Ex-Con Finds Big Surprise Behind Door Number Three

Paul-Slater

A Georgia mom stopped a home invasion by an ex-con on Friday after hiding out in an upstairs crawlspace. From The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday afternoon were from a solicitor.

“Don’t answer,” she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work.

“Get the kids and hide,” he told his wife.

As he dialed 911, his 37-year-old spouse, who works from home, collected the children and hid with them in a crawlspace adjoining her office. By that time, the intruder had forced his way into the three-story residence on Henderson Ridge Drive with a crowbar, authorities said. He allegedly rummaged through the home, eventually working his way up to the attic office.

“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman’s narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld.

The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater was still conscious.

Mr. Slater was apparently dazed, crying, and bleeding profusely when police found him later. If there was any justice he would have died from his injuries, but he’s expected to survive. Of course taxpayers will probably end up footing his medical bills…

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 7, 2013.
Filed under Dumb Criminals.
Doug Johnson is a news junkie and long time blog reader, turned author.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • herddog505

    What do you think? Pistol Expert Badge or only Sharpshooter as she missed him once?

    But I shouldn’t make light of this; I’m sure that she and her children are pretty traumatized and I’m very sorry that they had to go through such a harrowing experience*. I would think that the experiences of this woman (which are similar to those of other citizens, not that you’d ever know it from MiniTru) would provide an answer to those who demand that we give up our Second Amendment rights For the Children(TM). Sadly, I fear that the left would declare that she should have simply locked herself and her little children in the closet and hoped for the best; no need for a gun at all.

    Assuming they didn’t want her prosecuted for murder, that is, as they would do if they found out that she’s “white-Hispanic” or has a “Jewish” last name.

    ====

    (*) And they HAD to go through it because our so-called justice system lets hoodlums back out into society to re-offend and re-offend until they finally “go too far” and wind up in the slam for the rest of their miserable lives, on death row, or dead by the bullet of a citizen or some other villain.

    According the the AJC article cited, this particular hoodlum “was released from the Gwinnett jail in late August after serving six months for simple battery and three counts of probation violation. Slater has six other arrests in Gwinnett dating back to 2008, according to jail records.”

    • Jack Zimms

      Actually, she probably needs to learn gun control. At that
      close of range, she should have gotten a kill shot but it sounds like they
      landed on the edges. Adrenaline often throws your shots off though. The end
      result is she protected her family so she deserves a badge for that.

      • Vagabond661

        I imagine he was doing a lot of moving around after the first shot.

        • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

          Yeah, he probably made a movement. You’d probably make a movement, too, if a pistol went off in your face.

        • Constitution First

          I imagine he was doing The Curly Shuffle.

    • jim_m

      I think she needs a larger caliber seeing as she hit him 5 times in the head and neck and he’s still alive. And probably single action instead of the double action revolver.

      • Conservachef

        I like revolvers for their simplicity and reliability, but double action revolvers seem to take more work to keep them accurate- that long trigger pull can pull your aim off unless you work to hold it steady. It’s a trade-off and totally up to personal preference. Me? I’d personally prefer a shotgun backed up by a 1911 backed up by a revolver. The idea of “overkill” becomes much more appealing when it’s needed to defend your family.

        • herddog505

          I agree with the shotgun and with overkill. Imagine the situation this lady and her children would have been in if this villain hadn’t been alone. In that case, a good semi-auto rifle with a 30-round magazine (or two) would be damned useful.

          • Conservachef

            I’d say a semi-auto shotgun. Personally, I’d rather not have to use a rifle that is capable of hitting targets hundreds of yards away on a crook less than ten feet from me. The bullet would go straight through them and be dangerous for anything behind them.

            Now if we were outside in the yard playing peek-a-boo around the trees, then a rifle does sound good. I see what you did there, though, with that “assault weapon” description…

            Imagine the situation if the lady hadn’t been armed at all. That always irritates me- when people try to say that submission/compliance will remove the violence in a criminal situation. Being mugged? Don’t resist, just give up your money and the bad guy will leave you alone. House being robbed? Just run & hide- let them take whatever they want. Rape? Fighting makes it worse… Makes my blood boil…

          • herddog505

            One of the more outrageous suggestions I’ve read is for a woman being raped to stick a finger down her throat*, the idea being that a woman vomitting is unattractive and the disgusted rapist will leave her alone.

            Left unsaid is that he’ll probably just go find another poor woman whose gag reflex is to poor for this to work. Maybe he’ll let her live; we can only hope.

