911 call, woman begs for her life, found murdered.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20120820-dallas-woman-found-murdered-2-days-after-her-screams-for-help-to-911.ece

That is a subscription site so I will summarize the story. Deanna Cooks made here first 911 call January of 2009 when her husband had held her at knifepoint, threatening to kill her. In February he almost choked her to death. That March, he called her phone hundreds of times, threatening to kill her in front of her children and to have his friends sexually assault her children. (Teenage daughters.) In August, he choked her, took her wallet and called her mother, threatening to kill her. Over the years there were many violent episodes as he kicked doors in, beat her, threatened to beat her to death with a crowbar. He was released on ever increasing bonds.

The accusations of violence stopped between March 2010 and April 2011: He was in jail.

In May 2011, Cook told police that Patrick hit her numerous times, yanked her by the hair and threatened her with a crowbar. She filed for divorce days later, and a judge granted her divorce in January, 2012.

This past May, Cook called police to say that he had called her 107 times, telling her he was going to kill her.

Friday, August 17, she called 911 from a cell phone. She was screaming on the call for help and begging for her life. Police arrived 45 minutes later, found the address to be quiet. No one answered the door and there was no answer to the phone when 911 called back. The police left. Two days she didn't show up for church so her family went to her house where they saw water running from under her door.

Police were again called and she was found murdered in her bathroom.

Ultimately we are all responsibe for our own self-defense. If this lady had gotten a gun she could have been calling 911 to come pick up his body. Instead she is dead, and her daughters are motherless.

[Matt_in_STL]

1. Did I read that last paragraph correctly?

Are you actually blaming the victim because she wasn't "responsible" enough to have a gun and handle her own self-defense? And now it is her fault that she is dead and her children are motherless? Wow, you are quite the piece of work.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. NO. You obviously did not read the last paragraph correctly.

[Matt_in_STL]

4. Explain this to me then

"Ultimately we are all responsibe for our own self-defense. If this lady had gotten a gun she could have been calling 911 to come pick up his body. Instead she is dead, and her daughters are motherless."

So, instead of taking the position that she was killed by an absolute psychopath and it is his fault alone that she is dead (being the victim), we get a paragraph talking about how she was responsible for her own self defense and because shedidn't have a gun she is dead and her children are motherless.

No, she is dead and her children are motherless because some crazed, murderous asshole came to her house and killed her. I am as much for gun ownership as anyone but this is absolutely ridiculous to put any of this on the victim.

[Remmah2]

5. My sister had an abusive ex.

She put a Beretta 92 up his nose and explained if he didn't learn to behave he might lose his nose.

He behaves, makes his child support payments, and has learned not to give her any crap.

He learned to get over the divorce he caused really fast.

She knew from the gitgo that the police and society would not be at hand to save her. She knew all the laws in the land were not worth the paper they were printed on.

A Beretta in the nose certainly reinforces a restraining order.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. Is there any reason why she wasn't arrested for assault with a deadly weapon?

Women can also be rightfully prosecuted for ADW and you have not said that she was acting in self-defense.

In fact, you've said that "He behaves, makes his child support payments, and has learned not to give her any crap." Using a firearm to control future actions, such as to control the making of "child support payments," doesn't even sound like self-defense.

Those who violate the criminal laws with firearms should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. "Using a firearm to control future actions"

I guessing at the time she just wanted him to leave her alone then and there. I doubt she threatens him on a regular basis. I see it as akin to a store owner pulling a gun on a would-be robber and then the robber deciding to set aside a life of crime.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. Interesting and imaginative response. But a false equivalency. No honest store owner would pull a

gun on someone to get future payments from that person. Nor would you expect a store owner to relate a story in a way to amuse a family member who now thinks that it is appropriate to pull a gun for an encounter not involving self-defense.

If the person pulling the gun had acted in self-defense, wouldn't you expect the poster to refer to self-defense or describe some facts which would indicate self-defense? Instead, IMO, there seems to be a bit of gloating. A description of the pistol. A description of the body part against which the pistol was placed. But no description of facts indicating self-defense.

Being in favor of gun ownership of self-defense does not obligate any of us to favor using firearms against any person to settle grudges about real or imaginary wrongs when self-defense is not at issue.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Did she pull a gun to get future payments or to just get her attacker to stop attacking?

If it were a case of extortion I'd agree without argument but I think the fidelity in child support payments was an after effect, not the sought after objective.

