Despite the determined efforts of California’s ruling class, firearms aren’t yet totally outlawed in the the Golden State. But with gun owners like Karen Benjestorf, it probably won’t be long now. Karen and her main squeeze, Ronald Barker weren’t really seeing eye-to-eye one evening last week. According to dailybreeze.com, they’d been shooting a pellet gun inside her apartment. And to the shock and amazement of almost no one, they were imbibing, too. At some point, things apparently got a little heated, probably over the question of whose pellet hit closest to the center of the TV screen. Eventually Ronny began to slap Karen around a little bit, probably because no self-respecting dude likes to be outshot by his girl in an indoor competition . . .
Deciding she wasn’t going to take any of that crap, Benjestorf then picked up an actual firearm and went all Joe Biden on him. We’ll let redondobeach.patch.com take it from there:
…she picked up a gun and fired it into the ground, according to (Redondo Beach PDÂ Sgt. Fabian)Â Saucedo. The bullet shattered, sending fragments flying. Some of the fragments hit Barker’s face.
Paramedics transported Barker to the hospital, where he was treated, Saucedo said. He was later returned to the station and booked into jail on suspicion of battery. He posted his $20,000 bail on Wednesday.
While it’s probably good that Mr. Barker was (at least temporarily) removed from this little domestic equation, Karen still has her own problems. The cops aren’t really sure if she knew she’d picked up a real gun given the presence of a pellet gun and the hooch-fogged haze she was operating under, but they booked her on suspicion of a negligent discharge.
We’re pretty sure she’s had that real gun confiscated by now, but if the 5-0 let her hold onto that pellet gun, we’re guessing the IGOTD trophy we’ll be sending her way will make a great target. Â [h/t David]
My favorite part of this story is the first comment on the dailybreeze.com site:
“I sure hope they have children.”
This is why we should have a ban on high capacity idiots who have that little thing that goes over the shoulder like this *motions with arm*.
Some “man” you are, slapping around a girl…
only in cali
Whut-evs. When u gotz a burning case o’ teh stoopidz, u gotta do sumpin’, yo?
Negligent discharge is illegal??
Only if you get some on you, apparently. . .
Ask Bill Clinton.
Well played, sir!
Discharging a firearm within city limits is strictly prohibited without “reasonable cause”. Good ole Cali.
Id say she had reasonable cause but being drunk didnt help.
Deciding she wasn’t going to take any of that crap, Benjestorf then picked up an actual firearm and went all Joe Biden on him.
It could be said she went double-Biden. She gaffed the part that the gun is supposed to be fired . . . . outside.
…or through a door, not the floor.
Yes, that’s right, or through a door. So she had two outs & still pulled a gaffe-tastic, just like Biden.
Really, she hit him in the face….sounds more like a Cheney. Just saying.
Could the “pellet” gun have been an airsoft? Those are perfectly safe to shoot indoors, well, at least with eye protection.
“they’d been shooting a pellet gun inside her apartment” and “she picked up a gun and fired it into the ground” don’t seem to go together unless she lived in a mud hut with earthen floors.
Good thing she wasn’t in the boat.
I’m betting pellet gun = airsoft.
Except of course for those of us with raised foundations and wooden floors, or basements….Just sayin.’
Slab on grade construction, directly under the finish flooring (wood, carpet, laminate) would be a concrete slab, which would also explain the “shattering” and ricochet.
typical southern california early-30s going on late-teens loser.
So, TTAG’s position is that it’s irresponsible for a woman to defend herself with a firearm against an abusive boyfriend? Or is it just cause she’d been drinking? Because people who have been drinking are never victims of crime, right?
You’re reaching. She didn’t use a gun to defend herself. She fired it into the ground. Was it on purpose? Who knows? Was it a warning shot? Who cares?
What’s the standard line around here about warning shots? If you have time to think about giving a warning shot, you’re probably not in enough danger to be pulling the trigger at all. Remember, she didn’t warn, she didn’t brandish, she fired a shot into the ground. Or, for all we know, she tried to brandish, and fired a shot anyway because she was friggin’ drunk.
She was irresponsible, hence the trophy.
What if you aim at the threat but miss… but it’s enough to stop the attack. Is that irresponsible? As you said, we don’t know what her intentions were, just the result… that a bullet struck the floor. We don’t know if she aimed at the floor, or if she was too drunk to hold the gun up, or was just too scared to hold the gun steady, or had no training, or flinched when he came at her again. The point is, drunk or not, when an imminent threat presents itself, you are not irresponsible for defending yourself, even if it’s done poorly.
