting how tolerant of criminal behavior so many Americans have become. It makes me think our un-doing is happening right before our eyes.

Yup. Can't believe some of the comments by the thug's family. Seems certain elements have decided to do away with pretense & are just going with "Gimme coz."

I do see a difficulty with any situation where the 'immediate threat' may not be present.
On the other hand, she installed an effective doorstop in the revolving door of recidivism.

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275