I'm not prepared to allow an obviously biased recounting of the story be the determining factor. I would prefer to strip out the "fluff" and distill it to it basic points. The key points I gleaned from the story are: 1) ex husband was violent and abusive 2) during one such episode the former wife pulled a gun and threatened him 3) since that episode the ex husband has chosen to no longer exhibit such behavior and has been punctual with child support etc.

The tone of the story is decidedly braggadocios; a tale meant to convey a sense of "it settled his @$$ down, right quick!" However, that is the storyteller adding that inflection and as such may not properly convey the wife's mindset at that time. When violently confronted by someone who is probably physically more powerful I'll err on the side of caution with the assumption the wife was more interested in her safety than future child support.

I would like to think where you and I can agree is -- gun ownership, especially when one is pulled in self-defense, is so serious a matter that bragging is never helpful and may promote irresponsible and dangerous behavior.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. Agreed, bragging is not helpful.

[Remmah2]

88. Abusive ex? You call that bragging?

Sounds to me like some people have a problem with women who can kick their asses. Women who are sick and tired of being abused and do something because the courts and police are as useless as their ex's.

Hint: restraining order, usually granted by a court for a reason.

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

[ManiacJoe]

41. Probably because it might have been self defense at the time.

> Is there any reason why she wasn't arrested for assault with a deadly weapon?

Since he started behaving after the gun was pointed at him, it would seem that he was misbehaving prior to that.

I would not recommend trying to read too much into a short story told on the internet.

[Remmah2]

87. Do you understand "restraining order"?

What's she going to do? Say, "wait while I call the police?"

Those who walk through restraining orders deserve a gun up their nose.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

108. restraining order = legal

threatening someone with a firearm for past conduct = illegal

threatening someone with a firearm to compel the payment of money = illegal

someone who expresses delight or glee when talking about another person says, "She put a Beretta 92 up his nose and explained if he didn't learn to behave he might lose his nose" without describing a situation involving self-defense = probably someone who is not talking about self-defense

[gejohnston]

109. which apparently happened only after he

violated the restraining order. When that happens, her threatening him with firearm=legal.
Abusive SOs, like any other bully, usually cowers when faced with active resistance.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

111. "like any other bully"? IMO, many bullies don't cower when faced with active resistence.

Some do. Some are nothing more than hot air. Some are nothing more than oversized cowards mimicing actions that have made them fearful.

But some, such as oversized cops and football players, are steroid junkies with 'roid rage. They weren't fearful to begin with. If they are not trying to hide fear but are simply expressing rage and mean-spiritness for any reason, active resistence is not going to make them cower.

IMO, the poster described a bully with a firearm who was trying to bully her ex. I go back to the fact that he didn't describe any facts to support a claim of self-defense, but was happy to boast about his sister who "put a Beretta 92 up his nose and explained if he didn't learn to behave he might lose his nose."

IMO, a bully with a firearm is a dangerous person who should not be encouraged.

[Jenoch]

110. restraining order = ineffective piece of paper

threatening someone with a firearm to compel payment of money = illegal, and effective

[Remmah2]

112. Try asking an intelligent question rather than making poor assumptions.

nt

[Remmah2]

113. The notion of glee or delight is your warped view of the event.

I certainly don't think it's funny when violent ex's show up at anyone's door. Who in their right mind would defend a deadbeat ex who think's he's above the law. The kind of jerk who smacks his wife around, cheats on her and abandons his parental responsibility?

As far as I'm concerned when a restraining order is issued against a person for domestic violence the spouse should be handed a firearm on the way out of court.

The system is screwed up, broken and otherwise does not work.

Why are you so hell bent on defending the abuser? Domestic abuse is not a funny matter.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

115. No one has defended an abuser. Not me. Not anyone.

By your own words, you said:

She put a Beretta 92 up his nose and explained if he didn't learn to behave he might lose his nose.

He behaves, makes his child support payments, and has learned not to give her any crap.

He learned to get over the divorce he caused really fast.
...
A Beretta in the nose certainly reinforces a restraining order.

All this talk about a putting a Beretta in a nose. You mentioned a "Beretta" two times. You mentioned "nose" three times. You mentioned "learned" two times, and indicated that she taught him a lesson.

You mentioned "restraining order" one time. A person might argue that your single reference to a "restraining order" without more sufficiently described a situation requiring her to act in self-defense. And you are apparently doing so at the present. I am more influenced by your original words and your failure to expressly describe a self-defense situation. In your mind, you may convince yourself that she acted in self-defense. In my view, talking about how someone taught another person a lesson by putting "a Beretta 92 up his nose" in the way that you did describes bravado and revenge for past wrongs rather than a situation requiring a threat to immediately use lethal force for self-defense.

