911 Puts Woman On Hold While She Watches Her Husband Being Shot

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.newson6.com/story/19193268/tulsa-woman-waits-on-hold-with-911-while-watching-her-husband-get-shot

SNIP

The owner of the Convenient Food Mart in the 1000 block of North Utica was filling in for an employee that night. As his wife watched the surveillance feed, she saw a robber burst into the store and fire off a warning shot.

She immediately called 911. Because she was in Broken Arrow, her 911 call went there. When they realized the crime was happening in Tulsa, they transferred her.

A dispatcher at Tulsa's 911 answered and asked her if she needed police, fire or EMSA.

She said she asked for police and sat on hold until she finally gave up and hung up.

SNIP

The victim was able to call 911 himself after the robber left. He was taken to a hospital.

Aren't we often told by the antis that we are supposed to rely upon the police to protect us? They often call self-defense "vigilanteism".

[ileus]

1. It's better to be a victim, than be rude and impolite to society.

Everyone lived....I don't see a problem.



Being rude to robbers with a hot poker or two stuffed in your pants is unacceptable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. While ...

..., we do not know whether the store owner had a gun or not ...The two statements below:

(From the article: As his wife watched the surveillance feed, she saw a robber burst into the store and fire off a warning shot.

Followed by:

(OP Writer: Aren't we often told by the antis that we are supposed to rely upon the police to protect us? They often call self-defense "vigilanteism".

Cause me to believe you watch far too much of the TV machine or play far too many video games.

The robber had his gun drawn when he entered the store ... the store owner reaching for his gun would have still got him shot.

And who knows ... reaching for a gun may have been WHAT got the store owner shot.

[Kaleva]

7. If you read the article:

"His daughter told us the robber got mad when he was told there was no money in the safe and shot the owner while he was lying on the floor."

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Yes ...

I read what the daughter "said" ... she was reporting what her father, the victim, told her.

[Kaleva]

12. And your evidence that isn't actually what happened is?

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. None ...

merely speculation and alternate explanation for the shooting.

[backwoodsbob]

31. so basically

you're making shit up as you go...ok

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. If that is what you call ...

offering alternative theories for what could have happenned, yes; because we all know, robbery victims that end up shot, always cooperate fully and never do stuff that, in retrospect they realize, led to them getting shot.

I wasn't there, nor was the daughter.

[kelly1mm]

61. So it was the victim that did something that got himself shot? Not the fault of the

robber? Are you serious?

Should rape victims fight back?

[TPaine7]

18. Your intuition is not data

The idea that when a person has the drop on you, they necessarily prevail and you will necessarily get shot if you resist with a gun is false. It is intuitively appealing, but I have seen and read multiple anecdotes to refute it. These links show a few:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=195218&mesg_id=195218

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196626&mesg_id=196626

The robber had his gun drawn when he entered the store ... the store owner reaching for his gun would have still got him shot.

Two major problems with your thinking are:

1) Action beats reaction. If the defender's gun is accessible enough and unseen by the aggressor, the defender actually has the upper hand.
2) Typically, the aggressor is not looking for a situation where there is a high chance he may be shot or even killed. He is looking for an easy score, and when his continued existence is threatened, his first thought is to be somewhere else.

Here's a more recent example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183598/Continental-Jewelry-The-moment-woman-65-thwarts-robbery-store-opening-armed-men.html

These men fell over each other trying to escape a little old lady. They didn't want to play the death lottery, they weren't trying to show how tough they were, they were going for an easy score.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. And I can probably google up ...

as many anecdotal incidents where having access to a gun has led to the one reaching for that gun getting shot.

What is intuitively appealing, and great non-TV action hero influenced commonsense, is realizing when someone has the drop on you and standing down, until circumstance allows you to reach, e.g., the aggressor turns their back, or requires you to reach, e.g., the aggressor is clearly going to shoot.

[TPaine7]

36. Your categorical statement was demonstrably false and convenient to your argument. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Okay

[NewMoonTherian]

3. The last line of the article is comedy gold.

"Have faith in the 911 system. If your call holds, stay on the line, we're gonna get to them," White said.

