Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: Gun Owner Saves Cop's Life by Shooting Deranged Gunman! (VIDEO)

  1. #1
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Gun Owner Saves Cop's Life by Shooting Deranged Gunman! (VIDEO)

    It’s not every day that you hear the police give a civilian a warm “thank you” for entering a lethal shootout, but that’s exactly what happened in Early, Texas on Sunday. But before we get into the heroic civilian shooter, let’s back up a bit.


    See a Man About a Dog


    It all began, innocently enough, “as a squabble over dogs.” David Michael House, 58, and Iris Valentina Calaci, 53, were both residents at the Peach House RV Park in central Texas. They were also dog owners, and their pooches allegedly had a nasty habit of relieving themselves on the lawn of neighbor Charles Ronald Conner, 58.


    According to eyewitnesses, Conner approached House about his dog, and an argument broke out. Rather than dealing with the confrontation like a normal human being, Conner allegedly went back to his RV, got his gun, returned to House, and lethally shot him.


    The gun shots prompted Calaci to run screaming from her trailer home, but she didn’t get far. Conner chased her down, shot her once and then fired another shot into her, execution style.


    Amazingly, Conner’s shooting spree didn’t end there. He also shot and killed the two dogs that, in his confused mind, started the mess.


    Fatally shooting your neighbors over an issue of dog doo might seem absurdly over-the-top to normal people like you and us, but it might have appeared perfectly sensible to Conner. Conner’s family explained that he had “mental problems.” Police later found a notebook in Conner’s trailer with nearly incomprehensible “ramblings.”


    Conner might’ve been able to get a lenient sentence in court due to his troubled mental state, but that day will never come – there was to be one more shooting on that tragic day, this time in the name of defense.


    Shots Fired


    Sgt. Steven Means of the Early Police Department came rolling onto the scene, but he had barely gotten out of his car before Conner began opening fire on the officer. Means took cover behind his police car and returned fire with an AR-15, but Conner maintained cover behind a tree. Eyewitnesses report that this positioning gave Conner the upper hand over the out-gunned police officer.


    A Helping Hand


    Means and Conner weren’t the only two people with their attention riveted on the gun fight. Vic Stacy, another resident of the RV park, saw the gun fight break out as he was watching TV in his mobile home and thought to himself, “I’m going to see what’s going to happen here and if I need to I’ll, you know, get in on it.”


    Stacy, who had a seen Conner around his trailer park and described him as "off the wall", watched the gun fight for a few moments and concluded, “I think (Conner) is gonna take (the officer) out if I don’t help him out.”


    So, that’s when Stacy decided to act. Conner may have had excellent cover against the Officer Means, but Stacy was in a flanking position that gave him the perfect vantage point. Stacy recalled, “I had a side view of that man the whole time standing there, and I thought, I’m fixin’ to put one in him, if I can.”


    Stacy raised his gun, fired, and landed one hell of a shot – by his estimate “a good 165 yards” – with a pistol (we do not know the make or caliber at this time). Stacy wasn’t even sure if he could make the shot at that distance: “I hope this magnum bullet’ll hold up, you know, this distance. And sure enough it did and I hit him in the thigh.”


    At that point, Conner returned fire against Stacy with his AR-15. He missed his shot, luckily, but that gave dead-eye Stacy another opportunity to pull the trigger. Stacy “hit him again and put three more in him … The patrolman got two shots in him with that AR-15. And it seems like he’s all over with, then.”


    Conner died on the scene, but if it wasn’t for the aid of Vic Stacy, the body count might have been a lot higher.


    Thanks for the Help!


    More police arrived on scene an promptly threw Stacy in cuffs, but after Officer Means cleared up what had happened they released Stacy. Brown County Sheriff Bobby Grubbs later said, "The citizen that fired these shots did a tremendous job out there. Had he not had a gun and the presence of mind to do this, we don't know what the outcome would've been.”


    It is currently unclear as to whether it was Stacy's shots or Officer Mean's shots that delivered the killing blow. Either way, the police are not planning to press charges against Stacy. If anything, they should give him a medal.


    Police and RV park residents alike have been calling Stacy a hero, but he’s rejected the label. He said that he’s just an “average workin’ person” who was just “trying to help an officer out.”


    Stacy told Brownwood Bulletin that he wasn’t able to sleep at all the night following the shooting, but the following day was a different story. Stacy was able to get a good night's sleep after police convinced him that he had acted appropriately and saved lives.


    Stacy added, “I hate that it happened. But I’m glad that we got him down. I felt sorry for those people.”


