Long Live the 2nd Amendment - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dalmations202 · 09-11-2008, 09:00 AM

Texas Man Kills Home Intruder With His Own Gun

Friday, September 05, 2008

Foxnews

BLUE MOUND, Texas — When two gunmen smashed through the glass front door of her suburban Fort Worth home, Kellie Hoehn didn't think twice.

The 34-year-old mother of two grabbed a shotgun that had been pointed at her face early Wednesday, starting a struggle that ended with one intruder killed with his own weapon and another in the hospital.

"I wasn't going to let them get to my babies," she said, recalling the moment when she pushed up the muzzle of the shotgun, pointing it away from her children's rooms.

Although the intruders told her to keep quiet, she screamed for her husband. She told her 12-year-old son, who was awakened by the sound of the shattering glass front door, to get his 5-year-old sister and hide.

"It was like a horror movie," her husband, 32-year-old Keith Hoehn, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "I thought I was a dead man. We're fighting for our lives."

With Kellie Hoehn clinging to the weapon's muzzle, her husband tackled the man who held the shotgun. She knocked the intruder in the head with a jar candle, giving her husband a chance to wrest the shotgun.

By then the tussle had spilled out onto the front lawn. Keith Hoehn shot one of the men who had a pistol, police said. Wounded, that man ran away.

Then the intruder who initially had the shotgun charged Keith Hoehn.

Kellie Hoehn told The Dallas Morning News that she screamed at her husband, "Shoot him, shoot him, shoot him."

Her husband fired the shotgun and the man fell to the ground. Then the shot man lunged a second time.

"Well, I shot him again, and I guess that was it," Keith Hoehn said.

Dakota Scott Benoit, 20, of Richland Hills, was pronounced dead at a hospital. John Garland Pierson, 25, of Haltom City, was in critical condition and in police custody at the hospital.

"I am not happy that someone is dead," Kellie Hoehn said. "But I am glad that my family is alive."

Police said Pierson was shot in the left arm and the bullet pierced his diaphragm and other organs but his condition was improving. He will face charges of burglary of habitation with intent to commit another felony, police said.

Investigators say the couple were just defending their family and probably won't be charged.

DirkFTW · 09-11-2008, 09:14 AM

Ugh. Makes me want to install steel doors and bars on all my windows.

jefelump · 09-11-2008, 09:22 AM

Wow, those men were shot with their own shotgun... That takes real talent.

wmbwinn · 09-11-2008, 09:26 PM

I have intentionally moved to an area where I will probably never have to use anything to defend myself physically against any attack.

But... I won't have to use someone else's shotgun if the situation arises...

chumdawg · 09-11-2008, 09:54 PM

How does this further the Second Amendment?

wmbwinn · 09-11-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How does this further the Second Amendment?

Everytime someone uses a gun to defend themselves (even if they took the intruder's gun away and then used it against the intruder) and the law says, "Good for you!", that builds support for the second amendment and the right to self defense.

chumdawg · 09-11-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Everytime someone uses a gun to defend themselves (even if they took the intruder's gun away and then used it against the intruder) and the law says, "Good for you!", that builds support for the second amendment and the right to self defense.

I don't think anyone ever argued against a person's right to self defense in a crisis.

That said, I'm still trying to grasp the constitutional angle.

wmbwinn · 09-11-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't think anyone ever argued against a person's right to self defense in a crisis.

That said, I'm still trying to grasp the constitutional angle.

Constitutional angle is the right to use a gun for deadly force in defense.

The opposite angle is that the armed intruder that survived clearly violated the laws and should never see anything beyond the scenery of prison.

chumdawg · 09-11-2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Constitutional angle is the right to use a gun for deadly force in defense.

Now, now...that's not what the Second Amendment says, now is it?

jefelump · 09-11-2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Now, now...that's not what the Second Amendment says, now is it?

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The family that shot the intruders bore arms in their defense, even though it was the attackers' gun.

chumdawg · 09-11-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefelump

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The family that shot the intruders bore arms in their defense, even though it was the attackers' gun.

They didn't need a constitutional right to do that, now did they?

Mavdog · 09-12-2008, 06:39 AM

the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with a person defending themselves, or using an attacker's weapon against them.

it does of course have a bearing on the story, that being the attackers were easily able to obtain guns which they were then able to use against the innocent target of their violence....

thank goodness they failed.

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with a person defending themselves, or using an attacker's weapon against them.

it does of course have a bearing on the story, that being the attackers were easily able to obtain guns which they were then able to use against the innocent target of their violence....

thank goodness they failed.

The other more poignant fact here is that that family that endured that attack and won will most likely go out and buy a gun so that they will have a better chance of being successful next time.

The second amendment is in place so that you don't have to disarm your assailant (criminal) to protect yourself. You can just shoot the criminal with your own weapon.