[Remmah2]

116. Why is it that other people got it and you didn't?

What revenge?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

117. .

"He ... learned not to give her any crap."

"He learned to get over the divorce he caused really fast."

[Remmah2]

118. ..._..

Some people never learn.

[virginia mountainman]

29. Restraining orders are not worth the paper they are written on...

Unless it is backed up by a pound or so of steel and or high grade polymers, and add a few grains of lead, brass, gun powder, and copper, and the will and knowledge to use them.

[DWC]

102. Amen !!! n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. Explain it to you? OK, let's take it through the steps.

This web site has anti-gun advocates as well as persons that do not share their views.

The advocacy of the anti-gunners is important and needs to be addressed. In 1994, the 40-year control of Congress by the Democratic Party shifted to the Republicans. Bill Clinton explained this in his recently-released book "My Life":

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

There are some on this web site who want to revive the anti-gun issue.

The OP is opposed to the anti-gun advocates. He believes that people should have firearms for self-defense. He also believes that the outcome for this woman could have been different if she would have been able to defend herself. The OP is not blaming the victim. If anything, he is blaming the mindset of those who taken the position that the private ownership of firearms for self-defense is unnecessary.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. Blame the muderer, but she is still dead.

I notice that you do not attempt to argue about any of the facts of the event.

Ultimately, you and only you are responsible for your own safety. Society will prosecute your attacker after the fact. But only you can defend yourself during the fact.

There are many here who are against effective self-defense. They want victims to be helpless and to rely upon the police. This woman did that, and ended up dead. If she had relied upon herself, she could well be alive.

[littlewolf]

93. excellent point ....

prosecution after the fact is unacceptable ...
did the courts fail ... you bet .... this scum should
have been in jail .. not on bond ... but
the judge was not in danger .. this lady was ...
and her children were ....
police basically come after the fact and
write up reports and stats ....
I believe in self defense ...
it doesn't have to be deadly selfdefense
tasers work well ... but I happen to like
pump shotguns for home defense ...
20 ga with buckshot ... you don't have to
let the bad guy get close .... just my opinion

[TruthAnalyzed]

13. I don't think it is meant as blame...

Rather, I think it is representative of the OP's opinion(mine as well) that people should be educated that they should look out for themselves.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad people and crazies out there. Unfortunately, the police won't always be able to get there in time to help you.

My wife was abused and threatened by her ex-husband, both while they were married, and after getting divorced. She ended up in the hospital several times. Finally, she decided to stand up for herself, and got a gun. One time he tried to broke down her door, she was standing there with the gun pointed at him when he came in.

That was the last time he ever bothered her. She didn't shoot(proving that you don't have to kill someone to defend yourself).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Why are the anti-gun advocates opposed to self-defense?

They never seem to be able to explain it in a logical way.

[TheMadMonk]

6. The problem was not her lack of gun.

Her problem was a bunch of good ole boy local yokel cops and judges who, in the 21st century, still bloody well think women and children are property.

So in your considered opinion: Civilisation is dead and burried in the USA and it's every bastard for himself and devil take the hindmost?

If so then you should be the bloody first to put the Second Ammendment to it's intended use and take up arms against the government.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. "bloody well"; "Civilisation" (sic); "bloody first"? Are you a Brit? Or otherwise from the UK?

Why are you advocating for anyone posting on this board to "take up arms against the government"?

[Hoyt]

11. Is that what you got out of that post? I think you should read it a few more times, if necessary.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. How are your anti-gun rants going? Do you want to undermine the election of Democrats?

See # 8 for Bill Clinton's analysis regarding the loss of the 1994 election.

Have you read that before? Do you have any special insight contrary to Bill Clinton's?

[Hoyt]

16. There are some in the gun culture that will do anything to keep their precious lethal toys.

I'm sorry, guns are a problem in our society and I really don't think there are that many people who will pull the lever for a Democrat that straps on a few guns to attract them, nor do I think we should attempt to attract them. Fact is, by appeasing you guys and a few that might vote Democratic if we just capitulate regarding guns, we are allowing some of the most bigoted, callous people in our country to arm up and pass ever laxer laws, especially regarding guns in public. That is wrong.

If Democrats came out for tough restrictions on guns, would you vote for Romney (or refrain from voting which is almost the same)?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. (1) Firearms are not "toys."