If this story weren't so absolutely infuriating, that line would have made my day.

[TPaine7]

20. Sounds like something to go on a tombstone--"The Brady/VPC Special Engraving", 35% off. n/t

[HockeyMom]

4. Why didn't SHE have a gun on her person?

Then SHE could have shot the robber. Isn't that the pat answer? NRA would certainly say that.

[gejohnston]

5. she was not in the same town

she was in Broken Arrow, he was in Tulsa. That is about a 15 miles difference.

[shadowrider]

6. Jeez. Maybe she should have gone to WalMart and bought one of those $100 guns

no questions asked. That'a fixed up the bad guy.

[HockeyMom]

10. Where was the store owner's gun?

Don't all businesses have them? Maybe that could be a requirement to own a business. You must have a gun in your store behind your counter.

[shadowrider]

11. How am I supposed to know?

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Did you get that from the NRA poster?

A crowd of a thousand gun carrying people is an equally target rich environment. One having a gun does not make one any less of a target when one is in a crowd.

Having a gun just means one can shoot back; thereby drawing the attention of the shooter. At that point, having made oneself a true target, one must just hope that he/she is a better shot than the original shooter.

[shadowrider]

38. A thousand gun carrying people is an equally target rich environment, true that

but they can defend themselves.

Va Tech
Aurora
Wisconsin

What do they have in common?

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. You forgot one ...

Tucson.

Oh that's right ... it wasn't a designated gun-free zone AND there was at least one person that was legally carrying (and how knows how many unpapered carrying) AND people still died ... without a shot fired at the shooter.

But that one doesn't fit the narrative ... so let's not talk about it ... just because it disproves the "if someone only had a gun" narrative.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. No, Tucson does NOT disprove it.

There have been several mass shootings that were stopped by an armed citizen.

BTW - In the Tucson shooting the legal gun carrier was INSIDE the store, he wasn't directly at the scene OUTSIDE the store.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. First ...

Cite to a single mass shooting that was stopped, or ended (that should be easier because one cannot stop what hasn't begun) an armed citizen.

Secondly, the gun carrier was in the store when the shooting started. He, then, came out while the shooter was still shooting. But the larger point is, he did not shoot even though he was armed. So the idea that "if only someone/everyone was armed these tragedies wouldn't happen" is patently and provably false.

[gejohnston]

42. he was actually across the street

in a different store. JL's gun had jammed and was taken away by the time he showed up to the Safeway parking lot.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Okay ...

But that's not what he said happened.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer.

snip

Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.


http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html

While it is true that he was not present while the shooting was happening, his recounting of the event demonstrates the fallacy, and potential for more tragedy, of the "if someone/everyone had a gun" narrative.

[GreenStormCloud]

45. If he had been at the scene he would have had no difficulty knowing who was the bad guy.

Others who have stopped mass shooting in progress did not get people confused.

Because Zamudio was not at the immediate scene he correctly waited to identify who was who. Notice that he never drew his gun.

[gejohnston]

46. not at all

that is exactly what he said happened. BTW, a cop would have been more likely to fire on the wrong person for simply holding the gun a cop would already have their gun drawn, giving them less time to notice the jam. He also was taken after the gun jammed.

How does that demonstrate anything? If anything, it demonstrates the opposite of what you claim. The more logical lesson to take from that is to not be holding the gun when the cops show up. The smarter thing to do was to kick it out of JL's reach and leave it on the floor and let the cops pick it up.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. How about several cites?

Pearl MS school shooting stopped by armed citizen 1997:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Appalachian School of Law shooting, 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Golden Food Market Shooting 2009
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2009/jul/12/shot121_20090711-230802-ar-37595/

New Life Church Shooting 2007
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/1638879

Winnemuccca, NV bar shooting, 2008
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

I could easily list some others, but that is enough to show you that it does happen.

[bongbong]

54. LOL

This Talking Point has been debunked, but you gun-relgionists still use it. HILARIOUS.

In the first case, 2 people died. How did a gunnut stop the killing if 2 people died?

In the second case, 3 people died. How did a gunnut stop the killing if 3 people died?

IN the third case, the guy was seriously wounded before being stopped. Doesn't sound like Rambo is all the Rambo he thinks he is.

