The 911 call of the woman in GA who shot the intruder who tried to rape her

Gwinnett Police have released a recording of the 911 call made by a Duluth woman after she shot the knife-wielding intruder who attacked her at home last Wednesday (May 11). Her assailant, identified by police as Israel Perez Puentes, 34, of Alpharetta, died later from the gunshot wounds.

The incident occurred about 6:30 a.m. when Punetes entered the home in the 2800 block of East Mount Tabor Circle in unincorporated Duluth, as the resident, a 53-year-old woman, was coming out of the shower, according to a Gwinnett Police spokesman. "She was exiting the shower when the man wielding a knife entered her bathroom," said Gwinnett Police spokesman Cpl. Edwin Ritter.

The woman tried to fight off the man with the shower rod after she had fallen into the bathtub. Her attacker then forced her into the bedroom. Puentes apparently was going to sexually assault her, Ritter said. She was able to retrieve her .22-caliber pistol and then shot him multiple times, according to Ritter. Puentes left the house through the rear door and collapsed in the backyard.

A neighbor to whose home the woman had run after the attack placed the 911 call then put her on the telephone. Sobbing hysterically, she managed to tell the dispatcher about the attack and give her address.

http://peachtreecorners.patch.com/articles/police-release-911-tape-reporting-duluth-shooting-6#video-6144402

Audio of this at the link. Good thing she had access to a gun.

who was just looking for a reason to blast someone to me








Do I really need this? :sarcasm:

You keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat. She emptied the gun into him and was then able to escape.

It was her or him..it's really that simple.

Some on this forum would take her guns away.

or used her "natural fighting skills".

Or just let the criminal have what he wanted, after all he wasn't there to hurt her....

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

And it's simply a miracle that she was able to draw a weapon on someone who already had the advantage, and then manage not to shoot herself, an innocent bystander or have the gun "taken away from her".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It doesn't fit into their worldview of anyone using a gun for self defense as a psycho, blood-thirsty cowboy.

prevent people from having guns to defend themselves in situations like this--or even for sport hunting or other such purposes.

Many of us just would like to see bans on certain kinds of weapons (like assault rifles), and a licensing requirement of the type that we have for driving, because in both cases the operator of the machine--gun or car--is handling a powerful weapon that could easily kil the handler or some innocent bystander if it is not operated with a certain degree of knowledge and responsiblity.

Because honestly, so-called assault rifles are used EXTREMELY rarely in crime. In fact, their use only makes up .20% (yes, one fifth of one percent) of all violent crime. Given that, how can you possibly think you have an established need to ban them? Would it not be MUCH more effective (and a hell of a lot more politically viable) to go after the root causes of crime, like poverty and the war on drugs?


Also, there is a huge difference between owning and operating a firearm and a car. One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is not. And once again, do you really think licensing would do ANYTHING to reduce violent crime? Seems like criminals don't care about doing a lot of things that are against the law. These are truly useless and pointless gestures that serve only to damage our cause in the long run.

requiring a driver's license doens't mean that idiots won't drive without a license if they get theirs suspended for some reason or another.

But a lot of people who really do not know what the hell they are doing are enchanted enough by our country's glorification of guns to buy them and keep them (usually unsafely stored) around. I think that licensing would create a situation in which most i people would follow the law, so most people with guns would know how to handle them and store them responsibly.

Idiots and bad guys would still be idiots and bad guys, so they would still do what they shouldn't do. But I believe that requiring people to know how to drive well enough to pass a driving exam does prevent a lot of potential vehicular tragedies, and I believe that if most people had to learn enough about guns to prove they know how to use them and store them safely, we would hear about fewer accidental tragedies involving guns.

...but I think the same could be accomplished through education programs. It used to be the norm for kids to have education about firearms in grade school. I think such programs should be brought back. Making guns a mystery to children is truly counter productive. Teach them about firearms, about how they must be handled safely, and underscore the fact that they should NEVER handle them without an adult supervising. Right now, we are ONLY doing that final bit, and ignoring the rest. And I think this is very detrimental.