(2) The loss of the Democratic control over Congress in 1994 showed that the issue of private ownership of firearms for self-defense was a major issue for gun-owning Democrats and gun-owning independents. The concern was not limited to "some in the gun culture."

(3) Your use of a reductio ad absurdum argument undermines your credibility and your implicit representation that you desire to "attract" voters for the Democratic Party. You say, "I really don't think there are that many people who will pull the lever for a Democrat that straps on a few guns to attract them." So what? No Democratic candidate is going to "strap on a few guns" and you cannot seriously believe that any Democratic candidate would do that.

(4) Discontinuing your endless campaign for the advocacy of returning to the gun-control represented in the 1993 legislation would not be "appeasing you guys." Nor would it involve any action by you to "capitulate regarding guns."

(5) Engaging in name calling and referring to some people as "the most bigoted, callous people in our country" is not helping your cause.

(6) The posts made by you on this board (as well as me) will not determine which laws are passed.

(7) Your anti-gun campaign with multiple posts on this board shows that your opposition is not limited to "guns in public."

(8) Your question about how I would vote in an imaginary situation is irrelevant. What this is about is the advocacy for anti-gun legislation which is not an issue for Democratic candidates and which has the potential to revive an issue which was an important factor in the loss of the 1994 election. See Bill Clinton's analysis in #8.

[Hoyt]

19. You guys sure whine about posts to restrict your access and use of lethal toys (aka, precious guns).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

20. "whine"? Ironically, that describes your action.

In addition, as illustrated bypost #8, I have objected to efforts to undermine the election of Democratic candidates by reviving a 1993 issue which (as noted by Bill Clinton) signifigantly contributed to the loss of the 1994 election.

As I mentioned before, firearms are not "toys."

[Hoyt]

24. Yes, firearms are lethal toys to the gun culture. They literally cling to them.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. Yes, your word "whine" describes your actions.

[virginia mountainman]

30. We should offer him some cheese...to go with that whine...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Hoyt is going to think that you responded directly to him. Yes, let's offer him some cheese.

[4th law of robotics]

36. I could see why an armed robber would have a problem with the "gun-culture"

Just like they'd have a problem with "law-culture" and "police-culture" and pretty much anything that makes taking from those weaker than yourself more difficult.

[TruthAnalyzed]

40. You act like gun owners are the most despicable people...

A study in Texas found that people with CCW permits were something like 14 times less likely to commit any crime, than the average non-CCW person.

In my experience, most people who 'strap on their (toy) guns' take them much more seriously than people like you give them credit for.

[Hoyt]

47. Another gun cultist who misuses statistics. Compare those with a CCW to those who qualify,

but choose not to walk around in public with a gun or two strapped to their bodies. See what the difference is then.

Actually, I'm not against all guns. I do oppose most public toting and those who can't control their habit and buy/accumulate far too many guns and are attracted to guns specifically marketed to appeal to gun cultists' baser instincts. I'm also opposed to bigots and anti-government types who arm up. Finally, I'm really opposed to those who profit from guns, and things related to them.

Hope that helps orient you to my beliefs (just another person opposed to arming up of society) since you appear new here.

[TruthAnalyzed]

49. Can you have a discussion without ad hominem?

There's really no need, it contributes nothing.

Yes, that would be a nice comparison to make, but as far as I'm aware, nobody has done a study like that.

Regardless, citizens with ccw permits are, on the whole, more law-abiding than citizens who don't have permits. That directly flies in the face of any argument about gun owners being irresponsible or dangerous or X.

Are you against concealed carry, or just open carry?

Are you as opposed to people who collect swords and knives? What about coins and rocks?

[Hoyt]

50. I'm against carrying in public period. BTW, it's illegal to carry a sword in public where I live,

but I can strap as many guns on as I can conceal. That makes little sense, except to the republican dominated government here.

As to collecting, nothing wrong with it in most cases -- although "collecting" so-called assault/tactical weapons seems a bit sick to me. I would also criticize anyone who collects swastikas, confederate flags, TBag flags, copies of "The Turner Diaries" and other such publications, frequent right wing web sites including gun sites, etc.

[TruthAnalyzed]

51. So what should citizens do, in your opinion

if they are confronted by someone with a knife/bat/gun? They shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon to defend themselves? Not even with the right to life, and all that jazz?

[Hoyt]

52. Over 280 million citizens seem to do fine without a gun in their pants. Try it.

Shoot, stop one of them and ask them how in the world they go through life without a gun or two in their pants when walking around in public?

Most of the civilized world does fine too.