“So, TTAG’s position is that it’s irresponsible for a woman to defend herself with a firearm against an abusive boyfriend?”
I’m not playing your game. Peddle your strawman bullshit elsewhere. Both parties acted irresponsibly at all points during this encounter, from the beginning to the very end.
There’s no strawman, Matt… I asked a question. Is it the drinking that makes it irresponsible? I don’t think we should consider all gun owners who drink to be irresponsible if they are subsequently faced with the prospect of defending themselves. If a drunk gun owner is able to stop an attack on his life without hurting any innocent people, I’d say that’s a win. Who cares if he gave a “warning shot?” I’m not talking legally… I’m talking how the gun community should respond.
I agree… don’t get drunk. Don’t do stupid things with stupid people in stupid places. But at the end of the day, an attack was stopped and no innocent people were harmed. Why is that irresponsible?
Henry, you get “Missing the Point” prize of the day. Congratulations.
Well, please enlighten me then.
Stupid places, stupid people, stupid things…plus booze. Avoid them. At least the first three.
Stuck on Stupid. It’s an actual gear shift setting on cars sold in California. It describes so many people living here so well.
That’s the setting in which it’s a ¢rapshoot whether you’ll go forward or rearward and the speedometer is disengaged, correct?
Brakes, turn signals and steering are locked out also.
Ouch. Still, free market and all.
Natural selection in action?
The bullet shattered, ergo slab floor and virtually no danger to anyone not proximal to her attacker.
She stopped the subhuman sh¡t who was getting his jollies by trying to make her look like Gregory McCalium.
She didn’t even have to kill him.
This was a fu¢king DGU, not an IGO.
It probably could have gone better, but she was inebriated. Guess what? Even the inebriated have the right to stop a lout with ham hands, by whatever means will work.
She done good.
She did, Russ. I agree completely.
“Imbibing”? That sure looks like a pound of weed in the giant baggie on the shelf behind her.
Could be. It’s also fortunate that she didn’t shoot the “floor” on that boat…
There’s enough bilge sloshing ’round this incident already.
Pobably pipe tobacco, since there is a pipe next it, and as usual with California blondes, the owner of the boat she’s hanging out on is probably twice her age – within pipe-smoking age.
That’s OBVIOUSLY what happened, Jeff! You’re right! Blondes and boats in California. You’re clearly a member of Mensa!!!
You’re a smart cookie, William!
CC: Matt in FL, Henry Bowman
I know you guys are arguing about the details of what happened in this particular case but I have actually genuinely wondered if there is any benefit to claiming “really, really bad aim” versus “I fired a warning shot into the ground”.
I’m not sure how it works when it comes to somebody inside of your home, but in RI where I live we do have castle doctrine. However, there are also laws against discharging a firearm (usually associated with “city limits”). It would seem you’re better off telling the cops you were defending yourself and it was an errant shot versus telling them you fired a warning shot.
Thoughts, comments?
Makes sense. A little perjury at the outset mightn’t be a bad idea at that.
Also, what if it was his “castle?” Unlikely, but possible.
Still, I sand by it being a competently executed DGU. Drinking doesn’t necessarily mean plastered, and I believe that she showed great restraint.
She should get her gun back, and perhaps change the locks.
Discharging a firearm while consuming alcohol or drugs is a negligent discharge…
As Henry Bowman and Russ Bixby have vehemently pointed out above, does that rule still apply if the discharge is in defense of self? Florida’s law about intoxication has a line that specifically says “this doesn’t apply in cases of self defense.”
Y’know, I might just have to rethink my stance on Florida.
I’ve said it before, Florida has about the most rational gun laws of anyplace I know of, save possibly the places that are constitutional carry and have effectively no laws at all. They still get campus carry wrong, though.
Aaaahhh…I LOVE reading articles and posts from intellectually challenged people who don’t know THE TRUTH but still make comments. Keep it up! I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. What a bunch of boneheads!!!
Well…the truth will come out when she has to tell the Judge the story! Will she throw her beloved under the bus? It was his house & his gun…Now go figure…Sad story of S&M?
Her place and her gun, a$$wipe. Or maybe it’s her job to just take being beaten, like a good li’l girl?
Amazing how many women hate women. The religious Wrong has done its job too damned well.