By Brandon via concealednation.org
A trio of Altoona, Pennsylvania neighbors are credited for helping save a woman from a brutal beating at the hands of her ex-boyfriend. The ex, identified as Henry Yancey, held his girlfriend hostage for 20 hours and allegedly physically assaulted her throughout the night, threatened to kill her and stabbed her in the leg. When she was finally able to escape, he chased her down the street and grabbed her. That’s when neighbors said they witnessed a horrible assault . . .
“There was a lot of ruckus,” said neighbor Tatiana Scriver. “They almost sounded like there was a stampede going through the building.”
Another neighbor Nicky Mimikos said, “He’s on top of her just punching her in the face. He got up and started stomping her in the face.”
That’s when another neighbor, Henry Oppenheim, saw what was going on and sprung into action.
“So I quickly ran into my room grabbed my gun and went out to defend her,” said Oppenheim “I said let her go. And then he finally did it.”
Oppenheim has a concealed carry permit, and told reporters that he carries nearly everywhere he goes. If the same thing happened again, he said he wouldn’t hesitate to do the same thing. “In a heartbeat. Not a second thought. No reservations.”
The attacker faces numerous charges including attempted criminal homicide, terroristic threats and stalking.
The woman was treated at the hospital and has been released.
I would have shot him without warning.
Definitely qualifies as justified. Whatever I would do, I’m glad his approach worked.
Not so sure it would be “justified” if no warning was given??
It would be in Texas.
Also in Georgia.
Paraphrasing: Reasonable fear of grievous bodily injury or death to one’s self or others. Or against those in the process of committing a forcible felony.
In other words, stomping someone’s head into the pavement would give a reasonable person reason to fear the person on the ground would suffer severe bodily harm or death. Therefore: justified.
It would be in Washington state as well.
I’m not aware of any state law that requires that we warn an attacker that we’re about to stop the attack with deadly force.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
That could have been an expensive bullet, especially if the prosecutors find a history of you saying things like, “I would have shot him without warning.” on the internet.
A really stupid and ignorant thing to say. It’s people like you who the anti’s point to and say, “See? These people just can’t wait to shoot somebody.”
If someone is an imminent threat to life then justification to shoot exists. If such justification exists no warning need be given- indeed, such a warning can give that person chance to take the hostage as a human shield or simply break her neck.
You can roll the dice if you want to. The rest of us will pass.
Anon – speak for yourself, or those you know, please do not included everyone, as in “the rest of us” when you are only stating an opinion.
The fists and feet of a much larger man can often be deadly instruments against the average woman. I personally wold not have given him the opportunity to decide to test my willingness to shoot while he took one more punch or kick at her.
Think of it this way: what if he was beating on your wife or sister or daughter? Would you shoot then, or make threats and and demand he stop and then wait to see if he complies or just keeps hitting her?
Somebody beating the poor woman to death…
I would not have shot him unless he continued to pulverize her lifeless body after warning him – or if he attacked me. He stopped when warned. What better result could have prevailed??
If you shoot him, you could pay 10s of thousands in legal fees. You’ll get arrested. You’ll spend the night in jail next to the long schlong bubba.
I’ll pass. You stopping the attack without hurting anyone is a win-win.
I’m with you on this. I would at least yell STOP!
Agree with both of you on this when it comes to a stranger. If it was a family member or close enough friend there is a good chance of no verbal warning. If their face is getting stomped the attacker is getting shot and I will deal with the well known undesirable aftermath.
With a stranger that has already received this level of violence I have to give more consideration and giving the attacker a brief opportunity to stop from a verbal command is likely. I don’t have an absolute answer because it has to be based on a lot of variables for the specific situation. I might try a less lethal attempt but I might not. It is admittedly hard to be sure of what one would do for each individual encounter.
There is just no doubt that I am completely willing to deal with the many negative aspects of taking a life in this situation with no verbal warning or less lethal attempt when my family is at stake. When it comes to a stranger all of the negative aspects of shooting someone really have to be considered seriously.
That’s often a bad idea in this kind of situation. I’ve read of cases where a woman was getting beaten by her husband/boyfriend, and went on to press charges against the good samaritan for assaulting her abuser. Usually the cops know the score… but not always.
Maybe give him the same kind of warning a cop gives…
Shoot his dog?
