A St. Paul Minnesota woman is facing second-degree assault charges for shooting her ex-boyfriend after he followed her into her apartment and threatened her. According to the Twin Cities Pioneer Press, 36-year-old Gloria Shalaya Phillips attempted to break up with her boyfriend earlier in the day, but he threatened to kill her if she went to the police.
When Phillips returned to her apartment, he followed her in. She ran to her bedroom, barricading herself inside. Phillips told him to leave the premises twice or she would shoot him. When he began to pound on the door, she fired two 9mm rounds through the door at him, the outlet indicated.
The ex-boyfriend was taken to a nearby hospital in critical condition.
Phillip’s two sons, 19 and 12, witnessed the events unfold. They both indicated their mother was afraid of the man. What’s ironic is that Phillips followed advice doled out by none other than President Joe Biden himself.
Back in 2013, Biden told Field and Stream magazine that gun owners should shoot would-be perpetrators “through the door” as an act of self-defense:
F&S: What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?
V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is–I think most scholars would say–is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.
That same year Biden reiterated the advice, saying double-barrel shotguns are more effective AR-15s for self-defense and shooting a few rounds through a door would deter criminals.
“If there’s ever a problem, just walk out, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,” Biden said during an official White House video. “I promise you, whoever is coming in is not going to.”
“You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and, in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself,” he said. “Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”
After this video was filmed, multiple Delaware attorneys told U.S. News and World Report that “in Biden’s home state it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. Shooting a gun in the air could result in felony reckless endangering and aggravated menacing charges, in addition to misdemeanor charges.”
Gloria Phillips feared for her life. Her ex-boyfriend allegedly threatened to kill her. She had every reason to fire her weapon, including the imminent fear necessary to use deadly force. If she didn’t use the shotgun to defend herself, she could have been the one on the ambulance stretcher.
Phillips is being punished for defending herself in her own home. She didn’t shoot a gun recklessly outside her home as Biden suggested in the past. She literally utilized her firearm for one of its primary functions: self-defense.
Imagine the charges she’d be facing if she’d negligently fired outside her home and hit an innocent bystander. It’s highly unlikely using “The President of the United States told me this is what I should do” would hold up in a court of law.
Fortunately for her, the prosecutor will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she did NOT act in self defense.
It sounds like the woman is of limited means, meaning, most likely relying on a severely overloaded public defender.
In that kind of ‘balance’, her odds aren’t very good.
I hope organizations can mobilize to help her legal defense…
And a public prosecutor who wants to score political points for being “tough on crime”.
“the prosecutor will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she did NOT act in self defense”
easy burden – if she shot through a door, that’s prima facie evidence that she was not in imminent danger. she’ll wind up having to demonstrate that she was in imminent danger despite the fact that he was on the other side of the door. that’ll be tough.
Correct. At this point, she should just say “i did exactly what Joe Biden told me to” and rest her case. The media the trial will get will be off the hook. It will be a circus, and get a mistrial.
The guy had already proven he was willing to force his way in through one entrance. Any reasonable person would assume an interior door would provide little or no protection at that point.
“an interior door would provide little or no protection at that point”
incorrect articulation. you mean it could not stop him if he were determined, and that’s true. but the fact is that he was still on the other side of the door (and apparently had no weapon), and thus any threat to her was not imminent.
Yeah, no. He was inside her apartment and had access to her children. Your advice is good if she fired through the FRONT door.
Oh, no.
You are here, now to annoy us?
if you think I’m annoying, you’re gonna have a conniption fit over the prosecutor if you’re ever on trial for this sort of thing.
Given the information in this article, I am clueless as to why this woman was charged with anything at all. Second-degree assault when she was in fear of her life and the boyfriend has already threatened to kill her? WTF?
Yeah, I’m scratching my head too.
Seems pretty clear cut.
Minnesota is barely 2A friendly. Full-auto is legal only for special considered collectible weapons like you would find in a museum.
SBRs are legal, but not short-barrel shotties, unless also collectable.
Yeah, over charge can be mitigated by refusal to cave. No, I will not plead, and I’ll have a speedy jury trial, thank you very much. I’m ready now. The prosecutor will drop the charges, he cannot win.
The ride is the punishment.
Just as in UK, where it is said cops will send tickets for littering to car owners involved in a vehicle accident, our masters can put us through the ringer for discharging a firearm in self-defense in a municipality.