Rates of accidental death by firearm are very low, but they could be lower, and I think education programs are the key to making them lower. Not only are they FAR more politically viable than licensing, but I believe they would be more effective in the long run.

with no clue--or with no rational control, like that whacko state legislator--waving guns around in other people's faces.

Of course, if his colleagues noticed his weird behavior, they should have done something about it, but they probably didn't want to risk losing a vote on their team.

...so often when people DO start showing signs that maybe they are losing control of some of their mental faculties people just don't bother to report it, not out of malice but just because they either don't want to believe it of the person, or don't want to feel like they are hurting or betraying the person, etc. etc. This would be an issue, honestly, even with licensing.

The hard reality is that sometimes people with no rational control slip through the cracks. We just have to try and make sure that such people are ID'ed whenever possible before they do harm to themselves or others, either with a gun, a knife, a vehicle, or some other way.

I'm glad to hear you at least open to the idea of expanding our education programs, and appreciate your open mindedness on the issue. :)

case, it was macho BS tough-guy fantasizing. I was vehemently against it, because although he is a brilliant young man in many ways, he was also a macho fool in some ways. His gun talk was all about macho display, and if he had bought a gun back then, his gun ownership would have been similary stupid, and something awful would probably have happened.

But then he ended up in a job where he had to have a gun for a while, and he was extremely well trained in how to handle and use it--and in proper respect for the damned thing (which I never felt he really had before).

He now owns a gun, but I am not troubled by it at all--partly because he is older and more mature (he's 31 now--he bought the gun 2 years ago), but also because he has been trained by people who really and truly know what is what where guns are concerned, so he now has proper respect for what a gun is--and what it is for. It is not for showing off your tough-guy masculinity--which is how he seemed to see it before. Unfortunately, I believe that is how far too many people see gun ownership, and I just wish there were a way to prevent that attitude from developing--or to make it harder for foolish people to get guns to play around with and show off with in front of other people, but without depriving sensible people of their right to own guns.

Maybe your idea of early childhood training is what would solve that problem.

Obviously, in the 19th century most young people in certain parts of the country would have had such training, and my guess is that most of them handled their guns sensibly. But I fear I have very little faith in the sensibleness of many of my fellow citizens these days. Probably that worries me more than anything. But even foolish people might develop a sensible attitude toward guns if they were taught proper respect early and consistently.

...is that Hollywood is doing more to teach a lot of stupid things about firearms and we (as in we as a society) aren't doing enough to teach our kids smart things about firearms. I don't think that it is ALL of the problem, but I think it is a large part of it.

lol, I wish I had more to add to the conversation right now, but my brain is kinda fried. Had a long day of work today and got another in store tomorrow. But I really do thank you for the good conversation on this topic. Hopefully we can continue it in the future. :)

why did you not get training for him? Certainly that would have helped educate him, and calm you.

Unfortunately, in a society based on freedom and liberty, we must tolerate fools, to the point were they become a danger and must be dealt with individually, or reduce our freedom and liberty to a point where our society will be fundamentally different. And, I suspect, not nearly as satisfying.

How would you propose paying for them? That pesky 5th Amendment thing you know.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

What makes you think he would have obeyed you , more restrictive, laws?

W/out any licensing requirement. When you say "reasonable" don't you really mean "more restrictive".

Why specifically do you want to see the firearms of which you speak banned?






"and a licensing requirement of the type that we have for driving"


We have that already - a license to carry.


Neither lisense - car or gun - is required to own, only to use in public.

Or do you mean something further than what we have with motor vehicle operators licenses?

did--the one who waved a gun in a reporter's face and threatened him, thinking he was somehow responsible for selling drugs to a woman whose baby died.

It turns out that his colleagues in the legislature thought he had been acting erratically. Reasonable renewable licensing (as with drivers' licenses) would make it possible to catch soemone's slide into bizarre, delusional behavior of the sort that could lead him to shoot an innocent person because of some sort of paranoid fantasy.

I might not agree with all of your conclusions, but the way you reach them stands head and shoulders above too many who share your views.

