Concealed Handgun Carrier Intervenes To Save Women Being Beaten
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 12 months ago
Southlake police say a licensed concealed handgun holder intervened when he saw a man allegedly assaulting a woman Friday, and the assault suspect now faces charges.
Police were called at about 1:35 p.m. to Farm-to-Market Road 1709 about a block west of Carroll Avenue, where they found two men standing in the middle of the road with one man pointing a gun at the other.
Their preliminary investigation indicated the witness saw a man in another car physically assaulting his female front seat passenger, so when both cars stopped the witness confronted the man in the other car at gunpoint because he believed the female to be in imminent danger of a felony offense, police said …
Police said they consulted with the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office to determine if the witness had done anything illegal, and based on the information gathered at the scene the D.A.’s office determined he hadn’t …
A statement from Southlake Police Chief Steve Mylett said, “While we commend this citizen’s willingness to get involved in order to protect a victim of crime, the Southlake Police Department does not encourage the public to expose themselves in such a manner. Instead, we strongly recommend citizens who witness a crime in progress to contact the local police department by dialing the police emergency number 911.”
It isn’t very odd at all that a concealed carrier saves a person from death or imminent bodily injury or sexual assault. It’s rather commonplace, actually.
What is more interesting here is the reaction of the police. Not only did they “consult” with their attorneys to see if a “crime” had been committed, they actually came out and recommended against this sort of thing. Because, you know, the police can be everywhere at all times. Or more realistically and less sardonically, it’s better in their estimation that a woman get the hell beaten out of her or die than be saved by someone who isn’t a representative of the state.
|
|
On December 29, 2014 at 12:15 am, Bill Daigle said:
Sadly it’s the usual cop behavior, they harp until the SCOTUS publicly relieves them of any duty to protect or intervene then demand that citizens not get involved b/c we are not ” trained ” . True enough, we are not sufficiently trained to kick in the wrong doors, accidentally kill numerous ” suspects ” by illegal and unwarranted methods” , shoot peoples pets at random…the list is long of what citizens as cops are not trained to do.
On December 29, 2014 at 3:36 pm, bob r said:
“…they actually came out and recommended against this sort of thing. …”
They actually did no such thing. Stating that you “don’t encourage” something is *not* the same thing as recommending that the “something” not be done. It could very well be the case that “they” in fact think that the “thing” in question is a *good* thing but that political considerations and the litigious nature of many in our society make stating so explicitly a rather “bad” idea.
As to them “… consult[ing] with the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office to determine if the witness had done anything illegal …”, I say “good on them”. They covered their ass in a “publicity” sense and they didn’t just give the guy a free stay in the grey bar hotel while the lawyers sorted it out.
I don’t “like” cops: essentially *every* one of them has violated his (her) oath of office. But I see nothing in the story, as presented, to indicate “bad” behaviour on the part of the officers involved.
On December 29, 2014 at 3:50 pm, Herschel Smith said:
We’ll have to agree to disagree. They said: “Instead, we strongly recommend citizens who witness a crime in progress to contact the local police department by dialing the police emergency
number 911.”
I don’t know how much stronger a statement can be made. They didn’t cover anything. They could have made no statement at all except that a felon had been arrested because of assault. Because, you know, he was a felon and was guilty of assault and he was arrested. Those are the facts of the case. The other is just superfluous opinion.
On December 29, 2014 at 11:04 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
Gosh. Talk about a NWFW post.
Don’t let the facts get out to the antis. They’ll be wringing panties for weeks.
The anti natural rights folks don’t want you to intercede on their behalf. They’d rather be murdered than have an actual armed citizen ( to them, read: “vigilante”) intercede on their behalf. Now, we just need a way to identify these folks.
(PS: What’s the matter with these journalists? I didn’t see the typical BS screed about vigilantes anywhere. (Not that they know the actual definition of vigilante))
I wonder if it’s typical for the police in this office to submit a case like this to a prosecutor. Could have been to close the door on the issue of the guilt of the intercessor. At least, I hope that’s the reason.
Note to self: Don’t try this in New Jersey, if you find yourself there. Unless you are in a position to club the perp and flee, or have a million set aside to defend your “vigilante” self. Self, it’s nuts to even make that connection. “There’s something wrong around here…”
On December 29, 2014 at 11:36 pm, Miles said:
“I wonder if it’s typical for the police in this office to submit a case like this to a prosecutor. Could have been to close the door on the issue of the guilt of the intercessor. At least, I hope that’s the reason.”
Read correctly, they wanted to charge the guy. They knew they had no cause to charge him at the time, but they still wanted to charge him so badly that they called up the DA anyway. I’d say this was probably after they had taken them all “downtown” and had each of them sitting in individual ‘interview’ rooms waiting for the DA to make up his mind.
Eventually the DA told them ‘No’ and probably not in a gentle manner.