In the fourth case, 2 people died. How did a gunnut stop the killing if 2 people died?

In the fifth case, 3 people died. How did a gunnut stop the killing if 3 people died?


Do gun-religionists think that Liberals don't click on their "evidence"?

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. But ... But ...

But if rambo HADN'T been there more people may have been killed!

Let's just ignore that in every case, someone got killed. I guess 1-3 dead proves that having a gun can prevent such shootings ... and it is convincing for everyone; except the 1-3 people killed and their families.

[gejohnston]

58. Rambo uses a bow and a big assed knife

other than an M-60 in one of the movies.

[bongbong]

63. Yes

And see my post #62 showing more laughs and logic-fail from the gun-relgionists.

[HALO141]

76. 14.3 vs 2.3

"The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3."
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/


You still haven't offered any sort of evidence supporting the notion that these situations would have been improved if the armed citizen hadn't been armed.

[HALO141]

59. Logic fail

"In the first case, 2 people died. How did a gunnut stop the killing if 2 people died?"
In the first case the shooter was stopped before he could continue to Pearl Junior High School and resume his killing spree. It is obvious that the armed citizen prevented more killing.

"In the second case, 3 people died. How did a gunnut stop the killing if 3 people died?
In the second case the shooter was subdued by an unarmed civilian who happened to be a marine. Tracy Bridges and Michael Gross, while students at the college, were also police officers. Objectively, I don't see this example supporting either side of the case for armed citizens.

"IN the third case, the guy was seriously wounded before being stopped. Doesn't sound like Rambo is all the Rambo he thinks he is.
"After the suspect shot the store owner and opened fire on patrons, the owner's friend shot the suspect once in the torso, took his gun and called police..." The armed citizen reacted, bringing the suspect down and preventing further injury or loss of life to other store patrons.

In the fourth case, 2 people died. How did a gunnut stop the killing if 2 people died?
In the fourth case the shooter was stopped by a security guard. While that's not quite the same thing as the average civilian, it's still a long way from being a LEO. At any rate, the shooter was armed with multiple weapons and hundreds of rounds. It is reasonable to conclude that he was not yet done shooting people before being put down himself.

In the fifth case, 3 people died. How did a gunnut stop the killing if 3 people died?
"According to witnesses, Villagomez at some point stopped to reload his high-capacity handgun and began shooting again when he was shot and killed by another patron - a 48-year-old Reno man who had a valid concealed weapons permit." Again, the actions of the VCA were cut short, and further injury/loss of life prevented, by an armed citizen.

Since none of us are gifted with clairvoyance to know who is about to start gratuitously killing others you seem to be suggesting a standard that no individual or authority can possibly meet. If any of the above VCA's had been shot by anyone else BEFORE starting their various rampages then that would have been murder. The Future Crimes Division is not yet a reality.

Here's another link for you to click on. Try actually reading this one.
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

The pro-control people are fond of using quaint, heart string-tugging phrases like, "if it saves just one life..." Evidence of the above examples indicates that multiple lives were saved. You, on the other hand, would have us believe that the world is somehow a worse place that 9 or 10 people were murdered instead of 20 or 30 or more. You are wrong.

[bongbong]

62. More laughs

No logic fail at all. THe gun-relgionists like to claim that guns stop crime, but lotsa people seem to be dying. I don't deal with hypotheticals, like gun-relgionists. People died and got hurt in even the cases that the Precious-holders held out as "great examples" of gun-relgionists stopping crime. You can't imagine, like gun-relgionists do, that more people were going to get hurt. To be logical, you have to deal with facts. The Aurora gun-relgionist just gave up to cops. ANy of these guys might have done just that if they weren't "stopped" (not really, since people died & got hurt) by another gun-relgionist.

> It is obvious that the armed citizen prevented more killin

Unless you have a Ouija Board, that isn't obvious. Where do I get one of those gun-relgionist Ouija Boards? They also tell you that you need to have lotsa guns on you or else you'll die instantly as soon as you walk out of your house.