            I really don’t know when we got the idea that criminals ought to be some sort of protected class: catch a crook in the act, especially of a violent crime, and I say do the rest of us a favor and give the coroner some work.

            ====

            (*) Apparently, the Illinois State Police had this up on their website. It’s gone, now.

            http://www.examiner.com/article/il-state-police-self-defense-advice-for-women-vomit

          • Conservachef

            I just don’t like the idea of passively allowing such transgressions against yourself and your property. Is your tv worth dying for? No, but how do you know that someone who has already broken the law will be content to leave you alone and just take/abuse your television/stereo/lady parts?

          • herddog505

            Allow me to suggest that, while your TV isn’t worth dying for, it IS worth killing for. What I mean is that a man’s home (and, by extension, his car, his place of work, and his person) IS his castle, and if some SOB is in it, he’s considered to be up to no good and the owner ought to have the right to kill him. This is draconian, I realize, but I expect that we’d have a damned sight less crime if the crooks KNEW that there was an excellent chance of being carried out feet first.* Those who didn’t take the hint would likely not be a burden to society, either, beyond the cost of a cheap burial.

            ====

            (*) Is this not what the idea of armed guards in schools is about? Giving would-be monsters the clear understanding that they MIGHT get a few rounds off before becoming a corpse if they do what their diseased mind tells them is a great idea?

          • Conservachef

            I agree, to a point. I used the “is the tv worth dying for” phrase because I’ve heard pacifists use it before. My opinion is that, once someone has broken into your house, you don’t know just how far they are willing to go- they’ve already shown a disregard for the law. They may be content with just taking the tv, and then again they may want to eliminate any witnesses. I think that since they already broke the law, you have to be prepared & assume the worst, and you are perfectly justified in defending yourself & your property.

          • herddog505

            I agree.

          • JWH

            And this, IMO, is why individuals need to be able to keep and own firearms. If it’s me versus a large man with a crowbar, the man with the crowbar is going to win the argument unless I can (somehow) get to the kitchen and get a knife. A firearm, which can apply force largely independent of upper-body strength, is something of an equalizer.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            It was Colonel Colt made all men equal…

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            As it was then, so it is now.

            Not a great jpg, but it gets the idea across.

          • Conservachef

            JWH, you said “A firearm, which can apply force largely independent of upper-body strength, is something of an equalizer.

            I believe it was Steve Crickmore who, during the debates after the CT shootings, used that train of thought to call guns the perfect “wimp’s weapon,” because a gun allows a weak person to abuse others with little-to-no physical superiority.

          • JWH

            I don’t go nearly as draconian as you would; I think that allowing homeowners to shoot trespassers on site is a bit too far. If the trespasser is not engaged in something felonious or dangerous, I think there should at least be a duty to warn.

          • herddog505

            I suppose that I should clarify: inside one’s house / business.

            There’s room for common sense, but, in general, let criminals beware.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            You don’t. You can’t assume that – any more than you can assume hijackers are just political dissidents looking to make a statement.

          • JWH

            Just run & hide- let them take whatever they want.

            In point of fact, she did exactly that. She took the most valuable things in her house — her life and her children’s lives — and she hid them and prepared herself to defend them. But it’s also a good thing that she had the gun — which she used to defend herself and her children at need.

            I mean, honestly, if I’m being mugged, I’m probably going to let the guy take my money, particularly if the dude is larger, stronger, and better armed than I am. I don’t value the twenty bucks I carry on me or my maxed-out credit cards enough to start a life-or-death fight over them.

            Things might go differently if my life is threatened, however.

          • Conservachef

            JWH, maybe I misspoke- when I said run & hide, I was speaking from a non-confrontational, submissive position- an “I’ll give you what you want just don’t hurt me” mindset. I think that’s a dangerous position to take, because it means that you have to assume that the crook won’t use violence. What if he thinks you’re holding out on him, or that you got a good look at him & will call the cops?

            I think I picked this saying up from some engineering friends, but I’m not sure- hope for the best but be prepared for the worst.

          • JWH

            That makes sense. I think it’s worth noting that she was pretty much willing to let the guy take what he wanted. Presumably, if he’d come in, rifled around, and just taken the family flatware and some jewelry, she would have let things be, apart from possibly calling the police. She resorted to deadly force only when her and her children’s lives were threatened.

      • Jack Zimms

        Single action revolver requires the trigger to be pulled back before shooting. Pulled back a double action revolver and it turns into asingle action revolver.

        Sounds like she went for a head shot. Smaller target and likely to hit edges which are not as effective. She should have shot center of mass. More likely to get a solid hit and to stop the action.

