It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use: Ana Charle Edition

It’s called “muscular Christianity.” Practitioners combine physical strength and health with “an active pursuit of Christian ideals.” Take it from a Jew, it’s a damn fine idea. The world is not a gentle place, even for gentle people who dedicate their lives to helping others. And while physical strength is a wonderful thing, a gift, there’s nothing wrong with using what’s called a “force multiplier” to enhance that strength, especially when circumstances demand. In other words, when you’re in the business of protecting others who live outside the mainstream, carrying a gun for self-protection is morally and practically recommended. ‘Cause this [via nytimes.com] . . .

Ms. Ana Charle, 36 [above], had parked her car around the corner from the shelter when she came to work on Monday.

For women working at the shelter, such precautions are not unusual. “It is a men’s shelter,” said one city official speaking on the condition of anonymity. “They are being harassed a little bit by the men.”

When she returned to her car shortly before 6 p.m., Mr. Spruill was waiting.

At gunpoint, he ordered her into the back of her Honda sedan.

He “tells her to take her clothes off, which she does,” said the official. “And then he attempts to rape her.”

Ms. Charle managed to break free.

“And starts running for her life,” the official said. “He then gets out of the car. He has no clothes on either. He shoots her three times.”

As Ms. Charle, of Queens, fell to the sidewalk in front of 4366 Bullard Avenue, near East 237th Street, the gunman returned to her car, put his clothes back on and walked away, clutching two bags, police officials said, citing witnesses’ accounts . . .

Ms. Charle had bullet wounds to her temple, cheek and chest. She was taken to Montefiore Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead.

If Ms. Charle had been armed, she might have lived to help others. If you think about it, she might even have been able to help Mr. Spruill, who might have reconsidered his kidnapping plans or survived a defensive gun use. And if he didn’t, well, that would have been . . . fortuitous. Yes? [h/t SS]

comments

  1. avatar Mediocrates says:

    as a man, I totally approve of disarming women [/sarcasm]

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      As a man, I totally approve of rescinding Mr. Spruill’s membership.

  2. avatar Chris says:

    I’m torn. I always hate these articles, for I feel as we, too, are waving the bloody shirt of someone’s misfortune.

    But I also know the truth. A gun would have given her a fighting chance.

    1. avatar Scrubula says:

      It’s a reminder that unarmed victims have little chance of getting help from the police or bystanders.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      +1
      VERY sad, I do get mixed opinions though. If it were a dude it might be easier for me to say ‘good one, numbnuts, you got your state to disarm you [bad] then to convince you everything is going to be ok.’

    3. avatar Art out West says:

      1. This is damned NYC! No decent citizen is ever allowed to carry a gun. Only criminals are permitted to carry weapons.

      2. There were witnesses – bystanders. They were also unarmed, and unable to help this poor woman, or put down the vermin. If this happened on my street (not damned NYC) this man would have had some .38 rounds headed his way (assuming I didn’t have time to grab a better gun).

      3. It would be wise for people like this lady to carry, even a folding knife could be of good use in a close range situation. Some gentle souls like this woman (or my wife) unfortunately cannot even imagine using deadly force.

      4. I also have a gentle soul, but understand that there is real evil in this world, and you sometimes have to put down vicious animals. That is why we carry.

      5. Jesus, Paul, Peter, Moses, Abraham, David, Elijah, Gideon, and every other man of substance in the Bible clearly understood these things. They were real men, and not the soft wimps that many “Christian leaders” are today. “Turn the other cheek” is the response to personal insult. “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36) (basically CCW or open carry) is the response to vicious criminals.

      1. avatar Karl says:

        The elected BAS***DS don’t even ALLOW us to have Mace. Our own fault as we keep electing the same bunch every election. Can’t wait till I can leave this Communist state.

      2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        The NYC ‘Gravity Knife’ law and the way the police very loosely interpret it to cover virtually any folding knife makes knife carry a very risky legal gamble. Baltimore has a similar law and may have been behind the reason that Mr. Gray ran from the police– it’s what he ended up being charged with, the police found he had an assisted-opening folder clipped to one pocket.

        Better not to live places which prohibit you from having the effective means to defend yourself and insist you rely on police protection while at the same time defending any failure to do so with the claim they do not have a duty to protect anyone.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          “…any folding knife makes knife carry a very risky legal gamble….”

          It is unfortunately obvious in Ana’s case that NOT having any folding knife was a much riskier gamble.

    4. avatar Mecha75 says:

      I hate this article for a different reason. I am a born again Christian and I carry a gun. I know it is Thou shall not murder. Not thou shall not kill. Turn the other cheek is in regard to personnel honor and not really about allowing someone to pummel you. How else do you reconcile why Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloaks and get a sword before sending them out.

      As a Christian I am armed to protect myself and my family from those that wish to do us harm.