[TruthAnalyzed]

53. I'm not asking what they should do when things go well

What should they do when things go wrong?

Do you think the millions of people who are robbed, beaten, raped, and murdered do 'fine'?

What should civilians do if they are confronted with someone who has a knife/bat/gun? What should they do if they are attacked?

Can you answer the question?

[Hoyt]

54. Live in fear, then. I've done my best in little time you've been here, I can't help you anymore.

[TruthAnalyzed]

56. Why can't you answer the question?

People get attacked, that's just a fact. You don't think they should have the opportunity to defend themselves?

Do you think it impossible to be prepared without 'living in fear'?

[GreenStormCloud]

69. Hoyt has previously posted that he is a former robber.

Link to his post, #43 in the thread.

Since he has claimed to be a former robber, one may understand his attitude towards armed self-defense in that light.

[Hoyt]

70. If I were a former robber, I would have only robbed those with a gun.

Why settle for pocket change when you can run away with a gun. Plus, you'd actually do society a favor by taking a gun away from another yahoo that can't leave home unarmed.

[GreenStormCloud]

76. That would only work until you got shot.

You posted that you were a former robber. Why did you quit?

[Hoyt]

82. Never started. Read my earlier post in context, if you can.

[GreenStormCloud]

86. There is nothing in the context that would change the meaning of what you posted.

I stated that an armed robber locking the door was often a prelude to murder.

You replied that as a former robber you locked the door to keep the cops out.

I don't see where that context changes the meaning of what you posted. You posted it so you own it and several of us here won't let you forget it. I'm not the only one that informs newer members of your post.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. "Plus, you'd actually do society a favor...

...by taking a gun away from another yahoo that can't leave home unarmed."

Am I the only one who's speechless?

[ManiacJoe]

81. Hoyt's posts are usually good for comic relief.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

85. If I didn't know better...

...I'd say Col. Klink has returned.

[Jenoch]

104. All that would do

is to transfer the gun from one armed robber and hoodlum to another. I don't see how you could have possibly doing anyone a favor in the scenario you have described.

[GreenStormCloud]

94. Irrelevant.

When you are out in public you are mixing with the general public. You aren't with a select group who could qualify for a CHL but have chosen not to. Since you are mixing with the general public, then the statistic for the general public is the correct one to use.

[Hoyt]

96. When you are posting about CCWers being more law-abiding, you should be truthful.

I think those who qualify for a CCW -- but do not carry -- are more law-abiding than those who do. Plus, you need to add in all those gun cultists who tote without getting a CCW.

Finally -- and it certainly doesn't take a genius to figure this out -- those who don't carry are a whole lot less likely to discharge a weapon by accident, shoot someone by mistake, use a gun to intimidate, rely on gun for courage and intimidation (Zimmerman for example), shoot when it wasn't necessary, etc.

[Jenoch]

97. Huh?

"I think those who qualify for a CCW -- but do not carry -- are more law-abiding than those who do. Plus, you need to add in all those gun cultists who tote without getting a CCW."

Huh? If the point is that holders of CCWs are more law abiding than those people WITHOUT CCWs, why on earth should a NON CCW permit holder be added in to the statistics? If a study were done on people with driver's licenses, why would people WITHOUT driver's licenses be included in the statistics?

[Hoyt]

98. Because the poster is trying to make a point that is BS.

CCWers are no more law-abiding -- maybe less -- than those who meet the qualifications but choose not to carry. And, there are a heck of a lot more of the latter.

CCWers make up about 3 - 4% of population, if that much.

The only thing really "special" about CCW holders is they feel the need to carry a gun or two in public, and don't give a dang about the impact of guns upon society.

[4th law of robotics]

99. So in place of legitimate statistics you put forth "I think" as a counter-argument

Sure the numbers say CCW holders aren't a real threat. But you *feel* that they are. In fact worse than any other demographic. Again this is based on feelings. The numbers lie.

[Jenoch]

103. In Minnesota, the only way to

"meet the qualifications" to carry a concealed weapon is to take and pass the class, and thus becoming a CCW holder. It appears you have limited knowledge about CCW holders and are making generalizations based on what the requirements are in your home state of Georgia.

[GreenStormCloud]

100. You are leaving out the innocent lives saved by CHL holders.

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2011 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2011 there were 512,625 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there were exactly four (4) murder convictions. Out of the general population there were 553 convictions for murder in its various forms.

So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/10/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:

Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2010, there were 98 justifiable homicides, of
which, 50 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 48 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 50 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shootings are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus four innocents killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

You are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be illegally killed by a SHL holder.

