Armed Citizen in TX Stops Shooting Spree and Saves Cop by Making 150+ Yard Shot With a Pistol

August 7, 2012 by  
Filed under Americas

 

 

It’s not every day that you hear the police give a civilian a warm “thank you” for entering a lethal shootout, but that’s exactly what happened in Early, Texas on Sunday. But before we get into the heroic civilian shooter, let’s back up a bit.

GUNS.com

See a Man About a Dog

It all began, innocently enough, “as a squabble over dogs.” David Michael House, 58, and Iris Valentina Calaci, 53, were both residents at the Peach House RV Park in central Texas. They were also dog owners, and their pooches allegedly had a nasty habit of relieving themselves on the lawn of neighbor Charles Ronald Conner, 58.

According to eyewitnesses, Conner approached House about his dog, and an argument broke out. Rather than dealing with the confrontation like a normal human being, Conner allegedly went back to his RV, got his gun, returned to House, and lethally shot him.

The gun shots prompted Calaci to run screaming from her trailer home, but she didn’t get far. Conner chased her down, shot her once and then fired another shot into her, execution style.

Amazingly, Conner’s shooting spree didn’t end there. He also shot and killed the two dogs that, in his confused mind, started the mess.

Charles Conner

Fatally shooting your neighbors over an issue of dog doo might seem absurdly over-the-top to normal people like you and us, but it might have appeared perfectly sensible to Conner. Conner’s family explained that he had “mental problems.” Police later found a notebook in Conner’s trailer with nearly incomprehensible “ramblings.”

Conner might’ve been able to get a lenient sentence in court due to his troubled mental state, but that day will never come – there was to be one more shooting on that tragic day, this time in the name of defense.

Shots Fired

Sgt. Steven Means of the Early Police Department came rolling onto the scene, but he had barely gotten out of his car before Conner began opening fire on the officer. Means took cover behind his police car and returned fire with an AR-15, but Conner maintained cover behind a tree. Eyewitnesses report that this positioning gave Conner the upper hand over the out-gunned police officer.

A Helping Hand

Means and Conner weren’t the only two people with their attention riveted on the gun fight. Vic Stacy, another resident of the RV park, saw the gun fight break out as he was watching TV in his mobile home and thought to himself, “I’m going to see what’s going to happen here and if I need to I’ll, you know, get in on it.”

Stacy, who had a seen Conner around his trailer park and described him as “off the wall”, watched the gun fight for a few moments and concluded, “I think (Conner) is gonna take (the officer) out if I don’t help him out.”

So, that’s when Stacy decided to act. Conner may have had excellent cover against the Officer Means, but Stacy was in a flanking position that gave him the perfect vantage point. Stacy recalled, “I had a side view of that man the whole time standing there, and I thought, I’m fixin’ to put one in him, if I can.”

Stacy raised his gun, fired, and landed one hell of a shot – by his estimate “a good 165 yards” – with a pistol (we do not know the make or caliber at this time). Stacy wasn’t even sure if he could make the shot at that distance: “I hope this magnum bullet’ll hold up, you know, this distance. And sure enough it did and I hit him in the thigh.”

At that point, Conner returned fire against Stacy with his AR-15. He missed his shot, luckily, but that gave dead-eye Stacy another opportunity to pull the trigger. Stacy “hit him again and put three more in him … The patrolman got two shots in him with that AR-15. And it seems like he’s all over with, then.”

Conner died on the scene, but if it wasn’t for the aid of Vic Stacy, the body count might have been a lot higher.

Thanks for the Help!

More police arrived on scene an promptly threw Stacy in cuffs, but after Officer Means cleared up what had happened they released Stacy. Brown County Sheriff Bobby Grubbs later said, “The citizen that fired these shots did a tremendous job out there. Had he not had a gun and the presence of mind to do this, we don’t know what the outcome would’ve been.”

It is currently unclear as to whether it was Stacy’s shots or Officer Mean’s shots that delivered the killing blow. Either way, the police are not planning to press charges against Stacy. If anything, they should give him a medal.

Police and RV park residents alike have been calling Stacy a hero, but he’s rejected the label. He said that he’s just an “average workin’ person” who was just “trying to help an officer out.”

Crime Scene

Stacy told Brownwood Bulletin that he wasn’t able to sleep at all the night following the shooting, but the following day was a different story. Stacy was able to get a good night’s sleep after police convinced him that he had acted appropriately and saved lives.

Stacy added, “I hate that it happened. But I’m glad that we got him down. I felt sorry for those people.”

We might have a new role model. Vic Stacy was not overeager to pull the trigger, he felt the appropriate weight on his conscience after taking the life of another person, and he hasn’t let the media attention get to his head. If you ask us, the world could use a few more Vic Stacys.

