In 2005, Yvette Cade, a woman who stands 4’11” tall, was stalked by a violent ex. She had an order of protection against her stalker, but the order was dismissed by the judge. The stalker showed up at Yvette’s workplace in 2005, and threw a gasoline mixture on her, after having said that he wished to “fry [Yvette] like Crisco grease.” She ran away, but the stalker was able to catch up to her, stomped on her with his boot, and then set her on fire. She ran back into the store while on fire, and with the help of coworkers, was eventually able to extinguish herself. She suffered terrible, agonizing, and permanently disfiguring burns that required extensive medical care.
Yvette’s story recently came up in the MD legislator, when a bill to allow victims of domestic violence to quickly obtain a concealed carry permit was being debated. Speaking against this proposal to protect domestic violence victims, Maryland Senate Pro Tem Nathaniel McFadden then said the following:
“. . . Given this scenario, there was a situation in Prince George’s County unfortunately of a woman who was abused obviously. And she was at work. And her husband came in and unfortunately and lamentably threw some sort of gasoline mixture on her and set her on fire in her work environment. Suppose she had opted to have a gun in that situation. This is a place of business. And had she attempted to defend herself during this occurrence, I just think that it may have been some unintended consequences in people who would be adversely affected . . .”
When I read this quote, I really couldn’t believe that the Senator would rather have a woman set on fire by an ex then to allow her a gun with which to defend herself, on the (incorrect) theory that she would pose too great of a threat to those around her. I would like to point out that armed citizens are 5.5 times less likely than the police to shoot the wrong person, meaning that bystanders are much better off when an armed citizens defends themselves than when the police try to stop the criminal. By the Senator’s logic, if a cop had been standing there, that cop shouldn’t have tried to stop the stalker from burning Yvette alive, since the risk to bystanders would have been higher than if Yvette had been able to defend herself (which the Senator apparently thought would be unreasonable). The right to self defense, and to not be set on fire, is a basic human right that should not be denied because of some factually unfounded, entirely speculative, and rather nebulous concern about potential harm to bystanders.
As I’ve said before, armed self defense is vital for a victim of domestic violence. Domestic abusers routinely ignore orders or protection, and do terrible things to their victims. Calling 911 is often ineffective, leaving the often physically weaker victim at the non-existent mercy of the attacker. Armed women, on the other hand, are in the best position to defend themselves and avoid suffering the terrible sort of attack that Yvette suffered.This armed woman used her gun to stop violent ex who broke into her home and cornered her in her bedroom. This ill but armed woman was able to fend off 3 home invaders, including one who came back to attack her again. This armed woman was able to defend herself against a rapist who came back to rape her for a second time in a week. This 85 year old armed woman held a young burglar at gunpoint and made the burglar call the police on himself. This armed woman stopped an attacker who tried to ambush her. This armed pregnant woman used a shotgun to scare away two home invaders. This armed female school teacher used a gun to save herself from a convicted felon who broke into her home. This armed woman saved herself and her family from a pair of armed, kidnapping, home invaders.
My thanks to the Maryland 2a Terp for pointing out this situation.