Next time a gun grabber says " why a gun?" Tell them about this case.

[tionico]

Yes, Cave Junction IS remote, never has had good protection by LE. Yes, as well, police budgets seem to be the first to get cut, and the most deeply. I am convinced it is done this way as a means of "punishing" the people for the reduced tax revenues being paid into the sick system. Yes, once more, the locals need to get HOT about HOOW their high tax dollars are being allocated. Public safety IS a high priority. Plenty of other places could be easily cut......

Now the guy in the next county over.. Medford: his home was being broken into at near midnight, by a wanted felon (though he did not know it at the time, he DID know a concerted effort was being made to bust down his door). He hollered and threatened to shoot.. the perp continued his attack. He did fire one warning round... being careful enough to make certain it went safe and did no harm. Plenty of places even in an apartment complex to do this. No, he didn't just point it anywhere. He was aware of his backdrop and bullet path. What, should he have waited for the guy to succeed, come into his house, THEN blast him, probably with far less chance of controlling bullet path in case of miss or passing through? Criminally charged for defending his own person whilst INSIDE his home? Anyone having borken into, or in the act of the attempt to break into, an occupied dwelling is a candidate for the use of lethal force against him.
Medford was also the scene of a nasty case a couple years ago, where sheriffs from both Jackson and Josephine COunties, a few city cops, State Patrol, all "visited" an innocent man early in the morning, full SWAT teams, forced him at gunpoint to be taken in for a psych eval (which lasted an hour and a half, he wass found "normal" and releaaed), stole his guns and held them for a long time, forcing him to fight to get them back. WHY? His boss at work decided to persecute him by filing a warning with local LE, who failed to check it out, just got a warrant and went with it. Talk about a man's rights being violated..... seems those two counties have a penchant for rotten choices. Have enough to roll a SWAT team and at least FIVE LEA on a harmless man, yet don't have enough to roll when a man is breaking down someone's door to come in and assault her. Sick.

 

[K7lvo]

I just listened to Thompson tell his story on Sean Hannity. He stated that the perp tried to kick his door in, but left when verbally challenged and tried to break into another door. Thompson verbally challenged the perp again, AND ATTEMPTED TO DETAIN THE HIM. He stated that it was at this time that he fired the warning shot. If the guy was threatening him at all, it was in an effort to get away.

He would have most likely not have had a problem if he hadn't fired the WARNING shot, admitting that he was not in fear for his, or anyone else's, safety.

 

[Derby]

It is interesting to note that the sheriffs from both Jackson and Josephine Counties are CSPOA signatories.

Growing List of Sheriffs, Associations and Police Chiefs Saying ?NO? to Obama Gun Control | CSPOA - Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association

 

[dogshawred]

$hit needs to defy gravity and slide up hill.

Oregon woman raped after police refuse to send out response unit

Local police in Oregon, USA fail to respond to emergency calls and advise residents to "consider relocating to an area with adequate police services"

by Link Removed on 28 May 2013 11:08
Link Removed


A woman was choked and raped following a 911 call to police in which the dispatcher told her to ask her attacker to "go away".
The incident, which occured late last August but was only widely reported last week, took place in Josephine County, Oregon, when a woman's ex-boyfriend tried to break into her home.
Instead of sending an officer to the scene, the police dispatcher advised, “I don’t have anybody to send out there. You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away? Do you know if he’s intoxicated or anything?”
The man eventually forced entry to the house, wherein he proceeded to "brutally rape" the woman before fleeing. After the attack, police went in search for 29-year-old Michael Bellah, and arrested him.
The Sheriff's Department blamed the lack of resources due to recent public funding cuts. “There isn’t a day go by that we don’t have another victim,” said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson. In Josephine County, 80 percent of sheriff’s deputies lost their jobs when the cuts were made. The few that remain cannot respond to emergency calls during the evening or on weekends.
“How is it that there were no officers available to assist the woman who was about be raped, but they did have officers available to go and arrest the man after the rape? The police department should be sued for their failure to protect a tax paying citizen,” Julia Mason, 28, of Portland, Oregon said after she was asked what she thought about the police who failed to help a woman who was about to become a rape victim.
After the government budget cuts, which occurred before the rape incident, Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson said in a press release that victims of domestic violence should "consider relocating to an area with adequate police services."
Bellah was charged with Kidnapping, sex abuse, stangulation and theft among other things. His bail was set at $437,500.
Link Removed

