Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Raw 911 tape: home invasion and double murder

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    http://www.azfamily.com/video/3tvext...2025&shu=1

    Home invaded by vicious, armed thugs. Father and ten year old daughter shot and killed. Mother, shot in leg, only able to save herself with pistol.

    If you can listen to this straight through without choking up or being completely horrified, you're tougher than I am. It might be overkill, but those who "don't believe" in armed self-defense might be asked to listen to this, then reconsider.

    There is true evil out there.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Riana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    943

    Post imported post

    Oh my God.Horrified is a poor adjective in this case.

    I thought the operator did a great job, considering what the victim was dealing with, both physically and mentally. And +1 to the operator for telling the victim to re-arm herself, in case the cars outside were not the good guys.

    I was going to go to bed, but I doubt I'll get any sleep, having listened to that.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    214

    Post imported post

    Hmm. Eighteen minute plus response time. Sounds like "the whole army" was a little late to the party.

    Glad she remember the husbands handgun and was able to use it.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Seventeen minute 45 second response time.

    Two dead, one saved by a gun.

    The only thing I might want to see is the dispatcher finding out how serious the bleeding from the leg wound.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Riana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    943

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Seventeen minute 45 second response time.

    Two dead, one saved by a gun.

    The only thing I might want to see is the dispatcher finding out how serious the bleeding from the leg wound.
    I think the operator was mostly trying to get the victim to focus on something other than the carnage around her - her own leg, her dead family, etc. Short of discussing the weather, I think she handled it pretty well. That and some people (myself included) would not handle looking at such a wound well - I've been known to faint looking at someone else's IV line.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Riana wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Seventeen minute 45 second response time.

    Two dead, one saved by a gun.

    The only thing I might want to see is the dispatcher finding out how serious the bleeding from the leg wound.
    I think the operator was mostly trying to get the victim to focus on something other than the carnage around her - her own leg, her dead family, etc. Short of discussing the weather, I think she handled it pretty well. That and some people (myself included) would not handle looking at such a wound well - I've been known to faint looking at someone else's IV line.
    You've got a point. I wasn't so much criticizing the dispatcher as suggesting something learned from this event to apply to next time.

    Basically, the my old Boy Scout first-aid training was coming back."Stop the bleeding. Start the breathing. Treat for shock."

    Now that I think about it, it came back pretty quick."Stop the bleeding" came to mind instantly whenthe caller said she was bleeding [pretty bad, or however she worded it].
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    277

    Post imported post

    Dear God, that is horrible. I found this on it. Regardless of what the father and possibly mother were involved in, the poor child that was murdered for crying prove that these were not people, but animals. I hope all three get a date with the needle.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...home-invasion/

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    This is why I first got into firearms. This could happen to ANYBODY, anytime, anywhere. The only reason she is still alive right now is because she was able to fight her attackers off with a firearm.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    All I can say is..... WTF.

    "Minutemen"?

  10. #10
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    tuna quesadilla wrote:
    This is why I first got into firearms. This could happen to ANYBODY, anytime, anywhere. The only reason she is still alive right now is because she was able to fight her attackers off with a firearm.
    Protection of my family is exactly why I bought my first gun. I have two daughters about the same age as the deceased. The thought of how a person can kill a child in cold blood repulses me and I believe there should be exceptions to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Yes, this could happen to anyone, but it would be less likely to happen if a person is not involved in the drug trade.

    "The husband who was murdered has a history of being involved in narcotics and there was an anticipation that there would be a considerable amount of cash at this location as well as the possibility of drugs," Dupnik said.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Well, that's just all the more reason to legitimize the drug trade, and further legitimize the arming for self-defense those participants in the trade who wish to behave in a civil fashion.

    And in the meantime, that's all the more reason for those who are involved to arm themselves, whether they are aggressive individuals or not, and whether the rest of us have a problem with that, or not.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Well, that's just all the more reason to legitimize the drug trade, and further legitimize the arming for self-defense those participants in the trade who wish to behave in a civil fashion.
    Most of those in the drug trade are already armed. They are criminalswho don't respect the laws against drug trafficking and abuse. Why would one assume that they would respect laws about the possesion and use of firearms? The erratic and often dangerous behavior of drug addicts and drug dealersis one of the reasons law abiding citizens choose to arm themselves.

    More on topic, once again a gun in the hand of a crimevictimsaved a life. It's just a pity it wasn't drawn sooner.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    The point is to get erratic and violent people out of a business which is inevitable, legitimate or illicit.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    I understand the"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"viewpoint of those who want to legalize the drug trade. I disagree with it for many reasons, but to keep from hijacking this thread with that discussion, I'll say again. It's a pity that the victim's gun wasn't drawn sooner. The 911 call would have been better if it had went something like this.

