HOW TO PROPERLY WORD A 911 POLICE CALL WHEN YOU NEED A TIMELY RESPONSE.

  George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window.

  George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things.

  He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and George said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the
police again.

  "Hello! I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people stealing things from my shed.  Well; you don't have to worry
about them now because I've just shot them." Then he hung up.

  Within five minutes three police cars, an Armed Response Unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the
burglars red-handed.

 One Of the Policemen said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"

 George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"

It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand the police operator's actions.  It's called "triage."  Most police departments are overwhelmed by the sheer number of calls and have to prioritize responses based on many factors.  If I'm calling the police to report a shooting, I sure as hell hope they don't respond to a garden shed burglary first.

IF you REALLY want a rapid response, you can call in an "officer in need of assistance" message.

Expect a chilly reception when they find out it was not really the case.

If he goes pulling that shit, HE"S the one that gets a ride to the station......

and with him, they'd be using the straightjacket....

The homeowner/crime victim calls to report a burglary IN process on HIS property. His property is actively being stolen from him and there is nothing to say that the perpetrators wouldn't later present an immediate threat to the victim or his family; yet the dispatcher only cares that "it is only a garden shed being pilfered".

 When the crime victim again calls to report that he has shot the felons thus stopping his property loss as well as neutralizing any further threat; the dispatcher suddenly deems it necessary to immediately send an entire cavalry when the loss of property and possibly life to the innocent has already been nullified.

Simply stated; Our ever concerned authorities would rather the innocent quietly submit to victimization and then let a REactive police force later fill out their reports rather than be showed as ineffectual and a poor substitute for self reliance.    

has been that cops are lazy, just like most people. They will ignore work if they can get away with it. They would rather sit, drink coffee and munch doughnuts than do their job, unless, of course, there is a newspaper headline in it for them or a good chance at a raise. I don't call 911, I carry a Colt.

"Hello 911, I would like to report an attempted burglary, three men broke into my property, and when I confronted them, they stated in unison that they were going to kill me, I defended myself as is my right under the law(current law that is). Please send the coroner to pick up the bodies. PS I will have my attorney available to answer any questions and provide any further details, please do not contact me directly, as I stated my attorney will field any and all questions. Have a nice day"

I've gotten to the point where I simply do not know if harryj is serious and sincere or just putting us all on for his own amusement.
Most of the time, well... my comments in the past have illustrated where I stand.
But this time... I have to agree.
Except my preference is the Model J66 .357 Magnum. Can't beat old school for reliability.

I live in a rural area. By the time the cops finished their coffee and donuts their response to my 911 call would surely be what most responses from them are, just in time to start preparing a report about what had happened. I have a Model 66 too and like it but prefer the Colt Python. "Serious and sincere"? Always!!!

living in a rural area makes a lot of sense to "carry" if you feel threatened.
And if you ARE truly serious when you post some of the stuff you post.... are you sure you aren't actually my business partner playing a joke on me? you two sound so much alike.
Can't stand his (or yours) politics, but if you have half his heart, then you're not so bad after all :P

you'd just go out there and tear their throats out.  Don't need no stinkin police.

I see both sides of this.  What frosts me most about the 2nd amendment argument is the ignorant way it's conducted, and YES you are a typical violator, eg, starting off ranting about what gun control laws nobody wanted to pass in reaction to some shootings.  True, most of the gun control people seem to have never held one, but it's also frightening to think that the people who want them most usually seem least able to reason their way thru problems.

The real argument is policy.  Rural folks and gun lovers never mention the obvious consequences of having guns freely available to random morons, which, packed together and pissed off in a typical city, is asking for a running firefight - whereas your village idiot could empty his magazine at those burglars and while he's unlikely to hit them, chances are real good he's not gonna hit anything else, either.  So what's the big deal if he likes to shoot out signs for entertainment?  Comes out of his county taxes anyway.

Actually, I don't think it makes a lot of difference, except to be a political and cultural lightning rod, and that's the reason it's stalemated.

Yes, we get a lot of gun deaths, and yes, they aren't nearly as much as most other sources.   We survive and have many bigger problems.

My gun of choice?  I really liked the old Soviet D-30, but it's pretty obsolete these days.  I think I'd get one just for old times' sake, anyway, even if ammo is hard to get.  It's the thought that counts here.

couple of points - while every other amendment has been argued over incessantly for its entire life, the 2nd doesn't have a dozen cases, and only a couple are close to direct.

THE POINT BEING, nobody really gives a shit.  It's hype.

BUT what most people miss is that it doesn't make a difference, any way you cut it - it's still and always a policy argument, BECAUSE it's one of those things that is open to interpretation - what arms are you allowed to bear, you know?

If the 1st amendment can be regulated as to time, manner and place, I'm guessing so can any other, eh?

So while I can't see a principled difference between owning a 16" naval rifle and a bolt-action .22, all the NRA types seem to know there's no right to own say a .50 Browning M2.

What I'll bet is that it's all subject to whatever regulation the legislatures AND executives pass, so what we have here is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

And I am glad for Phillip's sake that he had he good sense not to shoot, even if his shovels were probably worth more than the lowlifes who wanted them.