        • jim_m

          I was referring to a single action like a 1911. Who would ever choose a single action revolver as a personal defense weapon?

          • herddog505

            Well, I wouldn’t feel badly armed with a Peacemaker in my hand!

          • Jack Zimms

            Semi-auto makes more since and would be my prefer choice.
            Although even with semi-autos I prefer a double action even though I seldom use the double action feature of it. However, it is nice to have when you do need it.

            However, a legitimate case can be made for preferring a revolver.
            Reliability being the main argument for the revolver. Semi-auto especially poorly maintained ones are much more likely to jam. Also inexperience shooters are more likely to spray and pray with a Semi-auto. That can scare the opponent but is not effective at actually hitting your target. The extra time it takes to pull the hammer back or trigger with a revolver will usually result in improve aim. It is a matter of preference and what works best for that person.

            I have seen similar results with green shooter in military
            going from semi to full auto or later on burst. They would hit target with it on semi-auto but completely miss otherwise. Of course, with a little learned control they can become effective using those settings.

          • herddog505

            It would be of some interest to know if the revolver still tops the semi-auto in reliability. Certainly is has in the past, especially when JHP’s in semi-autos were a new thing and manufacturers hadn’t gotten bullet- and feed ramp designs worked out. But what about modern semi-autos designed for police or military use, such as the P-226, the M&P, the Glock 19, etc.? I wonder if anybody’s actually done such a test against a modern revolver such as the 686 or the GP100.

          • Commander_Chico

            Good question. Here’s a discussion:

            http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-187371.html

          • herddog505

            Thanks. Seems about what I thought:
            Nobody appears to have done an actual test, but peoples’ experiences point to not a whole lot of difference in reliability between a good quality, well-maintained semi-auto and a good quality, well-maintained revolver.

    • Commander_Chico

      She didn’t shoot a kid walking home, she shot a guy breaking into her house.

  • Vagabond661

    I bet now he wished he lived further north like maybe NY in, I don’t know, maybe Westchester or Rockland counties.

    • herddog505

      Or that he’d broken into Diane Feinstein’s house.

      Oh, wait…

      • retired.military

        Or that he had a newspaper to find out where nongunowners lived.

  • JWH

    Sounds pretty much like what she should have done.

  • Conservachef

    On one hand, that guy is tough- five shots to the face & neck area and he stayed conscious.

    On the other hand, he was crying…

    • Commander_Chico

      No kidding.

  • Hank_M

    A feel-good story for a Monday. Love it.
    Reminds me of the other required reading, “The Armed Citizen” in the NRA mags.

    • JWH

      I wouldn’t call it a feel-good story. A woman did what she found necessary to defend her home. But the fact remains that a) her home was invaded; b) she and her children were in danger; and c) she attempted to take another person’s life.

      I think she did the right thing. But at the same time, this entire experience, including part c), is going to haunt her for quite a while.

      • Conservachef

        It will, but given the circumstances, it could have been a lot worse. It would have probably even been worse had she succeeded in killing the guy- but she still did the right thing. It’s not a fun scenario to me, but a necessary possibility.
        I was on a grand jury once, and had a clear-cut case of self defense where the victim killed the crook. DA had pics of the autopsy, and just those pics disturbed me..

        • JWH

          I can imagine.

          To be honest, Chef, I sometimes get a little disturbed when people start sounding off the “hurray” horn when something like this happens. Yes, it validates their political stance. And I don’t disagree with it.

          But at the same time, i don’t think that an incident like this is a good thing. In my opinion, nothing that ends with a dead body is a good thing. Even if the dead body belongs to a clear malefactor.

          I read a case out in Texas a few months ago. It was father who found a man molesting his daughter in his barn. The father (as any person should) pulled the man off his daughter, then beat the man severely.

          Then, he realized how badly he’d hurt the intruder. He immediately called 911 to report the attack (from beginning to end) and when 911 said an ambulance wouldn’t get there, the father said that if they didn’t hurry, the intruder would die … but he would drive the man to the hospital himself if he had to.

          The intruder died.

          And, as a matter of procedure, the case was referred to a grand jury. The grand jury saw a case of defense of another and declined to indict.

          Again, everything that father did was right.

          But I think it’s going to haunt him for a while.

          A world in which a person successfully defends himself from attack, whether with a firearm or his fists, is not the preferable world. In the preferable world, such defense wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

          As I said, I agree wholeheartedly that people should be able to keep firearms — or the so-called “less than lethal” weapons, for that matter — as a matter of personal defense. But I can’t bring myself to celebrate their use or to crack jokes.

          Yes, I can admit such things are necessary. But that doesn’t mean I like it.

