Wednesday Feel Good Story

| July 17, 2013

Chief Tango sends us a link to today’s feel good story from Oklahoma. The homeowner called the police when he heard someone break into his house;

“The homeowner advised dispatch, who was still on with 911, that he had just shot the suspect who had broken the back door,” said Owasso Police Capt. Tracy Townsend.

Police say [44-year-old Timothy] Wall was shot in the thigh and taken to St. John Hospital in Tulsa.

Neighbors say Wall suffers from a mental condition, but they understand the homeowner had to do something to protect himself and his family.

“At one point is, you’ve got to understand the guy [is] delusional there and doesn’t understand what he was doing, but on the other side you’ve got to understand that the homeowner–you don’t know what the guy is seeing, so he had to defend himself there, and his wife, at the time,” said neighbor Eric Hamblin.

Category: Feel Good Stories, Guns

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. AtDrum says:

    Couldn’t watch the video. However it seems like Mental cadet breaks into house, gets shot in leg.

    All is well.

  2. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    “Hi. Breaking into my house I see. Well, if you give me a minute, I’ll go get my gun and ammo. They are stored separately. Dammit. Where’s that key to the trigger lock? Oh, and I’ll have to call 911 too. It’ll be back in a jiffy if you’ll be good enough to wait here. Thanks.”

  3. Hondo says:

    This is one of the few cases where I can say I’m glad the perp was only disabled vice assumed room temperature.

    Looks like we can again thank our liberal “brethren” for this, courtesy of current policies regarding mainlining the mentally ill. IMO this is just a bit more blood for their hands.

  4. OWB says:

    With you on all that, Hondo.

  5. MAJMike says:

    What Hondo said. Looks like the shooter exercised excellent grip, breathing, trigger control, and sight picture.

  6. LostOnThemInterwebs says:

    Ohhh this is the PERFECT thread to ask! so I’ve heard (then again you know everyone suddenly is a lawyer when you ask them if they might know something) that if you shoot someone that broke into your house he can sue you for compensation if he ends up being disabled?

    Now I’ve heard of the “clean hands” argument and sounds sound to me, he can’t tell you “well yeah I was going to rob you but you shot me! pay me for life!” but then again … laws are complicated so .. is that a possibility?

    Sorry for the stupid question but as there been a bit more apt robbery here I’m just wondering … tap, double tap, double tap with dessert …

  7. PintoNag says:

    @3 Hondo, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. He’ll be stablized, put in a facility for a short while, and returned to the community. And the cycle will occur all over again. This is one that SHOULD have been rendered to room temeperature, because there’s a very good chance someone else will have the same thing happen to them. Or worse.

  8. David says:

    Anyone can sue anyone for almost any reason. Whether it makes it past the court is another story. Normally getting injured during commission of a crime is your problem (matter of fact, if you have a partner in the crime and he gets offed, YOU are liable for murder charges in many states. At least here in Texas, one of the items emphasized in CHL classes is that if you shoot aomenone, even the most righteous shoot in the world – you are almost 100% gonna get sued. May not be a successful suit, but you will still have to defend it.

    And no, I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night…

  9. LostOnThemInterwebs says:

    @8 LoL!! close enough!!! thank you!

  10. Jason says:

    Suffers from a mental condition and now suffers from a gunshot wound.

  11. Hondo says:

    PintoNag: I’d have to disagree. Taking that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, we should just execute the mentally ill vice treating them. That would remove the danger to society at low cost, right? (For the sarcasm-challenged, I am being sarcastic as hell. I am NOT advocating any such thing.)

    The perp here is known to be mentally ill, and thus likely not fully accountable for his actions. He was apparently “mainlined” vice involuntarily committed. (Thank our liberal “brethren” for that little bit of mental health policy/legal wonderfulness.) Mainlining him didn’t work as designed, and he ended up creating a danger to self and others anyway. That’s bad – and it’s also often foreseeable.

    However, it’s not a good reason for him to wish him dead. He’s not fully responsible, and he’s not the one making the policies/passing the laws that let him walk around in a society he cannot fathom and in which he cannot function safely. Our liberal “brethren” are the ones responsible for that.

    What this perp desperately seems to need is commitment to a mental installation (or other controlled, restricted situation) to ensure his and others’ safety, until such time as he can be conclusively determined NOT to be a danger to himself and/or others. Maybe now that he’s damn near gotten himself killed he’ll get exactly that – which he obviously should have gotten in the first place. If so, IMO it’s a pity that getting the help he obviously needs nearly cost him his life.

    Sadly, you’re probably correct in predicting that he’ll be put back “on the street” when he heals.

  12. PintoNag says:

    @11 I don’t advocate killing the mentally ill. I don’t think anyone in the community should have to do a gut-check before defending themselves because someone who threatened them might be either mentally ill or deficient.

    By their very nature, the mentally ill do better in institutional settings because they are closely watched and maintained, both in daily routine and medications. Those insitutions are horrendously expensive, if they are run correctly, because staff-to-patient ratio has to be about four times higher than with a regular hospital. And commitment means inherent violations of personal rights and liberties. The insitutions our country had up until the 1970’s were closed because of the abuses those violations brought about. It’s a Catch-22 situation for all involved.

    My problem is this: who out in the community should be the ones to suffer, so that dangerous humans may exercise their civil rights, that they neither understand nor can truly appreciate? We have an extensive program for the mentally ill here in my community, and I get heartily sick of running a gauntlet of wandering, mumbling lunatics on our streets and in our stores and restaurants, and I feel sorry for both those of us who don’t need an institution, and those of us who do.

  13. FatCircles0311 says:

    Delusional you say? Why isn’t that person separated from society then? Oh, because the then the Democratic party couldn’t exist…..

  14. B Woodman says:

    Usually those with mental deficiencies, even though they’re being “mainlined”, have a person(s) nearby to watch them. Where was this watcher? Like letting a child run loose and get into trouble, the PARENT is the one who catches the major blame.