Woman shot in Houston Moore neighborhood

Tags: , , ,

Submitted: Sun, 02/23/2014 - 3:59pm
Updated: Mon, 02/24/2014 - 12:36am

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — Wilmington police are investigating after a 22-year-old woman was shot in the Houston Moore neighborhood Saturday night.

Police say they received a ShotSpotter alert just before 10 p.m. followed by several 911 calls that someone was shot.

When police arrived to 1514 Kennedy Plaza, they found a woman shot one time.

Police say several shots were fired into the apartment where there were multiple people inside, including children.

The victim was taken to New Hanover County Regional Medical Center with non-life threatening injuries.

Police say she is in stable condition and doing much better.


  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    I’m against paying for contraception for people who are NOT sucking the taxpayers dry. I appreciate that the bovine Fluke, attending Georgetown law school and paying $30k a year is having a hard time paying for contraception, but she simply needs to add another line to her introduction: “Hey sailor! Do you have ten minutes…….and a condom?”

    I’m also against funding extraordinary contraceptive methods and devices for those worthless slugs who are draining the public coffers. If the old reliables don’t work, I’d say offer them free sterilization or abortion on demand.

  • GuestMan. says:

    Another version of a tune in your head. So now you are for paying for contraception for people that are not sucking the taxpayers dry? What does that even mean? You would pay for it for people that don’t need you to pay for it? This makes even less sense.
    You are all over the place.

  • Guest-o-matic says:

    For starters Vog, I don’t believe for a minute that our forefathers thought that we would ever have a substantial population of lazy, chemical dependent families that are entirely incapable of paying for their food, their housing or otherwise be able to provide anything for the families that knew they couldn’t afford when they had them.

    I know you know the difference but I’ll shed a little light for clarity here. I have to qualify in certain areas to be able to get my job and keep my job. That means education, drug screening (both inital and random), skill qualification, on the job performance, behavior and attendance just to mention a few. So what’s wrong with requiring one simple qualification that I’ve had to conform to for years? A simple, random drug test. You either pee straight or you don’t, you don’t you lose benefits. Just like me and my job. It has been ruled that employer drug testing doesn not violate any 4th ammendment rights. But your thinking says it violates the 4th ammendment rights of welfare recipients? I disagree. It is a simple condition of receiving the benefits. The very same condition I have to meet to get the paycheck I actually work for. If one has enough money to buy drugs, he should be able to pay his own rent, buy his own food and support his own family!

    Your thinking is extremely abstract. Our dear Veterans are getting VA benefits earned through brave service to our country and our freedom, not by sponging off taxpayers and being fully incapable. Those that apply for purchase permits and CCP’s CANNOT be guilty of ANY drug convictions or DWI convictions (3 yrs old)…period. Any drug conviction, felony conviction or DWI conviction gets your CCP pulled immediately, no questions asked.

    This isn’t a “slippery slope” and I’m as big on our rights as anyone. The point is that the majority of crime in the projects, by far, is drug related. There is a high demand for drugs there or it wouldn’t be prevalent and no market would exist. No market, no money! No money, no crime and the gangs would disappear and go to Landfall. This isn’t rocket science here.

    I have to be drug tested to “qualify” and earn the money to pay the welfare recipients way, the welfare recipient should be held accountable to “qualify” that they are drug free to receive it. I don’t see any slippery slope with regards to the great constitution of the United States of America. The only “slippery slope” I see is the words of that document being used out of context in the convenience of supporting particularly mephitic situations as suitable. I call it “legal-eze” or “legal wrangling”.

  • lonetraveler says:

    Your clear, concise explanation for the reason to “drug screen” those who are living off of the taxpayers dime was priceless. I too was employed for many years where drug screens are required at time of employment and were used randomly. A failed drug screen meant a loss of employment. I totally agree with your post. You made it so clear
    “anyone” should understand it.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    I’d much rather see them placed on mandatory birth control and given a three year limit to reside in public housing.

    We actually should encourage them to use drugs. An OD’ing welfare recipient is a cash bonus for the taxpayers.

  • Vog46 says:

    You forget that he 2nd amendment is to prevent GOVERNMENT intrusion. Your employer has every right to make you pee straight. Most employers now mandate a drug test for every work place injury – if your pee ain’t straight then they won’t pay comp. This is a burden to employers which is why they ARE allowed to do so.
    Do I favor drug testing for hosing assistance – which REQUIRES income? Sure, but my desires are trumped by case law history which says a blatant drug screening is illegal and in the cases of Florida and Il(?) showed that they were not cost effective.
    Then of course we have our own illustrious WHA. They recently inspected Houston Moore for units that were unclean, for housing residents that weren’t officially listed as being residents. What did they find? Nothing. In fact they said there were no violations found.
    Now this happens. Shots fired from the street into a housing unit? Who says it was a resident that did the shooting? I’d be glad if it was – then we could throw them out.
    Are all residents lazy and chemical dependent? I doubt it. Are their kids lazy and chemical dependent? Now that’s a real possibility and I firmly believe we should (and have) instituted curfews. As stated on other blogs we should also have security camera’s monitoring outside and photographing license plates along with increased security patrols.
    But mandatory drug screening? Sorry but far too many judges have ruled on this already…..


  • GuestMan. says:

    In the past you have been against furnishing free birth control to people, but now, it’s alright? You change tunes as often as you take a breath.
    About what we should expect out of you…

  • jj says:

    All the housing projects should be gated. That way people that do not live there can’t just drive up to a house and start shooting. This will protect the people.

    I am sure the people that live there will be against it, because it will keep the people out they buy drugs from

  • guest01010 says:

    You used the word “gate” instead of “cage”

  • Will I am says:

    If you want a gated community pay for it . Don’t wait for it to be given to you.

  • Vog46 says:

    The forefathers thought of this scenario along time agao nad teank God they did.

    What is the difference between someone getting public housing assistance and those that are not? The government money? Is that alone a basis for trashing the 4th amendment?
    Should we drug and alcohol test everyone that applies for gun permit or CCW ? Their permits are issued by the government. What about those that get VA bennys? Or Senators, Congressmen and women the President and all government subcontractors that get paid with government money?

    I share your frustration – but as gun owner, Veteran, and taxpayer (still) I do NOT want us to go down this “slippery slope”.. That’s for bobsledding and luge athletes


  • Guest-o-matic says:

    …we SHOULD be hearing of fewer of these crimes rther than more. Wonder which illegal drugs and gangs were involved with this one? Yeah, that’s right! Drug testing won’t do any good in welfare housing. It’s obvious that nobody gives a crap about what they do in there anyway.

  • lonetraveler says:

    House riddled with bullets. Woman shot. Could it be just a coincidence that this has happened right on the heels of the heroin bust of gang members? I think not. Most likely retaliation against someone the gang memebers think snitched on them. Children could have been murdered. Maybe there should be chainlink fences installed with a guarded gate at entrances. Might could keep the drug dealers and criminals out but first the criminals need to be removed from inside the gate.

  • Guest Reply Redux says:

    Ya think?

Leave a Reply