Jeanne Assam, Hero for Our Time
Jeanne Assam went to church this past Sunday like many other Sundays. What happened next probably changed her life, and many of those around her in that church.
Denver Post
The guard who saved untold lives at New Life Church gives credit to God for giving her cover, and boosting her firepower as she shot a heavily-armed gunman.
“I give credit to God. I say that very humbly,” said Jeanne Assam. “God was with me, the whole time I was behind cover. Based on the firepower he had, compared to mine.”
“It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God,” Assam said.
Assam spoke at a press conference in Colorado Springs this afternoon. She is one of about 12 armed security officers at New Life Church, according to Pastor Brady Boyd.
She responded when Matthew Murray, 24, began targeting church members in Colorado Springs, after a rampage hours earlier in Arvada in which two missionary training center staff members were killed and two were injured. Two teenagers at New Life were fatally shot, and three others injured before Assam could shoot Murray.
ABC7
“There was chaos,” Assam said, as parishioners ran away.
“I saw him coming through the doors” and took cover, Assam said. “I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down.”
“God was with me,” Assam said. “I didn’t think for a minute to run away.”
Assam said she believes God gave her the strength to confront Murray, keeping her calm and focused even though he appeared to be twice her size and was more heavily armed.
Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sergeant Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department.
“It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God,” she said.
Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.
Already various news sources are reporting that Assam left the PD under a cloud. Whatever her past, she was a hero this day. Don’t let that be tarnished.
UPDATE:
Denver Post
Sgt. Jess Garcia III, the public-information officer for the Minneapolis Police Department, said Assam left his police department in the late 1990s. He said during her time there she worked in North Minneapolis, the busiest crime area of the city, as well as in downtown Minneapolis.
“Some of the training she received here apparently helped her,” Garcia said. “She did a great job.”
He said he knew her during her time in Minneapolis. “I thought she had a great personality and always got along with everybody,” Garcia said.
From Australia comes this montage photo:
Guys, she’s single and looking. Um… and carries a gun, so be on your best behavior.
Table of contents for Jeanne Assam
Subscribe
[...] North Shore has more. Glenn Reynolds yet more (follow the [...]
[...] She’s becoming a worldwide sensation. Scroll down for the Australian front page and [...]
The “Killer Blonde” part seems uncalled for. “Hero” would be more appropriate. She did exactly what was needed in a brave and skilled manner. “Killer Blonde” makes her sound like someone who is trigger happy.
Wow, I’m impressesd, it about time people stand up to thiese maniacs. As a person that has a permit and carrys, I totaly stand by you Jeanne Assam, you did the right thing, you may be bothered by the fact you took a life, but you saved dozens of lives, that will hopfuly offset those bad feeling. Your a hero, and I stand by you a 110%
From Minneapolis, Sanford Paulsen
PS: I 46 and single, look me up if your in town
What more needs to be said that can be said? How about the lefties getting off their high horse about concealed carry weapons, and the highly responsible people who carry them? Thank God for Ms. Assam, and thank Ms. Assam for her devotion to the safety and security of the flock. God works through people and Sunday God used Ms. Assam to his glory. I’m also glad that her last name sounds somewhat ‘muslum’…maybe He’s telling us to not judge a book by it’s cover relative to other muslum sounding names?
Roy Moore in Lyons, Oregon
Although taking a life isn’t how any police officer (or security guard) wants to end a situation, at least she was there. It sounds as if her training as a police officer paid off when she needed most. I too, agree that “KILLER BLONDE” is inappropriate labeling and should be removed.
It’s a sad day when we have to guard our houses of worship with armed personell. God doesn’t help those who don’t help themselves, though. And, in the long run, this is one time where, for what ever reason, someone was there to end it.
God Bless this lady, and she is a HERO in my book.
Tred, K.C., KS
“KILLER BLONDE”is inappropriate I agree. Have your all read MSN.com story on this, it’s a laugh and a half, they pretty much put her on the back burner and talk about some “Unarmed Hero” who was yelling at the shooter and hiding, while Jeanne Assam is bull rushing this maniac…
Allowing more people to carry guns isn’t the solution to the already out of control gun problem. Let’s not put up with the gun-induced carnage as if we aren’t the most out of control gun culture in the world today. If anything, it’s about time we get serious about using the abundance of technology at our disposal to make sure whackjobs don’t get access to guns in the first place. Prevention is not a great headliner (and advertising stream for cable news) but is a whole lot preferable.
Goes to show that blondes aren’t brainless bimbos. WELL DONE!
