Lakisha Gaither, 35, fired a single round into the air from her lawfully owned firearm over the weekend in an effort to scare away a group of boys who were attacking her 15-year-old daughter, Brianna Stewart. Brianna has since gone missing and Gaither is frantically searching for her daughter as she prepares for her arraignment on October 30. That’s right, she was charged for shooting into the air in a state that loves guns!
Around 10 boys had followed Gaither and her daughter into the parking lot of their apartment complex in Woodbridge, Virginia, last Saturday night following a dispute between Brianna and another teen girl. The boys shouted insults at the the women, so Brianna stood up to them. That’s when, according to Gaither, one of the boys grabbed Brianna’s shirt and punched her in the face, striking her repeatedly. Fearing that she would be outnumbered if she put herself in the middle of the encounter, Gaither, who has an open carry license, reached for her gun.
“I stopped and turned to walk to the middle of the parking lot. I made sure no one was around me,” Gaither told the Washington Times. “I unholstered my gun, pointed it straight in the air and fired just one shot to get him off my child.”
“I didn’t feel like I was wrong,” she added. “I wanted to protect my child.”
When Prince William County police arrived, they arrested Gaither and charged her with reckless use of a weapon, a misdemeanor, despite no resulting injuries or property damage.
The Washington Times reports:
Prince William County police spokesman Officer Jonathan L. Perok said Ms. Gaither “should have called police instead of taking matters into her own hands.”
“You can’t fire into the air,” Officer Perok said. “Once something goes up, it comes down. There’s the possibility of causing property damage, injuring someone or killing someone. In an apartment complex, the odds of that bullet coming down and striking something are very high.”
That is a major contradiction given that in Virginia, there have been cases where armed civilians have fired, not in the air, but at actual human beings and faced no charges.
In March, not far from where Gaither lives, 16-year-old Caleb Gordley was shot and killed by a neighbor two doors down from him. Caleb was grounded that night and had snuck out of his house to attend a party, where he and his friends were drinking. He walked back home a couple hours later but mistook his neighbor’s house for his own (the houses are nearly identical) and he climbed into what he believed was his back window. Thinking Caleb was an intruder, the homeowner grabbed his gun, fired a warning shot and yelled for Caleb to stop. But Caleb brushed right past him. The homeowner then fired several more times at the teen, killing him. Loudoun County police chalked it up to a “tragic set of circumstances” and no charges were ever filed.
Did the homeowner act appropriately? I suppose it’s a gray area worthy of debate. I am personally against conceal carry laws and believe armed citizens make all of us less safe, but that’s a discussion for another time. My more immediate point is that there seems to be a pattern of denying women, particularly black women, the same right to self-defense as men, particularly white men.
For example, Marissa Alexander, a black Florida mother, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot into the air during a violent argument with her abusive and estranged husband. Though she was recently granted a new trial (only after a public campaign demanded it) the courts continue to deny her request to invoke a Stand Your Ground defense. In stark contrast, the same prosecutor who successfully put Alexander behind bars failed to put up the same fight against George Zimmerman, who was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin. Keep in mind that Alexander fired into the air while Zimmerman fired into an unarmed black teen.
Another example is Shannon Anthony Scott, a South Carolina man who was granted Stand Your Ground immunity earlier this month after shooting at a car full of teen girls who he says were harassing his teenage daughter. He missed and hit a black teen bystander by mistake, killing him. Scott not only failed to tell police that he had fired his gun that night, he waited four days before turning himself in. Yet he is home free.
Of course the racial disparities in the application of Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws go beyond gender. Look no further than the case of John McNeil for proof. And the statistics agree: white-on-black homicide 11 times more likely to be found justified than black-on-white. Still, cases like Marissa Alexander’s and now Lakisha Gaither’s illustrate that for black female bodies, self-defense is NEVER an option.
Meanwhile, Gaither is worried sick about her daughter. NBC 4 Washington reports:
Several hours after the incident and fearing for her daughter’s life, Gaither asked her mother to take Stewart for the night.