          • herddog505

            Well said.

          • jim_m

            People celebrate the successful defense of the family and home. People celebrate the deterrent effect that such successful defenses have.

            A home invasion is going to leave scars no matter what you do. The question is which scars you want to carry forward? Do you want the scars of being raped or your family members being raped and/or murdered? Or do you want the scars of taking another person’s life?

            For my part I have little sympathy for the man who would victimize and hurt others. He knew he was wrong before he entered the house. He got better than he deserved.

            I recall the Texas case you mention. IIRC the issue was that the man attacking the child was known to the family. Hence some of the remorse. Again I ask, what kind of scars would be left if you did nothing while watching your child getting raped? Do you think your child will look on your actions better if you let them be victimized or if you come to their aid?

          • JWH

            I did not say that a person should do nothing in these situations. I only said that I think the situation is traumatic no matter how it goes down, so I can’t join in some of the joking I saw in some of the earlier comments.

            I don’t think it’s better to be passive. I just think that a situation this serious needs to be treated seriously.

        • retired.military

          She may still get sued for the criminal’s medical bills.

      • Hank_M

        I see your point and I tend to agree.

        But from my point of view, it’s good to see someone able to defend themselves successfully and also see that someone with obviously bad intentions pay for their actions.

      • LiberalNightmare

        I suppose watching her kids get killed by a maniac would have had a more calming effect on her mental state?

      • The_Queen_of_France

        Her home was invaded and she and her children were in danger. Either by itself is enough to use the force she used. I don’t see how you can say she attempted to take another person’s life, though. She was attempting to stop the danger. She *did* stop the danger. Mission accomplished. I only wish there were a way to take the trauma caused by the criminal’s actions from this woman and her children.

        If he dares sue her, she needs to file a countersuit immediately for the emotional damage inflicted on her family.

    • Conservachef

      I usually skim over the “letter from the president/vp” but I always read the stories in the Armed Citizen section..

  • GarandFan

    Next headline will be “Burglar sues homeowner”. It’s all part of that “fairness” thing.

  • retired.military

    When seconds count, police are just minutes away.

  • TomInCali

    Although she was justified in defending herself once he entered the home, his initial actions suggest that he was first checking to see if anyone was home. By staying silent, she let him believe no one was. It’s unclear why someone knocking at the door or ringing the bell is sufficient cause to “get the kids and hide”, but it’s likely that if she had simply called out “not interested, go away” then none of this would have happened.

    • herddog505

      Well, it took longer than I thought it would, but a lefty has blamed the woman.

      TO THE DUNGEONS WITH HER!

      • TomInCali

        In contrast, it took as long as I expected for some righty to completely lie about what I wrote.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Is that the way you normally reply when somone knocks at your door?
      And why the belief that if the house had been occupied he’d have found somewhere else to burgle? We don’t know his motivations – it may be that snagging a TV and an IPad was his goal, but that he kept looking through the house until he found them indicates something different. Maybe this is someone with a grudge against the husband – that he searched the house until he found the woman and kids hidden in a crawlspace indicates that theft wasn’t the main reason in his mind…

      • jim_m

        Agreed. Most burglaries are very quick, hit and run ordeals. The fact that this guy seems to have methodically searched the residence indicates that he was there for something more.

      • TomInCali

        Is that the way you normally reply when somone knocks at your door?

        Well, yes. I’ll say “who is it?”, and if I’m not interested I’ll say “not interested”. What do you do?

    • JWH

      Sorry Tom, but no. Once he forced her way into his house, he was an intruder. And she reacted appropriately to an intruder: Safeguard her children and defend herself when her life was in danger.

      • TomInCali

        Uh, yeah, exactly what I just said.

    • jim_m

      I think it is relatively obvious that the wife probably doesn’t call her husband every time someone comes to the front door. The fact that this intruder methodically searched the house demonstrates his intent to do more than just rob the place.

      There is no circumstance where the home owner’s actions justify his illegal entry. There is no circumstance where the home owners actions contribute or enable his illegal entry.

      The man broke the law and got better than he deserved. If you don’t like it I suggest moving to the UK where self defense is illegal and they have put homeowners in prison for injuring a home invader who was physically attacking them. That sounds to be the kind of place you want to live in.

      • TomInCali

        I said nothing of the kind, but if it helps you feel superior to others, you can believe what you want.

  • Constitution First

    How long did it take for the cops to show up? Time enough for the perp to pillage the entire house, ending up in the attic? The victim caps the perp five times (LOL) and the cops are still minutes away!
    You know, if 0bama had a son…