    We might have a new role model. Vic Stacy was not overeager to pull the trigger, he felt the appropriate weight on his conscience after taking the life of another person, and he hasn’t let the media attention get to his head. If you ask us, the world could use a few more Vic Stacys.



    Video and pictures at source

    http://www.guns.com/texas-gun-owner-...out-10236.html


    Note: Some people suggest the distance was 65 yards, not 165 yards. It has been reported that Conner was armed with a lever action rifle, not an AR 15.


    Did Vic Stacy violate the Texas open carry law in order to save the police officer's life?

    Quite a different conclusion from what happened in Colorado.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    More police arrived on scene an promptly threw Stacy in cuffs

    and a shot @ 165 YARDS with a handgun? What? And multiple hits at 165 yds? I don't believe that ... not even I can shoot my handgun accurately that far.

    And my level action packs quite a wallop, much more than my AR.

    Stacy won't be helping them anymore.

    Stacy should have called OHSA .. seemed like an unsafe work environment.

    This story, even with inaccuracies, highlights the purpose of a person owning a handgun: to protect yourself ... Stacy shot at a guy with a rifle and he re-focused his efforts on killing him ... Stacy is lucky...rifle v handgun at short/medium range? Not a good position for for the hand gunner. I wonder how many have not fared so well in similar circumstances.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-02-2012 at 01:15 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    Did Vic Stacy violate the Texas open carry law in order to save the police officer's life?
    No. See PC 9.22.

  4. #4
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    The necessity defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    No. See PC 9.22.
    I was not sure if Texas had this law or not.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    I was not sure if Texas had this law or not.
    I would think that a citizens arrest common law would cover this ... unless TX banned this common law.

    Also, a link to the PC is here:

    http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.22.00.html

  6. #6
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    Just sent a link to the local PD Chief and Sheriff.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  7. #7
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    I doubt that the shooter could have kept the officer pinned down long with a 30/30 against an Ar-15.

    Still Stacy didn't have the Monday morning quarterback option available. LEO was alone and pinned down at the time- and he reacted perfectly. That's what Article 2, Section 23 is referring to when it states that every citizen shall have the right to keep & bear arms in lawful defense of one's self OR THE STATE. That Early LEO IS THE STATE OF TEXAS.

    One final point. It's about time for law enforcement agencies to seriously consider re-emplementing the LEO partner concept. It is simply expecting TOO MUCH from ONE LEO to handle ANY RESPONSE situation. There have been 70 some odd accidents in Texas in a relatively recent period involving LEO's distracted with dispatch communication, or computer keyboard operation while driving. In addition to enhancing officer safety, a 2 officer partner unit would not have this communication distraction problem. One officer drives - one operates computer, and dispatch-com. TWO OFFICERS on the scene should be an absolute minimum standard for ANY department.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 08-02-2012 at 08:25 PM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    I doubt that the shooter could have kept the officer pinned down long with a 30/30 against an Ar-15.
    Policemen are not soldiers .. their main responsibility is to save their own butt first. So a guy with a 30-30 was able to pin him down.

    The policeman is waiting for backup...why put himself at risk?

  9. #9
    Regular Member MainelyGlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Portland, ME
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Policemen are not soldiers .. their main responsibility is to save their own butt first. So a guy with a 30-30 was able to pin him down.

    The policeman is waiting for backup...why put himself at risk?
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not their main responsibility, but I'm still a year away from being sworn in so I could be very wrong. In the interest of self-preservation however, I can't say I disagree with his actions.
    Once more into the fray.
    Into the last good fight I'll ever know.
    Live and die on this day.
    Live and die on this day.



    "I knew one thing: as soon as anyone said you didn't need a gun, you'd better take one along that worked."
    Raymond Chandler

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MainelyGlock View Post
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not their main responsibility, but I'm still a year away from being sworn in so I could be very wrong. In the interest of self-preservation however, I can't say I disagree with his actions.
    Well if you get shot taking unnecessary risks, you can expect to get chewed out by your superior. I know many police chiefs and fire chiefs too ... on 9/11 I was with a fire chief and when they sent in the firemen into the bldg. the chief (a chgo fire chief) said "he shouldn't do that, its not safe for his men" .. lo and behold, he was right (he considered the firemen as idiots and not heroes).

    The other guy, Stacy, was not at risk ~ why Stacy started shooting is a mystery, it violates one of my rules: if I am not in danger, do not put myself in danger.