      1. avatar john thomas says:

        Gentlemen, I’m also a bible believing christian, and i also carry a gun. However, i believe you are in error citing Luke 22:36, which is specifically about fulfillment of scripture, and not the Lord advocating armed self defense.

        1. avatar Gregolas says:

          John Thomas, I disagree, yes , Lu.22:35-38 is fulfillment of prophecy, but it is also Jesus actually telling them they need swords. This account must be read in context with the the other 3 Gospel accounts of what happened at the Last Supper and in the Garden that night. Jesus was telling them that He had protected them up to that point, but after His ascension, personal weapons would be more irritant Han their most treasured possessions. It also has to be read in context with everything Jesus said about self defense and the entire Bible as well. Check out my book, “A Time To Kill:The Myth of Christian Pacifism”. Available on Amazon author: Greg Hopkins. Massad Ayoob endorsed it on p.17 of his newest book, ” Deadly Force”.

        2. avatar john thomas says:

          That’s an interesting perspective gregolas. I’m game for further discussion of you are, but maybe ffz is a more appropriate place. I haven’t been to the forums in a long while. Are they still there?

        3. avatar Gregolas says:

          John Thomas, I’m so bad with computers I don’t know what ffz is. I’m on facebook if you’d like to talk there, on my qualifications, see my website, http://www.bibleslfdefense.com, and for reviews, Google Greg Hopkins: A Time To Kill. It will turn up several. Happy to discuss it with you, but the book is 300 pages and covers what the OT and NT have to say. There are also 3 chapters on Jesus and the military, and 3 on the Bible and the death penalty.

        4. avatar foo dog says:

          Thanks Greg for the context and book link. What would Jesus have done? I doubt he would have stood by while a criminal gunned a defenseless woman down.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          There are those that actually believe he just did!

      2. avatar PeterW says:

        Defense. Yes. Vengeance or premeditated violence, never. We get that wrong all the time.

      3. avatar tdiinva says:

        Since we are have a theological discussion I would like to add a little Lutheran theology to this. Luther said that you defend yourself by defending others. If each person did this then world would be a safer place.

  3. avatar gloomhound says:

    Man that’s sad.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Most places, 6 pm is broad daylight, there were witnesses, he wasn’t allowed to have a gun, I bet somebody had called the cops, did he miss defeating a single supposed protection? Oh, yeah, his chosen victim obeyed the law, or she might have been armed.

  4. avatar Narcoossee says:

    This is one of those situations where if there was even the _possibility_ that she was armed, he might not have attacked her at all.

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    There are no guarantees in life and it is certainly possible that a violent criminal will kill you in an attack whether you are armed or not.

    I can say one thing for certain, though. If you are armed, your last moments of life will NOT be enduring a rape at the hands of disgusting violent attacker. Rather, your last moments of life will be attempting to stop a violent scumbag from harming you or anyone else. I’ll take that over being unarmed and raped EVERY . SINGLE . TIME ! ! ! ! !

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      Yep. If I had to choose my death, between my hands tied behind back and bullet in the back of my head or my bullet riddled body with a pile of brass at my feet, (along with at least a few of my killers) I know which I would choose.

      And I can say as a Christian, it would be from a place of love. I would want to give my lost and way ward brothers that have chosen to be predators on their spiritual family a lesson in that being a bad choice.

  6. avatar Cameron b says:

    Never get in the car! Better to die running as this poor women did, than give that sick bastard the satisfaction of whatever they want to do.

    1. avatar Demetri says:

      Better to die running.
      Better still to die fighting.
      Best to live after winning.

  7. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    But, if we just taught men people not to rape murder, we wouldn’t need to make the victim defend themselves gun control.

    Prog “logic” is so inconsistent.

  8. avatar GuyFromV says:

    I thought Janet Mason got shot or something, wheew.

  9. avatar Shire-man says:

    A good number of people on the street are there for reasons that don’t conform with a productive lifestyle. Substance abuse, untreated mental illness, general sociopathy.
    I’ve had jobs over the years that put me face to face with them daily. The kind of jobs where any downtown vagrant walks in and because they see you day after day they begin to focus on you. If you’re polite they get it in their heads that you’re a friend. If you’re rude they start to see you as an enemy. They don’t have much else to do besides fixate.
    So many stalkers and creepy encounters over the years through these jobs I had.

    It should be a prerequisite to be armed and trained to interact with these people. Sooner or later one will follow you to your car or to your home. Sooner or later one will try to intertwine your life with theirs usually by making accusations of interactions or a relationship.
    Making eye contact is not a safe thing to do. Repeated eye contact is like setting a timer on a bomb.

    Sure, most are not dangerous but all it takes is one to cause a whole lot of trouble for you and your family.

    That woman must have genuinely cared a whole lot about those people to put herself in that position. I’m not so compassionate.