The reason that Mavdog's point is mute is simple:
1)Gun laws make certain gun ownership and use illegal
2)Criminals are defined as those that don't give a damn that point one above exists
3)The only ones who are abiding by the restrictions are the law abiding
4)Advantage criminal.

As to the availability of weapons, this is not a decent arguement either. Guns will be obtained illegally by those who are criminal. Period.

Did Prohibition remove the access to alcohol? Do the laws against meth and crack remove access? The answer is a resounding Hell NO.

You can't get rid of guns.

You better go get one to handle the next criminal that targets your house.

rabbitproof · 09-12-2008, 08:07 PM

Scary story.

I wonder how our countries violence stacks up against other developed countries.

Mavdog · 09-12-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The other more poignant fact here is that that family that endured that attack and won will most likely go out and buy a gun so that they will have a better chance of being successful next time.

wow! you're a mind reader? or you have a crystal ball?

I read minds, too, but the voice in my head says that they are now advocates for the mandatory criminal checks on gun purchases so there's much less risk that there will be another occurence like this one....

Quote:

The second amendment is in place so that you don't have to disarm your assailant (criminal) to protect yourself. You can just shoot the criminal with your own weapon.

The reason that Mavdog's point is mute is simple:
1)Gun laws make certain gun ownership and use illegal
2)Criminals are defined as those that don't give a damn that point one above exists
3)The only ones who are abiding by the restrictions are the law abiding
4)Advantage criminal.

As to the availability of weapons, this is not a decent arguement either. Guns will be obtained illegally by those who are criminal. Period.

Did Prohibition remove the access to alcohol? Do the laws against meth and crack remove access? The answer is a resounding Hell NO.

You can't get rid of guns.

You better go get one to handle the next criminal that targets your house.

well hell, if laws are ineffective we don't need 'em, and we should just get rid of all of them, right?

laws against murder haven't stopped people from murdering, laws against driving drunk haven't stopped drunks from driving....just stop outlawing these acts 'cuz clearly they don't work!

your argument is specious.

Mavdog · 09-12-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Scary story.

I wonder how our countries violence stacks up against other developed countries.

hey, do I hear a chant of "we're number one!"?

actually that's only murders, and compared with other industrialized countries. but we do beat south africa, columbia, russia, mexico and (whew!) zimbabwe...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 09:20 PM

"I read minds, too, but the voice in my head says that they are now advocates for the mandatory criminal checks on gun purchases so there's much less risk that there will be another occurence like this one...."

We already have mandatory criminal checks on gun purchases and that is fully supported by the NRA.

Get a clue. Get a gun.

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 09:25 PM

"well hell, if laws are ineffective we don't need 'em, and we should just get rid of all of them, right?

laws against murder haven't stopped people from murdering, laws against driving drunk haven't stopped drunks from driving....just stop outlawing these acts 'cuz clearly they don't work!

your argument is specious."

No, my arguement is dead on accurate. The problem is clearly hinted at in your rant/rave.
The problem is in the judicial and penal system where the punishment for the crime is watered down and ineffective.

The problem is that there is inadequate enforcement at the judicial and penal system level.

Law enforcement does a great job. Then the judges and penal systems turn them loose...

Further, your arguement is strange. Your arguement seems to imply that I think that committing a crime with a gun is ok. How else am I to interpret your rant/rave?

The NRA is in favor of stiff punishment for crimes committed with guns. So am I.

I am not in favor of getting rid of laws that make committing a crime with a gun illegal. I never said anything nearly that stupid.

What I am in favor of is having a gun to defend myself against criminals who will use a gun to commit a crime.

Mavdog · 09-12-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

"I read minds, too, but the voice in my head says that they are now advocates for the mandatory criminal checks on gun purchases so there's much less risk that there will be another occurence like this one...."

We already have mandatory criminal checks on gun purchases and that is fully supported by the NRA.

Get a clue. Get a gun.

really?

if you go to a gun store, sure.

if you go to say, a person who places an ad in craigslist?

if you go to a gun show and purchase a gun from an individual there?

the answer is a resounding NO in 2/3rds of the states.

second, the fbi has stated that as much as half of the records of criminal convictions are not listed in their database.

so do we have "mandatory criminal checks on gun purchases"?

no, we have a system that a) exempts a large portion of sales of guns, and 2) a database that is incomplete and lacking in effectiveness.

no wonder the nra supports the current structure, it isn't effective.

it's a joke. but it's not funny...

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

really?

if you go to a gun store, sure.

if you go to say, a person who places an ad in craigslist?

if you go to a gun show and purchase a gun from an individual there?

the answer is a resounding NO in 2/3rds of the states.

second, the fbi has stated that as much as half of the records of criminal convictions are not listed in their database.

so do we have "mandatory criminal checks on gun purchases"?

no, we have a system that a) exempts a large portion of sales of guns, and 2) a database that is incomplete and lacking in effectiveness.

no wonder the nra supports the current structure, it isn't effective.

it's a joke. but it's not funny...