"The Sheriff's Department blamed the lack of resources due to recent public funding cuts. “There isn’t a day go by that we don’t have another victim,” said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson. In Josephine County, 80 percent of sheriff’s deputies lost their jobs when the cuts were made. The few that remain cannot respond to emergency calls during the evening or on weekends."
~
One would have to ask themselves, WHY would the remaining deputies not be scheduled to cover when more crimes are committed than not.
~
We are unsure of how many actual deputies were let go and how many are still on duty as percentages can be deceiving and made to tell only the story you want published. That said it is the duty of the sheriff to schedule this staff in such a manner to be available when criminal activity is more likely to occur than not occur. This not being the case here in my mind this sheriff should be held personally accountable for mismanagement of his staff and dereliction of his duties to the public welfare of his county population.
~
I listened to the 911 call the other day and victim was way too calm for what was going on and she had made the dispatcher aware that this was not the first time she was having trouble with her boyfriend breaking into the house. The state patrol was called and provided no better response than the sheriffs office. It seems the LEA of that area have no desire and/or intention of providing any help to the citizens in need of assistance. Yet we have a general consensus provided by the MSM "all you need to do is call the police you have not need to be able to protect yourself", when the LEAs have all been given a pass by SCOTUS on their responsibility to protect and serve.
~
I find myself in a turmoil regarding LEA response or lack there of to help a female, no anyone who is in fear of harm by the hands of another. My moral character is offended by there total lack of disregard for another humans plight in their time of need.
~
Now let's turn to the government entity who defunded the sheriff's office instead of some other entity that would not have directly effected the safety and welfare of their citizens. To my thinking the criminally minded are going to see the lack of law enforcement coverage as an open invitation to run rampant doing as they want. This not being apparent to those in power who defunded the sheriff's office leads me to think they a all bloom idiots, who should also be held accountable this woman's attach and violation by a violent criminal.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

This guy has the right idea...
Link Removed


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[r1derbike]

My wife recently purchased a .38 special and we went to the range for some break-in time and drills. Wash, rinse, repeat. Wash, rinse, repeat.

She cannot rack a slide, even on small semis, so a wheel gun it had to be. She is improving every visit. She said she was scared recently, when I was away (before the wheel gun purchase), even though a long gun was available, but she was scared of it, even though I let her shoot it at a long distance range. Looks mean, I suppose. Won't touch it.

I worry that my wife will not be able to defend herself, if the unthinkable happens, and it almost did, hence her need for a self defense sidearm.

My wife is the type of person who will stop and help a terrapin cross the road, put herself in danger swerving to miss a squirrel (which she sometimes hits anyway), and she will help others, even if it is a burden to herself financially, or time wise.

I don't think she has the mindset to do what is necessary, to protect her life. All I may do is forward these and other stories of women being brutally raped and murdered to her (and I don't send that many) just often enough so it is in the back of her mind.

Our sheriff is a gung-ho crime buster, teaches CC classes, and pro 2nd, all the way.

My wife has no desire to carry, so I respect that. Her .38 is a night stand gun.

There are those who cannot halt violence with violence. I understand it is their decision, and may cost them their lives one day, or not, but I still worry about my wife.

Does anyone else worry about theirs?

 

[gejoslin]

Every day and every way. Teaching her to shoot, now for permit. If act746 is what they say it is she won't need it. We'll see.

 

[Peggy Reist]

My wife recently purchased a .38 special and we went to the range for some break-in time and drills. Wash, rinse, repeat. Wash, rinse, repeat.

She cannot rack a slide, even on small semis, so a wheel gun it had to be. She is improving every visit. She said she was scared recently, when I was away (before the wheel gun purchase), even though a long gun was available, but she was scared of it, even though I let her shoot it at a long distance range. Looks mean, I suppose. Won't touch it.

I worry that my wife will not be able to defend herself, if the unthinkable happens, and it almost did, hence her need for a self defense sidearm.

My wife is the type of person who will stop and help a terrapin cross the road, put herself in danger swerving to miss a squirrel (which she sometimes hits anyway), and she will help others, even if it is a burden to herself financially, or time wise.

I don't think she has the mindset to do what is necessary, to protect her life. All I may do is forward these and other stories of women being brutally raped and murdered to her (and I don't send that many) just often enough so it is in the back of her mind.

Our sheriff is a gung-ho crime buster, teaches CC classes, and pro 2nd, all the way.

My wife has no desire to carry, so I respect that. Her .38 is a night stand gun.

There are those who cannot halt violence with violence. I understand it is their decision, and may cost them their lives one day, or not, but I still worry about my wife.

Does anyone else worry about theirs?

Maybe the tragedies you're sending her are literally unthinkable to her. If they haven't convinced her, try the opposite. Try sending her cases of where a gun actually saved a woman from being raped or murdered. The name of the web site isn't coming to me right now, but maybe someone else on here can help. They've got new stories almost every day of cases like this. Worth a try.