  10. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak reminds us a guns are useless for woman’s defense because “statistics are not on your side, even if you had a gun.” Someone could have been seriously harmed is this woman had a gun. Colorado Representative Joe Salazar tells us women should use ‘whistles’ rather than guns to defend against rape.

    http://www.guns.com/2013/03/05/colorado-lawmaker-tells-rape-victim-that-females-shouldnt-arm-themselves-because-statistics-arent-on-their-side-video/

    1. avatar Am says:

      But what if her whistle damages someones ear drumd or cracks a window. I think its time to ban all rape whistles. Better just to submit and get it over with like any good subject of their state would.

  11. avatar JohnO says:

    Well, pretty soon, Spruill will have all the sex he could want. Just on a different team.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Yeah, the prison softball team only has two positions: pitcher and catcher.

  12. avatar mark says:

    As far as I’m concerned, self defense rule number one is to avoid dangerous situations–even if you carry. Carrying a gun is no guarantee that you’ll out of whatever situation OK or even alive. For young attractive females, that rule to translate to–don’t associate with troubled men. And you don’t even have to be very young or very attractive. Leave that job to other men. That’s common sense, knowing human nature. That’s not the same as blaming the victim, simply saying that there are ways to avoid becoming a victim.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      And the “Men’s Shelter” couldn’t have provided more secure parking for it’s female employees? Oh, I forgot, we’re talking about NYC where in the current mayor thinks the police aren’t supposed to stop minor crimes and where, as a result, everyone who lives there is now prey for urban vultures.

  13. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The God and Guns pod cast talks about this very subject the Christian view of gun ownership and responsibilities. The mid stream media would never come close to talking about guns in a house of worship or guns in charity work.

  14. avatar Noishkel says:

    Completely off the topic but that phrase ‘Muscular Christianity’ is really making me giggle way more than it should. >,,>

  15. avatar JohnF says:

    I agree this is the gun community’s version of “waving the bloody shirt” and I think it hurts our credibility when we do it. The idea that this “should have been a defensive gun use” would have to be predicated on the lady:
    > Buying a gun and getting a permit if the state law allowed it (only a small % of people do)
    > Actually carrying the gun at the time (most permits holders don’t EDC)
    > Having the SA to get the gun out without it being taken away from her
    > Being able to effectively use the gun if necessary

    Sure, she should have the right to do all of the above. I firmly believe that and I would have said hurrah if she had. But I don’t think the gun community making this “should have been a defensive gun use” argument every time something horrible happens reflects well on us.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      When someone instructs you to remove your clothes, he just handed you the ability to eliminate him. Removing clothes allows you to move as you please, so as a former roommate of mine once did, as you shed your jacket you draw and aim. Once you start to “cooperate”, the perp’s mind is on the clothes, and since he sees a “cooperative” victim the appearance of a gun isn’t likely to even register before you have time for a couple of shots.

      So had she been armed, she could have started undressing and then drawn and fired, through some clothes even.

      (BTW, that former roommate didn’t have to shoot — the bad guy got the sudden urge to embrace the ground and beg for mercy.)

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      ” . . . agree this is the gun community’s version of “waving the bloody shirt” and I think it hurts our credibility when we do it. . . .”

      I’d think sticking your head in the sand like this would begin to get a mite uncomfortable after awhile. Just sain’.

  16. avatar Byte Stryke says:

    I Prefer to practice “Tactical Christianity”
    I pray to God that you are not dumb enough to try something stupid with me or mine. If you do, I will arrange for Jesus Christ to explain to you the sin of your actions.

    1. avatar Am says:

      Thats a good philosophy sir

  17. avatar Biff says:

    I don’t understand what Christianity has to do with this. I read the linked story and saw no mention of Ms. Charle’s religious affiliation, if any. Am I missing something?

  18. avatar 2AMexican says:

    If the cops who work for the NY Dept of Homeless Services aren’t authorized to carry guns, you will see pink pigs in purple leotards riding Harleys before the average subject in the Land of the Big Apple can carry one.

  19. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Well I used to be pretty muscular and I am a Christian. And it means much more than fitness and guns. It means Apostolic faith-the faith to move mountains. Yeah. this woman should have been armed. BTW anyone in the Chicago area ABC 7 has an “exposeeeee” of the fight for silencers in Illinois(at 10pm)…I guess I have to watch this tripe and take one for the TTAG teamLOL

  20. avatar Pascal says:

    She followed the advice of the civilian disarmament industry, the progressive left, femist and the police and compiled. To the police and the anti-gun crowd it would have been better if she simply allowed herself to raped. That rape far better than dead.

    To me, a dead rapist would have been better because that scum is now free to find his next victim.

    Sadly there will be no marches or riots to honor this poor women and denounce the government that allowed to happen. Again, the police are just there to put the chalk marks on the ground and write up a report, they cannot save you.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email