Why is the 2nd Amendment a basic human right? This recording of a 911 call in Oklahoma from last week is a chilling example. Homeowner shoots, kills intruder in Lincoln County | NewsOK.com
CUSHING — For 10 minutes and 20 seconds, Donna Jackson remained calm as she stood in the dark pleading for help and repeatedly telling emergency dispatchers that she did not want to shoot the "crazy,” "drunk sounding” man who was yelling and determined to get inside her house early Friday.I started listening to this out of some sort of morbid curiousity, but soon I found myself drawn into the drama and the fear and the sorrow of the whole episode. You will be too.But when he threw a table through her sliding glass patio door, the 56-year-old woman — who was home alone — couldn’t wait for deputies any longer.
There is a loud crash on the 911 tape.
The phone drops, and there’s a single shot from a 16-gauge shotgun.
Only then, does the woman who has been so calm throughout the ordeal begin to fall apart.
"I shot. I shot,” Jackson tells the dispatcher frantically. "I’m going out front. I hit him. Oh God, help me! I dropped the phone. ... Oh please, dear God, I think I’ve killed him.”
As the reality sinks in, her voice fades to a whisper, "Please, Father in Heaven. Please, Father in Heaven. Oh my God, ma’am. Please.”
From the first words of the 911 operator to the last note from the woman's son, "That's Patrick Strange. He's a real good guy, Mom. Okay?," this recording moves into areas that Hollywood can't even begin to touch.
HT: The invaluable Bookworm Room who observes,
Perhaps because they often tend to live in tightly packed urban environments, when it comes to the gun debate, liberals always forget that the cops cannot be relied upon to be there at the moment a crime is happening. In a city it's entirely possible that there are lots of police patrolling a small geographic area who can then respond immediately to a 911 call. In areas that see cops stretched thin by geography (a sprawling county) or crisis (Katrina), citizens are on their own.Posted by Vanderleun at December 8, 2009 6:52 PM
From someone living in a county patrolled by sheriffs dept that could take as long as 45 min to respond to a call, own a gun and know how to use it.
Posted by: gary wishon at December 8, 2009 8:41 PMSo - somebody living out in the sticks (no doubt also "clinging" to their religion) has a greater "need" for a firearm than a person living in the heart of Big City, USA?
Tell that to the single mom with a few pre-teen children, stuck in a project in Washington DC or Chicago, who is prohibited by LAW from purchasing a little S&W .38 to keep in her bedside table, to protect her family - from the violent lawless barbarians on the loose outside her door.
This basic human right should apply to EVERYONE in this country. No excuses. No cop outs. No rationalizing over longer 911 response times here versus there, as having any relevance whatsoever.
Our betters - who are in the process of finalizing their first massive and permanant power grab - nationalization of the health care industry; and who will then move next to their massive and permanant power grab based phony baloney weather predictions -- will ultimately, probably in Baracky's second term, set their sights on disarming the American populace.
Oh, there won't be door to door seizures of weapons (although we did of course see that in NO, following Katrina). At first. It will start off with registration requirements and serial numbers on bullets; allowing (or spearheading) crippling lawsuits on gun manufacturs, etc., etc. It will be a multi-year "process."
Our tax dollars will help fund "criminal negligence" investigations against Remington, Smith and Wesson. Just like our tax dollars have and WILL continue to fund criminal organizations engaged in voter fraud.
This is for our own good of course. See, after all, we're part of the "world community" now, circa 2014. And Brits don't have guns. Russians don't. French don't. Cubans don't. Venezualeans don't. Why do we arrogant Americans think we need to be "different?" We don't NEED them, you see.
Don't think anything like that can happen? I didn't think so either, once. Because I did not think the crap going down in DC that started in 2009 could happen either.
Posted by: southernjames at December 9, 2009 4:52 AM
Southernjames,
One ray of hope is that even a monster like the Soviet Union can be taken down by economic stupidity and citizen action. And then there's still Texas....
I won't listen to this, but the transcript has me tearing up.
What prepares any of us for these moments of pure horror?
May her faith sustain her as she tries to assemble a coherent way to move forward.
Posted by: Cathy at December 9, 2009 8:10 AMThe old aphorism bears repeating: "When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away."
Posted by: jim reibel at December 9, 2009 10:02 AMResponse time and police coverage are not the issue and are not relevant to self-protection.
Posted by: Dan Patterson at December 9, 2009 10:34 AM""""" Response time and police coverage are not the issue and are not relevant to self-protection. """""
SHOULD NOT be an issue, actually. Unfortunately such rationalizations are necessary to drive home the compelling argument in favor of both self-defense and gun ownership to 1) those who are wavering on the issue, and 2) those citizens who favor gun-control out of liberal habit, but are swayable by common sense talking points.
This very 911 incident dramatizes what anti-gun people always miss: it is the most vulnerable in our society who would benefit most from firearm (and especially handgun) ownership. Too many anti-gun types equate gun ownership with "righ-wing redneck" males.
Posted by: Don Rodrigo at December 9, 2009 10:56 AMThis brought me to tears, right at my desk.
Anyone who doesn't understand the terrible tragedy of this event has no soul.
"It's a helluva thing to kill a man. Takes away all he has and all he's ever gonna have." Bill Munny, "Unforgiven," 1992
Posted by: Donald Sensing at December 9, 2009 11:48 AMI'm a former LEO and my training officer, a prominent local attorney, explained it as follows.
The Supreme Court of the United States recognizes that police departments and law enforcement officers have two responsibilities. The first is to apprehend lawbreakers, the second is to gather evidence to aid in the prosecution of law-breakers.
The Supreme Court has also decided that police officers and police departments cannot be sued or prosecuted for failing to perform either responsibility nor can they sued or prosecuted for failing to prevent a crime or for failing to stop a crime in process.
The conclusion is that anyone who expects the police to protect them is going to be sadly disappointed.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at December 9, 2009 4:51 PM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.
HOME