Silver Coins
Liberty Stickers

Comments

83 Responses to “Armed Citizen in TX Stops Shooting Spree and Saves Cop by Making 150+ Yard Shot With a Pistol”
  1. EricX says:

    How does a cop with an AR15 get outgunned by some old psycho with a handgun?

    • udaman says:

      AR-15’s do not shoot through trees. Handguns, at least some of them, will shoot through the sheet metal of a patrol car. Also, the lack of budgets for training might have something to do with the situation. Just because a person has an AR does not necessarily mean they know how to use it. Nothing against the responding officer, here. I think it comes down to cover versus concealment.

      • EricX says:

        True, but “outgunned” is a harsh word to a trained (supposedly… or at least we hope) officer armed with an AR15 (more correctly, an M4 carbine according to the pictures) against a deranged gunman with a “long gun” (see conversation below).
        This is why my home defense carbines are M4’s chambered in .50 Beowulf and 6.5 Grendel… 5.56 is ok and quite versatile but out here in the sticks I need effective and the beauty of the AR15 is it can be made in literally 19+ calibers that fill any need from hunting to target to self defense.

        • M. Whitney says:

          I will agree with your first paragraph. But really, .50 Beowulf for home defense?? First off, for home defense ranges that is over kill. That thing fires a 300+gr bullet over 2k ft/s, that’ll go through 5 people, 2 brick walls, 18 slabs of drywall and still kill a cow. At 2-10m the effect of over-penetration is not only guaranteed but also completely unpredictable. You still have only one projectile firing at a time so your percentage of shots on center of mass is diminished greatly. You also have the issue of report, considering this, you won’t need to hit the guy because firing that thing is a closed room every one of y’all be bleeding from the ears. Use a shotgun with 00, and not even a 12 gauge is necessary, penetration is limited and you got a better chance of hitting them. But to each there own.
          Anyway, I’m glad this guy was around and had the presence of mind to defend Barney, well done sir. I understand it’s a lot to deal with, but what you did was absolutely necessary and who knows how many people you saved.
          -Mike

          • EricX says:

            I don’t mean to sound argumentative but I think you have the .50 Beowulf confused with a .50 BMG.
            The Beowulf is an over-sized pistol cartridge with the power lying between a .50 A&E (Desert Eagle), .500 S&W and a .50 Alaskan (Bear rifle). In fact, the bullet I use for home defense is the same as the .500 S&W.
            Yes, the penetration is awesome, especially with a solid copper bullet or a 500g FMJ but with a 300g Speer hollowpoint it’s not as drastic as you stated. In fact, it’s not much worse than a Brenneke slug… it’s effectiveness is in that it fires from a compact and quite familiar M4 weapons platform which is comfortable and familiar and after possibly a million rounds fired downrange so far in my life, I’m confident I can put hits center mass even under the worst of conditions.
            Also, I think you assumed I lived in an urban area and have neighbors in the immediate vicinity (read over-penetration victims). That is not the case, in fact, there’s only one house in sight from here and that’s over 75 yards off. No worries about over-penetration… just worries of not dropping the threat with the first shot… especially when you’re out in the sticks living by yourself.
            As for report, yea, it’s loud but not as bad as a 7.62×51 (I will never fire one of those CQ ever again, lol!). It’s no worse than a 20 gauge. In fact, the 10mm +P I use as my backup weapon probably puts a few more db out than the Beowulf… or maybe the same. I’m not sure… but I do know that after 29+ years of using an AR15 platform, I’m more comfortable with it than anything else. The .50 Beowulf just assures a first-shot knockdown even if they are wearing body armor and there’s no penetration (a Ceradyne plate stops it but 3000ft/lbs energy puts so much BFT they don’t get up).
            As for urban and apartment situations I recommend frangible ammo to anyone who chooses to use a rifle for home/self defense in those areas. I can see having a magazine on hand with something that might penetrate body armor (there’s a trend of criminals here in NC that wear used police vests when committing home invasions… that little .380 or 12 gauge with birdshot ain’t gonna cut it!).
            If I lived in that situation, which I have, I would go back to 5.56 frangible and put some M855 deeper in the mag in case of REAL trouble like I did for many years .

    • STM says:

      This story was written by a journalist who has probably never fired a weapon in his life. Outgunned was a poor choice of words. If all the police officer had was the sheet metal and glass of his patrol car to protect him and the other guy is behind a substantial tree, it does not matter what caliber rifle he has unless it is a Barrett M82. The police officer was at a tactical disadvantage. And in the article it states that Connor too had an AR-15, so from a weapons standpoint, all was equal. But with all else being equal, he who has the best cover and concealment wins.

      • Dr.no. says:

        The only part of any conventional car that can protect you from a gun, is the engine block.
        Everything else is just thin sheet metal , glass and plastic.
        if a tree is big enough to hide BEHIND, it can take a few hits from most hand held guns and rifles.

