Don't SYG - call 911 instead!

[jkapp]

Calling the police should be number one priority...they are there to save you, don't ya know?

www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/denver-womans-13-minute-long-911-call-ends-fatal-gunshot-n81816

A Denver woman who spent nearly 15 frantic minutes on the phone with a 911 dispatcher was killed Monday night by a bullet to the head before help arrived.


Yeah, great reaction time by the police department...we obviously don't need Stand Your Ground laws with this kind of response time from our civil servants.

[djAdvocate]

the exception proves the rule, doncha know?

[billisonboard]

Very interesting facts to this case. Worth reading the link.

[EVT1]

What exception? This has absolutely nothing to do with SYG or self-defense at all. 

If anything it is an illustration of how having a gun in the home can lead to getting shot by it in a domestic incident.  Perhaps she should have been open carrying in her house

            

[EVT1]

      Police are investigating the possibility that Richard Kirk — who admitted to killing his wife on his way to the police station, according to the probable cause statement — took marijuana prior to the shooting.

Here we go..........CO weed law claims first victim

[Tennesseer]

Apr 16, 2014 10:56:12 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Calling the police should be number one priority...they are there to save you, don't ya know?

www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/denver-womans-13-minute-long-911-call-ends-fatal-gunshot-n81816

A Denver woman who spent nearly 15 frantic minutes on the phone with a 911 dispatcher was killed Monday night by a bullet to the head before help arrived.


Yeah, great reaction time by the police department...we obviously don't need Stand Your Ground laws with this kind of response time from our civil servants.

The deceased's husband had the home's gun in his hand.  The husband shot and killed her.  How was the wife to 'Stand Her Ground'?  With her make believe gun using her index finger as the gun barrel and say "Boom.  Gotcha!"?

[Virgil Showlion]

It does make one think twice about calling the police versus arming oneself. From the details given in the story, it does sound as though she'd still be alive if she'd done the latter.

As for the marijuana angle, I think we'd all best get used to the additional scrutiny. The same issue was raised in that story about the woman who stabbed her husband in a church.

I know the party line is "Marijuana makes you mellow, mon." but it seems like it might also exacerbate a delusional state of mind.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 16, 2014 12:14:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It does make one think twice about calling the police versus arming oneself. From the details given in the story, it does sound as though she'd still be alive if she'd done the latter.  

As for the marijuana angle, I think we'd all best get used to the additional scrutiny. The same issue was raised in that story about the woman who stabbed her husband in a church.

I know the party line is "Marijuana makes you mellow, mon." but it seems like it might also exacerbate a delusional state of mind.

That ìs assuming there was a second weapon ìn the couple's home.  It does not read as if there was one.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 16, 2014 12:28:15 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 16, 2014 12:14:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It does make one think twice about calling the police versus arming oneself. From the details given in the story, it does sound as though she'd still be alive if she'd done the latter.  

As for the marijuana angle, I think we'd all best get used to the additional scrutiny. The same issue was raised in that story about the woman who stabbed her husband in a church.

I know the party line is "Marijuana makes you mellow, mon." but it seems like it might also exacerbate a delusional state of mind.

That ìs assuming there was a second weapon ìn the couple's home.  It does not read as if there was one.

Agreed, but the story states that the husband was asking the wife to shoot him. Presumably she'd have had the option to get the gun from the safe at that point.

It also states that she became alarmed when she discovered the gun had been taken, and makes it sound as though this happened at the end of the 13-minute wait, immediately before she was shot. So again, she might presumably have had a window of time during those 13 minutes to fetch the weapon, which she instead used waiting on the police.

I don't think she did the wrong thing. With perfect hindsight it may have been the wrong decision, but I still think it was wise of her to call the police rather than pull a gun on her husband. And in any case, I seriously doubt that the legal ramifications of shooting her husband played any part in her decision.

It's just unfortunate in the sense that she trusted the civil authorities and yet they still weren't able to respond quickly enough to save her life. It's precisely the scenario that SYG proponents fall back to: the police aren't going to make it in time and the only one who's going to save your life is you.

[billisonboard]

Apr 16, 2014 12:14:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It does make one think twice about calling the police versus arming oneself. From the details given in the story, it does sound as though she'd still be alive if she'd done the latter.
...

"... her husband was hallucinating, scaring their three young children .." so she was going to escalate the situation by getting the family gun out of the safe? "...her husband ... 'wanted her to shoot him', ..." so she was going to do so at some point when he came towards her? This was a situation that was not going to end well. I don't think the conclusion would have been different no matter who pulled the gun out of the safe.