    911, What is your emergency?

    Please send police and an ambulance to ________ , there has been a shooting.

    What happened?

    Some armedpeopleinvaded our home and we had to defend ourselves.

    How many people invaded your home?

    I'm not sure but three have been shot.

    Is anyone in your family injured?

    No, only the invaders...

    Eighteen minutes of that would have made for far better listening. The bright side is that because one victim was able to get a gun and defend herself, at least three violent criminals will go to jail and hopefully will be executed by the state.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I wonder if "drug trade involvement" had anything to do with the 18 minute response time...

    I get the impression these "minutemen" wannabes had some idea that it's OK to rob such a person, "because after all, he's a criminal", and murder his daughter too.

    Of course, from this scenario and others it would seem that "those involved in the drug trade" are aggressed against as much as they are aggressors.

    At least we can all agree that it's a shame the gun didn't come out sooner. We'd all much rather see a living daughter and dead perps.

  17. #17
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    I can't help to think if you shown the 911 call to an anti, they'd state the incident wouldn't have happened if guns were banned.

    I'm glad the woman had access to a firearm, she saved her life. In a society of laws, there is no room for vigilantism, those people will see their day in court.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Yeah, I was thinking that. A comment I made earlier in another thread in response to Dutch Uncle mentioning this recording was sparked by that very notion.

    There are better examples to use, if we're trying to get an emotional response.

  19. #19
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Well, that's just all the more reason to legitimize the drug trade, and further legitimize the arming for self-defense those participants in the trade who wish to behave in a civil fashion.

    And in the meantime, that's all the more reason for those who are involved to arm themselves, whether they are aggressive individuals or not, and whether the rest of us have a problem with that, or not.
    Legitimize the drug trade? Uh sorry Marshaul I can't go along with you about that. Maybe Marijuana, and tax the stuffins out of it and then make regs that allow for urinalysis testing for traffic stops. But Cocaine and Meth and Heroine ? Those are life destroying drugs.
    Not to totally get off topic, God Bless the Gal, and her family may they rest in peace. But damn the fella for his placing his family at risk in the first place. The worst part is the child was the totally innocent victim. 18 minute response from the police? Not bad considering,,but yet again a perfect example of when seconds count...
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    "Meth" doesn't destroy lives any more than the same drug prescribed in a legal setting does (the same active ingredient in "crystal meth" is legally prescribed all the time, minus impurities). People destroy their own lives.

    Or, if anything, street "meth" is less safe than legal methamphetamine, but only because there is no liability applied to illegal "meth lab" manufacturers for making impure and unsafe drugs, whereas legal drug manufacturers are highly regulated. Which is yet another argument to get government out of the unconstitutional business of empowering gangs with prohibition. :quirky

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    because drugs never hurt anybody.... if you were just talking organics...maybe, but not the artificial compounds.


    TurnTo23.com Related To Story

    [*]Video: CPS Under Fire For Case
    MORE INFO
    Father Accused Of Eating Child's Eye OutPolice Say Man Appeared To Be On PCPPOSTED: 12:10 pm PDT May 15, 2009UPDATED: 3:20 pm PDT May 22, 2009BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- "It was pretty bizarre," said neighbor Ramon Rodriguez.Rodriguez was one of the first to discover 34-year-old Angelo Mendoza on April 28 after police said Mendoza bit an eyeball out of his 4-year-old son's face and ate it."The guy was crazy. Real bug-eyed; he had to be on drugs," said Rodriguez.Court documents said neighbors checked on Mendoza's son, Angelo Jr., after they noticed the father acting nervously and fleeing from his east Bakersfield apartment in his wheelchair. Inside, they found little Angelo naked and bleeding. Police said the boy had numerous bites to his hands and his eyes were swollen shut. Doctors said the boy's left eye and muscle were completely missing. His other eye was mutilated beyond repair. The boy told them, "My daddy ate my eyes out." Rodriguez said meanwhile Mendoza approached him at a neighbor's vacant house down the street.Rodriguez said the boy's father wheeled himself into the front yard and asked Rodriguez to play with him and a pet dog. He was wearing boxers and a sweater. When Rodriguez refused, Mendoza got off his wheelchair and dragged himself into a back yard, where he found an ax.By then Mendoza had stripped naked. He chained himself to a tree in the back yard and began hacking at his leg with a pickax while yelling incoherently."He told me to look into the sun and pray with him. I was kinda scared for a minute," said Rodriguez.Then Rodriguez jumped on Mendoza and wrestled the ax away."As soon as I grabbed the ax he tried to bite me, and I had to hold him down with my knee. There was dry blood around his mouth. I don't know if it was his own, but I'm pretty sure it was his son's now that I hear the story," said Rodriguez.The police report said Mendoza appeared to be under the influence of PCP. Rodriguez said had he known about little Angelo, the outcome would have been different."I would've just let him cut his leg off. What happened to his son is not right. I would've left him alone," said Rodriguez.Mendoza was arrested on charges of torture, aggravated mayhem, and cruelty to a child. The toddler is now in the custody of Child Protective Services. Mendoza is due in court May 20. His bail is set at $1 million.For fundraising and donation information, visit http://www.imforeverchanged.com.
    Copyright 2009 by TurnTo23.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    277

