The other day, a mother did what many of us would do if she saw her children in danger. She sprang into action. In this case, her SUV was being carjacked. She jumped in and told him her kids were in the SUV. She told him to pull over. He didn’t. What he didn’t know was this wasn’t your average wilting wallflower of a mother. She had bought herself a gun not too long before so she could protect herself. That gun was in the glove box. She got the gun and fired. The SUV crashed and all parties lived, including the bad guy. What would have happened to those kids if Mama Bear hadn’t acted? Your guess is as good as mine but there is a very good chance it wouldn’t have ended well.
What makes this case interesting is the fact we aren’t hearing all that much about it. Why isn’t the media covering it? After all, this is the sort of story that might actually act to prevent someone else from try to carjack a vehicle. The problem, you see, is that it doesn’t fit the current narrative. Here is a woman who used a gun to protect her children. She didn’t kill the perp or anyone else. In fact, his injuries aren’t even life-threatening. There is no “gun control” angle to be played here. After all, how could the media or the mouthpieces for further limiting our Second Amendment rights condemn what the woman did to protect her kids?
I’m sure they will find a way. How long before someone starts saying she should be prosecuted for leaving her kids in the SUV for a few minutes while she went in to pay for gas (or whatever she was doing to be away from the SUV)? I can see it now. She made it an attractive nuisance for the poor guy. He wouldn’t have been tempted to steal her SUV if she had been in it. So it was her fault he did anything wrong. Because of that, she should not only be prosecuted for putting her kids in danger but for hurting him.
See how their minds work? The twists and turns of logic — if you want to call it that — to make sure the narrative is met are astounding and migraine inducing.
How long before someone starts saying she shouldn’t have had the gun in the car because her kids could have gotten to it? Or by firing it, she put them all in danger?
Sorry, but what else was she supposed to do? Let him steal her car with her kids in it? Let him take them wherever he wanted and do whatever to them?
Nope, nope and HELL NO.
Once upon a time, if you were a woman and you took a self-defense course, one of the first things you were taught was to never let the perp get you inside a vehicle. Once that happened, you lost. You didn’t know where he was going to take you. He was in complete control and you could pretty much kiss your ass goodbye. You were to do everything you could to draw attention to what was going on and to keep him from getting you inside the vehicle. If your luck was bad enough you failed there, you were to do everything you could to keep him from driving away.
Now, I’m not sure what is being taught in the so-called self-defense classes. The better ones still teach a variation on what I learned. The others? The ones who think you shouldn’t fight back? I guess it is a variation on the “talk to him nicely and he’ll let you go or at least won’t hurt you too badly”.
I don’t know and, to be honest, I don’t care.
What is important in this case is a man got into a vehicle that wasn’t his own and took off in it. He didn’t care there were kids inside. He didn’t care when the mother jumped in and told him about the kids and said to pull over. When he didn’t, she took steps to protect her kids. I don’t know about you, but I’d have done the same thing.
As she said, “I had to do what I had to do.”
She protected her kids. She protected herself. He’s lucky to be alive.
“I’m not a killer or anything like that, but I do believe in defending what’s mine.”
You, ma’am, did what you needed to do and your kids are alive today because of your actions. Well done, ma’am. Well done.