[GreenStormCloud]

101. Why should I add the illegal carriers to the legal ones?

We are talking about the excellent legal record of CHL holders and you want to add in criminal carry to the total? Illegal carriers have already been added in - that total is the general public.

[TheMadMonk]

89. Is that the best you can do? ridicule me, because I don't spell Merkin?

Aussie BTW.

Why? Because, your final paragraph clearly implies that in that bastion of liberty, equality and brotherhood (Obviously the original French would be too much for you to handle), the good ole US of A, there is no safety, just whatever brand of mayhem a person chooses to bring to the party.

You're the one telling us that government and society have failed. I'm just reminding you that that's what the 2A was put there for.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

107. No one ridiculed you. But you are an Aussie, and this site is for the election of more Democrats.

Instead of posting and giving the initial false impression that you are an American who is eligible to vote in American politics, you should make it clear in your posts that you are an Aussie.

[TheMadMonk]

121. I've never pretended to be anything other than myself.

And you bigotry is showing.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Where did the judge and the cops think that?

The cops showed up, but they were too late. Cops can't always arrive instantly.

Where did the judge favor the thug? He was jailed, her divorce was granted, he was given a high bond.

The government's job is to prosecute crime after the event, not to proved personal protection. Your protection is your own job.

[TheMadMonk]

91. In failing to act decisively over THREE years of escalating violence.

And more importantly a nationwide pattern of similar behaviour.

He was jailed for a whole fucking year and a bit after multiple instances of physical assault, including assault with a deadly weapon, multiple death threats AND threats of sexual violence against children. Thirteen fucking months. And the moment he was released he was straight back at it.

I tell you what, pick a random woman out of the phone book, and try that on.

FAMILY and CRIMINAL Law courts are two very fucking different things. And BTW I find it very offensive, that you even imply that a judge should have the power to decide what is or is not a "legitimate" divorce. (And yes I AM using that word very, very <f-bomb self redacted> deliberately and topically.)

He was given escalatingly high bonds, and every time the bond escalated so did his behaviour, yet he was left free to continue.

The legal system had MULTIPLE opportunities to prosecute unconscionable criminal behaviour IN ADVANCE OF FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE MURDER and REPEATEDLY failed to do so. Not just in this one case, but in thousands just like it (and worse, a handful of those threatened rapes of kids DID take place, and thousands of other kids die to punish "ungrateful bitches" every year.)

If there's a prior or current spousal relationship between abuser and victim, the abuse is (in general) prosecuted far more leniently than identical criminal assault on a stranger or casual aquaintance.

[gejohnston]

92. true, but

I missed where GSC implied anything about "legitimate divorce"

While I agree with you completely, and ideally he should have been doing hard time years ago. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The point is, if she had a weapon and defended herself the ending would have been better. Not ideal, but certainly among the least worse.

[TheMadMonk]

105. And I'll call BS on that. How many women end up behind bars...

...with a murder 1 or 2 conviction, when after a lifetime of abuse they finally do use deadly force in self defence?

Stand your ground doesn't seem to be an accepted defence for battered spouses.

"Her divorce was GRANTED." It's not the bloody sixties mate. The argument is division of assets and provision for any children. The FACT of the divorce is not in question, only its terms.

[gejohnston]

106. I don't have the slightest clue

perhaps you have some statistics on that. I have the distinct feeling that would be a greater problem in Australia than the US.
I have the feeling you actually know about SYG.

[4th law of robotics]

21. Actually considering that DV

is a roughly equal opportunity crime (men and women abused at equal rates) but the vast majority of those actually punished for it are men who abused women I'd say your assessment is backwards.

You'd be far better off facing a sheriff as a woman with a bleeding husband than as a man with a bleeding wife. Not so?

[ileus]

7. Well at least she died without being rude, polluting society or a bad habit.

Better to die than have a progressive 2A stance I suppose.


I'm glad my wife believes in the 2A and has her own personal safety device and the training to know how to use it.

[Hoyt]

12. As you guys like to say, "existing" laws allowed her to buy a gun. She chose not to. Clearly police

should have arrested the x-husband. That would have worked far better than turning to a gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. The ex-husband was arrested and jailed.

From the article: "He was arrested on an outstanding warrant related to the May 2011 assault, but got out of jail July 11."

Sorry that I didn't include that but it is a long article.

He spent over a year in jail, although the article does not tell us what for.

The police responded to her 911 call, but they were too late.