    Post imported post

    Jesus christ. Wow, I kind of feel bad at linking the news article now. It seems the topic has gone from one of a sad case that reinforces situational awareness when something seems amiss and the need to be armed to protect one's self and family. I say this yet I now find myself compelled to chime in. Personally, I don't care if a junkie wants to shoot up an OD of junk and die from too much of the heroins. One less gas station attendant as far as I'm concerned. No offense to those that are of sound mind, in school and working, etc. Again, the only people that truly suffer are the innocent with abuses of any kind. Family, children, etc suffer more so than an addict.

    I'm not trying to use the "for the children" cop out, but it's true. They can't help it that daddy or mommy is worthless. I don't know though, I just don't know if I want to see a "crack" section in a given store or a specialty shop. Meth is abhorrent. My ex-wife's use of that substance was a major contributing factor in our divorce. She's clean now and a productive member of society now, but that's neither here or now as the damage was done. I can understand the whole pot thing in a way. After all, we can buy booze and a slurpie. Hell, if it was legal I would probably smoke myself on theoccasional weekendand watch The Wall or a Cheech and Chong movie.

    However, when/if certain drugs are made legal, where do you draw the line? Who would have the moral authority to make that decision? That's where you get when you start with that line of thinking. Then again, maybe we should just say f**k it and see if Darwin was onto something.

    Ok, I'm done.



    -Gruu

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I think many people look at this the wrong way.

    Nobody is advocating meth use (except doctors, that is). However, ask yourself what the compelling reason to ban it is? And ask yourself what constitutional authority has ever been granted for government to prohibit drugs? The prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment.

    OK, so you don't "want" a meth section in your local liquor store. Does that mean you do want gangs on your streets, and little girls murdered because "robbing people involved with drugs is OK" (we know that was the internal justification)? These are the products of prohibition.

    It seems to me that the symptoms of the "cure" are far worse than the problem. Do I "want" meth sold in liquor stores? Not really (then again, I don't especially care). However, would I prefer that to armed gangs "slanging" rock? Hell yes.

    We may "want" meth to not exist, sort of like the anti-gunners want guns to not exist. But that is impossible. What practical approaches are there?

    With guns, we argue that we should take the monopoly of gun ownership away from criminals by arming citizens. Why should we not similarly remove the monopoly on drug profits from criminals by giving those profits to someone -- anyone -- who wants to sell drugs in a noncriminal fashion?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    What so many people fail to realize is that a huge portion of violent crime in one form or another involves the drug trade. You don't see that with alcohol or cigarettes because those substances are legal. I've always supported all drugs being legalized. The reason is that it is not the government's job to force safety on adult citizens nor is it constitutional. If someone is on a drug and is out of control (driving intoxicated, robbing people, beating their wife and children, etc.) then there are already existing laws to deal with that. However, for the government to dictate what adults can or cannot consume is wrong, absurd, and tyrannical. It comes down to the "protect us from ourselves" mentality. Additionally, it is a slippery slope. Methcan beharmful but there are plently of people who have tried it and not become addicts or committed crimes. McDonald'scan beharmful, televisioncan beharmful, and religion can be harmful so should the government also ban those things? Keep the government out of the private lives of citizens and you have less problems. If people want to get screwed up on meth, fine! Then when they run into armed citizens and try to rob them, those armed citizens will take care of the problem without any government intervention required. Problem solved!



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    protector84 wrote:
    What so many people fail to realize is that a huge portion of violent crime in one form or another involves the drug trade. You don't see that with alcohol or cigarettes because those substances are legal.
    This thread has really gotten off track but the violent crime associated with drug abuse and trafficking won't just magically go away if it is legalized. I have no doubt that,if our culture continues on our present course, you guys will one day get your wish. I don't look forward to seeing the consequences. Who knows? Maybe by thatday police response time will improve.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •