Another one, I mean a good reason to HAVE a gun
#1
Maybe I should post here every single time someone could have or should have had a gun.
This couple sounds like about the same age AND location as Wonky and his wife.
This assault also caused bleeding on the man's brain and his wife suffered from several contusions. Police recovered the knife and stun gun at the home.


This meth head could have easily killed either person. BTW the police did absolutely nothing to protect these people. Remember when seconds count the police are only MINUTES away.
The police did capture this scum and three cheers for them But I would have loved to hear the story told differently. like..... Intruder shot and killed.






April 24, 2013
Ryan Pfeil
By Ryan Pfeil
Mail Tribune

Residents in an east Medford neighborhood are on edge after a man forced his way into a Hillcrest Road home early Tuesday morning, used a stun gun on a 72-year-old woman and repeatedly struck her 77-year-old husband in the head before making off with some cash.

The man, Brenton Allen Morrow, 25, of Medford, was arrested after crashing his getaway car while trying to avoid capture, said police, who also reported he was under the influence of methamphetamine and heroin.

On Tuesday, Morrow was being held in the Jackson County Jail on more than $4 million in bail. His charges included two counts of first-degree robbery, two counts of second-degree assault and first-degree burglary.

It was the fourth home break-in in recent weeks and at least two of the other incidents also occurred while occupants were in their homes. That has put a chill into some in the neighborhood.

"I don't feel safe at all," said nearby resident Kris Connor.

Another neighbor, Bob Gartner, said he has firearms to protect himself and his family. He also said the spate of break-ins suddenly has him thinking about installing an alarm system.

"This hasn't been happening," Gartner said, adding that funding increased law enforcement also is key. "It's been the last month, month-and-a-half."

Police said in this case Morrow targeted the victims intentionally, as he knew them and believed they had money. Police declined to comment on how they knew each other.

Authorities said the woman cracked open the door to her home in the 4700 block of Hillcrest Road at 4 a.m. after a man knocked on the door.

The man wore a ski mask and forced the door open, then attacked the woman with a stun gun before turning on the 77-year-old man, whom he punched and elbowed in the head several times.

The woman called 911, but the intruder knocked the phone out of her hand. The line, however, did not go dead and dispatchers on the other end could hear the ongoing armed robbery while the man held both residents at knifepoint.

"It appeared that the victims called 911 and intentionally left the line open," said Lt. Mike Budreau.

"The suspect was not aware of that. It was a very smart call on the part of the victims to do that. Everything that we could hear was being recorded, and that's going to give us vital evidence down the road."

The intruder left the home after several minutes. Police responded to the home at 4:05 a.m. and a police sergeant en route to the scene spotted Morrow's car as it headed west on Hillcrest. Police tried to pull the vehicle over near the intersection of Hillcrest and Mariposa Terrace, but said Morrow drove away at a high rate of speed, heading down Hillcrest Road toward the center of town. He crashed near the intersection of Hillcrest and Sunrise Avenue, jumped from the car and tried to run from police, but officers caught up and arrested him. They recovered an undisclosed amount of cash he allegedly had stolen during the robbery.

Morrow does not appear to have a criminal history, police said.

"Which is odd," Budreau said. "Usually when we see a crime of this caliber, you would see behavior preceding it that would indicate criminal activity. You'll build up to something this big."

Both robbery victims were taken to Rogue Regional Medical Center after the attack. The man's right ear was severely damaged and had to be surgically repaired, police said. The assault also caused bleeding on the man's brain and his wife suffered from several contusions. Police recovered the knife and stun gun at the home.

It was the fourth such break-in in the hilly east Medford neighborhood in three weeks, though this is the only one of the four in which victims were injured. Earlier this month, burglaries were reported in the 4700 block of Cloudcrest Drive, and in the 6000 and 6300 blocks of Hillcrest Road. Suspects in those cases made off with about $2,000 in property at the Cloudcrest home, while the two Hillcrest attempts were foiled by homeowners who caught the suspects in the act and chased them off. Police have not made any arrests in those cases but don't believe they are related to Tuesday's break-in.

The string of incidents have left some in the area suddenly feeling less secure.

Nicole Dahl, who lives just up the road from the crime scene, said she had been victimized in a burglary before moving to the neighborhood about six years ago. On that day, she came home to find property strewn about the house.

"To know there are robberies close to home again is unnerving," Dahl said. "It's been uneventful for the most part the last six years."

Reach reporter Ryan Pfeil at 541-776-4468 or by email at rpfeil@mailtribune.com.
Reply
#2
I heard Lt. Mike Budreau, Medford PD, being interviewed about this on radio station KMED. He stated: The man was a concealed carry owner, and had a gun in the home. However, he wasn't able to access it in time to use it.
Reply
#3
I was about to ask "How do you know they DIDN'T have a gun?"

To my amazement, someone already chimed in saying they DID.

Remember, when seconds count, your gun might be in the other room.
Reply
#4
(04-24-2013, 02:25 PM)csrowan Wrote: I was about to ask "How do you know they DIDN'T have a gun?"

To my amazement, someone already chimed in saying they DID.