He sounds absolutely charming.
If they were married, I’d say the NFL made him do it. As it is, I’ll just blame his behavior on internet ammunition sales.
Probably all those violent video games and movies.
Global warming made him do it. Or George Bush.
Get serious, Ralph.
It’s the NRA.
She’ll be back with the dirtbag by this weekend.
There’s a good chance he’ll be someone else’s girlfriend this weekend.
But she’ll probably end up with an equally wonderful human specimen. People rarely learn from their mistakes quickly.
You’ve got a point. Same type, new face probably.
Good for him(and her). It’s not always what it appears-glad it was in this case…
Why on earth do all these people pose for the news with their weapons?!?!?! “And this is how I stood and this is what I said”. If it’s me, you won’t know it, you won’t find me and you sure as hell won’t know that I carry ‘nearly everywhere I go’.
Yet gun owners are somehow part of a fictional “war on women”. Libturds would recommend she just lay there and get beat to death while everyone else video tapes.
She could try crying and peeing her pants. Statists suggest that as a “defense” technique.
This is why we have a Second Amendment in our wonderful nation. Just wish states like mine (California) would do a better job of honoring it…
Love the Eli jersey. Oh, nice work by the Good Samaritan.
What is terroristic?
I am in no way defending this guy – he sounds like a lunatic. But why are we slapping the “terrorist” label on him??? Sounds ridiculous. If this guy is a “terrorist,” then every criminal is a terrorist and belongs in Guantanamo bay with zero rights. It is so, if we apply the term uniformly.
I thought the same thing. I’m hoping that in this context it means causing a person to live in extreme fear.
I believe they define the “terrorism” associated with the IRA, PLO, ISIS, etc. as using violence to try to force change on the societal or political level. Clearly that wouldn’t apply here.
I am not a lawyer, but…
“Terroristic threats” generally means saying things to a specific person that are intended to cause them terror. Has nothing to do with the “religion of peace”.
Domestic assaults are very dangerous… even if you have a gun. But you’ve got a much better chance with than without!
Agreed. A gun could have saved her a lot of agony.
Either way. A good person with a gun likely saved her life.
In before “charges dropped “.
Anyways, in this instance the defender got lucky. Had the DV victim been armed and ambulatory im sure she’d have burned down the citizen for threatening her man.
The psychology of DV is too complex to solve by a stranger on the spur of the moment like this. He may be a mad, rabid dog-but she won’t see it that way. Shell see it as an unprovoked attack : so what her abusive boyfriend is beating her up. She totally deserved it, and what right do YOU have hurting her misunderstood dude……….
Its f’ed up. But in that situation, I’d be calling 911 and playing witness.
But, the Moms say we should stand idly by and exclaim how terrible it is, just like they would if their children were being harmed…
If you really care, buy a gun.
I have a huge problem with a grown man going around wearing a football jersey with another man’s name on it. It’s fine when you’re ten. It is beyond moronic when you’re forty. You’re not actually a member of the team, you know. Mr. Manning doesn’t even know you exist.
What any of that has to do with or suggests about this guy’s gun use here, I’m not sure; but probably not anything good.
Lighten up, Francis.
That one hit a little too close to home, did it? It’s rough out there for you Tebow fanboys, I’m sure. Maybe he’ll let you wear his letter jacket, too, since he won’t be needing that, either, inside the cozy T.V. studio this season. How cute!
Pity he doesn’t home carry; when seconds count…
Even if your gun is only seconds away, the operant word is away.
Fun case out of Houston last week (not sure why it didn’t make it onto TTAG) had a senior citizen, who home carries daily, take on a burglar.
The bad guy had cut the lock off the owner’s storage shed. The owner responded to the mid day disturbance and the burglar threw a gas can at him. This prompted the owner, fearing for his life, to fire one shot into the burglar’s stomach. Burglar survived and is now facing charges.
Nobody ever thinks it will happen to them. Home carry daily, folks.
this wasn’t her first glimpse of her ex boyfriend’s insanity
but, but, lefties like to sarcastically post “so what about the ‘good guy’ with a gun” on every article about a criminal shooting on the NYT, Huffpo, and Salon.
So this story clearly cannot be true!
/S/, for those that couldn’t tell