|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Home Invasion Victim Waits One Hour 27 Mins for Police to Arrive
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
According to WFAA, 65-year-old Jamie said, “[The suspect] kept saying, ‘Where is the safe?’ and I would say, ‘I don’t have the safe’ and he would press [the gun] into my head.”
He called police when the suspect left his bedroom, and police arrived one hour and twenty-seven minutes later.
Jamie’s call is what the Dallas Police Department labels a “Priority 2” call. Such calls are currently “being answered in about 22 minutes,” but Officer Nick Novello said, “In many instances, Priority 2 calls can be held for 30 minutes or up to three or four hours.” The response time for Jamie fell right between Dallas PD’s 22 minute norm and the four hours to which Novello alluded. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(5/12/2017)
|
| I would hate to be in a Priority 3 or 4 911 call. The cops would probably show up in 24 to 48 hours, or just send you the paperwork to complete. Me, it would be "Where is 'Bang! the safe" |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
