A woman opened fire on people outside a cannabis dispensary in suburban Tulsa, Oklahoma on Friday, March 27. She was killed by a man with a concealed carry permit.
The dispensary store circled on the Google Map image above at 5300 Peoria Ave., is situated just a few hundred yards from three different churches in a neighborhood north of Tulsa. Police responded to the report of a shooting at that address about 6:30 pm.
Ashley Porter, 34 years old, had reportedly argued with others in the parking lot. The store owner was in the parking lot conversing with a man in a pickup, which was situated behind the owner’s vehicle, Tulsa police Lt. Brandon Watkins told tulsaworld.com.
“It made her angry that the pickup truck was blocking her access,” Watkins said. Others were standing outside the store, as well. The parking lot had plenty of room to get around the truck.
Police say video shows the verbal altercation. Porter remained in her vehicle and no one approached her vehicle. She drove away from the location, only to return three minutes later.
SEE ALSO: Mammoth Gun Control Bill Reveals Dems’ Agenda If They Secure White House
When Porter returned, the shooting began. “[She] took out a gun and fired at people standing outside the business,” the police reported. She remained in her vehicle while shooting. Watkins says she was shooting at the store owner and the owner of the truck.
A man standing by with a concealed carry permit saw her shoot and he returned fire. She died of gunshot wounds, though no one else was apparently wounded, so her shots did not connect with anyone.
The concealed permit holder was detained by the Detective Division for questioning and was subsequently released. We do not know if Porter had a concealed permit, nor what weapons were used in the shooting.
In 2017, Porter was convicted of reckless conduct with a firearm.
That’s seems like a sure way to have your medical marijuana privileges suspended.
Man, I tell you what, I’m a good shot with a lot of training. But if that hen’s gun muzzle doesn’t come toward me, you’re on your own, Bubbas. I don’t like cops, lawyers, or vindictive relatives. Provoke a crazy, defend your own damn self.
Uuhhh…WHAAAT? You lost me after your first sentence dude.
Good.
Sad another senseless death and regardless the shooter will be scarred for life. I hope this lesson is learned whatever it is .
How much does George Soros pay you to spout his anti second amendment agenda on this site, troll?
What lesson do you think we should learn from this? Don’t talk to people in trucks? Senseless? Senseless would be for an innocent bystander to be shot. The death of an active shooter is not senseless. Try again.
you ‘re a troll not everybody is a snow flake like you
A classic over analysis.
Is not only people that uses drugs…aggravated people without reason concludes they have to kill because their feelings were hurt…Now why this kind of person has access to a gun? that’s the starting point…and then there is a backgerond of violence…then again why she had access to a firearm?…do not analize far down the line..go to the why she had a gun…whatever came afterwards is the consecuence of not covering properly the primary…. the number one “reason”. And so on… many bad trhings can be avoided if the “chain” is cut at the first link… keeping it from going whipping loose.
Easier to buy the gun on the streets. Don’t penalize the law abiding citizens due to dumb asses.
Perhaps she went and stole it from her husband’s safe, or bought it from some piece of garbage that stole it from someone else? I’m guessing we’ll never know. She decided she was going to shoot someone over something incredibly stupid and fortunately a law abiding citizen killed her. End of story.
This is a case of excellent gun control. The police would have generally expended at least one magazine of rounds which would be some 17 to 20 counting the already chambered round. This armed patriot, from what I read, used far fewer. The article doesn’t actually say how many rounds were expended by the good guy. That is just my feeling after reading the article and I could be wrong.
Please don’t group all Law Enforcement together in your statement. There are many of us that practice and train to ensure we use the correct amount of force when needed. There are many of us that have been training for years in “gun control”, to include military service, civilian courses, police courses, and hundreds of hours at the gun range. Your statements just adds to the rhetoric that all Law Enforcement are a bunch of idiots when it comes to our interactions with the public and our use of force. The one statement of fact said by you is that the good guy was an armed patriot. However, remember that most in the Law Enforcement community have made the sacrifice to serve their community and country by wearing that badge on their chest. Don’t forget that they are also Patriots!
yeah… but.
No not all police are idiots buddy, there is a minority out there gives you all a bad name,.
I won’t “…group all Law Enforcement together…” in my statements if you don’t insist that all LEO “.. are also Patriots!” Many are tyrants.