Sunday around 8:30 a.m., Gaither said her mother called her and told her Stewart was nowhere to be found. No one has seen or heard from Stewart since that morning.
“I don’t know where she [is],” Gaither said, fighting back tears. “I don’t know if she’s OK; I don’t know if she’s safe; I don’t know if she’s hurt. There’s been no activity on her Facebook.”
Stewart is 5’9″, weighs 160 pounds and has dimples on her cheeks.
Last month, an 18-year-old Woodbridge student was found stabbed to death in a park slightly more than two miles from where the confrontation involving Stewart and her mother happened. Several arrests have been made in the death of Kenny Diaz, a varsity football player at Woodbridge High School.
Let’s all hope Brianna makes it home safe and unharmed.

15-year-old Brianna Stewart (NBC Washington)
If you had meant to write an accurate and fair-minded article, you would have mentioned that self-defense laws are entirely, repeat entirely, different in cases where an intruder enters a building without permission (isuch as burglary) and when people meet outside.
Comparing such disparate circumstances as if they are the same is awful reporting.
If you had meant to write an accurate and fair-minded article, you would have mentioned that self-defense laws are entirely, repeat entirely, different in cases where an intruder enters a building without permission (isuch as burglary) and when people meet outside.
Comparing such disparate circumstances as if they are the same is awful reporting.
re: “That is a major contradiction given that in Virginia, there have been cases where armed civilians have fired, not in the air, but at actual human beings and faced no charges.”
Actually, there is no contradiction. A warning shot is a random untargeted shot whereas shooting at a person is not. To uncover any racial or sexual bias, you have to compare how different people are treated after firing warning shots. Sadly, the justice system frowns on warning shots.
re: “That is a major contradiction given that in Virginia, there have been cases where armed civilians have fired, not in the air, but at actual human beings and faced no charges.”
Actually, there is no contradiction. A warning shot is a random untargeted shot whereas shooting at a person is not. To uncover any racial or sexual bias, you have to compare how different people are treated after firing warning shots. Sadly, the justice system frowns on warning shots.
Who said “Justice” is fair or We are all “EQUAL UNDER THE LAW” ?
Trayvon Martin shot dead: Police say there’s no evidence to dispute claim that neighbourhood watch … http://bit.ly/zAyQyH via @DailyMailUS
Welcome to the real world,,, Some are more “equal” than others !!!
Who said “Justice” is fair or We are all “EQUAL UNDER THE LAW” ?
Trayvon Martin shot dead: Police say there’s no evidence to dispute claim that neighbourhood watch … http://bit.ly/zAyQyH via @DailyMailUS
Welcome to the real world,,, Some are more “equal” than others !!!
Reblogged this on Tess Powell Out Loud.
Reblogged this on InnerStanding Isness and commented:
Black Va. Woman Arrested After Firing Gun Into Air To Scare Off Daughter’s Attackers
Reblogged this on InnerStanding Isness and commented:
Black Va. Woman Arrested After Firing Gun Into Air To Scare Off Daughter’s Attackers
Reblogged this on Black Supremacy Love and Unity.
Reblogged this on Black Supremacy Love and Unity.
The comparisons to support your argument were poorly choosen, however I do agree that to arrest and charge the mother in that circumstance is utterly preposterous!!!!! Other than shoot the attacker, she had no other option. If she called the police, what was she to do in the meantime,watch her daughter be assulted and possibly be assaulted herself? Women…what would you have done in the exact same circumstances? I think I would have done the same.
The comparisons to support your argument were poorly choosen, however I do agree that to arrest and charge the mother in that circumstance is utterly preposterous!!!!! Other than shoot the attacker, she had no other option. If she called the police, what was she to do in the meantime,watch her daughter be assulted and possibly be assaulted herself? Women…what would you have done in the exact same circumstances? I think I would have done the same.