Brings to mind the thought that if someone in the crowd of shoppers at the Omaha mall was carrying that the death toll might’ve been less. Which caused me to have a “bright idea” - well, I think so, anyway - to persuade malls to remove “No Guns Allowed” signs and get the various stores inside to give 5% or 10% discounts to people with a CCW when they show their permit.
Oh, a small thing that I noticed this AM when I had FOXNEWS droning in the background. One of the Brady campaign (to make everyone but the state helpless) gomers was being interviewed and about all he could say was that it was a “bad thing” that anyone could get an “assault rifle”. What a goombah.
Again, to Jeanne Assam: Well done!
The whack jobs are those who would disarm honest people. Out of control gun culture? What is a “gun culture”?
I appreciate the role of a trained guard for situations like this. Ms Assam did exactly the right thing and her church was correct in choosing her as a trained and armed guard.
Yet, it is counterproductive and even dangerous for every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally to appoint himself or herself and walk around carrying heat. Having only qualified, licenced, and selected personnel provides the correct balance of having protectors like Jeanne Assam, a hero, and trusting a posse of self-appointed gun enthusiasts.
Yes…the title “Killer Blond” is inappropriate..
If it had been me would the head lines read..”Killer Skinhead” just because I lost my hair 10 years ago?
Yes we need to stop cowards from attacking soft targets…
Yes..discounts should be given to those who responsibly carry firearms…
Can we start a fund for her to spend a month in Florida this winter..?
Preferably…Vero Beach)?
day_earth_still@bellsouth.net
It is Vitally important to remember that taking the LEGALLY-OWNED, LEGALLY-CARRIED, concealed weapon out of the hands of an honest, TRAINED, RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN, without replacing that citizen with a Law-Enforcement Officer on EVERY street corner, 24/7/52, (and let’s see the budgets for THAT!), is tantamount to giving criminals and terrorists a free-rein license to operate anywhere in the United States of America.
I forget who said it and where, but I recently read a perfect reply to why anyone needs to carry a concealed weapon. “Because a cop is too heavy to haul around all the time!” And THAT is the exact truth.
As long as drugs are illegal (and therefore expensive, and therefore a highly lucrative, highly-competitive business), and as long as SOMEONE hates the US enough to try terrorist operations against us here at home, and as long as people have prejudices against each other for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or any OTHER stupid excuse, there WILL be criminal or other violence in the streets. If we can’t get enough cops out there to stop it by their very presence, and the courts can’t stop it by the threat of the punishments issued for a guilty verdict (oh come ON, 5 years for RAPE? 20 years for MURDER ONE? With parole boards BEGGING to let them out for good behavior? Yeah, right!), the ONLY deterrent is KNOWING that the target you’re planning to rob and kill just might be the one that will blow YOUR brains out instead. It won’t stop ALL the dopers and terrorists and just plain EVIL monsters - but if it stops ONE tonight - that’s ONE LESS DEAD INNOCENT PERSON.
And that’s good enough for me.
theo…let the thug have the guns right..? Not me, I have a permit to carry, have had it for years, and I carry, I will not allow my self to be a victim, every state that has given law bidding citizens the legal right to carry, their gun crimes have gone down. guns our out there, there part of our every day life’s, been that way for hundreds of years. Our control gun culture is due to not allow good people to protect them self from maniacs that don’t care about the law. that same that don’t want law bidding people to carry our 2nd amendment, don’t want the technology, it spying, it’s against our constitution…..time to defend our selves like this brave young lady did, she a hero
Theo,
YOU, my friend, are a whack-job! If I send you a quarter, will you use it to go buy a clue? Let’s just make more laws to prevent innocent citizens from protecting themselves, right? Did it ever occur to your little pea-sized brain that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws? Well, did it???
I would venture to say that if the gunman was aiming at your head, you’d have a new appreciation for the armed citizen(s) (in this case, a woman) who saved your life. Or would you rather she have been disarmed by the stupid laws you defend… It’s your brains that would be splattered, not mine. Oh, check that. Judging from the tripe you spew, you probably don’t have any brains. Blood then… It’s your blood that will flow, not mine.
As for me: I won’t be a victim. I choose to carry, and I accept the responsibility that goes with it. I’m trained, I practice regularly, and I take carrying a loaded weapon VERY seriously.
Just make sure you tell all of us armed citizens what you look like, so if we’re ever in a situation where we can save your life, we can be sure to look the other way while you get killed. We wouldn’t want to offend you with our “out-of-control gun culture”, now, would we?
lfmao@theo
Somebody please revoke theo’s driver’s license. If he doesn’t trust me with carrying a puny pistol around, I’m not sure I can trust him to drive a 3100 pound car at 45 mph just a few feet away from pedestrians on the sidewalk. Our out of control gun culture pales in comparison to our out of control car culture and not just in terms of deadliness. Reckless endangerment isn’t really an issue with gun owners, as it really is easier to be safe with a scary looking assault rifle than with a bona fide killing machine–I mean ‘car.’
Hopefully theo isn’t a practicing physician, or I’m afraid I would have to ask him to surrender his medical license. Our out of control doctor culture is responsible for an alarming number of preventable deaths; in fact, considerably more die at the hands of physicians than at the hands of gun-wielding psychos and gun-wielding honest citizens.
And I hope theo has an electric stove, because I certainly don’t trust him to safely operate a device involving a flammable gas.
For the sake of Theo’s life, somebody please remove all the fattening and otherwise unhealthy foods from his refrigerator. Do you realize how many hundreds of thousands of Americans die horribly unpleasant deaths from diet and lifestyle related complications?
theo, you phail. Go troll left-wingnut forums where your foolishness will pass as some kind of smarts.
As a retired police officer with the experience of delivering deadly force in the line of duty, I agree that the term “killer blonde” is inappropriate and offensive. The taking of another human’s life, no matter the circumstance, is a lifelong burden. One of the factors allowing the bearer of this burden to deal with it is the distinction in his or her mind, and hopefully that of the public, between being a “killer” and doing one’s duty. The police officer, security guard, soldier, etc. who takes a life in the course of his or her duty, and who does so with legality, morality, and ethics, is not a “killer”. The editors of this site should treat this matter with the dignity and respect it deserves. I do, however, agree with the title of “hero” being used to describe Ms. Assam’s actions. She did her duty, and hopefully will bear this burden comfortably.
This woman was acting as a security guard and is a former police officer. She was trained to handle this sort of situation and apparently handled it well- she and many others survived, the gunman did not.
What I don’t understand is why we are having conversations in the media about ‘killer blondes’ or ‘pretty’ or any of that BS. If this were a man and former police officer, would we be saying ‘hot hunky former cop?’ or “killer brunette Ted?” lol. What is the obsession in this country with sexualizing women?
And what is the obsession with making this more than it is? I’ve worked with women police officers that had to shoot someone in the course of duty. There was none of this media hoopla. Media, please give this woman her due- treat her with dignity and respect her professionalism and guts instead of treating her like Barbie.
Jenny sounds like you are jealous.
Thank you Ms Assam for your courage, ability and willingness to engage the threat and protect the lives of hundred’s of innocent people. It is truly a sad day when we must arm or at least consider arming church security personnel.
Mr Theo - the problem is not that of an out of control gun culture, it is that of a culture bent on removing God from society. When we approach a level of no absolute truth, no morals and no ethics, situations like this are the result. Responsible citizens within society must be prepared to defend themselves (numerous reason mentioned above). Fortunately our founding fathers and current laws (in most rational states) allow for this through the proper evaluation, training and licensing of concealed weapons carry permits.
> Allowing more people to carry guns isn’t the solution to the already out of control gun problem. Let’s not put up with the gun-induced carnage as if we aren’t the most out of control gun culture in the world today.
OK, people do NOT allow this well-meaning fool to mistarget the debate.
THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS is NOT about CRIME. It’s about MAINTAINING CONTROL of **YOUR** government.
That is the expressly stated argument given in Federalist #46, which deals with WHY that right was presumed for all American citizens, and re-affirmed by the Bill of Rights. This was the document that US Citizens were reading when they were considering voting for the Constitution to replace the earlier Articles of Confederation.
Stop letting the Useful Idiots retarget the debate. The purpose of ownership in the USA is simple — it means that the people represent a force which will stop anyone from ever taking over the Government by force.
The need for this is even MORE important in this day and age than ever before. In a place where the Army has the kind of firepower that it has, do you — any of you — really want to have to attack them with sticks, bottles, and knives? Does the pseudo-word “Duh” come to mind? How about the phrase “Hell f***ing NO!!”.
“That can’t happen here!” I certainly hope not, but I do not presume that this nation is any more invulnerable to foolishness than Germany of 1920. Only 15 years later, they were already under the total control of the Nazis and the Brownshirts.
We had a defacto Constitutional Crisis in 2000, with the “signal” from the electorate getting swamped out by the “noise” (errors were overwhelming the ability to discern what was ’said’ by the people as to who would be president).
In many countries, the parties would have fought over who would rule. THAT CAN’T HAPPEN HERE. Why? Because the politicos KNOW that the US Populace would not accept such a president — so they fought it out with deadlier weapons (aka lawyers), and finally one set beat out the other with legal maneuvers. You don’t have to like that, but it represents a fairly unique event in human history.
*** Because we have guns ***
…And if they argue that militia==National Guard, tell them NO — refer them to Fed#46, again. The “militia” is no less than every able-bodied man (citizen) of the USA. It’s spelled out right there, folks.
Keep the debate where it belongs. Don’t let them change it. They cannot win on that front, and they know this.
The history of Democide in the 20th century shows the inarguable danger of NOT having guns. I did a breakdown in the late 90s, estimating what having gun ownership worldwide as they have in the USA would mean (get gun death figures for each decade, count each year’s value as decade-end figure — i.e., 1921=1930, 1922-1930…1930=1930, 1931=1940, etc., which is conservative, it’s going to be high. Use US pop figures from census data, and world pop figures as available, to proportionally estimate how many would have died each year if the entire world had US-style death rates from guns (probably also conservative, US is a fairly violent place). The final estimate was that, from 1920 to ca. 1998, roughly 12 million people would have died worldwide.
A lot of people, right?
Well, try 20th Century Democide:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20th.htm
Death by government, 1900-1999?
260 MILLION.
More than 21 deaths — real, actual dead bodies — for every “potential” body that might have died in personal gun violence.
Keep it on track people — owning guns is about **controlling your government** — NOT about crime. Crime reduction is a side benefit. You should know the stats and the arguments, but it’s NEVER BEEN about that.
> What is the obsession in this country with sexualizing women?
Jenny, sorry, but “sex” is what it’s all about. And I don’t believe it is limited to just this country…
Sex is of primary importance, for both men and women — they have different goals for it (women focus on kids, men focus on the sex itself — it’s the way we’re both wired), but it’s one of the central needs of human beings, following air, water, food, and shelter, in that order.
Historically, women have used sex to get what they want (i.e., kids, and resources to raise them to adulthood).
This has rewarded men who respond to a woman’s sexuality strongly (they got laid and those women have their kids, so the guys who responded strongly to a woman’s sexuality had their genes spread farther and wider).
Since men are highly visual, this makes a woman’s physical appeal relevant and important to how a man perceives a woman. Jeanne possesses many classically attractive features — blondish hair, high cheekbones, sharp chin, a fairly symmetrical face. A little harsh/strong, esp. around the mouth, but not excessively so.
So men respond to that. She also showed that she can take care of herself. This appeals to at least some men (tied, perhaps, to the natural male drive to “spread it around” which it would help since it means a man would not have to protect a woman as much — counter to the monogamist tradition I grant but there are clear reasons why that behavior would survive, a guy who “spreads it around” is more likely to have kids who survive to adulthood under primitive conditions, so his genes prosper)
Women don’t respond to men visually to the same degree, but you do have your own set of “preferred qualities” which have their place in human male-female interactions.
As a group, women prefer men with high social standing, good resources, and desirable survival qualities (healthiness, a strong physique, etc. Intelligence is also valuable).
The reason for these being valuable tie, once more, to primitive conditions — they increase the chances that your progeny will prosper and thrive, a much more touch-and-go thing prior to the 20th century.
Often you’ll respond to these things without even thingking about them. Look at any actor on TV, any man you consider “desirable” — most of the time, you’re likely to be responding to one or more of these qualities. It doesn’t matter if those things are not needed as much nowadays as they were 150 years ago (it’s a lot easier for kids to survive now) — you’re still wired that way.
Recent civilization hasn’t substantially effected the gene pool (well, too much tiger food and not enough tigers, but that’s another conversation) just yet. You and the women and men around you are still wired for a set of responses to the other sex that isn’t likely to change a lot real soon.
It’s not wrong, although you’ve probably been taught that by the idiot feminist movement. Certainly there are some elements, if not a lot, which are not just not needed but counter-productive, but that’s the way we are wired. While you can, and should, push for those things to change, expecting massive changes in human nature during your lifetime is not a recipe for happiness in life. I recommend taking people as they are, and just dealing with it. You can nudge people in a better direction, but assuming they are going to massively change is likely to make you miserable. Tilting against windmills only hurts you, not the windmill.
Don’t –repeat don’t– take that as meaning “don’t bother” — changing things for the better is ALWAYS a good goal — but it’s not a sure thing, or even a likely thing — it’s a long shot, and that is how you should take it, should you decide it is worth the effort. If you win, just a little, you will be happy. If you lose, hell, you’re just a mere human. You did what you could.