I think it's quite funny how the "it's OBVIOUS that this would've happened...." gun relgionists claim I'm logic impaired. They're running off faith 100%! I'm dealing with facts.

[HALO141]

66. If you want to be

willfully ignorant that's certainly up to you. I hardly think anything you've said (anywhere) will carry any weight with an objective observer but, by all means, please continue.


And, while you're at it, tell me how any of the before-referenced situations might have been any better had an armed citizen not intervened.

[bongbong]

72. lol

I can't help it if I prove the claims of gun-relgionists to be falsehoods. I can see why you hate that.

[HALO141]

75. Please demonstrate one proof you've made.

All I've ever seen you do is fling poo.

[GreenStormCloud]

67. In each case the armed citizen prevented more deaths. N/T

[bongbong]

73. False

PROVE IT.

You'll have to prove the criminal wasn't about to give up to cops or stop killing, like how the Aurora murderer gave up to cops.

[GreenStormCloud]

79. If you want to bet that heavily against the odds, then...

...I want to play poker with you.

[HALO141]

55. "patently and provably false."

1) There was a shooting
2) There was a person in the vicinity legally carrying a firearm
3) The legal carrier did not stop the criminal shooter.

These factoids are related but correlation does not imply causation.

On the other hand there is substantive evidence that armed civilians can and do stop shooting rampages.

10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.

4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.

4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

[bongbong]

64. SO hilarious

More gun-reliigionst failures. People died. This is the BEST you Precious-holders can come up with????

[HALO141]

65. Put down the crack pipe

and step away from the keyboard. You're embarrassing yourself.

[bongbong]

71. More laughs as always

Crack pipe? You should put down your penis-substitute, your Precious, your security blanket. It's dangerous.

[HALO141]

74. Whatever.

Have you ever offered anything of substance to this debate? Just curious.

[HockeyMom]

48. If every citizen carried a gun, there would be no need

for PUBLIC SERVICE Law Enforcement. Republican plan to eliminate ALL government jobs. Why can't you people see this? They are already advocating private for profit prisons and staff. Why not the police too? You can defend yourself with your OWN guns.

Wake up people. You are just feeding into their plans.

[gejohnston]

49. not at all because

PUBLIC SERVICE law enforcement enforces laws and and investigate what happened. They are not there to protect you from some nut. They are there to investigate the aftermath. No more, no less. They are under no legal obligation to do anything for you.

[HockeyMom]

52. So then you agree it is everyone for themselves?

Sad. Very, very sad. Those of us who don't want guns then deserve to die? If I ever see or here something violent in progress, I shouldn't bother calling the cops? George Zimmerman was right? It was HIS duty to act as the development's "cop"? Law enforcement is up to the individual gun owner? DAMN. That is SO WRONG.

Me, me, me. Sorry, I don't want to live in that kind of society; everyone for themselves with their OWN GUNS. Wild West 21st Century.

[gejohnston]

57. a sad false choice

but several SCOTUS decisions dating back to the 1960s explain the cop's role in society. Do the cops show up in the nick of time like on TV? It would be cool if they did.

[HALO141]

60. It is what it is.

You should take heart. The fact that people don't twist off every day and kill dozens of innocents should give you hope, not despair. It's not the suffocating ubiquity of law enforcement that keeps it from happening. It's the simple fact that human beings are social animals and, whenever possible, desire to live in the absence of violence.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. You are waking up to a sad reality.

Between the start of the crime and the arrival of the police you are on your own. Usually the police arrive later to investigate the crime and try to catch the perp, if they can. While that is good for society, it doesn't do you any good for that particular crime.

There is a difference between law-enforcement and self-protection. Law-enforcement is the responsibility of police, self-protection is your responsibility.

[HockeyMom]

69. Then I suppose I will probably be a dead victim

My choice. Maybe if there were more people who made that choice we wouldn't be where we are today. Just say no more guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. I respect your right to make that choice, but not the choice itself.

I choose to fight back with the best tools at my disposal if it ever happens to me. By being a good victim you enable the wolf to go after another sheep when it finishes with you. If I can stop the wolf from eating me, then I may have saved some other sheep. However, I do not consider myself a sheep dog, but rather a longhorn cow. The difference is that the sheep dog tries to protect the sheep, while the longhorn cow protects itself only and lets the sheep take their chances.