    If Stacy did nothing, I'm sure 50,000 cops would have shown up and handled the situation. If children were running about and the shooter was shooting them, it would not change the proper action for the policeman to remain safe. Let the justice system work it out later.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-02-2012 at 09:14 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MainelyGlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Portland, ME
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well if you get shot taking unnecessary risks, you can expect to get chewed out by your superior. I know many police chiefs and fire chiefs too ... on 9/11 I was with a fire chief and when they sent in the firemen into the bldg. the chief (a chgo fire chief) said "he shouldn't do that, its not safe for his men" .. lo and behold, he was right (he considered the firemen as idiots and not heroes).

    The other guy, Stacy, was not at risk ~ why Stacy started shooting is a mystery, it violates one of my rules: if I am not in danger, do not put myself in danger.

    If Stacy did nothing, I'm sure 50,000 cops would have shown up and handled the situation. If children were running about and the shooter was shooting them, it would not change the proper action for the policeman to remain safe. Let the justice system work it out later.
    I see. That does make sense when you put it that way.

    I don't think it's a mystery as to why he started shooting. He saw an officer in trouble (as he perceived it) and acted heroically, in my opinion. It's different for everyone though. I carry everyday, and I personally feel that it's my responsibility to protect those around me with my firearm should the situation ever arise (God forbid). To me, protecting even a strangers life far outweighs the legal consequences. Of course, I've never been in a situation where this has happened and I hope I never am, so I can't say for sure how things would actually go down or how I would react.

    Either way, I hope no charges are filed against Stacy.
    Once more into the fray.
    Into the last good fight I'll ever know.
    Live and die on this day.
    Live and die on this day.



    "I knew one thing: as soon as anyone said you didn't need a gun, you'd better take one along that worked."
    Raymond Chandler

  12. #12
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    He was praised by the department, defended by the officer he protected and Texas law explicitly states that he had a legal right to act. So I highly he'd be charged with a crime.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well if you get shot taking unnecessary risks, you can expect to get chewed out by your superior. I know many police chiefs and fire chiefs too ... on 9/11 I was with a fire chief and when they sent in the firemen into the bldg. the chief (a chgo fire chief) said "he shouldn't do that, its not safe for his men" .. lo and behold, he was right (he considered the firemen as idiots and not heroes).

    The other guy, Stacy, was not at risk ~ why Stacy started shooting is a mystery, it violates one of my rules: if I am not in danger, do not put myself in danger.

    If Stacy did nothing, I'm sure 50,000 cops would have shown up and handled the situation. If children were running about and the shooter was shooting them, it would not change the proper action for the policeman to remain safe. Let the justice system work it out later.
    Interesting. I wonder if the perp would have stopped if he had shot the cop or keep on shooting folks.

    I believe it is better to have two good guys shooting at one bad guy than one good guy and one bad guy shooting at each other. Especially if the shooting is going on next door to my house.....but that is just me.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If Stacy did nothing, I'm sure 50,000 cops would have shown up and handled the situation.
    It's a town of less than 3,000 in a county of 38,000 population in west-central Texas. There aren't a lot of cops available to respond.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    It's a town of less than 3,000 in a county of 38,000 population in west-central Texas. There aren't a lot of cops available to respond.
    I don't know about that, they have a nice new big building ! Must have more than 1 deputy... there would have been plenty of cops there ..

  16. #16
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    One minor thing I noticed:

    Means took cover behind his police car and returned fire with an AR-15, but Conner maintained cover behind a tree. Eyewitnesses report that this positioning gave Conner the upper hand over the out-gunned police officer.
    How was Officer Means "out-gunned" when returning fire with an AR-15? He might have had a disadvantage in firing positions, but the description clearly states, "out-gunned".

    Was Conner using an RPG, or something? A howitzer, maybe? A .50 BMG?

    How else could one be "out-gunned" while returning fire with an AR-15?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    One minor thing I noticed:



    How was Officer Means "out-gunned" when returning fire with an AR-15? He might have had a disadvantage in firing positions, but the description clearly states, "out-gunned".

    Was Conner using an RPG, or something? A howitzer, maybe? A .50 BMG?

    How else could one be "out-gunned" while returning fire with an AR-15?
    They guy had a level action I believe ... I have a few and would rather be shot by an AR than my level action .. its just the government trying to limit our right to keep and bear arms .. they'll be going after our level actions now. The want us to only own BB guns ... if that

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Many small towns only have one or two officers in uniform at any one time. Early has a chief, a detective, and 5 officers, backup is DPS, and usually a county sheriff's office. It is truly cowardly to simply say "he's a cop, I'll let him worry about himself." You don't have to take a great risk, but doing nothing is hardly the right thing, or the Texan thing, to do. We don't have to go looking for a fight, and when one finds us, we can back down since we don't validate ourselves with our ego or what others think (we know who we are, thank you very much), but when the time comes to help others or protect those who need protecting, we don't turn into citified cowards. Doing nothing is not an option.* (* in more heavily populated areas, the options might be different.)

