Friday, April 18, 2014

13-minute 911 call: 15 minute response

13-minute 911 call: Hallucinating man shoots wife in the head during 911 call - Jacksonville Top News |
 (April 16, 2014)
A Denver woman's 13-minute 911 call in which she explained to the 911 dispatcher that her husband was hallucinating and that he “was talking about the end of the world,” ended with her tragic death. Kristine Kirk, 44, was killed by her husband with a gunshot wound to the head, NBC News reported today.


It took the police 15 minutes to arrive at the home and when they did, authorities found her dead with the phone still in her hand. The fatal shot was fired at the thirteenth minute of the call, investigators say.

When Seconds Count, the police are only minutes away.

Under the current system, Police cannot protect you ... and  are not required to do so.  Your hubby goes bat-crap crazy?  You're on your own, lady.  Chances are that the police will NOT be there when you really need them.

We won't bother to belabor the already over-debated question of 911 response time; enough to mention that it is inadequate; usually, and everywhere.

But what if she was one of those rare individuals who understands and accepts that she is responsible for her own survival?
What if she was able to wrestle the gun away from her husband's hand?  Or find another gun in the house and defend herself?  

And what if that gun / those guns were 'protected' by personal controls, such as a bracelet, ring, or fingerprints?  And her (demonstrably psychotic) husband had the only "controls" which would permit a family member to use firearms available in the home?

Even if she was an ironically resourceful person, and had the determination to survive no "matter what" ... she would still have not survived.

Now, Eric Holder wants to "explore gun-tracking bracelets".

Under his plan, and as a part of President Obama's "Innovative Gun Safety Technology" goal, The Guvment would mandate ergonomic controls, only selected members of a household would be able to use a firearm.

Is it a stretch of the imagination to consider that these controls would allow only a single person in the household to use a firearm?  Probably not.

Why would we want 'others' in the house to have access to firearms?

Carla, in California

"Mom with an Assault Rifle" in Detroit

20-year old "kid" in Kentucky

So, people who are not the "man of the house" can defend the house, and its residents.

I'm not convinced that only the "man of the house" is qualified to defend a family.  Or that requiring guns to be 'registered' by Electronic means, is such a good idea.

Are you?

1 comment:

MuddyValley said...

The way things are today, if she had shot him, she probably would be facing murder charges today. And probably convicted as her side of the story would be hard to prove. Too bad she didn't follow rule #1 for abused women, which is leave before it gets worse, which it will.