        Just bring a carwreck to your next shootout and try it for yourself
        It’s even fun

        Hollywood is wrong [ typically ]
        You can’t hide safely behind a cardoor in a shootout
        cars don’t explode that easily and tires don’t scream on dirt roads.

        Doc

  2. Bob Hasapis says:

    Mr. Vic Stacy, I am a retired patrol sergeat from Sacramento County. I want to thank you for stepping in and saving who knws how many others. I watched your interview and your calmness and sincerity really touched me. Yes sir you did the right thing. Sleep well.

    Bob Hasapis
    Retired Sheriff’s Sergeant

    • Eric Schuller says:

      He did do the right thing. I have never been fond of guns myself, but in this instance we have seen an admirable example of an ordinary citizen risking his life to aid a hard working police officer who without Vic Stacy’s aid, might not be breathing. I applaud this man’s act of valor and that it helped to keep others from joining in the victims’ fate.

      • EricX says:

        Eric, it happens 2+ million times a year in the US… defensive gun use whether firing a shot or not… far outweighing any criminal use!

        • Nick says:

          That’s a bullshit statistic. To think that civilians use their guns to defend themselves 2,000,000 times per year would mean that it happens nearly 4x per minute.

          Also bullshit that people use guns to defend themselves more than guns are used to commit crimes.

          Owning a gun makes you 4x more likely to be shot. That’s a fact.
          http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

          Why? Because people that own guns are usually more apt to want to pull it out to solve disputes and end up getting shot.

          Time to grow up and leave the childlike fantasy of being Dirty Harry, Rambo, or John Wayne alone. Let the rest of us normal people live longer and without fear of one of you pulling a gun on us.

          • John1943 says:

            Not B.S. That figure has been challenged many times, and every time it has been researched the number comes out pretty much the same. Even when researched by honest academics who wish it were otherwise. Experts agree, it’s somewhere between 1.5 and 2.4 million times a year. I have had such an experience myself when threatened by two scummy guys intruding on my land (long way from nearest neighbors). They left in a hurry when I lifted my shirt and revealed my Glock. Didn’t have to draw it, just show it.

            And like my time, most of those times no shots are fired,, which is why MH (next post) is wrong.

          • Frank Edwards says:

            I have had to use a firearm on two ocassions to protect life and property. I didn’t fire the weapon but I would have if it had been becessary. I don’t know what the statistics show but I suspect it’s lots closer to higher number than you might imagine.

            I don’t have any fancy semi-automatic rifles and I would not want one for any reason. I am a very good shot with a pistol and revolver at close range-25 yeards or less. I am a an excellent shot with a shotgun for bird hunting and an excellent shot with my lever action rifle without a scope out to about 150 yards.

            We all have a responsibility to protect ourselves, our families and our neighbors. Waiting for police to arrive is a very poor option because bad things happen quickly.

            I would hope that if you see a neighbor being attacked you would not hesitate to do what you had to do. Like most people who know how to use a firearm, the next to the last thing I’d want to do is have to hurt or kill someone with it.However, the last thing I’d want to do is fail to use a firearm to save someone.

          • grandma says:

            Not a BS statistic at all. I have never used a gun in anger or pulled a gun inappropriately. However, 4 times in my life (and no, I do not have some crazy lifestyle to explain this) I have had to show my gun to stop criminal physical aggression against either myself or another innocent victim. And yes, I made it quite clear to the aggressors that I would be very happy to use it. They were smart enough to believe me.

            So my experience is:
            Good Guys 4, Bad Guys 0
            Guns Used 4, Shots Fired 0.

          • EricX says:

            No, YOUR “statistics” are bullshit and based of fear, emotion and manipulated “stats”.
            Oh yes, the “4x more likely” Kellerman manipulation of numbers that includes criminal on criminal violence, police and citizen justified shootings, suicides and counts adults up to age 24 as children… yea, good source there pal. I have a bachelors in Justice Policy and have worked briefly as a criminologist so you can’t fool me with that Brady bullshit like some idiot.
            I have the FBI UCR and CVS on this computer, would you like some boring statistics?

            In a nation of some 97 million households, about half of which own one or more firearms, is a rate of defensive gun use (DGU) which amounts to about 1.4% per year an unreasonably high figure?

            A study undertaken by a group led by criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University found that there are approximately 2.1 to 2.5 million instances annually in which individual Americans use a gun to defend themselves. Considered as households, the figure is 1.3 to 1.5 million annual DGUs (Kleck 1995, Table 2). If this figure is correct, defensive uses of firearms are much more common than crimes committed with guns. Kleck’s study defines a DGU as a defensive action against a human (rather than an animal), involving actual contact with the person being defended against, in which the defender could state a specific crime which he or she thought was being committed at the time of the incident, and in which the defender’s gun was actually used in some way, even if it was only as part of a verbal threat. A reported DGU incident must meet all of these criteria in order to be counted as a valid DGU for the purposes of the survey. Additionally, DGUs associated with work as a policeman, security guard, or member of the military are excluded.
            Here, look these up and educate yourself before you make yourself look like an ass… again.

            “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun”, Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc
            J. of Criminal Law and Criminology, v.86, n.1, pp.150-187 (1995)

            Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1994, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice
            SuDoc# J 29.9/6:994 (1994)

            YOU need to grow up Nick and realize the REAL world is nothing like TV, movies or video games where you just pull a gun and shoot to settle disputes. Of course, your liberal mind only sees what it wants and no matter what the truth is, you will believe in your lie… and you call conservatives stubborn and ignorant?

          • T4TEXAS says:

            Hey Nick, I know we’ll be sure and NOT use our personal protection devices to protect your liberal ass should any of us find you in a situation where you are unable to “love-down” an armed attacker someday with an “yes we can” sticker and harsh language. Go tweet your liberal sewage elswhere! This article is about an act of heroism and bravery, by an honest and caring citizen; it is no place for remarks of a coward. Just my not so humble opinion.

          • Tacitus says:

            Nick,

            Having gun laws creates more victims. Right-minded people are not likely going to try to harm others whether or not they have guns.

            I think Mr. Stacey’s actions were 100% justified and I know if I had been ” outgunned” in any situation, I sure would be grateful for a brave person like Mr. Stacey.

          • Glenn says:

            People who own and CCW will do anything in their power to avoid pulling a weapon and using it with deadly force. That also includes walking to the other side of the street to avoid a possible suspicious character that is approaching you to ask you for a smoke.
            The very last thing a CCW wants to do is use his weapon unless it is to save a life. The above post is a classic case of transference psychology. He stated that, “people who own guns are more apt to want to pull it out to solve disputes and end up getting shot”, is what this individual would do. This individual clearly is not mentally fit to even hold a rubber gun.

          • Robert M. Anderson says:

            Nick: While the assertion of 2.5 million times a year does not seem viable to me, I take it as an order of magnitude less. That is still 250,000 times per year. However, your wild assertion that “…owning a gun makes you 4x more likely to be shot” is a complete and utter fantasy. There is NO LEGITIMATE STUDY to support that (the key word is legitate). The one you cite is a total piece of nonsensical fluff. I come from Vermont, where, like Alaska, one does not need a permit to carry concealed; guns and hunting are a way of life in both states. Many other states such as VA, where I now live, or WV, or 37 others where a permit is given readily (why we need a permit to exercist a RIGHT is a different discussion. IF your assertion were true, both states, and the others, would have death rates involving firearms off the charts. Instead, they have lower murder rates, with or without firearms, than those places restrictng one’s RIGHT to own and carry a gun; look at DC, Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc. Wherever you’re getting that info, it is utter nonsense (read Dr. John Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime”, where you will find the facts).

        • mh says:

          EricX–

          “defensive gun use whether firing a shot or not… far outweighing any criminal use!”

          How so? Even in this single, exceptional incident, there are 2 dead from criminal use, and defensive use manages to kill the perpetrator after he’s acted. So–even if every case ends like this (and I think we know they don’t) we’re still talking 2:1 bad:good ratio.

          • EricX says:

            Sure, and the dozens and hundreds of defensive uses that didn’t even fire a shot mean nothing, right?
            See my post above and I suggest you read the material and sources I included in my reply to the idiot above.

          • Robert M. Anderson says:

            MH: Eric is completely correct; my wife is FBI, and the Uniform Crime Report published every year is a wealth of info (none of which supports gun control assertions). The Bureau collects the data from all law enforcement offices nationwide; they collate, assess, analyze this data thru and thru (indeed, this years report will be for 2 years ago, that’s how much effort goes into it). Among other things, at the end, they summarize the factors influencing violent crimes; FIREARMS don’t even make that list! Next, murder, including that involving firearms, is at a 47 year low; that’s despite a population increase of ~100 million people, and scores of millions more firearms. Also, ammo sales are in the BILLIONS of rounds per year. An irrational fear of firearms is called “hoplophobia”; the proper remedy is to visit a health professional, not to condemn firearms; your fears are not an ‘argument’.

        • Drew Cornell says:

          I like to see comments like this. Nice to see people that think guns are not a bad thing. only bad in the wrong hands.

  3. ADRIANA MOERKERKEN says:

    Way to go my fellow TEXAN!
    SO PROUD OF YOU!

  4. rob welch says:

    I think that Mr. Stacy acted in a very kind fashion. He did have to do anything to save the officers life. He could have sat in his home and let everything take it’s cource but he did not. He knew in his heart that God gave him the means to address the problem. He knew that if he didn’t take the action he did. There would have been more blood shed. So you see. It was not Mr. Stacy who took the life of Conner. It was the hand of God. No one else was there. Just Mr. Stacy. God Bless you Sir.

