Defensive Gun Use – Grand Prairie Edition

GRAND PRAIRIE A Grand Prairie resident shot an intruder Tuesday afternoon while on the line with a 911 operator.

Around 2:30 p.m. the resident heard breaking glass at the rear of the home in the 2000 block of Clark Trail. He called 911, then went to get his gun.

The resident confronted the intruder, who had a knife. The resident shot the suspect, Gilberto Balderas, 21, while on the line with 911.

Another one of those defensive gun uses (DGU) the antis love to say “almost never happen”. Amazing how we can find them so often but the antis claim that the number of DGU are inflated.

Now we could list the cliches (brought a knife to a gun fight, when seconds count…, etc) but the truth of the matter is a person used a firearm to protect his home and probably himself — why would a burglar have a knife out if not to hurt someone, eh?

Of course the antis will say the home owner should have ran away (duty to retreat) but that defies common sense, doesn’t it?

Hi, I’m a Criminal. I’m here to rob you. Please leave your house so I can work in peace.

Wouldn’t that type of response actually encourage more crime?

Please join the discussion.


6 Responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Matt on 28.11.12 at 07:53

    Stupid is as stupid does….

  2. Posted by Bob S. on 28.11.12 at 07:53


    Are you talking about the antis, the thug/burglar or both?

  3. Posted by RabidAlien on 28.11.12 at 07:53

    Sounds like a legit defense shooting to me.

  4. Posted by Geodkyt on 28.11.12 at 07:53

    See, to me, it’s the intruder who has the “duty to retreat” to preserve his right not to have his hide shot full of holes. Not the person lawfully and peaceably present having a duty to retreat to preserve his right to self defense. But that’s just me. . . .

  5. Posted by Bob S. on 28.11.12 at 07:53

    Rabid Alien,

    Well, to you and I it seems legit! But the antis think a person should have to run out of their own home, leaving the crook to steal however much they want (which could be used to buy guns) and hope the home owner remembered to grab a cell phone to call the cops.
    Hope the cops show up in time to stop the crook.

    In short, just about every one of them think that my right to protect my property is less then the right to the crook to take it.


    Ever hear an anti say that a crook has a duty to retreat? I haven’t.

  6. Posted by Greg Tag on 28.11.12 at 07:53

    Bob and Friends:

    I will offer several observations.

    1) The burglar was armed. He was committing the crime of “Aggravated Burglary of a Habitation”. This can be a very dangerous business.

    Texas Statute explicitly allows for force, including deadly force, to prevent the imminent commission a laundry list of felonies, including the of the offense of “Burglary of a Habitation”. The homeowner, under such circumstance, can use any weapon he has handy, up to and including a Thompson Submachine Gun, to deal with the armed intruder into his precious Castle.

    The homeowner committed no crime. By statute, he has no “duty to retreat”; he is not required to promote pubic ” peace” by abandoning his belongings and hearth to an armed invader. The DA and the Grand Jury will dispose of this in about 5 minutes.

    This is Texas and burglars frequently get shot.

    Thugs who want to make a living off of other people’s sweat should consider a new vocation, this one is dangerous here. As for all you folks who live where the law (or for my Scots relatives – the Crown Prosecution Service) puts you at the mercy of burglars – read about life in a free state and weep.

    2) As for the suggestion that the homeowner should be compelled to run away, just like in the UK, where do we start?

    Is it morally right to allow miscreants to claim the property of others by their use of force and violence? No, not only is it wrong, it breeds contempt for the law and civic order, as citizens see that the law appears to protect the evil-doer and not the innocent. It is corrosive to civic order, because the bad guys see that people attempting to fight them will be punished far more by the state than they will be the thug if he is caught.

    Incidence of crime, in this case burglary, will rise- the cost for the “officially protected” burglars is low, and the cost to home defenders fighting back is high. This is simple economics – low cost actions which produce high reward will trend upward. The burglary rates of occupied dwellings in UK is enormous, greater than 70% by some reports- burglars aren’t afraid of the residents and this frequently leads to additional injury or indignity for the innocent. On the other hand, in Texas and the US south and west, only about 15% or burglaries occur on occupied dwellings- burglars fear being shot by the residents, as they frequently are.

    Requiring someone to run away from their home and property, when faced with felonious attack is an insult and indignity to an adult, on the other hand, for those who seek to infantalize grown-ups and make them mere wards of the modern nanny-state this approach is perfectly reasonable. They want each of us to respond to bad guys with ” Call the police, don’t fight back, do what they want and maybe they won’t hurt you”. If you or a loved one are injured or worse while following the rules, the response is a shrug and a pat on the head from the social worker, and the soothing words: ” that’s just the price we pay for living in a modern civilized society”.

    A prime example of this bankrupt thinking in the US was until recently on the website of the Illinois State Police. Women who were attacked by a rapist were advised to acquiesce, comply, to not fight back, and in extremis to vomit on their attacker. A far more effective method would be to shoot the attacker several times, but nanny-staters being what they are this was never mentioned.

    In closing, let me say: “Thumbs up” to any homeowner who defends his or her property.

    As for the Brady Bunch, who are more appropriately called “The Burglar and Thug Protection Society”, a pox on your morally bankrupt thinking. I hope none of you is ever in a position of needing a gun in an emergency and instead must be forced to rely on the ” be nice and maybe they wont hurt you” or the ” vomit on the bad guy ” strategies.

    Lastly, Thank God for Texas.