Hey Jose Carvajal,
Thank you for your service. It means more to me than you can imagine.
God bless you sir,
Mike Stilinovich
“In 2017, Porter was convicted of reckless conduct with a firearm.”
If that was your daughter what would you do?
I would never allow my daughter to have access to a gun if she was unstable or a drug user. Use the laws in place.
U have no control to stop her from getting a gun off the streets???
Yeah Timmy,
Grab you’re cuddle bunny, go to your safe-room and play with your silly putty!!!
Hey mikey b .. my stayement was in reference to another post.. my point is .. like ALOT of things overseen by the feds is OUTDATED BULLSHIT.. explain to me how weed is a schedule 1 drug when crack , meth and alcohol fuck you up so much more in so many ways and are schedule 2 classification!WE DO NOT HAVE COMMON SENSE DRUG LAWS OR COMMON SENSE FIREARM LAWS PERIOD! They are obsolete
I have to laugh when people scream out for common sense gun laws, the 20,000 plus gun laws already on the books don’t work, and you want more? Oh, and fyi, smoking weed is not a constitutional right, it’s illegal by federal law. Apples and oranges dude.
that’s because the liberals made common sense obsolete
But I thought all these stoners were non violent ???? LMFAO
Actually, long term use of marijuana causes paranoia. I looked at research over my 33 years as a health teacher and if you look at countries that have done drug research over a long period of time the health concerns are very serious. It will cause respiratory illness and sometimes death. When they say no one dies from smoking marijuana, they have not looked at the long-term effects. How about 30k a year from respiratory illness related to smoking marijuana in the UK denoted my government research and the health costs are equally disturbing. In this case a woman was shot for a behavior that was not rational and could be related to paranoia. In my health class I always showed a forum of marijuana smokers defending their product. No capital letters, no punctuations, broken sentences and many users confronted the paranoia over long term use. After putting a copy of this on an overhead I ask my class if you were a boss would you hire any of these people and it was a resounding NO! It would be interesting to know how much was in her system, how long she was using and with a past record why did she have a gun?
They have always known the dangers of drinking, but does that stop anything. Wat about big pharma???? Oh yea it’s the rich that fund it & the opioid crisis is just a hoax, right????
Good guys don’t shoot to kill, they shoot to live, and for the innocent bystanders to live. In order to be successful, the good guy must IMMEDIATELY incapacitate the bad guy. Talking and wounding is much MUCH less likely to accomplish that. Immediately incapacitating someone does not equate to killing them. No one shoots for center mass on a bad guy because he ‘deserves to die’…it’s done because it’s the surest way to immediately remove a bad guy’s ability to render deadly force on innocent people. The distinct possibility that it MAY result in the bad guy’s death is the cost of this dirty business. Take the emotions out of the equation, look at the reality of it and realize that GOOD GUYS AND INNOCENT BYSTANDERS have a right to live, too.
Sorry little Timmy, you must of watched a lot of western’s growing up. No LE Academy ever taught to shot the gun out of the bad guy’s hand or shot to wound. If you have to pull your firearm, you shot to kill.
You shoot to shoot to stop the life threatening behavior.
If law enforcement uses their firearm it is deadly force, “shoot to kill”, not meant to harm, stop, disable, etc. That’s why there are less lethal forms to deal with a situation before using one’s firearm and law enforcement are supposed to meet force with a force that is one step higher than what the threat is using and increase a level if the current one is not working. Only when all of the less-lethal options have failed does one go to the firearm which means that your life is in danger and you are shooting to kill or the threat is such a danger that there is no other option. That is what law enforcement is taught and what I was taught that as Military Police in the Army if I got to the point of using my pistol it’s “shoot to kill” or I shouldn’t be using it but rather a less-lethal option. The use of force order when I was in was: verbal, physical, OC, baton, taser, pistol.
What’s different for concealed carry holders is that you are not supposed to “shoot to kill” but rather shoot to stop the threat. This is what every lawyer and concealed carry class trainer will tell you as civilians are not protected by the badge. They instead have much less leeway during a shooting and saying that you were “shooting to kill” can imply that you were not just trying to stop the person’s actions but were looking to kill someone in a shooting no matter the situation if given the chance.