The system has problems. But, the NRA fully supports the goals of providing a criminal check. The NRA was screaming mad when the mentally ill boy shot up the mall. The person's mental health issues were not reported as they were supposed to be.

That lead to greater collection of mental health records to prevent that from happening again.

Believe it or not, the NRA takes a very responsible view on this. You may hate everything else about the NRA, but if you studied it, you would agree with the NRA on this issue.

Mavdog · 09-12-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

No, my arguement is dead on accurate. The problem is clearly hinted at in your rant/rave.
The problem is in the judicial and penal system where the punishment for the crime is watered down and ineffective.

uh, the punishments are dictated by the penalties in the laws.

Quote:

The problem is that there is inadequate enforcement at the judicial and penal system level.

Law enforcement does a great job. Then the judges and penal systems turn them loose...

Further, your arguement is strange. Your arguement seems to imply that I think that committing a crime with a gun is ok. How else am I to interpret your rant/rave?

The NRA is in favor of stiff punishment for crimes committed with guns. So am I.

I am not in favor of getting rid of laws that make committing a crime with a gun illegal. I never said anything nearly that stupid.

What I am in favor of is having a gun to defend myself against criminals who will use a gun to commit a crime.

hmm, so now you are saying that we should make jail more of a hell hole so they are more effective in deterence?

you said that gun laws won't work, to quote:

Quote:

Guns will be obtained illegally by those who are criminal. Period.

Did Prohibition remove the access to alcohol? Do the laws against meth and crack remove access? The answer is a resounding Hell NO.

which is saying that we shouldn't attempt to restrict access to guns because people will just ignore the law just like people ignored prohibition and use illegal drugs.

so your argument is society shouldn't use laws to influence behavior as people violate the law everyday.

if you don't want to be saddled with a statement, don't make it...but you did, and you are.

Murphy3 · 09-12-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

hey, do I hear a chant of "we're number one!"?

actually that's only murders, and compared with other industrialized countries. but we do beat south africa, columbia, russia, mexico and (whew!) zimbabwe...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

I'm sure that the lead would only increase if Obama were president... although it'd be more self induced wounds from Democrats and Republicans once they realize how big of a mistake was made...

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
No, my arguement is dead on accurate. The problem is clearly hinted at in your rant/rave.
The problem is in the judicial and penal system where the punishment for the crime is watered down and ineffective.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mavdog:
the punishments are dictated by the penalties in the laws.

New response:

Yes, the punishment RANGE of possible punishments is spelled out in the law. The problem is that the lower range of punishments possible is assigned and then the penal system turns them loose early.

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 09:52 PM

Mavdog:

"hmm, so now you are saying that we should make jail more of a hell hole so they are more effective in deterence?"

+++++++++++++

No, I did not say that. What I am saying is that the higher range of possible punishments under the law should be applied by the judicial system when a crime is committed with a gun. Then, the penal system should not let them go early. They should get the highest possible punishment and not get out of it early.

Mavdog · 09-12-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The system has problems. But, the NRA fully supports the goals of providing a criminal check. The NRA was screaming mad when the mentally ill boy shot up the mall. The person's mental health issues were not reported as they were supposed to be.

That lead to greater collection of mental health records to prevent that from happening again.

Believe it or not, the NRA takes a very responsible view on this. You may hate everything else about the NRA, but if you studied it, you would agree with the NRA on this issue.

I'll take that as "yes, you are right, there are no background criminal checks on private sales of guns, so yes there is a giant hole that allows criminals to purchase guns."

as for he nra...well, how about this:

Quote:

BOSTON -- Stop Handgun Violence, a non-profit organization dedicated to the prevention of gun violence, today released on-the-record quotes from a National Rifle
Association (NRA) spokesperson confirming that the NRA does not support uniform background checks for all gun purchases or the use of the government's anti-terror watch list in precluding gun sales.

The statements were made by NRA spokesperson Ashley Varner during a debate with Stop Handgun Violence Chairman, John Rosenthal, on WBZ-AM Radio's "Paul Sullivan Show."

Varner took the stance that the NRA is protecting "law-abiding citizens" in saying that they should not be burdened by background checks when purchasing guns privately including from people on the street or at thousands of gun shows annually. Currently 32 of the 50 states in the U.S. require no identification or background check when purchasing guns privately. Only licensed dealers are required to perform background checks and they only sell approximately 50% of guns each year in the U.S.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...46&newsLang=en

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote: (wmbwinn)
Guns will be obtained illegally by those who are criminal. Period.

Did Prohibition remove the access to alcohol? Do the laws against meth and crack remove access? The answer is a resounding Hell NO.