I cannot agree with licensing for owning a gun, though I share your motivations. The idea of licensing a Constitutional right is just too dangerous of a precedent. I would support universal training in safe gun handling as a survival skill--in school. No, I don't want to encourage or "normalize" guns--it's not a secret indoctrination scheme. But there are guns in society, lots of them. People need to know how live in a world with guns, how to react if they are in a place with a gun or if their children find a gun. It's no different than living in a world with sex and orgasms and STDs and marriage and birth and abortions and babies. Knowledge is necessary.

I absolutely agree that we need to keep an eye out for people who go off the deep end, and not just to stop them from misusing guns. Delusional people shouldn't drive or operate heavy equipment, either.

Your posts are reasonable and you appear to be open to genuine discussion. We have some regular anti gun posters who would deprive this woman of her self-protection. In fact they sometimes claim that guns are useless for self-defense.

dealt with reasonably because people get so emotionally attached to their own opinion that they take any disagreement as an attack on themselves, on their essential being or on their integrity.

As a teacher of college English, I am always trying to get my students to use reason and logic when discussing important issues, so obviously I have to hold myself to the same standard.

You might be interested in a couple of my articles on one of my websites:

Don't Get Emotionally Attached to Your Own Opinion"
http://teacherblue.homestead.com/opinion1.html

and

"Don't Get Emotionally Attached to Your Own Opinion: Part II"
http://teacherblue.homestead.com/opinion2.html
(I always joke that this title shows how creative I am!)

That second one is actually about abortion. What I say in it might surprise a lot of people who are--as I am--pro-choice.

Extreme rants would just exclude the rational middle--and would do nothing to convince anyone to lsiten to my side of an argument. Even worse, getting too attached to my own opinion would make it impossible for me to learn information that might improve my understanding of the topic--and maybe even change my opinion as I learned more.

posts on DU. I mainly read the Greatest page and the General Discussion forum. (I don't have much free time during the semester.) But when a post from one of the other forums makes it to the greatest page, that's when I see it and end up wanting to discuss whatever is going on in them--if, of course, the topic interests me. I consider gun rights to be an important and interesting topic--even though I wish our culture were a little less gun obsessed, and our society (and world) less flooded with guns.

Common courtesy, good sense, and a willingness to discuss ideas are always welcome.

And you actually understand the difference between facts and emotions while appreciating the value of both.

....but that's because I like guns. I enjoy going shooting and appreciate them in a similar manner that a person who likes cars appreciates a well made car and enjoys owning and tinkering with them.

If I had I wish it would not be a wish for fewer guns int he world, it would be that human beings would stop trying so damn hard to do harm to each other. I keep a gun for self defense, and I will be getting my concealed carry permit soon, but I hope beyond hope that I never have to even point a gun at another human being, much less use a gun on one. In fact, that's a big part of why I want us, as progressives, to focus our efforts on combating poverty and bringing the disastrous war on drugs to an end. Doing these things and others would go a long way to lowering our violent crime rate as well as bring a lot of other positive impacts along with it.

Hope that makes some sense to ya. Like I said in a previous post, its late (not sure WHY I'm still up) and I'm not 100% sure if I'm making as much sense as I'd like.

we really cannot trust our government not to descend into tyranny, since it seems to be trying to fast-track that descent even as we type!

My son used to joke about what it would be like if hostile extraterrestrials ever came to earth and landed in parts of the US where most people are well-armed. He said they'd get blown away before they even knew what was happening.

I wish I could "rec" this post!!

EDIT, it is so refreshing to see someone with the basic honesty, to see past their own emotions and feelings on a issue, to see the "bigger picture", and have a grasp of what is at stake.

And all depending upon whose hands they are in and what they are being used for.

Right now, her 'lil' ol' .22' is magnificent, even though it caused death. It might have have been nice if asshole lived to be prosecuted while spending the rest of his life with breathing/digesting/walking/thinking difficulties. In that, her gun was both magnificent and merciful.

Knowing what I do, I'm not a big fan of the horrible chaos guns cause a body, but I'm much less of a fan of violent criminals/animals. Given the story on its face, I have little doubt this was more than justified.

And that choice has been left up to me.

And inexorably.

Apparently the full tape is 9 minutes (there's a footnote on that site). 9 minutes for the cops to get there. That's an eternity.