Because of this audacity of prosecutors and the other issues that can arise if I ever do have to use my firearm as a civilian, being arrested, charged with a crime, being sued, etc., I carry insurance that will cover me providing me legal representation 24/7/365 and a live local attorney is always going to answer the phone to help. There are many options available out there and I use U.S. & Texas Law Shield and just like car insurance, it’s better to be covered and not need it than not be covered and find yourself in a situation where you do.
Your story either has a misspelled word or is reporting misinformation. A Homicide is the UNLAWFUL killing of one person by another. The Conceal Carry who took out the shooter was detained, and RELEASED by Tulsa Police. Please explain the UNLAWFUL action here.
Eric, a homicide is the killing of a human being. It can be an intentional homicide, a negligent homicide or a justifiable homicide. Homicide just means someone was killed, it can be legal or illegal.
Homicide is not the ‘illegal’ killing of another human. Check any autopsy report on a justified shooting. The ’cause of death’ will be related to the trauma caused by bullets. The ‘manner of death’ will be listed as homicide. And nobody goes to jail for that.
Well done, Sir!
The only way to stop an active shooter is the shoot them period. End of story.
I am one who strongly supports our Second Amendment, however there are ways to deescalate some situations that doesn’t always require the use of lethal force, even if somebody has a firearm.
Too often, police officers shoot to kill and not shoot to wound which is not the way it used to be back when I was a kid. Now days, everybody just goes for the Fatal kill shot.
I would hate to I think that there wasn’t some way to deescalate this situation so that nobody had to die. For it seems to me that the woman was emotionally distraught and she was a terrible shot or she was only shooting threatening shots and not shooting to harm them but that’s something we will never know because someone’s daughter is now dead. Unfortunately, that’s the result whenever we take the authority to make the decision to kill someone.
Next time we’ll call you to bring the cookies and milk and you can talk to the shooter. Is that a deal?
LOL!
You have been watching too many old westerns. Shooting to wound has never been taught by police departments. It is a great way to end up dead yourself. If it’s serious enough to shoot someone, you shoot to kill.
Both “shooting to wound” and warning shots are illegal. In fact, wounding is considered inhumane. I think what you meant is things were different on television when you were a kid.
Idiot, you need to neutralize a threat. If your kids were being shot at would you still preach de-escalaye?
Sooo…all you need is love? Look, next time some whack job starts spraying bullets, I want you to walk up and say “woah woah woah…can’t we settle this reasonably?”. Yeah…that ain’t happening. She didn’t like being told “drive around dumb ass”. So her solution was to come back and shoot it out? She got what she had coming. The end.
Tim, I agree with you up until the time she pulled the trigger. I don’t know how you can make the determination that she just wants to shoot the place up and not kill someone. I for one have never been shot at nor have I even pointed a gun ( loaded or unloaded) at anyone. However, I don’t see how you can talk someone off the ledge if they have already jumped. If it comes down to someone else or me, it’s going to be that other person. Because I am someone’s son, father, husband and friend. And I am going to go home to them. Because someone else is stupid does not mean that myself and those (that are innocent) around me should not go home that night. It’s always a bad situation, and I hope that neither one of us ever have to make that choice.
I’m sure your intentions are good yet I strongly disagree with them. “Shoot to wound”? So he was supposed to shoot the gun out of her hand? Shot her in the shoulder then apply pressure and tell her, “It’s going to be ok” while the ambulance comes? You shoot until the threat is gone.
Warning shots? Was she supposed to warm them she was angry because she couldn’t park where she wanted? Was she warning them with gun fire that she was behind them and she didn’t hit them with her car? She could have “fired”her car horn for that, not a firearm.
Yes, someone’s daughter is dead now but because of a law abiding citizen a criminal who had no regard for the lives of others was stopped from taking the lives of someone else’s son or daughter.
If you will, please leave the story of how you reacted when you were in a situation like this. How did you de-escalate the shooter?
Idiot…
Tim, Why don’t you try to de-escalate the situation? You are a fool to believe that someone without training or the equipment (safety gear) is going to step into harm’s way to try and reason with a deranged person with a gun. By the way a cop or anyone shooting at a bad guy with a gun is shooting to stop the action, not to “kill”. It is very difficult to try to shoot for a leg or arm in a situation where you are being shot at. You shoot until the bad guy’s action stops, period.