Quote: (Mavdog)
which is saying that we shouldn't attempt to restrict access to guns because people will just ignore the law just like people ignored prohibition and use illegal drugs.

so your argument is society shouldn't use laws to influence behavior as people violate the law everyday.

if you don't want to be saddled with a statement, don't make it...but you did, and you are.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

We should not restrict access to guns other than reasonable issues such as the criminal background check and mental health background check.

Yes, I am saying that honest law abiding persons should be allowed to own guns.

No, laws should remain to influence behavior. But... If I tell my son "no, don't do that or I will ground you to your room this weekend" and then my son does it anyway and my wife comes along and says, "well, stay in your room for 6 hours" and then my babysitter comes along and says, "you have behaved well and you can come out now after 2 hours", then...
that program won't alter my son's behavior...

I like the saddle I'm riding in.

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 10:04 PM

"Currently 32 of the 50 states in the U.S. require no identification or background check when purchasing guns privately. Only licensed dealers are required to perform background checks and they only sell approximately 50% of guns each year in the U.S. "

The issue here is perhaps one you didn't fully grasp.

The dealers at gunshows have to use the same background checks that stores have to use.

The issue about gun shows is that I as a private citizen who legally owns a gun can bring said gun to the gunshow and walk around the gun show carrying my gun. Another private citizen approaches me and says, "I'll give you 600 dollars for that gun."

Under current laws, I can sell my gun to that person.

Now, that could be construed as a loophole.

Have you ever been to a gunshow?

Very very few persons carry their own gun into a gunshow in the first place. This is really a small small loophole.

Now, the issue applies as a bit of a problem (and I agree with you and disagree with the NRA on this) in that I can search garage sales and local ads and find private persons in my region selling guns. If I were a criminal or mentally ill, I could get a gun that way. I agree with you that that is a problem.

And, then there is the bigger hole (not really a loophole, just a gaping hole). There is the black market and drug rings and other groups that distribute weapons.

But, really, the gunshow "loophole" is a tiny thing...

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 10:07 PM

"I'll take that as "yes, you are right, there are no background criminal checks on private sales of guns, so yes there is a giant hole that allows criminals to purchase guns."

The above quote is Mavdog again. This time assigning a thought to me.

I will modify that to say:
1)the vast majority of sales go through a criminal background check. Complain to the FBI if you feel the thoroughness is at fault.
2)It is possible to get a gun without a background check if you buy the gun from a private citizen who is not a dealer. And, I agree with you that that is a problem.

Mavdog · 09-12-2008, 10:10 PM

william, do yourself (and those trying to follow your posts) a favor and use this link......
http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/misc.php?do=bbcode

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

william, do yourself (and those trying to follow your posts) a favor and use this link......
http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/misc.php?do=bbcode

I am aware that I stumble around with this. There are two icons that both say "Wrap quote tags around selected text". Which one do I use? What is the difference? One is a # sign and the other looks like a cartoon voice bubble.

Thanks for the link.

Mavdog · 09-12-2008, 10:30 PM

to make a quote use [ followed by QUOTE ended with a ]
to stop the quote use [ followed by / and QUOTE ended with a ]

same with B for bold, I for italic, etc
no spaces, use caps.

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

I am aware that I stumble around with this. There are two icons that both say "Wrap quote tags around selected text". Which one do I use? What is the difference? One is a # sign and the other looks like a cartoon voice bubble.

The above is a test of applying what Mavdog is trying patiently to teach me...

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 10:36 PM

thanks, Mavdog

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 10:37 PM

Now, Mavdog, how do posters drop a nice large cartoon or other image into a post?

chumdawg · 09-12-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The above is a test of applying what Mavdog is trying patiently to teach me...

Good job. And I would say, if you can clean a gun you can learn to use basic HTML tags. It might help to look at it from that perspective.

chumdawg · 09-12-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Now, Mavdog, how do posters drop a nice large cartoon or other image into a post?

You use [ i m g ] without the spaces, followed by the URL of your image, followed by [ / i m g ] without the spaces.

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
The above is a test of applying what Mavdog is trying patiently to teach me...

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Good job. And I would say, if you can clean a gun you can learn to use basic HTML tags. It might help to look at it from that perspective.

Interestingly, I recently picked up a FAL .308 and learned how easy it was to take apart to clean... Nice weapon.

Anyway, I would be more than willing to spend some time with the HTML tags. Thanks again.

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 10:44 PM

I'm a bit clumsy with this but I appreciate Chum's input and Mavdogs as well.

chumdawg · 09-12-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Interestingly, I recently picked up a FAL .308 and learned how easy it was to take apart to clean... Nice weapon.

I shot a man with that gun once. You're right, very nice weapon.

wmbwinn · 09-12-2008, 10:47 PM

I really hope that I don't ever have to actually use a gun to kill. But, I do think that it is valuable to protect the right to protect yourself.