EDIT: Took me awhile to get this typed and posted (had visitor in the middle) so didn't see the preceding post prior to posting it).

[djAdvocate]

Apr 16, 2014 12:14:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It does make one think twice about calling the police versus arming oneself.

but this assumes a great deal, right?  first, it assumes that your assailant is armed.  second, it assumes that you can even recognize the threat.  next it assumes that you can get to your weapon before he or she can get to theirs.  and then, finally, it assumes stuff about 911 that is not necessarily true, either.

i mean, sure- we can all arm ourselves to the teeth, and live in a cement bunker, and live off algae we farm there.  but seriously....

[Deleted]

Sad. Mental illness is not easy.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 16, 2014 13:03:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 16, 2014 12:14:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It does make one think twice about calling the police versus arming oneself.

but this assumes a great deal, right?  first, it assumes that your assailant is armed.  second, it assumes that you can even recognize the threat.  next it assumes that you can get to your weapon before he or she can get to theirs.  and then, finally, it assumes stuff about 911 that is not necessarily true, either.

i mean, sure- we can all arm ourselves to the teeth, and live in a cement bunker, and live off algae we farm there.  but seriously....

I know. And I also know that if I owned a gun and a family member started ranting and raving, my first impulse definitely would not be to rush to pull the gun on them. Some things you just can't plan for or protect against.

I don't see any threads about it, but there's a national news story out of Calgary (my hometown) in western Canada.

A group of university students is having a party (by all accounts, reasonably quiet) to celebrate the end of term. One of the invited guests--the son of a police officer--grabs a knife and stabs four men and one woman to death in a grizzly bloodbath, making it the worst mass-murder in the city's history.

Police have the man in custody, but nobody has any idea why he did it. All of the party-goers were students, had no history with the police, and there was no commotion or altercation leading up to the stabbing. By all accounts, this man (de Groot, I believe his name is) just... decided to stab five friends to death.

So... how does one arm oneself to defend against that?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 16, 2014 13:20:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 16, 2014 13:03:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

but this assumes a great deal, right?  first, it assumes that your assailant is armed.  second, it assumes that you can even recognize the threat.  next it assumes that you can get to your weapon before he or she can get to theirs.  and then, finally, it assumes stuff about 911 that is not necessarily true, either.

i mean, sure- we can all arm ourselves to the teeth, and live in a cement bunker, and live off algae we farm there.  but seriously....

I know. And I also know that if I owned a gun and a family member started ranting and raving, my first impulse definitely would not be to rush to pull the gun on them. Some things you just can't plan for or protect against.

I don't see any threads about it, but there's a national news story out of Calgary (my hometown) in western Canada.

A group of university students is having a party (by all accounts, reasonably quiet) to celebrate the end of term. One of the invited guests--the son of a police officer--grabs a knife and stabs four men and one woman to death in a grizzly bloodbath, making it the worst mass-murder in the city's history.

Police have the man in custody, but nobody has any idea why he did it. All of the party-goers were students, had no history with the police, and there was no commotion or altercation leading up to the stabbing. By all accounts, this man (de Groot, I believe his name is) just... decided to stab five friends to death.

So... how does one arm oneself to defend against that?

eventually you reach the point where "s*&t happens", and the best you can do is hope it doesn't happen to you.

you can't prevent people from falling asleep at the wheel either- or having heart attacks while driving.  there are literally endless things that can get you killed.  the best you can do is be aware, and protect yourself REASONABLY well.  in a free society, we can all decide what reasonable is.  but it is going to vary from person to person to person.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 16, 2014 13:05:08 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sad. Mental illness is not easy.

and not glamorous.

[jkapp]

Apr 16, 2014 11:55:21 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

What exception? This has absolutely nothing to do with SYG or self-defense at all. 

If anything it is an illustration of how having a gun in the home can lead to getting shot by it in a domestic incident.  Perhaps she should have been open carrying in her house

            

Actually the husband told her to get the gun and shoot him...so he didn't have the gun right away.  She called police first, then the guy got the gun himself and shot her.  He apparently had fifteen minutes to get the gun and shoot her.

I wonder, though, if she had got the gun and shot him, if EVT and others would question her story? Or maybe they would say she wasn't in any immediate danger?

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 16, 2014 13:50:35 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I wonder, though, if she had got the gun and shot him, if EVT and others would question her story? Or maybe they would say she wasn't in any immediate danger?

Depending on who you mean by "they", they would certainly do both.

That's their nature. It's a known bias.

If the woman had shot her husband and the whole incident occurred in Florida, this thread would have appeared 6 minutes after the news story first broke, and the title would be "More SYG Death: Insane FL Woman Blows Away Husband on a Whim".

Be that as it may, however, this story really has nothing to do with SYG.

[mmhmm]

SYG, as Virgil points out, isn't relevant to this particular case.  Even if the woman had gotten the gun, the probability is he'd have taken it from her.  One doesn't just aim and fire at one's own husband like one might at a stranger who's broken into one's home.  It's a different thought process.  Domestic violence is a reality and it takes lives.  It's sad, but it's a part of some people's lives and a part of the world in which we live.

[EVT1]

Apr 16, 2014 13:50:35 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Apr 16, 2014 11:55:21 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

What exception? This has absolutely nothing to do with SYG or self-defense at all. 

If anything it is an illustration of how having a gun in the home can lead to getting shot by it in a domestic incident.  Perhaps she should have been open carrying in her house

            

Actually the husband told her to get the gun and shoot him...so he didn't have the gun right away.  She called police first, then the guy got the gun himself and shot her.  He apparently had fifteen minutes to get the gun and shoot her.

I wonder, though, if she had got the gun and shot him, if EVT and others would question her story? Or maybe they would say she wasn't in any immediate danger?

Absolutely I would question any incident where someone shoots their spouse.  Would you not?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

If she had got the gun first, and left the home with the kids rather than waiting on the line with 911, she'd likely be alive.

At least, if she had the gun in her hands and had emptied of bullets (not in her husband) it rather than waiting for the cops to show up, he could not have shot her with it.

[EVT1]

Apr 16, 2014 14:39:13 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 16, 2014 13:50:35 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I wonder, though, if she had got the gun and shot him, if EVT and others would question her story? Or maybe they would say she wasn't in any immediate danger?

Depending on who you mean by "they", they would certainly do both.

That's their nature. It's a known bias.

If the woman had shot her husband and the whole incident occurred in Florida, this thread would have appeared 6 minutes after the news story first broke, and the title would be "More SYG Death: Insane FL Woman Blows Away Husband on a Whim".

Be that as it may, however, this story really has nothing to do with SYG.

No it wouldn't- but if this was FL the husband would be working on his self defense case right now and have a decent shot at it.

[zibazinski]

If she'd have shot him, she'd still be alive. Lesson learned I hope for future victims.

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2014 13:20:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 16, 2014 13:03:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

but this assumes a great deal, right?  first, it assumes that your assailant is armed.  second, it assumes that you can even recognize the threat.  next it assumes that you can get to your weapon before he or she can get to theirs.  and then, finally, it assumes stuff about 911 that is not necessarily true, either.

i mean, sure- we can all arm ourselves to the teeth, and live in a cement bunker, and live off algae we farm there.  but seriously....

I know. And I also know that if I owned a gun and a family member started ranting and raving, my first impulse definitely would not be to rush to pull the gun on them. Some things you just can't plan for or protect against.

I don't see any threads about it, but there's a national news story out of Calgary (my hometown) in western Canada.

A group of university students is having a party (by all accounts, reasonably quiet) to celebrate the end of term. One of the invited guests--the son of a police officer--grabs a knife and stabs four men and one woman to death in a grizzly bloodbath, making it the worst mass-murder in the city's history.

Police have the man in custody, but nobody has any idea why he did it. All of the party-goers were students, had no history with the police, and there was no commotion or altercation leading up to the stabbing. By all accounts, this man (de Groot, I believe his name is) just... decided to stab five friends to death.

So... how does one arm oneself to defend against that?

The first thing you do in the morning is put your gun belt on. The last thing you do at night is take your gun belt off and put it next to your bed. You do it with clothes (I hope). After a few years it becomes part of you and you don't notice it any more. With normal happenstance, you'll never need it.  14 years and counting for me.

[billisonboard]

Apr 18, 2014 14:33:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

... The first thing you do in the morning is put your gun belt on. The last thing you do at night is take your gun belt off and put it next to your bed. ...

Gee, the first thing I do each morning is kiss my wife. And the last thing I do each night is kiss my wife. To each their own I guess.

[Deleted]

Apr 18, 2014 14:51:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 18, 2014 14:33:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

... The first thing you do in the morning is put your gun belt on. The last thing you do at night is take your gun belt off and put it next to your bed. ...

Gee, the first thing I do each morning is kiss my wife. And the last thing I do each night is kiss my wife. To each their own I guess.

Do you still notice it's happening ? 

[zibazinski]

I kiss DF and he kisses me but my gun is on the other side of me.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 18, 2014 14:33:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Apr 16, 2014 13:20:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I know. And I also know that if I owned a gun and a family member started ranting and raving, my first impulse definitely would not be to rush to pull the gun on them. Some things you just can't plan for or protect against.

I don't see any threads about it, but there's a national news story out of Calgary (my hometown) in western Canada.

A group of university students is having a party (by all accounts, reasonably quiet) to celebrate the end of term. One of the invited guests--the son of a police officer--grabs a knife and stabs four men and one woman to death in a grizzly bloodbath, making it the worst mass-murder in the city's history.

Police have the man in custody, but nobody has any idea why he did it. All of the party-goers were students, had no history with the police, and there was no commotion or altercation leading up to the stabbing. By all accounts, this man (de Groot, I believe his name is) just... decided to stab five friends to death.

So... how does one arm oneself to defend against that?

The first thing you do in the morning is put your gun belt on. The last thing you do at night is take your gun belt off and put it next to your bed. You do it with clothes (I hope). After a few years it becomes part of you and you don't notice it any more. With normal happenstance, you'll never need it.  14 years and counting for me.

it is astounding what people can get used to.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 18, 2014 16:33:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 18, 2014 14:33:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The first thing you do in the morning is put your gun belt on. The last thing you do at night is take your gun belt off and put it next to your bed. You do it with clothes (I hope). After a few years it becomes part of you and you don't notice it any more. With normal happenstance, you'll never need it.  14 years and counting for me.

it is astounding what people can get used to.

If you get stabbed by an insane friend or shot up in a movie theatre, they can tell you "I told you so."

If they accidentally shoot themselves or somebody else in the course of handling their weapons, you can tell them "I told you so."

If any of you dies of old age, heart disease, respiratory disease, cancer, stroke, or diabetes, which is how I predict you'll all die, then I can tell you "I told you so."

[EVT1]

Apr 18, 2014 14:33:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Apr 16, 2014 13:20:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I know. And I also know that if I owned a gun and a family member started ranting and raving, my first impulse definitely would not be to rush to pull the gun on them. Some things you just can't plan for or protect against.

I don't see any threads about it, but there's a national news story out of Calgary (my hometown) in western Canada.

A group of university students is having a party (by all accounts, reasonably quiet) to celebrate the end of term. One of the invited guests--the son of a police officer--grabs a knife and stabs four men and one woman to death in a grizzly bloodbath, making it the worst mass-murder in the city's history.

Police have the man in custody, but nobody has any idea why he did it. All of the party-goers were students, had no history with the police, and there was no commotion or altercation leading up to the stabbing. By all accounts, this man (de Groot, I believe his name is) just... decided to stab five friends to death.

So... how does one arm oneself to defend against that?

The first thing you do in the morning is put your gun belt on. The last thing you do at night is take your gun belt off and put it next to your bed. You do it with clothes (I hope). After a few years it becomes part of you and you don't notice it any more. With normal happenstance, you'll never need it.  14 years and counting for me.

Where the hell do you live? And really- you go to sleep with your gun belt on the nightstand? Who has a gun belt? You shower with it do you?  

Seriously- there is no defense against madness- you might be shot with your own gun tomorrow.  And the other posters that said she should have grabbed the gun and shot the husband- really?!?!  Are you kidding me- if the person you love freaks out and tells you to shoot them anyone really going to consider that?  Any goofball can Monday morning quarterback.

[jkapp]

Apr 18, 2014 21:17:39 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Apr 18, 2014 14:33:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The first thing you do in the morning is put your gun belt on. The last thing you do at night is take your gun belt off and put it next to your bed. You do it with clothes (I hope). After a few years it becomes part of you and you don't notice it any more. With normal happenstance, you'll never need it.  14 years and counting for me.

Where the hell do you live? And really- you go to sleep with your gun belt on the nightstand? Who has a gun belt? You shower with it do you?  

Seriously- there is no defense against madness- you might be shot with your own gun tomorrow.  And the other posters that said she should have grabbed the gun and shot the husband- really?!?!  Are you kidding me- if the person you love freaks out and tells you to shoot them anyone really going to consider that?  Any goofball can Monday morning quarterback.

If a relative asked me to get the gun and shoot them, I would definitely get the gun...but not shoot them   Now they might wrestle it away from me, but at least I didn't just sit and let them get the gun themselves. If I have the gun, I at least know that the person with more sanity has control of it.  If anything, I would try to unload the gun and/or toss the bullets someplace out of the way, like down an air vent if need be. 

But even if you have to shoot the person, being the sane one means you wouldn't necessarily need to shoot to kill.  Aim low...hopefully no one will get killed.  Its obviously not a certainty but its better odds than letting the crazy person control the gun.