Does anyone actually take the time to think out why firing a shot into the air is a bad thing? Here’s a hint. Bullets don’t just shoot off into space when you fire them into the air. They come back down to earth, usually going at velocities that can maim or kill a person if it hits them. Firing into the air is reckless, especially when you’re in a metropolitan area. In essence, a warning shot fired “harmlessly” into the air is akin to shooting the gun “harmlessly” into traffic. Just because you’re not aiming at a specific target doesn’t mean that the bullet can’t cause injury.
If you’re going to carry a lethal weapon on your person, you have to be ready to take another person’s life. If you really feel like you can’t kill someone who is a real threat to your life and well-being, you shouldn’t be carrying a gun or a knife.
” Other than shoot the attacker, she had no other option. … Women…what would you have done in the exact same circumstances? I think I would have done the same.”
I would have shot the attacker. If he is violently assaulting my loved one, he has become a viable threat. I wouldn’t shoot into the air, because that could cause harm to a completely innocent person. Instead, I would have taken the action that would have had the best chance of stopping the attacker. My girlfriend would have done the exact same thing I would do.
“That is a major contradiction given that in Virginia, there have been cases where armed civilians have fired, not in the air, but at actual human beings and faced no charges.”
That’s not a contradiction, that’s just basic liability law. If you’re firing at an attacker, you know exactly where you’re trying to aim. If you fire into the air, you have absolutely no idea where that bullet is going to come down. In the case of firing at an attacker, you’re shooting at a person who is knowingly causing bodily harm that can result in death. Why a person should be punished for shooting at someone who can potentially kill them while they should get off scot-free for endangering innocent people confounds me.
“For example, Marissa Alexander, a black Florida mother, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot into the air during a violent argument with her abusive and estranged husband.”
If you’re using this as an example of the corruption of the system, you should probably do more research into the case. She didn’t “fire a warning shot” because she was in fear for her life, she left the premises to get her gun, returned, then fired through a wall into the living room where her husband and children were in. Those bullets came close to hitting her own children.
” Keep in mind that Alexander fired into the air while Zimmerman fired into an unarmed black teen.”
Correction, Alexander fired into through a wall into the living room where her husband and children were, while Zimmerman fired at Martin, who was beating his face into the ground at the time.
In addition, if you honestly think that being “unarmed” means that you’re rendered incapable of inflicting potentially lethal bodily harm, you are ignorant of how unarmed combat works. Furthermore, why was the boy beating Brianna considered such a threat if being “unarmed” meant they were harmless? This is a classic double-standard.
There is a lot out there to show how minorities and lower-class citizens are actively being oppressed by the United States government, but to pretend that someone getting charged for endangering the lives of innocent people is because of their race is to ignore the basic facts of self defense.
What was the girls mom supposed to do….continue to stand by and let her daughter get beaten while waiting for the cops to get there? The girl could have been dead by then. A jury will let the
mom go.
What was the girls mom supposed to do….continue to stand by and let her daughter get beaten while waiting for the cops to get there? The girl could have been dead by then. A jury will let the
mom go.
@BureauBaggins…I am well aware of the dangers of shooting a gun into the air. While in the military serving in Texas, while making Thanksgiving dinner I had a slug from a 44 magnum come through my roof and hit the table only inches from where I was sitting. However under the circumstances this mother was faced with, I would have done the same thing.. Her daughters attacker apparently was also young, so rather than kill another child, I would have first attempted to frighten him off. If that failed, then I in all likelihood would have shot to kill.
It’s appalling that members of our society have such little value for life, that we think it’s ok under any circumstances to kill someone as long as we can satisfy our ever increasing low standards for use of deadly force. Reminder….Our society once lived through such times,they’re often refereed to as “The wild wild west”. However after countless tragic losses of life for reason little more than a heated argument, our generations before us decided that this was behavior unbefitting of a civilized society, so we enacted laws and gun regulations severely limiting such uses of deadly force,in hopes that when loved ones went out to the saloon for gambling and drink on the weekends he was more likely to come home alive, as opposed to lying dead on the back of some strangers buckboard. Someone once warned us to heed the lessons of history, or risk repeating it’s errors.