Here mistake was arming herself with a 9mm pistol rather than a shotgun. Imagine firing a double barrel shotgun chambered for 12 gauge 3&1/2 cartridges loaded with #4 buckshot. That is 54 projectiles per round or 108 total. Of course the recoil of simultaneously firing both barrels would be brutal.
Still significantly less recoil than an AR-14. Remember, they are hard to hold, hard to aim, difficult to use. You’re the first person I’ve ever heard as describing the recoil of 3-½” loads as being “brutal.” Come on man…
I suppose for self defense a 3-1/2 is okay.
Its been my experience when hunting a 10 gauge gives you a better pattern. They dont seem to kick as hard either.
I bet if she were a man pretending to be a woman the State would not only not file charges, but file additional charges against the man and the hail the “woman” as hero who triumphed in the face of a hate attack.
If the guy was black american and the transformer was a hindu, whooie whoo wah.
She should have never been charged at all!! If I feel my life or my families life is in possible danger and someone is banging on my door, I can care less if its inside the house, the front door, back door or a window, they will get shot. And I’m not going to wait amd see or ask if they have a weapon. And I could also care less what gun or ammo would be brutal to use. If they are threatening my life or my family then they will get whatever I have. No matter if its brutal or not!!
these sorts of statements get read to juries in a courtroom.
Yay for common sense! Too bad it isn’t very common. If someone – anyone – tells me to get out of their home, or they’ll shoot me, I’m not hanging around long enough to hear the “shoot me” part.
If my own wife told me to get out, or she’s going to shoot me, the only thing she’s going to hear are my boots clomping on the porch, and then my truck starting up.
I can come back for the truck later.
Shalaya? Apparently not, Shalaya out!
“Woman Facing Serious Charges for Defending Herself Using Joe Biden’s Self Defense Advice”
perhaps she can call the chief law enforcement official of the united states as a subject matter expert ….
Sorry, common sense (and most if not all state law) says don’t shoot through a closed door.
“don’t shoot through a closed door”
yeah, that’s prima facie evidence that her life was not in imminent danger ….
“. . .can’t tell if serious. . .”
For both of you, as I can’t determine if ant7 is being facetious, it is eminently justifiable to shoot through a closed door at a clear and articulable imminent threat that lies beyond said door and that is diligently and forcefully attempting to breach said closed and secured door with the intent to cause serious injury or death, especially when said door is an interior door into a room from which there is no other immediate practical means of egress (windows don’t count) AND, as being part of one’s ‘castle,’ there being no legal necessity to retreat therefrom.
All of these factors came into play, here–as far as we know. This was not a ‘shooting through a locked, secure, well-built external door at an unknown person not offering an immediate threat’ situation; A householder CAN prevent an imminent entry by a viable threat if not doing so would allow the viable imminent threat (attacker) to actually enter the premises and possibly complete the attack.
This passes the ‘reasonable man’ test readily.
The bedroom door doesn’t matter, it could have easily as been, ” shot through the couch, refrigerator, tv, whatever. The guy was Inside The House, threatening bodily harm.
What matters is once again the cops pull up in their meat wagon and hauled the guy off.
.
“Hey Mom, is Dad going to feed us tonight?”
Dude, she needs to wait till the door is breached before shooting. It is pretty simple. The door, no matter how fragile, is a barrier. She can’t see through it, nor identify what else she will hit. She could have shot him before she shut the door, or wait till he busts in. Just not through it. Easy to sit in the corner, aim and wait for the breach…
We must, of course, agree to disagree.
I find for the defense. Case dismissed with prejudice.
“it is eminently justifiable to shoot through a closed door at a clear and articulable imminent threat that lies beyond said door”
sure. but it’s the “imminent” thing that’s gonna be tough to articulate.
Try this one; Whatever the circumstances, she must not empty her weapon through the door, save several shots for defense if he breaks down the door, so you can properly aim. If your arm holds 20-30 rounds, blaze away!