    • EricX says:

      Yea, like these gun control idiots say “the police will be there… let the police handle it…” and all that crap.
      Well good thing there was an armed CITIZEN there to help the officer and stop the threat!

    • mh says:

      “It was not Mr. Stacy who took the life of Conner. It was the hand of God”

      Amen.

      Guns don’t kill people. God does!

      • John C says:

        Yes, but it was the hand of God who made sure Mr. Stacy was there and had the guts and the ability to do what needed to be done.

        That cop was in a disadvantageous position, but was willing to put his life on the line to stop that nut from killing anyone else. Vic Stacy made sure a brave police officer didn’t have to die in the line of duty.

  5. Stacy has done the right thing, to stop this amok running mad man !

    But im really wondering why one with severe mental problems is allowed to own a gun ?

    Perhaps a more strict gun controll might be not that bad, just checking if someones psych is ok before allowing him to buy weapons ? What do you think ?

    • Dan says:

      “Severe mental problems?” What are these?

      Most people are superstitious and believe in magic; Christianity for example. Most people have no idea what consciousness is, what an emotion is, what a concept is, what a right is.

      “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    • Peace through Superior Firepower says:

      That check already exists. It has existed for many years. However, there isn’t an indication that the perpetrator was insane at the time of purchase or that he didn’t steal the firearm or “borrow” it from a friend or family member. You appear to operate under some assumptions that a person who has been declared mentally incapable of exercising sound judgement can still go out and buy a firearm and that is an incorrect assumption.

      • mh says:

        “You appear to operate under some assumptions that a person who has been declared mentally incapable of exercising sound judgement can still go out and buy a firearm and that is an incorrect assumption.”

        um. actually that is a very correct assumption. The LEGALLY PURCHASED weapons of James Holmes and Wade Michael Page were used to kill several people in just the last few weeks.

        • John1943 says:

          Did they purchase their weapons AFTER they had been declared incompetent? Although some states allow person to person transfers, any transfer going through a licensed dealer, as most of them are, involve a check for previous records of criminal activity or mental incompetence. Yes, it can happen, but not in most cases and certainly not in my home state – not unless someone screws up the records.

        • Robert M. Anderson says:

          Again, the have to be ‘adjudicated’ mentally ill in a court of law; while a shrink may have evaluated them as such, unless a JUDGE rules that they are mentally incompetent, nothing has happened, they can still own firearms.

    • Spectre says:

      There are already thousands of gun control laws on the books. Criminals do not usually buy their weapons from a licensed dealer, they buy them off the streets, and there is no way of curbing that. This is why an armed citizenry was thought of by the writers of the constitution.

      • Ian M. says:

        It was my understanding that the framers of the constitution were thinking more about an uncontrolled government than an uncontrolled citizenry or criminal element.I have been wrong before.

        • Robert M. Anderson says:

          The Framers intended the citizenry to be armed to RESIST tyranny; and, like Switzerland, to be military (we had NO standing army). Also, the Framers made it clear that the First Ten Articles of Amendment were a RECOGNITION of our rights; said rights were not GRANTED by the government; quite the opposite, the Government was created and GRANTED ~35 powers. The 9th Amendment states clearly that citizens have all rights, not just the ones mentioned (i.e., we would still have the right to keep and bear arms even if the 2d Article didn’t exist). The 10th Article states clearly that the STATES possess any and all powers not granted to the Federal government (i.e., most of what the Fedaral Government does, they possess no Constitutional authority to do). As Patrick Henry stated: “The great object is that every man be armed”. Does get much clearer.

    • udaman says:

      Sir: If you have ever purchased a weapon, you would know that being mentally ill forbids you from owning a firearm. We could go back to the Tucson shootings with Jared Asshole. He was KNOWN to have mental problems, but no one would step up to the plate to report him, including his mother and Pinal county authorities. I would suspect this is the same situation. It’s easy to say, after the fact, that this person had mental problems, but who is to be responsible for reporting it and ruling on it. Heck, as far as Homeland Security is concerned, if you are a Christian, disagree with abortion, are a vet, etc., you are considered a verifiable threat to the security of this Nation.

    • Robert M. Anderson says:

      How and who assesses one’s ‘mental’ state? The Federal government? NO WAY. Only those judged mentally ill by a court are forbidden to own guns, and that is such a rare case as to have no bearing; indeed, most such rulings only come AFTER someone has done something horrid.

  6. Ed Farmer says:

    Both the gunman and the officer were shooting AR-15’s, therefore the officer wasn’t necessarily outgunned. However, the gunman was in a position behind a tree, which the officer’s rounds wouldn’t penetrate. The officer was taking cover behind his cruiser, which rounds do penetrate.