Again I understand both your own and the officers concern for discharging a weapon, however under the circumstances I would have counciled the mother on the dangers of such discharging of a weapon, but taking in her circumstances would neither issue a citation or made an arrest. It just seems to me to be the reasonable and rational thing to do.
I fail completely to see how endangering the lives of everyone within a few square miles of the area is somehow morally superior to taking direct action against someone who is beating your daughters face in.
Had that been happening to my daughter, I would have done everything to try to stop the conflict non-violently, but if I had to draw my gun I would have been prepared to use lethal force. The ONLY time you draw a gun during a conflict is when you’re prepared to take a life. If drawing it scares off the attacker and ends the conflict, then all the better. But the line is drawn at firing at an unknown target because she didn’t want to use lethal force on the person who is being a direct threat to her and her daughters safety.
Personally, I can’t force myself to care about the attackers age over anything else. I don’t see violent crime committed by a young person to be any less bad than violent crime committed by a mature adult.
Before I get a storm of strawman arguments accusing me of being willing to kill a small child because they were being violent, note that, as before, you can only use lethal force on someone who is a viable threat to your life or the life of another innocent person. If that (assumed) 15 year old was a viable threat to the life of my loved one, I won’t take it easy on them because they’re 3 years under the legal definition of an adult. If someone has the capability and will to take the life of another person, I don’t see why I have to treat them any differently because of their age.
“It’s appalling that members of our society have such little value for life, that we think it’s ok under any circumstances to kill someone as long as we can satisfy our ever increasing low standards for use of deadly force.”
I still fail to understand how using deadly force against someone who is BEATING MY DAUGHTER’S FACE IN is so “appalling” while shooting into a populated area full of innocent people is 100% morally justified.
The legal standard for being justified in using lethal force, once again, is defined as having reason to believe that the party on which lethal force is used presents a viable and immediate threat to the life and well being of an innocent person. How that qualifies for “ok under any circumstances” I fail to see.
Furthermore, it was 10 people against 2. I don’t see how 5:1 odds count towards “low standards”. Being outnumbered in a fight is one of the most sure ways of attaining mortal injuries.
” However after countless tragic losses of life for reason little more than a heated argument, our generations before us decided that this was behavior unbefitting of a civilized society, so we enacted laws and gun regulations severely limiting such uses of deadly force”
Long before the era of the “wild wild west” started, even before America was founded, European society had already established that murder is illegal except in cases where the other party was acting in a way that could cause harm.
Furthermore, the “wild wild west” as we know it was only an invention of Hollywood. The settlement of the west wasn’t characterized by people getting shot left and right because of saloon fights like you see in movies, it was actually rather non-violent.
“Again I understand both your own and the officers concern for discharging a weapon, however under the circumstances I would have counciled the mother on the dangers of such discharging of a weapon, but taking in her circumstances would neither issue a citation or made an arrest. It just seems to me to be the reasonable and rational thing to do.”
I’m not saying that I would have arrested her or charged her either. I am, however, tired of people acting like discharging a weapon in a populated area is OK, and getting mad when someone is charged for endangerment. I especially hate it when people act like those who endanger the lives of innocent people have the moral high ground against those who take direct action against the person who is consciously acting in a way that could result in the death of an innocent person.
With her daughter in danger and having been attacked there should have been action taken on that part right away regardless of the shooting, even Police Officers have bad shootings. Why is there not more focus on the important facts like where is she and who are the attackers or what do the Police plan to do about those two items. If the boys have kidnapped the young lady and are allowed to get away with an even more heinous crime then mom’s shooting a gun in the air they need to be looked at for negligence. Sorry guys but protect the public from scum first then falling lead, the chances are greater that the gang will hurt more people on purpose then a tiny piece aimlessly falling. Teach the lady to kill the assailants next time.
not gonna belabor the point, we obviously will not agree. In my opinion our society is not helped by the proliferation of guns and people so willing to use them. Growing up in an inner city I have seen too often children killed for overreaction. Children are immature and do stupid things, when they get into arguements they may get violent, as an adult I have grown past the point of reacting without forethought. My instinct and compassion for life would guide me to first try and ward off an attacker with out killing them, which is what this mother did. The risk of hurting someone by firing in the air has vastly different odds of maiming or killing someone as opposed to aiming at a child and shooting to kill for a first response. But I know we see this differently, so my only hope at this point is that your opinion is of the minority.