 

[r1derbike]

Maybe the tragedies you're sending her are literally unthinkable to her. If they haven't convinced her, try the opposite. Try sending her cases of where a gun actually saved a woman from being raped or murdered. The name of the web site isn't coming to me right now, but maybe someone else on here can help. They've got new stories almost every day of cases like this. Worth a try.

I'll do some research on that angle! Thanks!

 

[dogshawred]

r1der when the time comes she may surprise you with a response that is completely out of character to her norm. It often takes the individual to be face to face with a unthinkable situation before they come to the realization that it can happen to them. No amount of pushing you your part will effect a response like the real thing. I pray she never has to be in that situation and hope you will cut back on the worrying or you won't be around long enough to enjoy your life with your wife. Stress can and will kill you just a effectively as a firearm it just takes longer. God Bless you both.

 

[hestes]

Your safety is 100% up to you. It is sad for this woman, and it breaks my heart for her. We've been fed the lie that the police are there to "serve and protect"...but we can't carry one around with us....we have to step up and take care of ourselves...

Sad...

 

[CharlesMorrison]

This helps to sum up the polices responsibility to protect you....

Link Removed


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[Ringo]

Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.

Yup, that's what life is all about...Choices & Consequences.

 

[eagleks]

First, often it's NOT BUDGET CUTS, in many areas ... there are and have always been officers that cover a wide area. The amount of crime, number of people, don't require a lot of officers. Here at one time, there was an officer "on call at home" at night if something serious occurred, he would respond... but no officers were out on the streets. As the town grew, they added a lot more officers, etc.

At a time when there were plenty of officers , force had grown with town's growth, my Ex ... wife at the time .. had a bad habit of leaving the front door open, and screen door unlocked as well.

One day, 3 unknown men walked in, she said they seemed intoxicated. She was asking who they were and telling them to get out, while one approached her, pushed her up against the wall..... and they were joking about "what they were going to do to her" as this one guy was grabbing and feeling her up, holding her forcibly against the wall, and then started to attempt to remove some of her clothing.

I had 4 medium sized dogs, and one was "her dog" .. that dog had attached to her and was protective of her. He heard her scream and quickly entered where they were, saw the guy holding her against the wall.. and chomped into his testicles... and would NOT let go. The other 3 dogs rounded the corner, and the other two guys quickly then ran out the door. The guy who had been holding her against the wall, with dog stil attached solidly to his testicles, tried to make his way to the door and outside as well.... and the dog did not let loose until he was actually out the door.

She called the police, then she called me. It took me 30-40 minutes to get there. Now this is a small town, but has a lot of officers, and the police station is only 3 blocks away. When I got home, the police had still not arrived. She told me about the vehicle they were driving.... and they drove a very very unique car, with a very unique paint job... and had the tag number. I had noticed the car as I was driving home at a nearby gas station, which was right next to a restaurant where 3 police cars were sitting.

I called dispatcher, told them who I was (I also carried a badge) and that they better get them here within the next 2 minutes or I would handle it. Two officers / 1 car (1 male-1 female) arrived in about 5 minutes. The officer got out of his car and was ticked that his dinner had been interrupted, and he didn't want to take any information or anything, he just wanted to express his anger about his dinner being interrupted. I knew what had happened...... the dispatcher would have told them what the call was for, etc.... but they had refused the call.

It went downhill from there, and .... ultimately, he was fired about 2 weeks later due to this incident.

Even given the cases I worked, she was never convinced to have a gun for protection (although she was a great shooter and had experience with guns --- Army trained).

 

[jrs]

I just listened to Thompson tell his story on Sean Hannity. He stated that the perp tried to kick his door in, but left when verbally challenged and tried to break into another door. Thompson verbally challenged the perp again, AND ATTEMPTED TO DETAIN THE HIM. He stated that it was at this time that he fired the warning shot. If the guy was threatening him at all, it was in an effort to get away.

He would have most likely not have had a problem if he hadn't fired the WARNING shot, admitting that he was not in fear for his, or anyone else's, safety.

The real problem with this whole scenario is that he admitted that he was not being physically threatened at the time he fired the 'warning' shot. Plus, he admitted that he was NOT in fear for his safety.

Maybe he heard Obama's dummy voice the words..."fire two shots in the air", but he should have known better on two points. The first is that Biden's an idiot. Second, if he was not in fear for his safety, then there was not sufficient grounds for discharge of his firearm.

While I understand that he might of said he wasn't in fear for his safety because he was armed, but unless he was in imminent danger, most courts and 'reasonable people' would also believe that he went too far if not in fear.
If, on the other hand, the person HAD made it through the door, the case could be made that... ESPECIALLY after being warned by the homeowner that he was armed, AND the perp still broke in... then the homeowner could make the case that the perp was not in his right mind and thus unreasonable and dangerous. At that point, the homeowner has two decisions...retreat for his own safety OR shoot.

I don't know about Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws in his area, but here in NY, you are required to at least try to retreat. Only after exhausting that option, if you or others are in imminent danger, then you can be justified in firing.

It doesn't matter if you are in your own home or not, you still have a duty to retreat.
Now, that doesn't mean that you have no legal standing... I was advised by a LEO that even if you are in an open field, the case can be made that "you looked around and there was nowhere to go... nowhere to hide... nothing to provide shelter from the BG's weapon (firearm, knife, stick/club)...so my only choices were to sustain serious physical harm at his hand or fire on him." If in your own home, you still have that duty...so you have to look for ways to retreat, but if you judge that you(including your family as they too are under threat of significant harm) cannot get to a safe place... you are considered to have exhausted your options to retreat...then you are justified in discharging your firearm.

I'll tell you...if I've gone to that extent to make sure I've exhausted my duties to retreat...then I'm certainly NOT FIRING A WARNING SHOT!!!

 

[gejoslin]

The real problem with this whole scenario is that he admitted that he was not being physically threatened at the time he fired the 'warning' shot. Plus, he admitted that he was NOT in fear for his safety.

Maybe he heard Obama's dummy voice the words..."fire two shots in the air", but he should have known better on two points. The first is that Biden's an idiot. Second, if he was not in fear for his safety, then there was not sufficient grounds for discharge of his firearm.

While I understand that he might of said he wasn't in fear for his safety because he was armed, but unless he was in imminent danger, most courts and 'reasonable people' would also believe that he went too far if not in fear.
If, on the other hand, the person HAD made it through the door, the case could be made that... ESPECIALLY after being warned by the homeowner that he was armed, AND the perp still broke in... then the homeowner could make the case that the perp was not in his right mind and thus unreasonable and dangerous. At that point, the homeowner has two decisions...retreat for his own safety OR shoot.

I don't know about Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws in his area, but here in NY, you are required to at least try to retreat. Only after exhausting that option, if you or others are in imminent danger, then you can be justified in firing.

It doesn't matter if you are in your own home or not, you still have a duty to retreat.
Now, that doesn't mean that you have no legal standing... I was advised by a LEO that even if you are in an open field, the case can be made that "you looked around and there was nowhere to go... nowhere to hide... nothing to provide shelter from the BG's weapon (firearm, knife, stick/club)...so my only choices were to sustain serious physical harm at his hand or fire on him." If in your own home, you still have that duty...so you have to look for ways to retreat, but if you judge that you(including your family as they too are under threat of significant harm) cannot get to a safe place... you are considered to have exhausted your options to retreat...then you are justified in discharging your firearm.

I'll tell you...if I've gone to that extent to make sure I've exhausted my duties to retreat...then I'm certainly NOT FIRING A WARNING SHOT!!!

Unfortunately Arkansas isn't a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground state. You must be able to retreat in "complete safety", but I not going to turn my back on any threat! I will walk backwards, if pursued someone is going to have a very bad day. In your home and property you do not have to retreat.
I just like these two cartoons! :wink:

Link RemovedLink Removed

 

[tcox4freedom]

My wife recently purchased a .38 special and we went to the range for some break-in time and drills. Wash, rinse, repeat. Wash, rinse, repeat.

She cannot rack a slide, even on small semis, so a wheel gun it had to be. She is improving every visit. She said she was scared recently, when I was away (before the wheel gun purchase), even though a long gun was available, but she was scared of it, even though I let her shoot it at a long distance range. Looks mean, I suppose. Won't touch it.

I worry that my wife will not be able to defend herself, if the unthinkable happens, and it almost did, hence her need for a self defense sidearm.

My wife is the type of person who will stop and help a terrapin cross the road, put herself in danger swerving to miss a squirrel (which she sometimes hits anyway), and she will help others, even if it is a burden to herself financially, or time wise.

I don't think she has the mindset to do what is necessary, to protect her life. All I may do is forward these and other stories of women being brutally raped and murdered to her (and I don't send that many) just often enough so it is in the back of her mind.

Our sheriff is a gung-ho crime buster, teaches CC classes, and pro 2nd, all the way.

My wife has no desire to carry, so I respect that. Her .38 is a night stand gun.

There are those who cannot halt violence with violence. I understand it is their decision, and may cost them their lives one day, or not, but I still worry about my wife.

Does anyone else worry about theirs?

Never really understood this mentality. Your wife sounds like a very compassionate & caring person. She will help a turtle or a squirrel escape danger. But, will she help her spouse, kids, grandkids, friends or other relatives escape danger?

She needs to understand that people get themselves into dangerous predicaments; just has the terrapins & squirrels your wife loves. But!

Sometimes the TRUE "act of compassion" will take a firearm to save a person from a deadly situation. A firearm can put a 90lb little old lady on equal footing with a 200lb BG.

Ask your wife what she would do if her children (or grandchildren) suddenly found themselves being targets of a child predator while shopping or enjoying a day at the park with her. (Ask her point blank how she would protect them from a couple of large 200+ pound perverts attempting to kidnap them.)

Does she really think someone will help?
Does she believe the police will suddenly appear and stop them?​

My mother is 70yrs old & weighs 115lb soaking wet. (My MIL is about the same.) Mom lives in Memphis (the 5th most dangerous city in America); and my MIL lives in a dangerous big city as well. Both are AG & both walk through life with blinders on. SO, neither of them have ever been allowed to care for my children because they are not "fully" prepared to protect them.

Please don't misunderstand. Both of them love their grandchildren dearly. They would be willing to die for them! (Of this I'm certain.) But,

What good would a dead grandma do if ultimately a child predator was able to steal rape & murder my children because she was unwilling to defend them to the best of her ability?​

What your wife needs to understand is; "being willing to 'DIE' for someone is not always enough to protect them."

In fact;
TRUE love & compassion involves also being willing to FIGHT and DEFEAT any enemy that may rise against the ones you love.


-

 

[jrs]

Unfortunately Arkansas isn't a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground state. You must be able to retreat in "complete safety", but I not going to turn my back on any threat! I will walk backwards, if pursued someone is going to have a very bad day. In your home and property you do not have to retreat.
I just like these two cartoons! :wink:

Link RemovedLink Removed

The way NY interprets the law, you have to try and retreat. BUT... the point of this LEO was that in any situation, even in an open field where it would appear you could run, you are not necessarily considered running to safety. The point could be made that if you turn and run, then you have a REAL THREAT of being shot in the back...so at that point you have no shelter and thus nowhere to retreat to safety, leaving no other choice. You can then defend yourself with deadly force.

Even in your own home, if the only place you have to retreat is into an unprotected corner, leaving your family vulnerable between you and the bad guy, you now have reason to defend yourself (and your family) from a very real and imminent danger.

I think these scenarios address your situation ... "retreat in complete safety" would assume that you can retreat to some kind of cover. An open field, a street with homes 30 to 50+ feet away, even fences or garbage cans offer little protection and wouldn't be considered "complete safety" in my book. Plus, you still have to get to them without being harmed. Even in your home, a chair or couch isn't going to provide protection from a bullet, so I think you'd be justified in 'legally' defending yourself and others.

 

[gejoslin]

The way NY interprets the law, you have to try and retreat. BUT... the point of this LEO was that in any situation, even in an open field where it would appear you could run, you are not necessarily considered running to safety. The point could be made that if you turn and run, then you have a REAL THREAT of being shot in the back...so at that point you have no shelter and thus nowhere to retreat to safety, leaving no other choice. You can then defend yourself with deadly force.

Even in your own home, if the only place you have to retreat is into an unprotected corner, leaving your family vulnerable between you and the bad guy, you now have reason to defend yourself (and your family) from a very real and imminent danger.

I think these scenarios address your situation ... "retreat in complete safety" would assume that you can retreat to some kind of cover. An open field, a street with homes 30 to 50+ feet away, even fences or garbage cans offer little protection and wouldn't be considered "complete safety" in my book. Plus, you still have to get to them without being harmed. Even in your home, a chair or couch isn't going to provide protection from a bullet, so I think you'd be justified in 'legally' defending yourself and others.

That is the whole point of the "retreat with complete safety" unless you can jump into a tank or submarine there isn't any complete safety. Retreat a few steps and they continue to advance open fire until the "threat" is stopped. I tried to comply within the law to the best of my ability.

 

[jrs]

That is the whole point of the "retreat with complete safety" unless you can jump into a tank or submarine there isn't any complete safety. Retreat a few steps and they continue to advance open fire until the "threat" is stopped. I tried to comply within the law to the best of my ability.

Sorry, misunderstood your point. I guess we're both in complete agreement... including none of that idiot Biden's "warning shots into the air". If someone's out to do me and my family harm, and my aim is true, my "warning shot" is going to be center mass.