Remember, when seconds count, your gun might be in the other room.

But the phone wasn't was it? It doesn't matter if this particular person actually had a gun or not. That's not the point. I see people posting here every time there is a shooting and ignoring when a gun protects people .
Or in this case when it COULD have.

I suppose their age or naivety, false sense of security or whatever explains why you open the freaking door at 4:00 Am WITHOUT your gun.
Reply
#5
Yeah. A gun COULD have protected them. Or, the guy COULD have taken it from them and killed them instead. Or the husband and wife COULD have gotten into a quarrel and one COULD have shot the other a month ago and no one would have been living in that house to rob.

And on those rare occasions when someone DOES protect themselves with a gun, the reason we don't care is because the number of people who are ATTACKED with a gun is far, FAR higher. And we actually believe that universal background checks might make a difference in people who CAN'T PASS background checks getting their hands on guns.
Reply
#6
(04-24-2013, 02:36 PM)csrowan Wrote: Yeah. A gun COULD have protected them.
That's right the rest of your IF's and could haves are stupid.



Quote:And on those rare occasions when someone DOES protect themselves with a gun, the reason we don't care is because the number of people who are ATTACKED with a gun is far, FAR higher.

Yeah attacked by who ??? Attacked most from people like this meth head. You know people they call CRIMINALS. Thanks for unwittingly proving my point.




(04-24-2013, 02:36 PM)csrowan Wrote: And we actually believe that universal background checks might make a difference in people who CAN'T PASS background checks getting their hands on guns.

So do I ... So what? That has ZERO to do with my post. BTW This guy who brutalized these people had NO RECORD! Thanks again for proving my point.
Reply
#7
Sorry, TV, but Cs has made some valid points. Not to mention, what happens if the police show up and see the victim waving a gun around? Will they take the time to stop and make sure the victim is not the perpetrator?
Reply
#8
(04-24-2013, 02:56 PM)tvguy Wrote: [quote='csrowan' pid='279418' dateline='1366839418']
Yeah. A gun COULD have protected them.

Quote:That's right the rest of your IF's and could haves are stupid.
They are just as valid "if"'s as the "if" you implied when you posted this.

There are no guarantees, just because the victim has or owns a gun. Real life isn't like TV, tvguy.Rolling Eyes
Reply
#9
All my other ifs are stupid?

You mean even though they DID have a gun, they still weren't able to protect themselves, but your suggestion that they should have had a gun isn't?

You mean people in their 70s could never be surprised and have a gun taken from them, even though it happens to able bodied people?

You mean having a gun in the household doesn't actually increase the risk of being shot in a domestic quarrel?

You mean to say that my listing things that can and do happen (but didn't in this case) is stupid, but your thing that can and does happen (but didn't in this case) isn't?


And yes, most attacks are from criminals (and family members, but let's ignore that for a moment). Which is why we want universal background checks... to make it harder for CRIMINALS to get their hands on guns. And of course, before you get a criminal record, you have to get caught, so it won't stop potential criminals or criminals without an arrest record, but it's still something. It may not have stopped this crime, but it would have and WILL stop others, especially as time passes and guns wear out or are confiscated by police as evidence and fewer guns are readily available to the average criminal.


Your point is that they should have had a gun (even though they already had one) because "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"? The same police who caught the guy?

These guys HAD a gun, but wouldn't have been able to get to it. But, in your own words "the phone wasn't". They didn't get to the gun, but they DID manage to call the police, who caught the guy.



And you say that I proved your point?
Reply
#10
(04-24-2013, 03:08 PM)TennisMom Wrote: Sorry, TV, but Cs has made some valid points. Not to mention, what happens if the police show up and see the victim waving a gun around? Will they take the time to stop and make sure the victim is not the perpetrator?

That's another lame "what if" Hey is someone is that stupid then too bad so sad.
Reply
#11
(04-24-2013, 03:18 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 03:08 PM)TennisMom Wrote: Sorry, TV, but Cs has made some valid points. Not to mention, what happens if the police show up and see the victim waving a gun around? Will they take the time to stop and make sure the victim is not the perpetrator?

That's another lame "what if" Hey is someone is that stupid then too bad so sad.

And yet your IF of them having a gun wasn't an IF at all... they had one... and they STILL weren't able to protect themselves.
Reply
#12
(04-24-2013, 03:08 PM)gapper Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 02:56 PM)tvguy Wrote: [quote='csrowan' pid='279418' dateline='1366839418']
Yeah. A gun COULD have protected them.

Quote:That's right the rest of your IF's and could haves are stupid.
They are just as valid "if"'s as the "if" you implied when you posted this.

There are no guarantees, just because the victim has or owns a gun. Real life isn't like TV, tvguy.Rolling Eyes

I didn't say anything about guarantees. My simple point witch I thought was Obvious was that these people COULD have protected themselves. Just like millions of gun owners have done in the past.

Every time someone gets shot who shouldn't have someone here posts about it. So I'm doing the opposite. Like I said SIMPLE.
Maybe one of you could talk about what good the telephone did for these people?
Reply
#13
(04-24-2013, 03:21 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 03:18 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 03:08 PM)TennisMom Wrote: Sorry, TV, but Cs has made some valid points. Not to mention, what happens if the police show up and see the victim waving a gun around? Will they take the time to stop and make sure the victim is not the perpetrator?