    That was some good shooting on Stacy’s part. I hope my hands are as steady when I reach his age.

    • EricX says:

      Neither the article or either video mentioned Conner using an AR15. They mentioned “rifle” and “long gun” but the only AR15 mentioned was the deputy’s.
      Of course the argument could be made with a high powered hunting rifle for the deputy being “outgunned” since they typically have 3x the energy and range of an AR15 carbine.

      • HT says:

        You were not reading very closely. In the 5th paragraph, first sentence, under the subhead, “A helping hand,” the article states: “At that point, Conner returned fire against Stacy with his AR-15. He missed his shot, luckily, but that gave dead-eye Stacy another opportunity to pull the trigger.”

        • EricX says:

          Ahhh… good eye my man! I read that as Stacy having an AR15.
          Hmmm… pretty even match I guess.
          Thanks for pointing that little detail out to me.

          This is why I’ve been building AR15’s for Law Enforcement in heavier calibers like 6.8SPC, 6.5 Grendel and heavy hitters like .50 Beowulf, .450 Bushmaster and .458 SOCOM… THOSE will go through a car or small tree!

  7. Taylor R says:

    Why are people with “mental problems” allowed to purchase guns in the first place?

    • EricX says:

      They aren’t… but perhaps he owned the guns legally before his issues took over? Also, he apparently had no history of being involuntarily committed so there were no provisions preventing him from purchasing.
      There is no crystal ball that predicts the future and you can’t magically know someone’s mental status. If there’s a history, including one of violence, YEA, you CAN stop them from legally purchasing because all sales (except from individuals) are required to undergo the NICS (instant check system) which is a national criminal database.
      You can’t make every American go to some shrink just to exercise a Constitutional right… if you could, I would love to see the same done before someone is allowed to vote!

    • ed enos says:

      If someone with “mental problems” doesn’t have a medical provider to diagnosis them, then don’t have a mental problem. And it’s legal to have “mental problems” and walk around unmedicated.

    • Robert M. Anderson says:

      One has to ‘adjudicated’ mentally ill by a court; that is so rare, and almost always happens after the fact, as to be meaningless.

  8. Henry Bowman says:

    >>How does a cop with an AR15 get outgunned by some old psycho with a handgun?

    . . .Says a guy who has never even been close to a gunfight. . .

    • EricX says:

      No… asks a guy who has 12-years Army under his belt including 6 years in a Ranger Battalion and 6 under USASOC, 3 Bronze Stars (with V), 4 combat deployments, 7-years as a security contractor working in high-risk TO’s, currently builds weapons systems for military, LE and civilian customers and also trains the same based on his combat experience which includes more firefights than he can remember.
      How many firefights have YOU been in pal?

      Funny how your assumption of someone made you look like a complete ASS!

      • STM says:

        Oh please. The more people talk about how many decorations (especially about how many BSM’s with V’s) they have and how many tours they have done, the more full of BS the are and trust me, you definitely set off by BS detector right from the star. I served twice the number of years you say you did as a 11B and 21B before I retired and more combat tours, both as an E and an O so save your Call of Duty BS for someone else.

        • EricX says:

          I’ve got a 214 & 201 that says otherwise “Sir”… and I didn’t post that for your approval nor did I boast on decorations… I only mentioned 3. FTR, 1 “V” on 3 BSM.
          I DON’T play Call of Duty… that’s for kids and wannabe’s who don’t wake up every so often in a pool of sweat!
          11B2V6BB4 87-93 active and I don’t give a shit whether you believe it or not “Sir”.

          • STM says:

            You didn’t boast on your decorations? Really?

            “No… asks a guy who has 12-years Army under his belt including 6 years in a Ranger Battalion and 6 under USASOC, 3 Bronze Stars (with V),…..blah, blah, blah.

            And what difference does it make how many BSM’s with V’s you have apart from you thumping your chest to make up for your other many inadequacies. I have a MSM, an SSM, a BSM with a V, and 2 PH’s. So what? It does not mean spit in the long run.

            And I still think you are full of more shit than a Christmas turkey. Anyone can look up stuff on the internet. And it seems you have a problem with officers. Spend a lot of time filling, dumping and refilling sandbags there “Ranger”?

          • EricX says:

            “I have a MSM, an SSM, a BSM with a V, and 2 PH’s.”
            Oh, look who’s boasting now!
            You’re full of shit… you never served… you play too many video games… go fuck yourself and step on a lego!
            Yea, I DID have a problem with some officers… the assholes like YOU!
            This wasn’t even your argument so fuck off and troll somewhere else poser!

  9. Proxy says:

    “Peace to the World”, the story didn’t say whether Conner was allowed to own the firearm or not. In theory, a psych eval before purchasing a firearm sounds like a good idea. In practice, it is probably not that effective as the person may have been fine at the time, or may have obtained the firearm illegally, which is precisely why gun control does not work (criminals don’t obey the law).