John Choi is the Prosecuting attorney for Ramsey County who claims to be a leader in stopping violence against women. As If…John Choi was sworn in as the first Korean-American chief prosecutor in the country in 2011. Since taking office, John has become a state and national leader in progressive justice reform, working with public officials and impacted communities to reimagine justice and the role of prosecutors. John’s innovative approach to holding abusers accountable, while working collaboratively with advocacy agencies to help victims, has transformed the way government intervenes in domestic violence and sex trafficking in Minnesota. John is now determined to do the same for victims of sexual assault. In addition, John has been a champion of raising boys and engaging men to prevent violence against women and girls; successfully advanced legislation to reunite families when it’s in foster children’s best interest; developed the use of lethality assessments and GPS technology to keep domestic violence victims safe; increased second chances by diverting people before they are charged; successfully advocated to reform state drug laws and reinvest savings in community-based solutions; and established a Veterans Court. John serves on the boards of the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Mitchell Hamline School of Law, is past president of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association and past trustee for the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota.
John received the 2015 Minnesota County Attorneys Association Award of Excellence for his innovative leadership in better prosecuting sex traffickers and helping trafficked children. Previously, John served as Saint Paul City Attorney (2006-2010) and spent a decade in private practice. John holds a bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Marquette University, a J.D. from Hamline University School of Law, and was a Humphrey Fellow at the University of Minnesota.
Fill his Email with requests for an explanation of his failure in this case.
“reimagine justice and the role of prosecutors”
sounds soviet.
It sounds like we need to “work” at reminding him of the things he said during his campaign.
It’s only after a women has been the victim of violence that he supports them. You have to read the fine print.
developed the use of lethality assessments and GPS technology to keep domestic violence victims safe
Translation: Tells battered women they’re not in that much danger, and anyway, they have no need to defend themselves because the state is “tracking” that stalker — which only means they’ll know exactly where to pick up the suspect AFTER he’s murdered you.
increased second chances by diverting people before they are charged…
Translation: Refuses to prosecute criminals if they have the right skin color and/or the correct politics.
Results: The incarceration rate is down significantly in Ramsey County since 2013, when Choi took office. When he began, crime was at an all-time low; since then, the crime rate in Ramsey county has risen steadily.
This is what “social justice” looks like.
I did not notice any mention of signs of results of his oh so progressive efforts, are fewer women being murdered and raped in his jurisdiction since his rise to power? Because all that sounded like “look at me!” gibberish, claiming all manner of eyewash but not any actual results.
Charging her with a crime is just typical for a woman being attacked by a nutcase ex spouse or other former significant lover type.
My only question would be did she know where the kids were? The news story does not specify. So long as she knew where the kids were, as in outside the line of fire, then shooting thru the closed door sounds perfectly reasonable in this case.
In some other case it may not be reasonable. But here we have a man who had made violent and murderous threats and to any reasonable person was now actively trying to do same. The bullet hit him under the right armpit? Could be he was throwing his weight into the door, try to bust it down from his right shoulder. So, he’s up against the door, she knows she is and if he gets thru it she’s a goner.
She absolutely acted correctly in defense of her life and her childrens’ lives.
WAY TO GO MOM!!!!
Her biggest expense now should be cleaning products for the mess. Perhaps a new door.
Charging her with a crime is just typical for a woman being attacked by a nutcase ex spouse or other former significant lover type.
Lol you agree with everything the state is trying to charge this women with. Nice try but no one is buying jt.
While I wouldn’t advocate shooting through a door, we don’t know the details, and they could make all the difference. If it’s an interior door it’s probably a hollow core that isn’t a particular deterrent to someone who’s determined. He could have been pulling a “Here’s Johnny!” and already been halfway through it when she shot “through” the door.
“cleaning products for the mess”
there are companies that deal with this, heard them advertising on the radio. call it “death restoration” or something, they deal with all the stains and odors.
aftermath. used them twice, when roger beat nancy’s head in with a hammer and when natalie stabbed herself to death in the kitchen.
sounds like you have a clue game going on at your place.
Forget the new door, when you date someone again you can point out the holes and explain how they got there, should avoid future problems.
She’s no good to the narrative having defended herself. She’d have more value to the power structure had she been assaulted, raped or killed. Now she’ll pay the price for her audacity.
The president of the United States Joe Biden should be subpoenaed and forced to testify in court. Just as President John Kennedy and Bill Clinton were subpoenaed and forced to testify in court. Let Justice be served. No one is above the law. Including the president of the United States.
Her lawyers need to get busy. Let the PR campaign begin.
If she resided in MS, she would not be facing any charges whatsoever. Her assailant, however would be spending a very long time in a MS slam, if he survived.
Quoting MS Law.
Ҥ 97-3-15. Homicide; justifiable homicide; use of defensive force; duty to retreat.