So turning to the police didn't help her at the end.

[4th law of robotics]

22. Perhaps she was influenced by the rantings of the anti-gun cult.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Clearly...

"...she called 911 from a cell phone. She was screaming on the call for help ... Police were again called and she was found murdered in her bathroom."

Clearly, self-defense is better not left to the police. It's often said that when seconds count the police are minutes away. In this case they were days away.

Clearly, the police investigate crime, detain suspects and give evidence to the courts. The great bulk of their work occurs after a crime.

[rDigital]

72. You'll never

get a response to this post because it's just too logical for the closeminded to understand.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

77. There have been a handful...

...of posts from him that I have found thoughtful. If in return he reads 1% of mine and feels the same, then we are communicating.

[Politicalboi]

26. A gun "may" have saved her

But since the police knew the history, they should have investigated and been faster to respond. I blame the police for their failure.

[4th law of robotics]

37. How long does it take to kill someone?

You call the cops at time point 0.

At what time could the person kill you?

At what time could the cops realistically show up?

[petronius]

44. Whether a faster response might have save her I don't know, but the police

definitely look to have screwed up. That history suggests a need to respond sooner than 45 minutes; I wonder if the dispatcher had access to info about the past events? And that distressed of a call followed by a no-answer should justify a forced entry; perhaps they didn't do that because the cell-phone call wasn't definitely known to have come from that address (no GPS perhaps, or she didn't tell the dispatcher she was at home)?

Sad and fucked up story, for sure...

[villager]

27. You're an even sicker puppy than I originally imagined: *All* you can take away from this tragedy

...including the threats (including sexual assault against her children), the lack of police action, etc....

...is to twist it into one of your auto-bot NRA calls for gun proliferation!!?

That's all a dead mother's body means to you?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

32. You managed to turn this into an ad hominem attack?

In what manner did the OP indicate that was all that he could "take away from this tragedy." He didn't. You just made that up.

[villager]

33. What's made up -- as ever -- is your response. Read the last paragraph of the OP.

The entire story was posted -- all of it -- just to lead to a call for more guns in more hands.

Nary a word of empathy about the victims, no questioning of the police, nothing.

Just: guns, guns, guns!

[Simo 1939_1940]

35. Of course it never occurred to you that "nary a word" of empathy

was stated because it goes without saying!!

It is your bias that moves you to the completely irrational conclusion that a sentiment not stated outright is a sentiment not felt.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. The last paragraph from the OP does not justify an ad hominem attack.

The last paragraph from the OP does not indicate that was all that he could "take away from this tragedy."

Since your raised an issue about "Nary a word of empathy about the victims, ..." I not only disagree with your conclusion because I believe that he implicitly expressed empathy for the victims, I noticed that you did not express any empathy about the victims. Do you want us to assume that you did without you having expressly saying so? Do you want us to apply a double standard?

In addition, why you say that the OP did not involve any "questioning of the police," once again I believe that the OP implicitly did question the police. And, while applying your standard as to whether he did or did not do so, it is obvious that you did not.

[bongbong]

42. Cut the gun-relgionists some slack

They need their guns because they're so scared. In fact, a lot of gun-religionists would starve without their guns, since they'd be too scared to go to the supermarket.

[Jenoch]

45. If you don't think some people

have reason to be 'scared' you should read the story posted by the OP. That woman was scared shitless. She depended on law enforcement to protect her. As they say, when seconds count, the cops are minutes, in this case 45 minutes, away.

[bongbong]

48. LOL

ANOTHER Strawman!

Gun-relgionists love those because it makes their obsession with Precious seem OK.

For the clueless (AKA gun-relgionists), here is the building of the Strawman:

> "If you don't think some people have reason to be 'scared'"

Gun-relgionists want to have their guns in CHURCH for heaven's sake! That takes "scared, wimpy, fake-tough-guy" to a new height.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. Yes, I carry concealed at church also.

There are several others at my church that also carry concealed. As the shooting at the Sikh temple well demonstrates, houses of worship are not immune from violence.

My church gives classes in concealed carry to help folks get their Concealed Hangun Licenses. We have a state certified instructor.

[bongbong]

60. Good

At least you're brave enough to admit in public that you're a big scared wimp.

[rDigital]

73. Aware, not afraid. Prepared, not paranoid. You have much to learn young padawan. nt

[bongbong]

80. OK

But those "wimpy Liberals" who walk around without needing a gun are a lot more "tough" than you gun-relgionists, who depend on your weapons to feel safe in public. Must be sad to be so scared 24x7.