    • Robert M. Anderson says:

      No, it doesn’t sound like a ‘good idea’. Owning and carrying a firearm is a RIGHT, one that is already subject to 30,000 + unconstitutional laws, rules, and regulations, both local, State, and Federal. Enough!

  10. David W. says:

    Actually, about 2/3 of the way own the article, it states that Connor returned fire against Stacy with his AR-15. So both Connor and the deputy are mentioned as having an AR-15. Not that it matters, just figured I’d clarify.

    • EricX says:

      “HT” pointed that out above. I read it as Stacy with the AR15. Guess then they were an even match rather than “outgunned”. Good thing an armed citizen was there to tilt the odds back in the favor of justice.
      Still… 150+ yards with a wheelgun… that’s Bob Munden accuracy! LOL!

  11. US Army Infantry Retired says:

    Stacy is a hero. Because of his bravery and willingness to put his life on the line to save another, a police officer got to go home to his family Sunday night.

    There is no doubt that this guy was completely off the hinges. To kill two people because of dog crap is not the actions of a sane mind.

    An armed society is a polite society and this is living proof.

  12. Allen Kane says:

    Gary Kleck’s study indicates there are over 2.5 million defensive handgun uses in the USA every year. Yesterday on the news, moron Deepak Chopra was defying gun rights advocates to name one single case of defensive handgun use. …Done. Chopra was mad because of the Sikhs that got shot by some madman in WI. Well, it made me mad too, but my response wasn’t to react with mindless fear and babble about disarming the public. (Had those Sikhs been armed, they might not have been shot, or could at least have stopped the shooter.)

  13. Rodney says:

    I am SO sick of hearing all the crap from the anti-gunners and the so-called “news” media in the US. According to them, guns in the hands of “common” people NEVER do anything good. THEIR line is guns are evil! Somehow I don’t think Sgt. Means and Sheriff Grubbs would agree.

    This REAL news item should be on ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, FOX and carried by Reuters and the AP but Nooooo; I didn’t hear about it until a friend sent this link to me on Facebook (and I live in the great state of Texas too)!

  14. Steven Edger says:

    While there is much debate on the AR15 it seems to have slipped by everyone’s attention that Stacy according to the Journalist shot Conner from a distance of 165 YARDS that’s nearly 500 feet. I’ve shot magnums for years but never have seen anything accurate after 100 yards! Yet I’m to believe this man Stacy shot Conner with out a scope in one shot nearly 500 feet away.

    • Rembrandt says:

      My thoughts exactly. I think Stacy must have misspoke and meant 165 FEET, not YARDS. Still would be some pretty good shootin’!

      But 4 shots on target with a hand gun at 1 1/2 football fields??? Someone tell me if that is plausible. I looked at the RV park on Google Maps satellite view and I don’t think the whole RV park is much more than a football field long in any one direction. So it must have been a mistake.

      Stacy is a hero and a good shot (particularly under pressure) nonetheless!

    • Robert M. Anderson says:

      On the contrary, old timers with lot’s of experience undert their belt, or competitors in International Metallic Shooting Association could do this (just cause you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t be done). IMSA competitors use a handgun on metallic targets out to 200 YARDS regularly. The late Elmer Keith, one of the greatest handgun hunters ever, shot and kiled a (wounded; trying to prevent it’s suffering) mule deer as it crested a rise SIX HUNDRED YARDS AWAY. This was done before several witnesses. Experienced shooters can do things you cannot imagine.

      • Rembrandt says:

        OK. Impressive! But that’s why I asked if it was plausible. Not if it was possible.

        So, you tell me it is, and I believe you. However, in this case, given the size of the RV park, I still don’t believe that is what happened here. I think he mis-spoke.

        • Robert M. Anderson says:

          It is possible he mispoke (i.e., 150 ft versus 150 yards – though even a 50 yard shot w/a handgun is excellent). Or, the media may have made an error; they have been known to do that. Still, we would need to know the size of the trailor park, the angles of fire, and what not to know what happened. Whatever the results, I am sure the officer is thanking him!! Bob

          • kalifornia tactical says:

            It MUST have been yards, not feet. While a 165ft shot is nice, its hardly super-difficult and I don’t think everyone would be going out of their way to talk about such an amazing shot it was if it was only 53yards (165ft).

            Go on YouTube, there are people hitting targets out to 200,300, 400 yards with pistols.. tough but possible

  15. EM says:

    Just for curiosity, what kind of “mental check” does the currently firearms legislation in TX does?. .

    I’m from Argentina and here the current legislation for owning a firearm it’s a lot more restrictive than US laws.