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When committed by public officers, or those acting by their aid and assistance, in obedience to any judgment of a competent court;
(b) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or to the discharge of any other legal duty;
(c) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in retaking any felon who has been rescued or has escaped;
(d) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in arresting any felon fleeing from justice;
(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;
(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
(g) When necessarily committed in attempting by lawful ways and means to apprehend any person for any felony committed;
(h) When necessarily committed in lawfully suppressing any riot or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace; and
(i) When necessarily committed in the performance of duty as a member of a church or place of worship security program as described in Section 45-9-171.
(2)
(a) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section, the term “when necessarily committed” means that a public officer or a person acting by or at the officer’s command, aid or assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the offender’s resistance, preventing the offender’s escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The public officer or person acting by or at the officer’s command may act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender’s resistance, preventing the offender’s escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm.
(b) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section the term “felon” shall include an offender who has been convicted of a felony and shall also include an offender who is in custody, or whose custody is being sought, on a charge or for an offense which is punishable, upon conviction, by death or confinement in the Penitentiary.
(c) As used in subsections (1)(e) and (3) of this section, “dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any attached porch.
(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person’s will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person’s failure to retreat as evidence that the person’s use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.
(5)
(a) The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense.
(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated “not guilty” of any crime by reason of subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from the same conduct.”
The key to her defense is how weak interior doors usually are. Anyone with half a brain understands that a typical male can quickly force his way through a typical interior door of a home. Her bedroom was not a fortified safe room. Given the probability that she was not an expert markswoman and would have needed a dozen or more seconds to achieve the multiple hits that would probably be needed to incapacitate her assailant. The only protection that the door offered was the time needed to shoot him.
Was this woman an African-American? If so we should be more eager to rally to her defense because she is at much greater risk of being murdered by her abusive partner.
She is an African-American!
https://www.facebook.com/CrimeWatchStPaul/posts/gloria-shalaya-phillips-36-in-custody-following-a-shooting-at-23xx-11th-ave-in-n/1801955156677554/
The prosecutor should be publicly flogged.
Read the Fakebook comments (as with anything fakebook you’ll be dumber).
John Mcafee did not kill himself. There I said it.
“John Mcafee did not kill himself. There I said it.”
Who, or what, is John Mcafee? And why should POTG care? Was a firearm involved in not killing himself?
A government that will kill Epstein or Mcafee in their prison cell, is a great example of why you need the 2A.
“A government that will kill Epstein or Mcafee in their prison cell, is a great example of why you need the 2A.”
“Waco” was/is the object lesson for why the Second Amendment was ratified.
You are correct. Also Ruby Ridge is also another reason for why we have the 2A.
The question is,,, was she a Christian?
What part of no didn’t her boyfriend understand? If you have to bang on a door and go through a peeing contest for entry perhaps it ain’t working and time to stay the f away…far away.
Read the article, not TAGS spin. He had keys, she shot him. The rest of the “facts” are statements made by her after the fact. There may be way more going on with this.
“There may be way more going on with this”
there always is.
It somewhat depends on the boyfriends legal access to the apartment, if he did indeed have keys.
I can’t speak to Minnesota’s law, but in West Virginia attempted forced entry justifies lethal force in self-defense:
“WEST VIRGINIA CODE
CHAPTER 55. ACTIONS, SUITS AND ARBITRATION; JUDICIAL SALE.
ARTICLE 7. ACTIONS FOR INJURIES.
§55-7-22. Civil relief for persons resisting certain criminal activities.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder’s or attacker’s unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.“
In West Virginia it is understood that if an individual attempts to force entry by breaking or destruction of property, one may assume fear of imminent bodily harm and employ lethal self-defense.
uh, no. “reasonably apprehend” is not at all the same as “may assume fear of imminent bodily harm”.
She should have never been charged at all!! If I feel my life or my families life is in possible danger and someone is banging on my door, I can care less if its inside the house, the front door, back door or a window, they will get shot. And I’m not going to wait amd see or ask if they have a weapon. And I could also care less what gun or ammo would be brutal to use. If they are threatening my life or my family then they will get whatever I have. No matter if its brutal or not!!
Is Biden still hot to take his double barrel shotgun out on the balcony and fire both barrels? By the way, what would likely happen if Mr. or Mrs. Ordinary American did as he suggested?
Well, I see all the jailhouse lawyers are expounding on matters about which they know not.
Is anybody posting actually a criminal defense attorney in Minnesota? I thought not.