[4th law of robotics]

57. Are you glad this woman was disarmed?

Yes or no.

[bongbong]

61. LOL

> Yes or no.

Ohhh, now the scared gun-relgionists think they're in court!

H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S!

[4th law of robotics]

62. No, I just thought, briefly

that I was talking to someone who felt comfortable enough with his/her own beliefs to talk honestly about them rather than "laughing out loud" at a woman being murdered.

If you were to ask me a direct and simple question about my beliefs I wouldn't feel the reflexive need (as you do) to divert the conversation and under no circumstances answer it honestly.

You may want to consider the ramifications of that. Or not. Likely not as I very much doubt you've ever felt the need to think about your beliefs rather than simply repeating them ad nausem.

[bongbong]

65. LOL

> n "laughing out loud" at a woman being murdered.

I'll see your Strawman, and raise you a "All gun-relgionists love the mass murders that their dear friends do in America"

[Simo 1939_1940]

90. What is actually hilarious is the fact that you're laughing

your way to the poorhouse.

There is no evidence that your views will ever gain the slightest traction, and a great deal of evidence that the views of gun rights advocates of all political stripes are overwhelming their opposition.

So by all means - laugh away.

[TruthAnalyzed]

58. Where do you think baddies are more likely to go?

Somewhere where there is likely to be armed civilians, or somewhere where there isn't?

Have you ever noticed that most of these attacks happen in 'gun free' zones?

Have you never heard the stories of people killing in churches?

You don't have to be scared to be prepared. Even the Department of Justice determined that people use guns millions of times a year in self-defense.

[bongbong]

63. Hilarity reigns

> Have you ever noticed that most of these attacks happen in 'gun free' zones?

Another gun-religionist with absolutely no knowledge of statistics, probability, or reality.

Don't worry, you're very typical of the gun-relgionists.

[TruthAnalyzed]

66. If you want to have a real discussion

using the time-honored tradition of rational discussion, logic, sources, etc...

I'd be willing to do so. Please try to keep ad hominem and appeal to ridicule out of it, as those are neither rational, nor logical.

I would ask you, just as I've asked others, what should citizens do if they are confronted with someone who wishes to do them harm, using a knife, or bat, or gun, or other weapon?

[4th law of robotics]

67. You'll get a "LOL" and a smiley face in response

this user has no interest in rational discourse and by all appearances is incapable of it.

Usually I ignore him/her. Every now and then I give it a shot and see if things have changed.

So far the answer is no, they haven't.

[TruthAnalyzed]

68. LOL

In all seriousness, I'm sure you're right. People who use ad hominem, or anything like it, generally show that they simply aren't interested in discussion or rationality.

It's too bad, because I think we would have much less disagreement and anger over, well, just about everything, if all sides involved could just talk to each other, accept that people have different ideas, and try to work it out maturely.

[rDigital]

74. LOL

Really? No way am I going to answer you ROFLCOPTER

[Common Sense Party]

83. Real discussion? From someone who thinks that the ad nauseum repetition of the term "gun religionist

and a rofl smiley graphic adds up to an intelligent argument?

Not likely.

Not even remotely possible.

[TruthAnalyzed]

84. You never know...

Once, about a year ago, I got someone to come out of their little box and have a discussion. It was pretty cool when he opened up.

But, you're probably, mostly, in all likelihood.... right.

[gejohnston]

59. being a Druid,

people bring guns and bows to my church all of the time, especially during hunting season.

[bongbong]

64. Well,

Isn't that special?

[Jenoch]

71. You chose the wrong example

in an attempt to make your point:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/11/nation/na-shoot11

[Remmah2]

95. She's still dead.

My sister is alive and well.

The system failed and alls some people can do is talk about it. Talk is an empty gesture when one is dead.

[Atypical Liberal]

75. Sounds like she had at least 3 years to get herself a firearm.

The story starts with her first 911 call in 2009, and ends on August 17th 2012. That's about 3 years.

If she didn't avail herself to the means of self-defense (and she was legally able to own firearms) that was her choice and we should respect that.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. I respect her right to her choice, but not the choice itself. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

114. UPDATE: Dallas to overhaul 911 system.

Sorry, no link. It is from today's paper. Dallas is going to change the 911 system to enable a method to prioritize the calls so that calls like hers would be responded to "code 3".

[rDigital]

119. Dial 911 and die. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

120. There is a book by that title.

I documents cases in each state where someone dialed 911 and was still murdered.