Armed Grandmother Takes on Home Intruder
“I tried to kill him,” she said.
A Texas grandmother named Rebbie Roberson was minding her business in her own home Sunday night when an uninvited intruder appeared. Luckily for Roberson, she was armed and ready.
CNN reports:
Pistol-packing grandma turns tables on armed intruder
Rebbie Roberson wasn’t having it.
A man wearing a mask and gloves was standing in her house after he broke in Sunday night.
“When I started to get up, he was in here on me with a gun facing me right to my face,” she told CNN affiliate KSLA.
But the 74-year-old grandmother from Bowie County, Texas, had something for him.
“I reached over there (a nearby table) and grabbed this gun. And when I swerved around, I pointed it at him and he ran.”
As the intruder hightailed it out of her house, Roberson gave chase, firing her .38-caliber revolver at the fleeing man.
“I tried to kill him,” she said. “Anybody break in on me, I’m going to kill them. He’s going to kill me or I’m going to kill him.”
Authorities don’t know if Roberson hit the man, but they are searching for him. And Roberson won’t be in trouble with the law.
“Every citizen, according to the Texas penal code, has the right to defend themselves and their family,” Bowie County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Jeff Neal told KSLA.
It was the first time — and she hopes the last — that Roberson ever had to use her weapon.
Here’s a video report from ABC News:
This is the feel-good story of the day.
Imagine what a different outcome this story could have had if Ms. Roberson was not armed. When she finally noticed the intruder, she was practically face-to-face with him. There wouldn’t have been any time to call the police.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Don’t break in to people’s houses in North Texas…that was a nice looking 38
If the race of the criminal was the wrong one, the Obama justice department would be all over this.
Maybe our resident self defense law expert can correct me, but my take is getting in front of a camera after the fact is about the dumbest thing you can do.
Initial statement: “I’m extremely shaken and need a few hours to compose myself.
If pressed…”I’m extremely shaken and need to compose myself.”
Follow up statement: (with my Attorney in the loop before I speak): Short, factual.
Then no accident fake news network ABC goaded her to say what she said in front of their malignant cameras.
There’s no upside for her to say what she said on camera. The police are only ones you need to talk to and they only need to know what happened in factual terms and that you deemed you were in imminent life threatening danger. STFU before and after that.
Shooting at a fleeing suspect will get you in a heap ‘o trouble in my state.
In any state. I’d be surprised if it’s OK even in Texas.
The back end of a fleeing miscreant isn’t a threat. Therefore, no concept of self-defense can be relevant.
“The back end of a fleeing miscreant isn’t a threat.”
Tell that to all the people injured or killed by a “fleeing miscreant” who then fired a parting shot at them, or merely fled for cover and then continued the attack from a more fortified position.
“Therefore, no concept of self-defense can be relevant.”
Think again.
Speaking of which, in 2015 an acquaintance of mine was the target of an attempted carjacking as he returned home and was pulling his vehicle into the garage. He was shot through the left bicep when he did not comply quickly enough, so he pulled his licensed 40 caliber pistol and returned fire, initially missing in his haste. The perp suddenly recalled that he had an urgent appointment elsewhere and ran back to jump in the car driven by his accomplice in the street. My acquaintance continued to fire at the “fleeing miscreant” and hit the perp twice. Perp’s body was found two days later, dumped on a country road. Acquaintance was not charged after being interviewed by a police officer and a judge, because a “fleeing” armed assailant within the length of your driveway is still an imminent threat.
Nope, in Texas it is lawful to use deadly force to stop a fleeing burglar — if he took anything. If he’s fleeing emptyhanded then as far as I know it’s not lawful to stop him, but I might not know enough. What I do know is that Tennessee v Garner only struck down the common-law fleeing felon rule for state actors, not for private people. If a state still has the rule on the books, which would seem to be the case in Texas, then it’s lawful for you and me, but not for the cops.
Same gun my grandma from Texas carries. 😐
Get em granny
Don’t mess with Texas women! They will hurt you!
Just a note: this thug was aware that the home was occupied and who by. He’d done his scouting, which implicates an intent not simply to steal but to rape and worse.
No Texas jury…given a half decent lawyer…would convict this lady.
Well, there’s the rub… are there any half-decent lawyers in Texas?
Hahahahahaha.
Ask Texaco’s NY attorneys if they have heard of the term ‘tortious interference’ that the houston boy schooled them on…..
Joe Jamail…Houston legend, but one of many really talented trial advocates.
There are quite a few at least 9/10 decent trial attorneys in Texas.
(Actually, I’ve had the privilege of knowing some trial attorneys that were also some of the finest people I’ve ever met.)
“He’s going to kill me or I’m going to kill him.”
“There wouldn’t have been any time to call the police.”
These are alien concepts in my state. A state that is full of, um, smart people…or so I hear.
Aleister and Andrew Branca know what I mean.
Chasing someone to shoot them is stupid. It OK to kill their ass if they are in your place but do not pursue.
Under NC’s castle doctrine, if robbed, you can drive over to the perp’s house and shoot him in the bathtub if you want.
Only up to 7 days after the robbery, I mean. We’re not animals.
That’s the “clean perp” doctrine from the hills, right, Hawkins…???
Whut works we does.