@Rania, It’s not that I’m not or even less concerned about the daughters disappearance than the arrest issue. I’m just assuming and hoping that the Police and other authorities are out trying to actively find this woman’s daughter. My first instinct is that there is more to her disappearance than stated in the article. I think the daughter in all likelihood is ok, and with a friend. It’s usually how these things play out, and I pray that is the case now.
With her daughter in danger and having been attacked there should have been action taken on that part right away regardless of the shooting, even Police Officers have bad shootings. Why is there not more focus on the important facts like where is she and who are the attackers or what do the Police plan to do about those two items. If the boys have kidnapped the young lady and are allowed to get away with an even more heinous crime then mom’s shooting a gun in the air they need to be looked at for negligence. Sorry guys but protect the public from scum first then falling lead, the chances are greater that the gang will hurt more people on purpose then a tiny piece aimlessly falling. Teach the lady to kill the assailants next time.
@Rania, It’s not that I’m not or even less concerned about the daughters disappearance than the arrest issue. I’m just assuming and hoping that the Police and other authorities are out trying to actively find this woman’s daughter. My first instinct is that there is more to her disappearance than stated in the article. I think the daughter in all likelihood is ok, and with a friend. It’s usually how these things play out, and I pray that is the case now.
If Marissa Alexander’s actions were the same as the woman in this case, I’d say that you have a point. But the truth is that Marissa’s actions were very different. She didn’t fire a “warning shot” over her head to break up a fight; or, to stop someone from attacking her as the story is told. Instead, what she did was deemed to be reckless and criminal given the fact – as presented in court with forensic evidence – that, Marissa fired a gun in the direction of her then husband and two children just six feet off the ground. She never fired a shot into the ceiling. She fired in the direction of her husband, and the bullet then hit the wall and eventually ricochet into the ceiling. But that aside, it many municipalities it is criminal to fire a weapon into the air in the way with which the subject of this story did. Did she do the right thing? Personally, I think she did. But, this is with me making the assumption that she was telling the truth and her account of the incident is correct. If it is indeed correct, in this case, I think she acted appropriately. Which is sad because in the state of Florida where Marissa lives, under the state’s Stand Your Ground law (or even in Texas with its Castle Doctrine statute) her action would be justified because of what was happening to her daughter at the time.
I do hope they find her daughter safe and sound.
If Marissa Alexander’s actions were the same as the woman in this case, I’d say that you have a point. But the truth is that Marissa’s actions were very different. She didn’t fire a “warning shot” over her head to break up a fight; or, to stop someone from attacking her as the story is told. Instead, what she did was deemed to be reckless and criminal given the fact – as presented in court with forensic evidence – that, Marissa fired a gun in the direction of her then husband and two children just six feet off the ground. She never fired a shot into the ceiling. She fired in the direction of her husband, and the bullet then hit the wall and eventually ricochet into the ceiling. But that aside, it many municipalities it is criminal to fire a weapon into the air in the way with which the subject of this story did. Did she do the right thing? Personally, I think she did. But, this is with me making the assumption that she was telling the truth and her account of the incident is correct. If it is indeed correct, in this case, I think she acted appropriately. Which is sad because in the state of Florida where Marissa lives, under the state’s Stand Your Ground law (or even in Texas with its Castle Doctrine statute) her action would be justified because of what was happening to her daughter at the time.
I do hope they find her daughter safe and sound.
This is awful on several levels, but let’s not say that this woman wasn’t aiming at anyone. If she fired in the air, she was open to the possibility of it hitting a total stranger.
Exactly! Warning shots are just stupid.