Florida Mother Defends Her Son Against Armed Carjackers, Shoots and Kills One
One of the biggest rights the left is constantly attacking is the Second Amendment right to self-defense. "Nobody needs a gun," they say. "Call the police and wait for them," they'll preach.
For Louise Ornduff, had she not carried a concealed weapon on Monday, both she and her son might've died.
From the Tampa Bay Times:
Take a good look at the two despicable criminals above. They thought nothing of preying upon a mother and her son. It could happen to any one of us. Are you prepared for the possibility?
Gun-control laws would've done nothing to protect Ornduff and her son. It was the Second Amendment that enabled Ornduff to strike back against illegally armed criminals.
Of course, even in the light of a self-defense case, legal experts are clambering out of the woodwork to suggest that Ornduff could be charged for shooting the armed thug that robbed her at gunpoint:
Here's the exact text of the Florida law in question:
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property —
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
What do you think? Should Ornduff be charged with homicide for defending her son? What would you do in such a scenario? Would you be prepared to defend yourself?
Stay alert. Stay alive.