That's another lame "what if" Hey is someone is that stupid then too bad so sad.

And yet your IF of them having a gun wasn't an IF at all... they had one... and they STILL weren't able to protect themselves.

I already covered that Mr. Redundant......
Quote: TVguy
I suppose their age or naivety, false sense of security or whatever explains why you open the freaking door at 4:00 Am WITHOUT your gun.
Reply
#14
(04-24-2013, 03:15 PM)csrowan Wrote: These guys HAD a gun, but wouldn't have been able to get to it. But, in your own words "the phone wasn't". They didn't get to the gun, but they DID manage to call the police, who caught the guy.

So what good did the police catching the guy do for the mans bleeding brain?
Reply
#15
(04-24-2013, 03:26 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 03:15 PM)csrowan Wrote: These guys HAD a gun, but wouldn't have been able to get to it. But, in your own words "the phone wasn't". They didn't get to the gun, but they DID manage to call the police, who caught the guy.

So what good did the police catching the guy do for the mans bleeding brain?

More good than the gun did them.
Reply
#16
(04-24-2013, 02:31 PM)tvguy Wrote: I suppose their age or naivety, false sense of security or whatever explains why you open the freaking door at 4:00 Am WITHOUT your gun.

This is the only valid point on the back and forth blah blah session y'all are having.

Think about it.
Reply
#17
(04-24-2013, 03:30 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 03:26 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 03:15 PM)csrowan Wrote: These guys HAD a gun, but wouldn't have been able to get to it. But, in your own words "the phone wasn't". They didn't get to the gun, but they DID manage to call the police, who caught the guy.

So what good did the police catching the guy do for the mans bleeding brain?

More good than the gun did them.

Bullshit the phone call did NOTHING for him or his wife, That's something you anti gun freaks can't seem to understand. The police can't and won't be there to protect you in most cases.
This was a perfect example.
I already said I don't know why these people went for a phone instead of a gun and I gave possible reasons. They made a mistake that almost killed them.

Is that so fucking hard to see or admit?
Reply
#18
You mean the 911 call didn't end up sending the police and an ambulance to their house?

You mean having the gun would have magically protected them and they couldn't possibly have gotten hurt?
Reply
#19
(04-24-2013, 03:44 PM)csrowan Wrote: You mean the 911 call didn't end up sending the police and an ambulance to their house?

You mean having the gun would have magically protected them and they couldn't possibly have gotten hurt?

I bet you would have scratched the bad guys eyes out right? Yeah sure the phone call got an ambulance on the way. I'll give you that much.

I guess it's too much to get an Ashland liberal to admit the gun could have EASILY prevented the NEED for an ambulance.
I guess it's too much to ask you to understand that this home owner could have been dead when the ambulance arrived because he went for a phone and not the gun.
Reply
#20
(04-24-2013, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 03:30 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 03:26 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 03:15 PM)csrowan Wrote: These guys HAD a gun, but wouldn't have been able to get to it. But, in your own words "the phone wasn't". They didn't get to the gun, but they DID manage to call the police, who caught the guy.

So what good did the police catching the guy do for the mans bleeding brain?

More good than the gun did them.

Bullshit the phone call did NOTHING for him or his wife,
I disagree, and it appears the police disagree, based on this account of what happened in the article:
"
"It appeared that the victims called 911 and intentionally left the line open," said Lt. Mike Budreau.

"The suspect was not aware of that. It was a very smart call on the part of the victims to do that. Everything that we could hear was being recorded, and that's going to give us vital evidence down the road."

The intruder left the home after several minutes. Police responded to the home at 4:05 a.m. and a police sergeant en route to the scene spotted Morrow's car as it headed west on Hillcrest. Police tried to pull the vehicle over near the intersection of Hillcrest and Mariposa Terrace, but said Morrow drove away at a high rate of speed, heading down Hillcrest Road toward the center of town. He crashed near the intersection of Hillcrest and Sunrise Avenue, jumped from the car and tried to run from police, but officers caught up and arrested him. They recovered an undisclosed amount of cash he allegedly had stolen during the robbery."


So, the phone helped to apprehend the criminal and likely played a large role in them getting their cash back. Given the likelihood of a much younger man high on meth and heroine taking a gun away from an elderly, probably groggy from being awoken, man is very high, I think it reasonable to believe that the phone may have ultimately done them more good than the gun would have.

Quote:Is that so fucking hard to see or admit?

In another thread, you recently made the comment that I must never laugh (a laughable comment, were you actually to know me......), and have in the past mentioned I need to lighten up. Might I suggest you take your own advice? Might it be too much to ask that you could have a conversation and a disagreement without becoming so hostile sounding? Barking a cussing does nothing for your argument. It just makes you sound like a petulant bully.
Do you really get some sort of satisfaction from acting in this manner? I wonder if you are so aggressive and bullying in real life. Are you somehow satisfying some missing element of your male psyche acting in such a way here?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)