Naked woman got intruder’s gun, shot him

I don't think you could make up a crazier story. You really have to read the whole thing.:crazy:

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/154948



By Chris Paschenko
The Daily News
Published April 14, 2010
TEXAS CITY — While naked in her bedroom, a woman surprised a masked intruder, disarming him and shooting him with his own gun, testimony revealed in a Tuesday burglary trial.

Latoya Harkless testified against Raymond Marlon Britton, 27, who police accused of a July 31, 2008, burglary in the 2900 block of Tarpey Avenue in Texas City.

Harkless, 30, testified she showered, applied lotion to her legs and was watching television as she prepared for bed. She then heard the sound of someone kicking in her front door.

See, you are more likely to be killed by your own gun, than to use it to commit a burglary.
:rofl:

They should.

He obviously became highly distracted.

No sarcasm.

Crime scene photos don't match her recollection.
She aggressively pursued and continued to shoot at the intruder, after what I gather from the story, he was in full retreat and no longer presenting a threat.

It starts off amusing, but it goes terribly off the rails. She may have committed one or more crimes.

if you find a stranger in your home he is no longer considered a human, he is considered a target and can be legally shot by the resident. Front, back, or side, location of the wounds do not matter.

chase them down the street while your naked blasting away?
Well, at least you will be entertaining the rest of us.

the whole article.
Anyone that uses this case to support any position on the subject is about as nuts as the people involved in the story. The facts are contradictory to the extreme. I would think all of you low posting, nonpaying, newbies would spend some time on DU before you jump in to defend against an article you either didn't read or don't get. If your whole point is to defend the State of Texas, you are doing it a great disservice. There are plenty of fine thinking Democrats in the State. Please attempt to defend those folks on this site and not crazy people that present twisted stories in a court of law and expect anyone to believe them.

> Then both of you seem to have missed the point of the whole article.
I cannot speak for Big Al, but I did not miss anything. I was not responding to the article/OP.

> Anyone that uses this case to support any position on the subject is about as
> nuts as the people involved in the story. The facts are contradictory to the extreme.
No argument from here.

> I would think all of you low posting, nonpaying, newbies would
> spend some time on DU before you jump in to defend against an
> article you either didn't read or don't get.

While you are wrongly laboring under the misconception that post counts are meaningful, I will point out that yours is only slightly higher than mine. I also have the donor star next to my name, thank you very much.

I read the article. And anyone who read my post can clearly see that my post is certainly not defending anything.

> If your whole point is to defend the State of Texas, you are doing
> it a great disservice. There are plenty of fine thinking Democrats
> in the State. Please attempt to defend those folks on this site and
> not crazy people that present twisted stories in a court of law and
> expect anyone to believe them.

That was certainly not my point, nor could my post be reasonably interpreted that way. The point of my post was to point out your strawman argument without actually using the words "strawman argument".

I accidently lumped you in because of your post appeared to me to support the lunacy of the one before it. I have little to bitch about low post, other than in your face ones of a contradictory ideological nature. I tend to feel that there are many, not all, in the gun room that do not support the philosophy of this site and use it as way to stir up liberals. The price of a box of bullets would more than give them credit to argue on this venue. I realize not everyone can afford it. Those that tend to be very ideological on this subject and not post on other issues are my target.
Again I apologize to you personally.

:-) Apology accepted.

One of the downfalls of the Gun forum is that firearms and their laws are both technical discussions. Far too many folks on DU do not have the technical knowledge to have a non-emotional conversation and have no desire to learn so that they can have a logical conversation on these topics. Unfortunately, the same can be said for many local, state, and federal legislators regarding firearms. (I have not been paying enough attention to know where your what level your technical knowledge is in this.)

These threads usually take a weird spin if they start off in GD.

and hunter for over a half of a century. Have been licensed to carry in 2 states and have taken an advanced firearm self defense course as well as martial arts and anger management class(as a part of my degree in psychology). I'm afraid I come down in the middle of the gun issue and argue with and piss off both sides.

:evilgrin: Especially the "piss off both sides" part.

you would be very hard pressed to find a prosecutor and a jury willing to convict a homeowner for anything he or she does to an armed invader. The brakes are off, anything they do will likely be deemed reasonable.

Simplest solution, do not do home invasion in Texas.

to fault a home owner in any state from taking a gun away from an intruder and turning it on them. On the other hand it would behoove that person to come up with a plausible story in court.
This story was posted for entertainment only. How can so many end up taking RTBKA arguments? I think you'd find reason to complain even if you were shot with a brand spanking new bullet.:sarcasm:

it would be entertaining to see how this all turns out. But I doubt that we will hear much more about it from the press.

And there are all kinds of possible reasons the case as presented in court displays some discrepancies with the lady's story. Possibly, the defendant wasn't one of the intruders (or, if there were two, he was the other one). And in that case in San Francisco recently (http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=305182&mesg_id=305182) where a guy was acquitted of carrying a concealed firearm in his vehicle, this happened:


I don't know that the crime scene was messed with before the photos were taken in this case, but it's an alternative explanation for the discrepancy.

I'm surprising he's not here spitting on this brave woman for using a gun.

Thank you, thank you.

I'm glad she turned the tables on him!

On edit: OK... just read the article... looks like she lost her mind a bit (not that I blame her):

Harkless testified she followed her bedroom intruder outside, and he tried hiding on the passenger side of her car. When she’d run to one side, he’d retreat to the other, she said.

“We were playing cat and mouse with each other,” Harkless testified.

Harkless lost sight of the intruder when she was distracted by a neighbor. Harkless ran to another home, where her neighbor gave her clothing and a telephone.