Tim : Your missing the situation here . When someone leaves and returns and starts shooting , you better believe there was intent to harm and or kill ! That person had plenty of time to calm down and rethink of their actions. To think there might have been away to deescalate the situation is fairy tail at best ! What would you have wanted to see ? Somebody walking up to her and saying now, now we can work this out , while she’s pointing a gun at you ! Good Luck with that ! The outcome was of her own doing , and what is an mentally unstable person doing with access to a fire arm ? This was by far the better outcome because now she won’t get the chance to kill an innocent .
How can you deescalate something that’s passed the point of no return? Once she started shooting, she proclaimed war on your life
Tim, I’m not sure you read the part she opened fire on them. Once she started to fire the gun, ALL ways to “deescalate” to situation went out the window. The only thing to do in that situation was to neutralize the threat. The concealed weapons holder did the right thing, period. I just like to hope you truly understood what you posted in response to the article. Additionally, the Police weren’t involved in this altercation, why did they come up? You don’t really seem like someone who “strongly” supports the 2nd Amendment based on your reply. If “someone’s “daughter” wasn’t a casualty in this situation, someone’s Father, Mother, Sister or Brother could’ve been. You gave her a “Pass” because of what you believe to be her emotional state??? It almost sounds like it was ok for her to shoot at innocent people, wow! I thank God there was someone there to aid in the situation.
Police officers are never taught to “shoot to wound” as you stated. Police officers are trained to shoot for “center mass”. Due to the high stress in a shooting situation, it is hard enough to hit center mass, let alone trying to hit someone in the arm or leg. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Good guys don’t shoot to kill, they shoot to live, and for the innocent bystanders to live. In order to be successful, the good guy must IMMEDIATELY incapacitate the bad guy. Talking and wounding is much MUCH less likely to accomplish that. Immediately incapacitating someone does not equate to killing them. No one shoots for center mass on a bad guy because he ‘deserves to die’…it’s done because it’s the surest way to immediately remove a bad guy’s ability to render deadly force on innocent people. The distinct possibility that it MAY result in the bad guy’s death is the cost of this dirty business. Take the emotions out of the equation, look at the reality of it and realize that GOOD GUYS AND INNOCENT BYSTANDERS have a right to live, too.
Wow! What reality are you living in? Make a few less runs to the Weed Store please!
At what point when the woman was wildly shooting from her vehicle were they supposed to deescalate the situation? Brilliant, Timmy. Brilliant. Kum-by-ya to you, too. The next time this happens when you are out and about with your daughter, perhaps the two of you can put yourselves in the line of fire to deescalate.
Just like alcohol people(where it’s legal) possession Of cannabis is not the same as under the influence… by the way..anyone with a half a brain..(not so sure there are many around) knows alcohol is a much,much worse and damaging drug than weed…that’s right sucka!
Your comment has what to do with the story?
If he was in possession of Cannabis and it’s in the police record the feds will nail him to the cross – for the children… Not big on users of any drug, including alcohol, but really, some pot can remove a right? Seems a bit of an overkill to me unless or until harm is done while using.
It really is a fucked up system when a raging alcoholic can own firearms but not someone that consumes weed.
People that smoke weed can’t own a firearm? Which planet?
“People that smoke weed can’t own a firearm? Which planet?”
In the USA. It’s federal law.
Look at the question on the 4417 form that you fill out to purchase a firearm. It asks if you you are a user of illegal drugs including marijuana. If you answer yes, you will,be denied. Now if you already own a firearm, I am not sure what the federal government would do. States may legalize marijuana but federally still illegal.
United States Code Title 18, Section 922(g) makes it unlawful for certain individuals to ship, transport, possess or receive any firearm or ammunition with the required interstate commerce nexus. Prohibited classes include convicted felons, fugitives from justice, unlawful users or addicts of controlled substances (paragraph 922(g)(3)), mental defectives, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged servicemen, and persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship. The penalty provides that a person who “knowingly” violates this law “shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
It isn’t a homicide if it’s self defense.
It’s a justifiable homicide.
If our hero was in fact a customer there… we can’t have citizens saving others with a firearm. Their use of a recreational mood alterer (alcohol anyone?) is the mechanism to remove their rights. It doesn’t fit the media’s narrative, not to mention the almighty state’s monopoly on “protecting” (too late to be of use) the subjects.
Now, was the defender in possession of cannabis? If so, will he be relieved of his concealed carry permit for being a user? That is law in some states such as here in PA.
Bruh that’s a federal law