    Thanks!,

    • Jack Blood says:

      refer you to HR 2640 NICS Improvement Act 2007 AKA: The Veterans Disarmament Act

      Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away … forever. It is section 102((1)©(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system.

      Those names will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.

      Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on Veterans’ gun rights.

      One term relates to who is classified a “mental defective.” Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated “not guilty” in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, “mental defective” has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

      The second term is “adjudicate.” In the past, one could only lose one’s gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court — meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one’s accuser.

      Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by “a court, commission, committee or other authorized person” (namely, a psychiatrist).

      Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed.

      It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a “determination” in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred ­for life ­ from owning guns.

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640/text

      I discuss it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=175415874751235706

  16. scott says:

    Kill em all,let god sort em out.God bless all gun owners ,and especially the ones with sense enough to shoot back.

  17. scott says:

    God bless all gun owners,especially the ones with sense enough to shoot back.

  18. Stephan says:

    Soooo…. let’s all talk about the hero with a gun, and not the two DEAD innocent people killed by the crazy mental person with a gun, that the glorious state of Texas let him own, so he was able to quickly murder to fine Texans execution style.

    Really?

    • Robert M. Anderson says:

      The glorious state of Texas did not ‘let’ him own a gun. It is not the state or Federal govenment’s purview to ‘let’ or ‘not let’ someone (unless convicted felon or convicted insane) own a firearm. It is called a RIGHT. Our individual RIGHTS are ABOVE the Government; the government is BENEATH us. See the 9th Amendment. The state and Federal governments have only the POWERS granted to them; all ‘rights are reserved for the people’. That means you have the right not to own a gun (unless you live in Kenneshaw, GA, or Johnson City, VA; oddly, both cities have virtaully no crime or violence, a pattern emerges here).

    • Robert M. Anderson says:

      I should also note that the two dead people should have been owning and carrying a gun; but such logic would, I suspect, be wasted. In the recent theatre shooting, the theatre had a sign PROHIBITING those with a CWP from carrying in the theatre; same with the VA massacre. In both instances, there WERE permit holders involved; BUT THEY DIDN’T HAVE THEIR FIREARMS BECAUSE AN IDIOT THEATRE AND UNIVERSITY did not allow it; both tragedies could have been cut short, but no, some anti gun hoplophobe couldn’t let people’s lives be save, God Forbid.

    • STM says:

      The Constitution, the Second Amendment in particular, “let” him have a gun. And although the Weapons Permit application asks if he has ever had mental illness, who is going to say yes?

      If the anti-gun nuts in this country succeeding in taking away American’s rights to own arms, then the only people who will have them will be criminals. Is that what you want? Good luck with that. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

  19. Robert M. Anderson says:

    oops. VA Tech massacre.

    • Bigjim says:

      Owning a hand gun for protection is your constitutional but if you are going to own weapon then you need to learn how to use it properly. I would not be surprised to hear that Stacy was (is) a marine, to have made a shot that far away. SEMPER FI

  20. JS says:

    Glad this happened in a Free State such as Texas, had this happened in a commie liberal state he would be arrested.

  21. Arkansan says:

    I have a son who is a cop and were he faceing the same situaton I wou like to think that some trained concerned citizen would step in and help.

  22. Sam_The_Chemist says:

    If that policeman went unaided and lost his life, that could have been the last bastion of protection for that RV park, save for Mr. Stacy, until further help arrived, if the police assistance were enough to prevent further loss of innocent life even then. 165 yards and connecting four times UNDER RETURN FIRE is impressive under such exigent circumstances. He did absolutely the correct thing. If the first shot in the thigh had been enough to subdue Mr. Conner, then Mr. Stacy would have gone no further, I am sure of it. That is the nature of such a man. Two people and two dogs shot over an argument about curbing dogs should never have escalated, but that becomes irrelevant when armed exchange starts.

  23. Spurwing Plover says:

    A policeman i safe and can return home and a mad dog killer is dead more reasons to reject the Small Arms Control Treaty and to Impeach Obama and Kerry

  24. Spurwing Plover says:

    Now if there hadnt been for armed citizen this cop wouldnt be going home at all the crazy guy would have benn cuaght deamed Not Guilty by Reasons of Insanity he would be kept at tax payers expense in some mental ward deamed cured by some mumbo jumbo psyco-pathic headshrinker then gone out and murdred more innocents but thats to a armed citizen this mad dog will never walk upon the earth again becuase he is DEAD and justice was done with a few bullets

  25. SPURWING PLOVER says:

    Now it conner ad lived he would been declared INSANE and the american tax payers would be having to pay for this scumball for the rest of his life in so called psycbabble phonie cures but thanks to a armed and Concerned citizen this officer returned home to his family alive and the mad dog is now six feet under and pushing up daisies and the tax papyers wont have to care for him for the rest of his life and we didnt have to pay for this maniacs funeral and justice was served all that same day

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

jbroku