Free Markets, Free People

Burglar calls 911 after gun wielding owners hold him at gunpoint

Well, here’s a use of 911 I didn’t foresee:

A suspected burglar called 911 after the owner of the home he broke into caught and held him at gunpoint.

The suspect, Christopher Moore, placed the emergency call in Springtown, Texas, during the botched burglary attempt early Tuesday after James Gerow, the homeowner, and Gerow’s son pointed guns at him as he sat in his pickup truck parked in the driveway.

“I’m out in the country somewhere,” Moore told the 911 operator during the 10-minute call. “Some guy’s got a gun on me.”

Gerow’s wife, Lindy, placed a concurrent call to 911 that confirmed Moore’s account.

“You better come quick,” she said, “or my husband’s going to shoot him.”

“If he gets out of the truck, shoot him in the legs,” James Gerow told his son, according to the Dallas Morning News Crime Blog. “You ain’t gotta kill him—just shoot him in the legs.”

When police arrived, both Moore and Lindy Gerow were still talking to 911 dispatchers.

According to CBS’ Dallas-Fort Worth affiliate, Moore was arrested and charged with burglary. He’s currently being held on a $35,000 bond.

So, uh, Bob Costas, what’s your take on this?  These “bitter clingers” just protected themselves and their property and brought a law breaker to justice.  All with guns.  And not a person was killed … or even shot.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

19 Responses to Burglar calls 911 after gun wielding owners hold him at gunpoint

  • Costas is a putz extraordinaire.  I caught a quick whiff of him on O’Reilly when I was surfing the other night, and he believes the Aurora killer was wearing a bullet-proof vest, among other nonsense.
    This level of ignorance among such people seems to be a hallmark.

    • I love that logic – “even if people in the theater were armed they couldn’t have killed the aurora killer!” , so that means the idea of guns for self-defense are totally 100% worthless.
      On the story of the guy thrown in front of the NYC subway train, some snot commenter from Chicago (*snort*) just kept asking over and over what he thought was his devastating trump card “what is the purpose of a gun besides killing”
      Teh stupid… burns.

      • In a certain sense guns are for killing, however in actuality their value far exceeds that.

        Self defense guns are for . . . self defense. They don’t have to kill to be effective. My M&P9 (S&W’s version of the Glock, with a grip angle more like a 1911), loaded with Winchester RA9T (expands to 0.65″ with penetration of 14″ in muscle tissue) gives me piece of mind by its very presence. And as the story illustraits, it doens’t need to actually kill anyone to be an effective form of self defense.

        Besides that, guns are fun. They are very interesting from a mechanical and historical perspective (hence collectors). They are fun to shoot (hence plinkers and target shooters). All of this is related to their potential use as weapons, and their value as a tool of empowerment is also related to their potential as weapons.

        • Actually, knives were used for killing long before people quit tearing meat apart and began CUTTING it.

      • To add to my previous comment, part of the left’s hate on guns is the empowerment they provide. They don’t want you to be able to defend yourself, beyond perhaps using pepper spray of some form of unarmed self defense.

        Armed people are independent.

        The left does not want independent people.

        The Commutarian movement I recall from the 90s made it rather specific, as did some antigun articles I read. They were opposed not simply to actual gun violence, but also to the idea of citizens arming against other citizens.

    • Didn’t you know, a bullet proof vest imparts mystical protection.  It stops lower body shots, head shots, and magically transfers kinetic energy from direct hits to an intergalactic holding reservoir for later use.  If you get hit while wearing one, nothing happens to you.

      • But a black shooting vest…which was all the cowardly monster was wearing…dunnit impart any flucking thing…bullet-wise.

        • Well, a vest or chest rig with magazines will slow and deform bullets and even cause fragmentation in some cases. The person on the recieving end will be severly messed up but he may be able to continue fighting longer.

          This is more of an issue when you use tiny bullets like 5.56. My main fighting longarm is 5.56 nevertheless, those using 7.62NATO have nothing to worry about here.

          • Which is why I have tried to train myself to fire matched doubles into eyes.

          • Which is why I went with 7.62 NATO.  I won’t have to hump the ammo all over SouthEast Asia.

          • Assuming you hit one of the obstructions… (some people have been watching too many movies and TV)
            Ya’all are familiar with the adage about assumptions, I assume! 🙂

        • Well, for the sake of argument, lets say he was wearing body armor ( vest, helmet, crotch protector).
          It changes nothing. There are still targets of opportunity. Wasn’t it the big LA shoot out where the officers finally realized they could aim for the gunmens’ feet? And those guys were armored head to toe, IIRC.
          The bottom line: Fight back. By any means necessary, at any target that presents itself. No one is invulnerable. If you are going die, whether you run, fight or hide, you might as well die fighting, while possibly helping someone else get away.

      • That’s how it works in Call of Duty it must be true!

  • Makes me wonder if Chris might not be a Texas native.  You live in Bedford and you go out to Springtown to rob a home?   Seriously?
    Was he thinking we’re less well armed in out in the sticks?

  • Soot him in the legs is REALLY bad advice. If you have to shoot someone you better kill them. There will be a lot less of a chance of civil litigation if you do.