[HALO141]

77. Probably not.

Statistically, the chances of you being involved in such an incident are very low so, in all probability, your life will continue to go on much as it has up to this point.

[NewMoonTherian]

13. He'd have been better off with a gun than a phone.

That's what this story suggests to me.

[petronius]

17. Sounds like a very bad idea. I'd oppose a requirement to own a gun - whether

at home or in a business - as strongly as I oppose unjustifiable prohibitions on RKBA. People have the right to make their own decisions on how to handle their security, and whether or not to possess a firearm...

[TPaine7]

21. I think I speak for the vast majority of gun rights proponents when I say

that I am not for forcing anyone to own, keep or carry a gun (except for police, soldiers and armed security, of course).

Rather than introduce and ridicule a position that almost no one supports, why don't you address the obvious issue?

How did relying on the police to save this business owner work out? Had you been in the same position, would you have preferred to have a gun-free establishment or to have the fighting chance a gun could provide?

[HockeyMom]

22. There is a town, forget where,

where every Head of a Household is required to own a gun. My husband told me about that one. Do you know where that is? I forget.

[gejohnston]

23. Kennesaw, Georgia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

[TPaine7]

24. That law is toothless, it is basically ceremonial since it doesn't apply to anyone who objects

From gejohnston's Wikipedia link:

Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

It has no teeth.

Now that your question has been exhaustively answered, why not answer mine?:

Had you been in the same position, would you have preferred to have a gun-free establishment or to have the fighting chance a gun could provide?

[HockeyMom]

25. I would use whatever was in my environment

to defend myself, as I have in the past. Surprise element, buy enough time, and RUN. lol

[TPaine7]

28. Interesting, but I was hoping for an answer to my question. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

14. I can't think of anyone arguing that people should be required to own a gun

merely that they should have the right to do so if the wish.

How did not having a gun help this scenario?

/also isn't the stock response usually: why carry a gun, just call the police if you need to be protected?

[Union Scribe]

32. Would that not have been better in your mind?

If someone was going to get shot there, which would you choose between the innocent and the criminal?

[CokeMachine]

47. Did you even bother to read the story?

I didn't think so

[HALO141]

53. Reading is fundamental.

[Hoyt]

8. And we are told that gun toters can save the day. How about gun toter who shot clerk in head

either trying to save her from robber, or more likely trying to save himself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. How about the OP?

[TPaine7]

19. If the point is not in your favor, avoid the point. It's an elementary anti tactic. n/t

[Ed Suspicious]

26. I think they miss the wild wild west. n/t

[TPaine7]

29. The wild, wild west was much tamer than CCW holdout and former gun free paradise of Chicago n/t

[gejohnston]

30. you need to take a history class

the wild wild west wasn't all that wild.

[4th law of robotics]

78. Denizens of the wild west would be horrified at the violence in our modern civilized cities

particularly those with strict gun control laws.

[Historic NY]

27. The 911 operator needs a new job...

never never never on hold until you know

"Because all calls to the comm center are potential emergencies, you must promptly answer all incoming calls. If you are not able to immediately handle the call because of other incoming calls, radio traffic, etc., ask the caller "Do you have an emergency?" If the caller says "No", tell them "Hold on, please." If the caller indicates they have an emergency, ask them "What is the emergency?", then proceed to handle it if necessary.

"Dispatchers must answer all emergency line calls immediately and determine if an emergency exists. If so, handle the call. If not, ask the caller to hold or transfer them to the appropriate department, agency or person. If other calls are "ringing in" while you are handling a non-emergency call, you should ask the person "Hold on, please," put the person on hold and answer the other incoming call. Ask the caller "Do you have an emergency?" If they say "No," you should then return to the holding call as soon as possible. You should not answer calls by simply saying "Please hold" and putting the caller on hold. You must determine the priority of each call by asking each caller, "Do you have an emergency?"

[4th law of robotics]

50. Why didn't she just call the cops . . .

oh right.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

51. She needs to program her speed-dial with the relevant number.

The home fed video was HALF the battle.