    This guy didn't need to be a smartest or the bravest man in town (or maybe he is), but when the time came to act, he did what he could as well as he could. That makes him a true Texan and a first-class American.

  19. #19
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post

    I believe it is better to have two good guys shooting at one bad guy than one good guy and one bad guy shooting at each other. Especially if the shooting is going on next door to my house.....but that is just me.
    Generally I would agree. But you can see in this case one of the "good guys" promptly arrested the other good guy once the danger was over. Dickmove.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Well, in the follow-up good guy's defense, the neighbor did just shoot someone, and the arresting officer was not present at the time of the shooting. Seems like a sane course of action until it is sorted out. (Such as "did this guy have a shoot out with the other guy before we arrived, or did he shoot one or more of the dead folks?")

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Well, in the follow-up good guy's defense, the neighbor did just shoot someone, and the arresting officer was not present at the time of the shooting. Seems like a sane course of action until it is sorted out. (Such as "did this guy have a shoot out with the other guy before we arrived, or did he shoot one or more of the dead folks?")
    That's one viewpoint...other one is the guy did a dickmove ... I vote, dickmove. If I was the person that helped out, it would be the last time I helped out.

  22. #22
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    One minor thing I noticed:



    How was Officer Means "out-gunned" when returning fire with an AR-15? He might have had a disadvantage in firing positions, but the description clearly states, "out-gunned".

    Was Conner using an RPG, or something? A howitzer, maybe? A .50 BMG?

    How else could one be "out-gunned" while returning fire with an AR-15?
    I read the guy had a lever action 30-30 that was able to totally penetrate the officer's cover (his car) but the officer's AR15 would not penetrate the BG's cover (a tree).

    The neighbor had a flanking position and the BG could not hide from both the neighbor and the officer at the same time.

    So, when the neighbor hit the BG in the thigh, the BG moved to fire at the one that shot him, this put him out in the open to the officer who was able to put a few AR rounds in to him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If I was the person that helped out, it would be the last time I helped out.
    Yup, No good deed and all that...
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  24. #24
    Regular Member MainelyGlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Portland, ME
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Generally I would agree. But you can see in this case one of the "good guys" promptly arrested the other good guy once the danger was over. Dickmove.
    The "dickmove" comment may or may not be true, however, I'm not sure what details the backup officers had upon arriving at the scene. Did they know how many shooters there were? Did they know whether or not Stacy had joined the active shooter in firing against the first officer? They arrived and probably saw a man with a gun, right after one was shooting at an officer. In the interest of personal/public safety (and probably department protocol), I can't say I'd have done anything differently. He doesn't seem to think it's a big deal, and was released fairly quickly too.
    Once more into the fray.
    Into the last good fight I'll ever know.
    Live and die on this day.
    Live and die on this day.



    "I knew one thing: as soon as anyone said you didn't need a gun, you'd better take one along that worked."
    Raymond Chandler

  25. #25
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by MainelyGlock View Post
    The "dickmove" comment may or may not be true, however, I'm not sure what details the backup officers had upon arriving at the scene. Did they know how many shooters there were? Did they know whether or not Stacy had joined the active shooter in firing against the first officer? They arrived and probably saw a man with a gun, right after one was shooting at an officer. In the interest of personal/public safety (and probably department protocol), I can't say I'd have done anything differently. He doesn't seem to think it's a big deal, and was released fairly quickly too.
    I think you've got the wrong view, here. The question isn't, "Was there a reason not to detain this guy?" The question is, "What clear, identifiable circumstances existed that so overwhelmed the presumption of innocence that the officer reasonably felt obligated to detain Stacy?" See where you've got this backwards? There's no need to demonstrate why this guy shouldn't have been detained. The burden of proof is on anyone, particularly the dickmaestro involved, to demonstrate why this guy should have been detained. Because so many people have their perspectives ass-backwards, we see this kind of thing, shrug, and don't even consider it. This perpetuates and strengthens the extravagance of police response in all circumstances, and emboldens the bad cops, who are then covered by all the other cops who would otherwise be "good", many of whom then decide to get in on the action.

    N.B.: I'm aware that the presumption of innocence is a judicial standard, not explicitly an enforcement standard. The very reason we have the explicit judicial standard is because we are supposed to hold that standard, and more, in every aspect of our society. The framers simply felt it so threatened in the judicial arena that they took the extra step of explicit stating it in that context. This is like the Bill of Rights not being the only rights we have, merely the ones that were most urgently in need of explicit enumeration.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •