Okay…middle of the day; no apparent attempt to determine if the house was empty; dude just breaks a window and starts climbing in.
The home owner protecting at least his property; if not his life investigates the noise and sees the criminal breaking in. Shoots and kills the criminal breaking into his home. That is how it went down.
What will continue to go down is the police will finish their investigation, the District Attorney will present the case to a grand jury, and they’ll decide to bring charges or not. Still a costly process but one I don’t expect to end with charges brought. Especially not with the mom saying “yeah, this sounds like something he would do”.
But let’s turn the clock back and ask the antis what would they rather have the home owner do?
A.) Call the police and wait?
B.) Run out his house, leaving possessions – including a firearm behind for a criminal to steal and use for illegal drugs?C.) Fight him hand to hand after the criminal has gotten inside the house?
D.) Meekly stand there and let an unknown person with unknown intentions do what ever he wants to him?
3of those possibilities would have increased, not decreased, crime. One would still be violence but puts the home owner at a disadvantage. Either not used to physical violence, due to age, etc.
In contrast, the home owner’s actions not only stopped this crime but put an end to a long (some said 18 page rap sheet) career of crime. Based on the recommendations of the anti-rights cultists; it is almost as if they want MORE crime to occur not less.
Please join the discussion.
Joan Peterson “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence board Member, co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, President of Minnesota Million Moms March, Spokesperson for Protect Minnesota ; aka Japete” displays something that I’ve seen all too often around the web recently.
In real life, shooters go to schools and shoot at children as young as 7 and as old as college students on a fairly regular basis. In real life, innocent people are shot for wearing a hoodie while walking in a neighborhood, for playing music too loudly, for texting in a movie theater, for egging someone’s car.
For some reason, anti-rights cultists have suddenly woken up and realized that shootings can happen for trivial reasons (Zimmerman excluded despite her claims) — being disrespectful.
This isn’t a new problem. This isn’t a result of changing gun laws. They are showing their opportunistic nature and ‘gun control’ agenda by only highlighting these shootings. For decades; gangs have been shooting and killing each other for being ‘dissed’. For decades drug cartel members fought and killed people if someone slighted them; sold drugs in their territory for example.
America, we have a problem. It’s unimaginable that the daily carnage of gun violence does not ping the collective conscience of our elected leaders.
Gun Control Advocates; you have a problem. You don’t seem to focus on the shootings in Gun Control Paradise aka Chicago; last year they had over 500 homicides; many by firearm many killed due to gang activity. Where is your outrage over that?
Where was your outrage over our country’s capital Washington D.C. being Murder Capital of the country for decades? Funny how shootings seems to have dropped off in the district now, isn’t it?
I find it disgusting that anti-rights cultists like Joan only show concern about “respect” or “courteous” when it is a “white” shooter — even if the media has to invent a new shade of white (White Hispanic) to justify their agenda.
Please join the discussion.
If people are willing to break the law over such a minor issue; do we really think that a sign prohibiting guns is going to work any better?
You’ve undoubtedly seen them on your way to work or home, panhandlers.
For the last year the City of Fort Worth has tested using signs to deter the practice by warning both panhandler and driver with the message, “soliciting from roadway prohibited.” However, at the first intersection where the signs were installed, about a year ago, you’ll still regularly see people begging for money or food. Those who work in the area said the signs don’t work.
“No they don’t, we still have them coming in here, panhandling every where,” said Alma Baca.
Baca works along the intersection at Interstate 20 and Hulen Street, where the signs were installed. She said they’ve done little to slow down those begging for spare change.
“I get one that stands right there and waits and waits and then walks out and asks people for money,” Baca said.
Standing next to a sign prohibiting the very same action — yep, really effective eh?
Tell me again how once the criminal has a gun drawn and pointed at a person that (s)he doesn’t stand a chance:
Drat — the video I grabbed auto-plays and there doesn’t seem to be a way to stop it. I’m going to put it behind the fold so visitors don’t be blasted by the ad playing.
This video is worth watching — a Concealed Carry holder versus thugs — at a gas station. Maybe we aren’t paranoid because we carry everywhere but that is another debate.
Please continue on to see the video.
This is going to be an on-going series of posts about the shooting of Jerry Waller by Fort Worth Police Officers. While I have my own opinion about the Grand Jury’s decision to no-bill the officer; this isn’t about that. What I’m trying to do is use this horrific incident to raise awareness about various factors and current issues. The report, which I referenced in the other post can be found here.
In this post, I want to discuss the ‘mindset’ of the officer(s) involved.
During his recorded interview, Officer Hoeppner stated that they observed a suspicious vehicle parked on the far back portion of the driveway at 404 Havenwood Lane North. Officer Hoeppner thought that the vehicle could have possibly been intentionally parked at the back of the driveway by an intruder to prevent anyone from seeing them approach the residence.
I’m not exactly sure what makes a car parked in a drive way “suspicious” given that most of the homes in the area seem to have rear (or side) entry garages. Many people have more cars than space in their garages so it is very common to have cars parked on the driveway. We seldom have severe weather that dictates all cars be parked inside.
Street View of address in question
Click to enlarge
The driveway extended from the main roadway to a parking area in the back of the residence. The driveway was connected to a rear entry garage that was not visible from the roadway. The officers stated that they decided to approach the back of the residence first because of the suspicious vehicle that was parked on the driveway and the fact that the back of the residence was secluded and more susceptible to have been broken into.
This is information is important because of the security habits of some homeowners. Rear entry garages are often left open; either by accident or by carelessness. Most of the homes have locking doors from the garage into the house proper.
( just saw how long this post was — most of it will be below the fold)
Back in May, Fort Worth Police officers responded to a home burglar alarm going off. They rolled up to the wrong address and fatally shot a home owner in his own garage. Details are just now being released since the Grand Jury no-billed the officers involved. I’ll be covering several aspects of this shooting in the future. There are several things that gun owners could and probably should take away from this incident.
Of course, there are things that the anti rights cultists should take away from the report summary– ballistic fingerprinting isn’t the end all be all as seen on T.V.
Microscopic examination and comparison of the bullets and jacket fragments did not reveal sufficient agreement of individual characteristics to determine if they were, or were not, fired from the barrel of Officer Hoeppner’s handgun. It should be noted that the rifling in the barrel of the Glock 22 pistols, that are currently in possession of the Fort Worth Police Department, have fewer distinguishing characteristics that would differentiate the projectiles that were fired from the one Glock 22 pistol compared to another Glock 22 pistol (compared to traditional rifling in other firearms), so the projectiles (bullets and jacket fragments) that were recovered cannot be positively matched to Officer Hoeppner’s handgun.
Imagine that; barrels manufactured in the same facility on the same equipment for the same gun are close enough in characteristics that ballistic fingerprinting is not helpful. Ballistic fingerprinting can tell one firearm from the next if they are different types, models, age, etc — but it isn’t the “this is the gun that killed X” in every case.
Please join the discussion.
Been fighting a sinus infection since Christmas; finally went to the Doc last Monday but this bug is really tenacious. Starting to get better but very slowly. Part of the reason for not posting.
The job is keeping me busy also; things slacked off a little on the production pressure. Meaning I’m not being ‘voluntold’ to that department as much but my area of responsibility is really starting to pick up as some deadlines loom.
Around the blogs; I had a discussion with Six and Murphy’s law over at Lagniappe’s Lair. I partly argued out of just taking the contrary position but the more I think about it the more I wonder if we really shouldn’t take the ‘extremist / absolutism’ position — If we don’t trust a person with a firearm than that person shouldn’t be in society.
By arguing for felon in possession laws; we are very much taking the same tactics, logic and approach as gun control advocates. Reasonable restrictions, the ‘gun’ matters, etc. I plan on delving into this a little more but please feel free to chime in. I’ve written the post 5 or 6 times now; scrapping every one because I can’t get the thoughts to gel.
President Barack Obama has told Senate Democrats he plans to use his executive authority to act in 2014 when Congress stands in his way.
Two thoughts comes to mind. First; wow….never saw such a case where someone defined a word so well — “Hubris”. Second thought was; Didn’t this man teach as a “Constitutional Scholar”?
Most surprisingly, Bates said the judges opposed adding an independent advocate for privacy and civil liberties to the court’s classified hearings, saying the proposal was “unnecessary — and could prove counterproductive.”
There is an element of truth – a weak advocate really is just another government employee but this is a time I don’t mind another bureaucrat in the mix. The incremental approach can work in dismantling government laws also.
The judges were uniformly against making the secret judicial review more transparent, a practice that Obama has espoused. “Releasing freestanding summaries of court opinions is likely to promote confusion and misunderstanding,” Bates wrote.
Don’t you love the condescension dripping from that statement. Us poor yokels would not only understand but they don’t want to waste their time it would take to help us understand. Of course, the entire idea of doing away with a secret court probably never even crossed their minds either.
East Texas authorities are trying to determine how a 2-year-old girl drank so much liquor that her blood alcohol content reached 0.18 percent.
Can we find out if Josh Brent
was in the area when this happened?
Guess the caffeine kicked in….posting but not sure how much sense I’m making.